Anda di halaman 1dari 634

Fritjof Capra quotes (showing 1-5 of 5)

Scientists, therefore, are responsible for their research, not only intellectually but also morally.
This responsibility has become an important issue in many of today's sciences, but especially so
in physics, in which the results of quantum mechanics and relativity theory have opened up two
very different paths for physicists to pursue. They may lead us - to put it in extreme terms - to the
Buddha or to the Bomb, and it is up to each of us to decide which path to tae. !
" #rit$of %apra, The Turning Point: Science, Society, And The Rising Culture
ta&s' science
() people lied it
lie
*uantum theory thus reveals a basic oneness of the universe. +t shows that we cannot
decompose the world into independently existin& smallest units. ,s we penetrate into matter,
nature does not show us any isolated -buildin& blocs,- but rather appears as a complicated web
of relations between the various parts of the whole. These relations always include the observer in
an essential way. The human observer constitute the final lin in the chain of observational
processes, and the properties of any atomic ob$ect can be understood only in terms of the ob$ect's
interaction with the observer.!
" #rit$of %apra, The Tao of Physics
. people lied it
lie
Subatomic particles do not exist but rather show 'tendencies to exist', and atomic events do not
occur with certainty at definite times and in definite ways, but rather show 'tendencies to occur'.!
" #rit$of %apra, The Tao of Physics
ta&s' /en-physics
0 people lied it
lie
The phenomenon of emer&ence taes place at critical points of instability that arise from
fluctuations in the environment, amplified by feedbac loops.!
" #rit$of %apra, The Hidden Connections: A Science for Sustainable Living
ta&s' science
1 people lied it
lie
+f physics leads us today to a world view which is essentially mystical, it returns, in a way, to its
be&innin&, 2,344 years a&o. ... This time, however, it is not only based on intuition, but also on
experiments of &reat precision and sophistication, and on a ri&orous and consistent mathematical
formalism.!
" #rit$of %apra
Introduction to Fritjof Capra, Tao of Physics
Fritjof Capra, a fine Philosopher of Science, wrote the Tao of Physics in 1975, exploring the connection
between modern physics (quantum theory and !astern mysticism " philosophy# $f most significance, is the
understanding of the %ni&erse as a dynamic interconnected unity# 's (rit)of *apra writes+
,n ,ndian philosophy, the main terms used by -indus and .uddhists ha&e dynamic connotations# /he word
.rahman is deri&ed from the Sans0rit root brih 1 to grow2 and thus suggests a reality which is dynamic and
ali&e# /he %panishads refer to .rahman as 3this unformed, immortal, mo&ing4, thus associating it with
motion e&en though it transcends all forms#4 /he 5ig 6eda uses another term to express the dynamic
character of the uni&erse, the term 5ita# /his word comes from the root ri2 to mo&e# ,n its phenomenal
aspect, the cosmic $ne is thus intrinsically dynamic, and the apprehension of its dynamic nature is basic to
all schools of !astern mysticism#
/hey all emphasi7e that the uni&erse has to be grasped dynamically, as it mo&es, &ibrates and dances#
(Fritjof Capra, 1975
/he !astern mystics see the uni&erse as an inseparable web, whose interconnections are dynamic and not
static# /he cosmic web is ali&e+ it mo&es and grows and changes continually# 8odern physics, too, has come
to concei&e of the uni&erse as such a web of relations and, li0e !astern mysticism, has recognised that this
web is intrinsically dynamic# /he dynamic aspect of matter arises in quantum theory as a consequence of the
wa&e2nature of subatomic particles, and is e&en more essential in relati&ity theory, where the unification of
space and time implies that the being of matter cannot be separated from its acti&ity# /he properties of
subatomic particles can therefore only be understood in a dynamic context+ in terms of mo&ement,
interaction and transformation# (Fritjof Capra, /he /ao of Physics
(rit)of *apra is correct that matter can not be separated from acti&ity, the error of modern physics has been
in the conception of 8otion as the motion of 8atter (9subatomic particles9 rather than the wa&e motion of
Space#
:estern Physics (with its 9particles9 and 9forces " fields9 in 9Space /ime9 has ne&er correctly understood the
!astern world &iew# ,t is also important to understand that the ancient ,ndian philosophers did not actually
0now how the uni&erse was a dynamic unity, what matter was, how the $ne /hing " .rahman caused and
connected the many things# /hus !astern philosophical 0nowledge is ultimately founded on mysticism and
intuition#
5ecent disco&eries on the properties of Space and the :a&e Structure of 8atter (:olff, -aselhurst confirm
that we can understand 5eality and the interconnection of all things from a logical " scientific foundation#
/he $ne /hing " .rahman, (Space has Properties (:a&e28edium that gi&e rise to the many things (8atter
as the Spherical :a&e 8otions of Space# /hus explaining the uni&erse as a dynamic, interconnected unity#
8y father actually ga&e me *apra9s Tao of Physics when , was about ;< years old (19=< so , ha&e fond
memories of his wor0 and ideas# , hope that you en)oy the following quotes 2 and ma0e sure that you read
them with the wa&e structure of matter in mind, then they ma0e perfect sense>
?eoff -aselhurst
+ntroduction #rit$of %apra - %apra *uotes 5 Tao of 6hysics - %apra on 7nity - 8ynamic 7niverse - 6hysics 9
*uantum Theory - #rit$of %apra :ins - Top of 6a&e
Fritjof Capra Quotes, The Tao of Physics, The Turning Point
@eep !cology is rooted in a perception of reality that goes beyond the scientific framewor0 to an intuiti&e
awareness of the oneness of all life, the interdependence of its multiple manifestations and its cycles of
change and transformation# :hen the concept of the human spirit is understood in this sense, its mode of
consciousness in which the indi&idual feels connected to the cosmos as a whole, it becomes clear that
ecological awareness is truly spiritual# ,ndeed the idea of the indi&idual being lin0ed to the cosmos is
expressed in the Aatin root of the word religion, religare (to bind strongly), as well as the Sans0rit yoga,
which means union# (Fritjof Capra, /urning Point, 19=;
/he purpose of this boo0 (the /ao of Physics is to explore the relationship between the concepts of modern
physics and the basic ideas in the philosophical and religious traditions of the (ar !ast# :e shall see how the
two foundations of twentieth2century physics 2 quantum theory and relati&ity 2 both force us to see the world
&ery much in the way a -indu, .uddhist or /aoist sees it ## (Fritjof Capra, /ao of Physics, 1975

+ntroduction #rit$of %apra - %apra *uotes 5 Tao of 6hysics - %apra on 7nity - 8ynamic 7niverse - 6hysics 9
*uantum Theory - #rit$of %apra :ins - Top of 6a&e
Fritjof Capra on the Unity of All Things, One
/he most important characteristic of the !astern world &iew 2 one could almost say the essence of it2 is the
awareness of the unity and mutual interrelation of all things and e&ents, the experience of all phenomena in
the world as manifestations of a basic oneness# 'll things are seen as interdependent and inseparable parts of
this cosmic whole+ as different manifestations of the same ultimate reality# (Capra, /he /ao of Physics,
1975
,n ordinary life, we are not aware of the unity of all things, but di&ide the world into separate ob)ects and
e&ents# /his di&ision is useful and necessary to cope with our e&eryday en&ironment, but it is not a
fundamental feature of reality# ,t is an abstraction de&ised by our discriminating and categorising intellect#
/o belie&e that our abstract concepts of separate 3things4 and 3e&ents4 are realities of nature is an illusion#
(Capra, /he /ao of Physics, 1975
/he central aim of !astern mysticism is to experience all the phenomena in the world as manifestations of
the same ultimate reality# /his reality is seen as the essence of the uni&erse, underlying and unifying the
multitude of things and e&ents we obser&e# /he -indus call it .rahman, /he .uddhists @harma0aya (/he
.ody of .eing or /athata (Suchness and the /aoists /ao+ each affirming that it transcends our intellectual
concepts and defies further explanation# /his ultimate essence, howe&er, cannot be separated from its
multiple manifestations# ,t is central to the &ery nature to manifest itself in myriad forms which come into
being and disintegrate, transforming themsel&es into one another without end# (Fritjof Capra, /he /ao of
Physics, p;1<
' careful analysis of the process of obser&ation in atomic physics has shown that the subatomic particles
ha&e no meaning as isolated entities, but can only be understood as interconnections between the
preparation of an experiment and the subsequent measurement# Buantum theory thus re&eals a basic oneness
of the uni&erse# ,t shows that we cannot decompose the world into independently existing smallest units# 's
we penetrate into matter, nature does not show us any isolated 3basic building bloc0s4, but rather appears as
a complicated web of relations between the &arious parts of the whole# (Fritjof Capra, /he /ao of Physics,
p7=
/he 3this4 is also 3that4# /he 3that4 is also 3this4C /hat the that and the this cease to be opposites is the &ery
essence of the /ao# $nly this essence, an axis as it were, is the center of the circle responding to endless
changes# (Buoted in Fung u!"ing, ' Short -istory of *hinese Philosophy, 195= p#11; (Capra, /he /ao
of Physics, 1975
Problem of the One and the Many
.oth ,ndian and ?ree0 Philosophy originated from the correct reali7ation that there must be $ne thing that
is common to, and connects, the 8any things, and further that 8otion (acti&ity, change was also central to
existence#
'll things come out of the one, and the one out of all things# (#eraclitus, D5<<.*
/hough $ne, .rahman is the cause of the many#
.rahman is the unborn (a)a in whom all existing things abide#
/he $ne manifests as the many, the formless putting on forms# ($ig %eda D 1;<< .#*#
/he fundamental problem of the One and the &any (which is at the &ery heart of human conceptual
0nowledge of 5eality is the belief that $ne thing could ne&er be understood with human reason, language
and logic, as these require relationships between two or more things+
/he problem of the one and the many in metaphysics and theology is insolubleE :e ha&e the uni&erse of
indi&iduals which is not self2sufficient and in some sense rests on .rahman, but the exact nature of the
relation between them is a mystery# C 'll ordinary human experience is conceptual in nature, i#e# is
organi7ed under the categories in which we ordinarily thin0# -owe&er, .rahman is said to be predicateless
( no concepts apply to itE concepts presuppose di&ision, and .rahman is a unity# -ow, then, is any form of
awareness of .rahman possible for human beingsF (Collinson, ;<<<
/he solution to this problem is actually &ery simple# One Infinite, 'ternal (pace e)ists *ith the
properties of a +a,e &ediu-. Thus &otion, as the *a,e &otion of (pace, is the property of (pace,
and is necessarily connected to (pace as it is (pace *hich is -o,ing/ 'nd once we ha&e this connection
between the $ne thing Space, and the many things, i#e# matter as the Spherical :a&e 8otion of Space, then
we can in fact form concepts and logic (which require two necessarily connected things, i#e# the wa&e
8otion of Space#
+ntroduction #rit$of %apra - %apra *uotes 5 Tao of 6hysics - %apra on 7nity - 8ynamic 7niverse - 6hysics 9
*uantum Theory - #rit$of %apra :ins - Top of 6a&e
Fritjof Capra, 0yna-ic Uni,erse 1uotes
,n its phenomenal aspect, the cosmic $ne is intrinsically dynamic, and the apprehension of its dynamic
nature is basic to all schools of !astern mysticism# (Fritjof Capra, /he /ao of Physics, p;1<
,n ,ndian philosophy, the main terms used by -indus and .uddhists ha&e dynamic connotations# /he word
.rahman is deri&ed from the Sans0rit root brih 1 to grow2 and thus suggests a reality which is dynamic and
ali&e# ,n the words of S# 5adha0rishnan, G/he word .rahman means growth and is suggesti&e of life,
motion, progress#H /he %panishads refer to .rahman as 3this uniformed, immortal, mo&ing4, thus
associating it with motion e&en though it transcends all forms#4
/he 5ig 6eda uses another term to express the dynamic character of the uni&erse, the term 5ita# /his word
comes from the root ri2 to mo&e+ its original meaning in the 5ig 6eda being 3the course of all things4, 3the
order of nature4# /he order of nature was concei&ed by the 6edic seers, not as a static di&ine law, but as a
dynamic principle which is inherent in the uni&erse# /his idea is not unli0e the *hinese conception of the
/ao 2 3the :ay42 as the way in which the %ni&erse wor0s, i#e# the order of Iature# Ai0e the 6edic seers, the
*hinese sages saw the world in terms of flow and change# .oth concepts, 5ita and /ao, were later brought
down from their original cosmic le&el to the human and interpreted in a moral sense+ 5ita as the uni&ersal
law which all gods and humans must obey and /ao as the right way of life# (Fritjof Capra, /he /ao of
Physics, p;1<
/he 6edic concept of 5ita anticipates the idea of 0arma which was de&eloped later to express the dynamic
interplay of all things and e&ents# /he word 0arma means 3action4 and denotes the 3acti&e4, or dynamic,
interrelation of all phenomena# ,n the words of the .haga&ad ?ita, G'll actions ta0e place in time by the
interwea&ing of the forces of nature#H (Fritjof Capra, 1975
,n -induism, Shi&a the *osmic @ancer, is perhaps the most perfect personification of the dynamic uni&erse#
/hrough his dance, Shi&a sustains the manifold phenomena in the world, unifying all things by immersing
them in his rhythm and ma0ing them participate in the dance2 a magnificent image of the dynamic unity of
the %ni&erse# (Fritjof Capra, /he /ao of Physics, p;11
/he impermanence of all forms is the starting point of .uddhism# /he .uddha taught that 3all compounded
things are impermanent4, and that all suffering in the world arises from our trying to cling to fixed forms 2
ob)ects, people or ideas 2 instead of accepting the world as it mo&es and changes# (Fritjof Capra, /he /ao
of Physics, p;11
/he !astern mystics see the uni&erse as an inseparable web, whose interconnections are dynamic and not
static# /he cosmic web is ali&e+ it mo&es and grows and changes continually# 8odern physics, too, has come
to concei&e of the uni&erse as such a web of relations and, li0e !astern mysticism, has recognised that this
web is intrinsically dynamic# /he dynamic aspect of matter arises in quantum theory as a consequence of the
wa&e2nature of subatomic particles, and is e&en more essential in relati&ity theory, where the unification of
space and time implies that the being of matter cannot be separated from its acti&ity# /he properties of
subatomic particles can therefore only be understood in a dynamic context+ in terms of mo&ement,
interaction and transformation# (Fritjof Capra, /he /ao of Physics
'ccording to quantum theory, matter is thus ne&er quiescent, but always in a state of motion# (Fritjof
Capra, /he /ao of Physics, p;15
8odern physics then, pictures matter not at all as passi&e and inert, but being in a continuous dancing and
&ibrating motion whose rhythmic patterns are determined by the molecular, atomic and nuclear structures#
/his is also the way in which the !astern mystics see the material world# /hey all emphasise that the
uni&erse has to be grasped dynamically, as it mo&es, &ibrates and dances+ that nature is not a static but
dynamic equilibrium# (Fritjof Capra, /he /ao of Physics, P;1J
+ntroduction #rit$of %apra - %apra *uotes 5 Tao of 6hysics - %apra on 7nity - 8ynamic 7niverse - 6hysics 9
*uantum Theory - #rit$of %apra :ins - Top of 6a&e
Fritjof Capra on Physics 2 1uantu- Theory
' careful analysis of the process of obser&ation in atomic physics has shown that the subatomic particles
ha&e no meaning as isolated entities, but can only be understood as interconnections between the
preparation of an experiment and the subsequent measurement# Buantum theory thus re&eals a basic
oneness of the uni,erse# /he mathematical framewor0 of quantum theory has passed countless successful
tests and is now uni&ersally accepted as a consistent and accurate description of all atomic phenomena# /he
&erbal interpretation, on the other hand, i#e# the -etaphysics of 3uantu- theory, is on far less solid
ground# ,n fact, in more than forty years physicists ha&e not been able to pro&ide a clear metaphysical
model# (Capra, 1975
/he 8etaphysics of Space and 8otion and the :a&e Structure of 8atter now pro&ides this 3clear
metaphysical model4# ' significant problem has been the conception of the 3particle4 and thus the resulting
paradox of the 3particle " wa&e4 duality# /hese problems ha&e caused great confusion within modern physics
o&er the past se&enty years, as #eisenberg, 0a,ies and Capra explain+
.oth matter and radiation possess a remar0able duality of character, as they sometimes exhibit the
properties of wa&es, at other times those of particles# Iow it is ob&ious that a thing cannot be a form of
*a,e -otion and composed of particles at the same time 2 the two concepts are too different# (#eisenberg,
19K<
/he idea that something can be both a wa&e and a particle defies imagination, but the existence of this
wa&e2particle GdualityH is not in doubt# ## ,t is impossible to &isuali7e a wa&e2particle, so don4t try# ### /he
notion of a particle being Ge&erywhere at onceH is impossible to imagine# (0a,ies, 19=5
/he question which pu77led physicists so much in the early stages of atomic theory was how
electromagnetic radiation could simultaneously consist of particles (i#e# of entities confined to a &ery small
&olume and of wa&es, which are spread out o&er a large area of space# Ieither language nor imagination
could deal with this 0ind of reality &ery well# (Capra, /he /ao of Physics, p5J
/he solution to this apparent paradox is to simply explain how the discrete 3particle4 properties of matter
and light (quanta are in fact caused by Spherical Standing :a&es (Scalar Buantum :a&es not
!lectromagnetic 6ector :a&es which cause the Particle effect at their +a,e!Center# (or a more detailed
explanation please see Buantum /heoryE Particle :a&e @uality
Beyond Language
/he problems of language here are really serious# :e wish to spea0 in some way about the structure of the
atoms C .ut we cannot spea0 about atoms in ordinary language# (#eisenberg, /he /ao of Physics, p5K
/hat e&ery word or concept, clear as it may seem to be, has only a limited range of applicability#
(#eisenberg, /he /ao of Physics, pK5
/he most difficult problem C concerning the use of the language arises in quantum theory# -ere we ha&e at
first no simple guide for correlating the mathematical symbols with concepts of ordinary languageE and the
only thing we 0now from the start is the fact that our common concepts cannot be applied to the structure of
the atoms# (#eisenberg, /he /ao of Physics, p5L
/he opening line of the /ao /e *hingE 3/he /ao that can be expressed is not the eternal /ao#9 ("ao T4u, /he
/ao of Physics, pK7
:ell 0nown Men phraseE G/he instant you spea0 about a thing you miss the mar0#H (Capra, /he /ao of
Physics, pL;
The e! Physics
/he &iolent reaction on the recent de&elopment of modern physics can only be understood when one realises
that here the foundations of physics ha&e started mo&ing+ and that this motion has caused the feeling that the
ground would be cut from science# (#eisenberg, /he /ao of Physics, pJ1
,t seems probable to me that ?od in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable,
mo&able particles, of such si7es and figures, and with such other properties, and in such proportion to space,
as most conduced to the end for which he formed them+ and that these primiti&e particles being solids, are
incomparably harder than any porous bodies compounded of them+ e&en so &ery hard, as ne&er to wear or
brea0 in pieces+ no ordinary power being able to di&ide what ?od himself made one in the first creation#
(5e*ton, /he /ao of Physics, pJL
!&ery time the physicists as0ed nature a question in an atomic experiment, nature answered with a paradox,
and the more they tried to clarify the situation, the sharper the paradoxes became# ,t too0 them a long time to
accept the fact that these paradoxes belong to the intrinsic structure of atomic physics, and to realise that
they arise whene&er one attempts to describe atomic e&ents in the traditional terms of physics# (Fritjof
Capra, /he /ao of Physics, p7J
5utherford4s experiments had shown that atoms, instead of being hard and indestructible, consisted of &ast
regions of space in which extremely small particles mo&ed, and now quantum theory made it clear that e&en
these particles were nothing li0e the solid ob)ects of classical physics# /he subatomic units of matter are
&ery abstract entities which ha&e a dual aspect# @epending on how we loo0 at them, they appear sometimes
as particles, sometimes as wa&es+ and this dual nature is also exhibited by light which can ta0e the form of
electromagnetic wa&es or of particles#
/his property of matter and of light is &ery strange# ,t seems impossible to accept that something can be, at
the same time, a particle2 i#e# an entity confined to a &ery small &olume2 and a wa&e, which is spread out
o&er a large region of space# (Fritjof Capra, /he /ao of Physics, p77
/he apparent contradiction between the particle and the wa&e picture was sol&ed in a completely
unexpected way which called in question the &ery foundation of the mechanistic world &iew 2 the concept of
the reality of matter#
't the sub2atomic le&el, matter does not exist with certainty at definite places, but rather shows 3tendencies
to exist4 and atomic e&ents do not occur with certainty at definite times and in definite ways, but rather show
3tendencies to occur4# ,n the formalism of quantum theory, these tendencies are expressed as probabilities
and are associated with mathematical quantities which ta0e the form of wa&es# /his is why particles can be
wa&es at the same time# /hey are not 3real4 three2dimensional wa&es li0e sound or water wa&es#
/hey are 3probability wa&es4, abstract mathematical quantities with all the characteristic properties of wa&es
which are related to the probabilities of finding the particles at particular points in space and at particular
times# (Fritjof Capra, /he /ao of Physics, p7=
' careful analysis of the process of obser&ation in atomic physics has shown that the subatomic particles
ha&e no meaning as isolated entities, but can only be understood as interconnections between the
preparation of an experiment and the subsequent measurement# Buantum theory thus re&eals a basic oneness
of the uni&erse# ,t shows that we cannot decompose the world into independently existing smallest units# 's
we penetrate into matter, nature does not show us any isolated 3basic building bloc0s4, but rather appears as
a complicated web of relations between the &arious parts of the whole# (Fritjof Capra, /he /ao of Physics,
p7=
Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics, +ild*ood #ouse 6789
Philosophy
On Lo"e of #isdom from Truth $ %eality
## 8y purpose therefore is, to try if , can disco&er what those principles are, which ha&e introduced all that
doubtfulness and uncertainty, those absurdities and contradictions into the se&eral sects of philosophy+
insomuch that the wisest men ha&e thought our ignorance incurable, concei&ing it to arise from the natural
dullness and limitation of our faculties# (:eorge ;er<eley
,gnorance more frequently begets confidence than does 0nowledgeE it is those who 0now little,
not those who 0now much, who so positi&ely assert that this or that problem will ne&er be sol&ed by
science#
(Charles 0ar*in, ,ntroduction to /he @escent of 8an, 1=71
Introduction= The Proble-s of Philosophy
-i !&eryone (@ecember, ;<<9
/his is a general introduction to this philosophy page and how this relates to our current society and its
many problems# /he main philosophy essay follows#
/his philosophy page gets between 5<< and 5,<<< people &isiting each day and ran0s from 5 to ;5 in the
main search engines (?oogle, .ing for 9philosophy9# , mention this because our world really does need
some wisdom founded on physical reality, and history clearly shows that truth is the best and most powerful
force for changing " impro&ing our world# ('nd our world is in a lot more trouble than most of us realise ,
suspect#
,t is clear to me that there is a re&olution coming in the foundations of our 0nowledge because we ha&e
sol&ed the central problem of metaphysics, of what exists (space that causes and connects the many things
we experience (wa&es in space that form matter, the discrete and separate particle an illusion of our limited
senses# 8atter is large, a structure of space, and this truth about reality will change humanity, ma0ing us
more aware of the world around us, pro&iding us with cleaner machines and greater wisdom#
, ha&e re2written this philosophy essay a number of times, trying to ma0e it as short, simple and engaging as
possible, while also explaining some fundamental truths about physical reality# , hope it entertains you
while also ma0ing you more aware of this importance of philosophy# $f understanding the truth about our
existence in the uni&erse (physical reality as the necessary foundations for wisdom in our thoughts and
actions# , belie&e our future sur&i&al depends upon this#
's @a&id -ume wrote (so elegantly>+
'ccuracy is, in e&ery case, ad&antageous to beauty, and )ust reasoning to delicate sentiment# ,n &ain would
we exalt the one by depreciating the other# ###
'nd though the philosopher may li&e remote from business, the genius of philosophy, if carefully culti&ated
by se&eral, must gradually diffuse itself throughout the whole society, and bestow a similar correctness on
e&ery art and calling# /he politician will acquire greater foresight and subtlety, in the subdi&iding and
balancing of power+ the lawyer more method and finer principles in his reasoning+ and the general more
regularity in his discipline, and more caution in his plans and operations# (@a&id -ume, 17K7
/he .ertrand 5ussell &ideo on my Nou/ube Philosophy of Physics page relates to this 2 that we must be
careful in how we thin0 (meaning and use of language if we are not to decei&e oursel&es#
,f you find this essay interesting, please help promote it on the internet# Philosophy (wisdom from truth and
reality is important to our world, and current postmodern philosophy is in disarray and contributes nothing
but confusion (which largely explains why humanity now faces so many problems#
,f you can help get this page to O1 in philosophy, then the world will change to this 0nowledge 2 it is
ob&iously correct and there are enough sensible people out there who will realise this#
?eoff -aselhurst
PS 2 , ha&e recently written a letter to academic philosophers that anyone who en)oys philosophy will find
&ery interesting>
'nd we ha&e a great collection of philosophy quotes that , encourage e&eryone to read (and thin0 about>
P/he historian of science may be tempted to exclaim that when paradigms change, the world itself changes
with them#P (/# S# >uhn, /he Structure of Scientific 5e&olutions, 19J;
P/he tas0 is not so much to see what no one yet has seen, but to thin0 what no body yet has thought about
that which e&eryone sees# ### .ut life is short, and truth wor0s far and li&es longE let us spea0 the truth#P
(Arthur (chopenhauer, 1=1=
Philosophy& On Truth and %eality
(u--ary= /he central problem of philosophy is most clearly explained by @a&id -ume, the problem of
causation and necessary connection# ,f we don9t 0now how the many things we commonly experience are
connected together then we do not 0now the source of truth# 't a fundamental le&el (physics this problem
of causal connection applies to how discrete and separate matter particles interact with one another across
the uni&erse (space and time#
/he solution is ob&ious# @on9t describe an interconnected reality in terms of discrete and separate matter
particles>
/he ob&ious way to describe reality is the most simple way, that only one thing, space, exists, and matter is
formed from wa&es in space# i#e# :e simplify the metaphysical foundations of physics and philosophy from
the motion of matter particles in space and time, to the wa&e motion of space that causes matter and time#
i#e# (rom a metaphysics of space and time to a metaphysics of space and motion#
,t then becomes ob&ious that an electron is a
spherical standing wa&e in space# /he wa&e center
causes the particle effect, the spherical in and out
wa&es interact with all other matter in the
uni&erse 2 which then sol&es this most profound
problem of causation and necessary connexion#
/his really is simple and ob&ious 2 the essay
below explains this, and if you find it hard to
picture a spherical standing wa&e then ha&e a loo0
at the :a&e @iagrams page#


The 'mportance of Philosophy ( Truth as the )ource of #isdom
Since philosophy is the art which teaches us how to li&e, and since children need to learn it as much as we
do at other ages, why do we not instruct them in itF ### $ddly, things ha&e now reached such a state that e&en
among men of intelligence philosophy means something fantastical and &ain, without &alue or usefulness,
both in opinion and practice# (&ichel de &ontaigne
, realise that philosophy in our postmodern world is seen as something fanciful and &ain, )ust a lot of
9philosophical9 nonsense that is irrele&ant to daily life# 'nd as the 8ontaigne quote abo&e shows, this has
been the case for centuries#
Net philosophy is simply the study of truth as the necessary foundation for acting wisely# e#g# ,t is unwise to
di&e into a pool of water unless we 0now the truth about its depth# Ai0ewise when we dri&e at night we use
our headlights so that we 0now the truth about where the road leads#
/he point is ob&ious 2 that 0nowing the truth about things is central to acting wisely and pre&enting harm 2
and this applies to e&erything we do on a daily basis#
The Failure of Philosophy to *no! Truth and %eality
+The cure follo!s,-
?i&en this importance of 0nowing the truth you would expect that philosophy is the most important sub)ect
for humanity to understand 2 yet clearly this is not the case# :hyF .ecause o&er the past ;,5<< years since
philosophy was first formalised no one has been able to wor0 out the absolute truth about things 2 which
requires true 0nowledge of reality# :e )ust ha&e people9s opinions which in&ariable lead to conflict,
confusion and harm#
So how can we wor0 out what physical reality is, as the source of truth and wisdomF /o begin we need to
remo&e incorrect ideas that are leading us astray# /his then leads us to the correct foundations for describing
reality as the source of absolute truth# , will start with a nice experiment that you will hopefully relate to>
The .eath of the 'dealist Philosopher
!sse est percipi (/o be is to be percei&ed# ### 'll the choir of hea&en and furniture of earth 2 in
a word, all those bodies which compose the frame of the world 2 ha&e not any subsistence
without a mind# (?eorge .er0eley
,dealist philosophy belie&es that the mind exists, and that our sense of the external world
(physical reality is simply a construction of the mind# ?i&en that all our 0nowledge is in fact a creation of
the mind (imagination it has been difficult to refute this 2 to get from our ideas of things to the real thing in
itself (see Qant#
The e)peri-ent. ,magine an idealist philosopher in an airplane at K<,<<< feet# ' ten second timer is
acti&ated that will e)ect the 9philosopher9 from the plane# /hey are wearing a parachute, but it is not fastened#
/hey must decide if they wish to fasten themsel&es to the parachute or not#
/his eliminates idealist philosophers " philosophy2 they either fasten the parachute and thus ac0nowledge
the truth of physical reality 2 or they do not and fall to their death>
/his argument is a bit mischie&ous, but it does ma0e two important points 2 that the physical laws of Iature
apply equally to humans as they do to all other matter 2 and while it is easy to be an idealist when writing
essays, we should always apply these ideas to physical reality (the ultimate determiner of truth>#
/he absolute argument against idealism is @arwinian e&olution# ,t is necessary that the physical reality of
the earth and sun existed prior to our e&olution, thus prior to our mind9s e&olution# /here are many common
traits of the human mind which confirm that we e&ol&ed as animals on the surface of the earth# !#g# :e
sleep, get hungry, see0 pleasure, a&oid pain, lo&e others and lust for sexual reproduction# ,dealism does not
explain this 2 e&ol&ing as sexually reproducing animals on the surface of the earth does# /hus matter is a
priori to mind# Popper9s comments on idealism are pretty spot on+
@enying realism amounts to megalomania (the most widespread occupational disease of the professional
philosopher# (>arl Popper, 1975
The /nd of Postmodern Philosophy
+Logical Positi"ism, Cultural Constructs, %elati"ism-
Postmodern philosophy assumes that there is a physical reality but it is impossible for us to 0now it with our
limited minds# ,t is basically a position of s0eptical doubt and uncertainty# 's !rnst 8ach wrote+
' piece of 0nowledge is ne&er false or true 2 but only more or less biologically and
e&olutionary useful# 'll dogmatic creeds are approximationsE these approximations form a
humus from which better approximations grow# ('rnst &ach
:hile this all sounds reasonable on the surface, with closer examinations we see that it leads us
to the dogma of postmodernism that 9/he only absolute truth is that there are no absolute truths9# i#e# /rue
0nowledge of reality is impossible 2 we can only imagine things that do not exist, we cannot imagine things
that really do exist> (:hich is odd when you thin0 about it# /hus we see that the postmodern idea of no
absolute truths is actually a contradiction, as 'ristotle wrote ;,K5< years ago+
(inally, if nothing can be truly asserted, e&en the following claim would be false, the claim that there is no
true assertion# (Aristotle
, recently read a philosophy )o0e that summari7es this problem of postmodern philosophy &ery well>
The First "a* of Philosophy
(or e&ery philosopher, there exists an equal and opposite philosopher#
The (econd "a* of Philosophy
/hey9re both wrong#
:hile , admit this does ma0e me smile, the truth is that this confusion and contradiction in philosophy (that
all is opinion> does great damage to what is in fact a most beautiful and important sub)ect#
/his is not tri&ial as the problems of philosophy always manifest as problems for -umanity, and this largely
explains why our modern world suffers such profound problems (the destruction of Iature and resultant
change in the !arth9s climate and ability to produce clean air, water, and food 2 which are clearly necessary
for our future sur&i&al#
'gain it is worth quoting Qarl Popper#
,n my opinion, the greatest scandal of philosophy is that, while all around us the world of nature
perishes 2 and not the world of nature alone 2 philosophers continue to tal0, sometimes cle&erly
and sometimes not, about the question of whether this world exists# /hey get in&ol&ed in
scholasticism, in linguistic pu77les such as, for example, whether or not there are differences
between 9being9 and 9existing9# (Popper, 1975
/o summarise# /he central problem of postmodern Philosophy is to connect our incomplete senses of the
world with the real world of what exists (Qant9s thing in itself# /he problem is that we do not see the causal
connection between things, only the effects which are representations of the mind and thus decepti&e# 's
@a&id -ume elegantly explains+
,t must certainly be allowed, that nature has 0ept us at a great distance from all her
secrets, and has afforded us only the 0nowledge of a few superficial qualities of
ob)ects+ while she conceals from us those powers and principles on which the influence
of those ob)ects entirely depends# ###
:hen we loo0 about us towards external ob)ects, and consider the operation of causes,
we are ne&er able, in a single instance, to disco&er any power or necessary connexion+
any quality, which binds the effect to the cause, and renders the one an infallible
consequence of the other# ### experience only teaches us, how one e&ent constantly
follows another+ without instructing us in the secret connexion, which binds them
together, and renders them inseparable# (0a,id #u-e, 17K7
See -ume9s Problem of *ausation R Iecessary *onnection
So if we go bac0 to our poor idealist philosopher free falling through space 2 we see the effects of this causal
connection between the philosopher and the earth (the philosopher falls with an accelerating &elocity, but
we do not see the causal " necessary connection# :e )ust gi&e it a name, gra&ity, and then forget about it
(though , am sure the falling philosopher is starting to ta0e gra&ity more seriously 2 the necessary
connection between their body and the earth>
#hat is Truth0 On ecessary Connection and Causation
:e now need to ma0e one important clarification about truth 2 which will then lead us to our solution#
$ne billion years ago the earth orbited the sun 2 thus there was a necessary connection between the earth
and sun# Net at that time, before our human e&olution, there were no truths# Sust physical reality abiding by
its laws# /his is &ery important to realise, as libraries full of boo0s ha&e been written about truth 2 yet it is
really )ust a concept that we ma0e up (humans li0e to create things># ,n reality there is )ust necessary
connection 2 this is the source of truth#
So for any statement you can always analyse it in terms of necessary connection# -ere are two simple
examples of logical and empirical 9truths9 that found science#
"ogical Truth= :e can create necessary connections through definitions " principles, e#g# 1T1 U ; and
1T1T1U K thus 1T; U K is true because of the necessary connections we created# /his relates to the axiomatic
foundations of mathematics and principles in theoretical physics which are necessary foundations to deduce
things from#
Aogical truths are a priori (necessary, certain and uni&ersal 2 anyone would deduce the same results#
'-pirical Truth= P/he current time on my computer is 5#K<amP is true if there is a necessary connection
between my eyes and the light emitted from my computer showing this time#
!mpirical truths are a posteriori (uncertain, dependent on senses which can decei&e us#
SummaryE /o 0now the truth about things we need to 0now how they are necessarily connected# /hus to
0now the truth about physical reality we need to 0now how matter exists and mo&es about in space in a
necessarily connected way# ,f we 0new this then we would find that deductions from our theory of reality
(logical truths would match 0nowledge from our senses " experiments (empirical truths#
The Problem of 'nduction
'll arguments concerning existence are founded on the relation of cause and effect+ that
our 0nowledge of that relation is deri&ed entirely from experience+ and all our
experimental conclusions proceed upon the supposition that the future will be
conformable to the past# #### :ithout the influence of custom, we should be entirely
ignorant of e&ery matter of fact beyond what is immediately present to the memory and
senses# (0a,id #u-e, 17K7
Popper9s problem of induction is no different than -ume9s problem of causation and necessary connection 2
they are the same problem because 9necessary connection9 is the central problem of 0nowledge which
applies to all the sciences 2 physics, philosophy, metaphysics, theology #
Popper claims that we can ne&er pro&e something is true, we can only show that it is false# So we could drop
1<,<<< idealist philosophers out of the plane, one after another, yet we could ne&er be certain that the next
one would fall to their death# /o do so we ha&e to assume the future is li0e the past 2 and this is uncertain#
/his is the current state of science " physics, which is founded on induction from empirical facts (uncertain
rather than logical deduction from principles which correctly describe reality (certain#
:hat most people do not realise though, is that this uncertainty is only the case while you do not 0now the
necessary connection between cause and effect (postmodernism assumes this is a permanent limitation of
science, thus we can ne&er 0now reality " absolute truths# 's -ume and Popper wrote+
:ere the power or energy of any cause disco&erable by the mind, we could foresee the effect, e&en without
experience+ and might, at first, pronounce with certainty concerning it, by mere dint of thought and
reasoning# ### Iow it seems e&ident that, if this conclusion were formed by reason, it would be as perfect at
first, and upon one instance, as after e&er so long a course of experience# (0a,id #u-e, 17K7
-ume is saying that once we 0now the causal connection between things, we could deduce with certainty
the effects, and they would always match the effects we in fact see, i#e# logical truths U empirical truths#
'nd Popper ac0nowledged the truth of this# (,t seems though that postmodern philosophy has forgotten this
fact in their haste to say that we cannot 0now the absolute truth about physical reality#
/here could easily be a little quarrel about the question which is the deeper problem+ #u-e?s Proble- of
Causation, or what , ha&e called the Proble- of Induction# $ne could argue that if the problem of
causation were positi&ely sol&ed 2 if we could show the existence of a necessary lin0 between cause and
effect 2 the problem of induction would also be sol&ed, and positi&ely# /hus one might say, the proble- of
causation is the deeper proble-# (>arl Popper, 1975
(or example, we 0now that electrical charges repel one another, yet we ha&e no 9ultimate explanation9 of
how they do it, e&en if we accept 8axwell9s theory# :e do not ha&e any general theory of causality (at any
rate not since the brea0down of @escartes9 theory that all causality is push# (Popper, 1975
/his confusion is clearly e&ident in modern Physics, e#g# the particle " wa&e duality of both light and matter,
the big bang origin of the uni&erse from no space and time# -owe&er, we can now show that this confusion
is simply due to errors in the foundations of physics relating to the discrete and separate particle conception
of matter# i#e# ,f you try to explain reality in terms of many things (li0e many separate 9particles9 mo&ing
around in space and time then you still lac0 0nowledge of how they are necessarily interconnected (so they
add 9fields9 or more 9particles9 to connect them 2 but it is a nai&e way to sol&e the problem and it clearly
cannot wor0#
The )olution
True *no!ledge of %eality +ecessary Connection- as the )ource of Truth ( #isdom
/he solution is to describe reality in terms of only one thing existing, as this will then explain the causal "
necessary connection between the many things we experience# 's 'ristotle and Aeibni7 wrote+
('ristotle, KL<.* /he first philosophy (8etaphysics is uni&ersal and is exclusi&ely concerned
with primary substance# ### 'nd here we will ha&e the science to study that which is )ust as that
which is, both in its essence and in the properties which, )ust as a thing that is, it has# ### /hat
among entities there must be some cause which mo&es and combines things# ### /here must then
be a principle of such a 0ind that its substance is acti&ity#
(?ottfried Aeibni7, 1JLJ 2 171J 5eality cannot be found except in $ne single source, because
of the interconnection of all things with one another# ### , do not concei&e of any reality at all as
without genuine unity# ### , maintain also that substances, whether material or immaterial,
cannot be concei&ed in their bare essence without any acti&ity, acti&ity being of the essence of
substance in general#
/he solution is actually &ery simple and ob&ious once 0nown (which is why philosophy is also 0nown as the
disco&ery of the ob&ious 2 because humans are blind to the ob&ious, as history shows# :e simply had to
as0 one ob&ious question about science ($ccam9s ra7or
:hat is the most simple science theory of realityF
(,t is a significant fact that there is not another page on the internet that considers what the most simple
science theory of reality is 2 which is strange gi&en $ccam9s 5a7or " principle of simplicity is fundamental to
science#
:ith a little thought you will realise this is the
same as as0ing what is the necessary connection
between things 2 as there must be one thing that
causes and connects the many things 2 and this is
necessarily the most simple solution#
$f profound importance is the fact that there is
only one solution (which is deduced# /he :a&e
Structure of 8atter in Space 2 where Space exists
with the properties of a wa&e medium and matter
is formed from spherical standing wa&es in space#
IoteE :e ha&e a page of wa&e diagrams that will help you &isualise the spherical standing wa&e structure of
matter (:S8 in space# .asically, we only see the high wa&e amplitude wa&e2center and ha&e been deluded
into thin0ing matter was made of tiny little 9particles9# ' &ery nai&e conception in hindsight 2 and quantum
physics was telling us all along that wa&es were central to light and matter interactions>
(rom this foundation you can then show without any opinions that the theory wor0s, i#e# it correctly deduces
fundamentals of modern physics#
SeeE Buantum Physics, 'lbert !instein9s /heory of 5elati&ity, *osmology#
'nd as Popper also wrote+
,f a theory corresponds to the facts but does not cohere with some earlier 0nowledge, then this earlier
0nowledge should be discarded# (Popper, 1975
The )olution to 'mmanuel *ant1s )ynthetic a priori *no!ledge
,mmanuel Qant is the most famous metaphysicist of western philosophy, and there is no doubt that his
9*ritique of Pure 5eason9 is the most comprehensi&e analysis of 8etaphysics since 'ristotle9s pioneering
wor0 which founded this sub)ect# /hus no essay on philosophy would be complete without an explanation
of Qant9 synthetic a priori 0nowledge# /he solution is simple and ob&ious once 0nown#
Qant made one small and yet fundamental mista0e# 'nd this error led to the belief that we could ne&er 0now
reality (the thing in itself, only our ideas of reality which were necessarily incomplete#
Qant is correct that Space is a priori, or first necessary for us to ha&e senses (which are a posteriori#
Iatural science (physics contains in itself synthetical )udgments a priori, as principles# ... (pace then is a
necessary representation a priori, which ser&es for the foundation of all external intuitions# (I--anuel
>ant, Criti3ue of Pure $eason, 17=1
-is error is to assume that /ime is also a priori or necessary for us to sense the motion of matter 9particles9
in Space# -e writes+
/here are two pure forms of sensible intuition, as principles of 0nowledge a priori, namely space and time#
(>ant, 17=1
'nd from this he concludes that because Space and /ime cannot be united, they must both be merely ideas#
-is error can be found in the following quote where he writes+
### e&en that of motion, which unites in itself both elements (Space and /ime, presuppose something
empirical# 8otion, for example, presupposes the perception of something mo&able# .ut space considered
in itself contains nothing -o,able+ consequently motion must be something which is found in space only
through experience 2 in other words, is an empirical datum# (>ant, 17=1
Please read this quote se&eral times, for it contains an error that has had profound repercussions for
humanity# /he errorF /hat ?space considered in itself contains nothing -o,able?# 'nd this error then
leads Qant to conclude that+
##in respect to the form of appearances, much may be said a priori, whilst of the thing in itself, which may
lie at the foundation of these appearances, it is impossible to say anything# (>ant, 17=1
/he solution to Qant9s error is to realise that the exact opposite is true, that (pace considered in itself
contains *a,e -otions, i#e# Space physically exists as a substance with the properties of a wa&e medium
and contains wa&e motions that form matter and cause the effect of time#
Qant9s error is understandable in hindsight, because he followed Iewton, and was conditioned into thin0ing
that motion applied to matter 9particles9 in space and time# /hus 9empty space9 had no 9particles9 2 so motion
could not exist in 9empty space9#
$nce we replace the particle conception of -atter in space and ti-e with the *a,e structure of -atter
in space then we can easily see the error and how it is sol&ed# /hus the two pure forms of sensible intuition,
as principles of 0nowledge a priori, are namely (pace and (*a,e) &otion# :e must place in this a priori
concept of Space the correct meaning 2 that Space is a wa&e2medium and contains within it a second thing,
wa&e motions of space that form matter (i#e# synthetic a priori 0nowledge 2 we must correctly define the
properties of space which is a creati&e act, a synthesis of space and its wa&e motions that form matter#
Conclusion
,n ending, we now 0now why our ,dealist philosophers fell to their death# .ecause matter is a structure of
the uni&erse, necessarily interconnected to all other matter around us by the spherical wa&e motions of
Space that cause the 9particle9 effect of matter at the wa&e center#
(urther study of physics then shows us that one property of space is that the wa&es tra&el more slowly
where there is more matter wa&es (equi&alent to higher energy density of space in !instein9s general
relati&ity# /his causes the philosopher9s wa&e center 9particles9 to re2position towards the earth (and this
same causal connection of wa&es causes light to cur&e past the sun#
So now you 0now what gra&ity really is 2 because you 0now what physical reality is and thus how material
things are necessarily connected in Space by their spherical in and out wa&es#
Please see lin0s on the side of this page for the main articles which explain and sol&e the central problems of
postmodern 8etaphysics, Physics and Philosophy from the new foundation of the :a&e Structure of 8atter
(:S8 in Space#
'nd the Philosophy Site 8ap lists all philosophy pages#
, hope that you en)oy browsing around> 'nd , really hope you will thin0 about this 2 it seems self e&idently
true to me, thus the most important 0nowledge that we shall e&er disco&er# /o finally understand what we
really are as humans (ama7ingly large wa&e structures of the uni&erse as the true foundation for thin0ing
and acting wisely in a world that is now in great need of wisdom from truth and reality#
Sincerely,
?eoff -aselhurst, !mail ((eb# ;<<=
PS 2 , should finish re2writing these main philosophy pages by late ;<<9 (, ha&e been reading philosophy,
physics and metaphysics for 15 years now, so for me it is the end of a long )ourney to finally write them all
up>
:e are now listed as one of the /op Philosophy :ebsites on the ,nternet# :e would lo&e to get these pages
in the top ten in ?oogle search results so that people can see for themsel&es that there is actually a simple
sensible solution to most problems of 0nowledge (which is &ery important to humanity# So if you find this
interesting please add it to the social networ0ing sites#
/han0s#
?eoff

' human being is part of the whole called by us uni&erse, a part limited in time and
space# :e experience oursel&es, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from
the rest# ' 0ind of optical delusion of consciousness# /his delusion is a 0ind of prison for
us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us#
$ur tas0 must be to free oursel&es from the prison by widening our circle of compassion
to embrace all li&ing creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty# ### /he true &alue of a
human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which they ha&e
obtained liberation from the self# ###
:e shall require a substantially new manner of thin0ing if humanity is to sur&i&e# (Albert 'instein

/he notion that all these fragments is separately existent is e&idently an illusion, and this
illusion cannot do other than lead to endless conflict and confusion# ,ndeed, the attempt to
li&e according to the notion that the fragments are really separate is, in essence, what has
led to the growing series of extremely urgent crises that is confronting us today# /hus, as
is now well 0nown, this way of life has brought about pollution, destruction of the
balance of nature, o&er2population, world2wide economic and political disorder and the
creation of an o&erall en&ironment that is neither physically nor mentally healthy for
most of the people who li&e in it# ,ndi&idually there has de&eloped a widespread feeling of helplessness and
despair, in the face of what seems to be an o&erwhelming mass of disparate social forces, going beyond the
control and e&en the comprehension of the human beings who are caught up in it# (0a,id ;oh-, :holeness
and the ,mplicate $rder, 19=<
Marcus 2urelius
%oman /mperor $ )toic Philosopher Marcus 2urelius +3435367 28.8-
Metaphysics ( Philosophy of Marcus 2urelius $ )toicism
2ll is One +ature, 9ni"erse, :od- and 'nterconnected
;umans are Citi<ens of the 9ni"erse
'll things are wo&en together and the common bond is sacred, and scarcely one thing is foreign to another,
for they ha&e been arranged together in their places and together ma0e the same ordered %ni&erse# (or there
is one %ni&erse out of all, one ?od through all, one substance and one law, one common 5eason of all
intelligent creatures and one /ruth#
(requently consider the connection of all things in the uni&erse#
:e should not say 3, am an 'thenian4 or 3, am a 5oman4 but 3, am a citi7en of the %ni&erse#
(&arcus Aurelius, 8editations
+ntroduction - ;arcus ,urelius ';editations' *uotes - Summary Stoicism 6hilosophy - ;arcus ,urelius 5
Stoic :ins - Top of 6a&e
Introduction to &arcus Aurelius
(toic Philosophy
&arcus Aurelius, the 5oman !mperor was also a true 9philosopher 0ing9# -is 8editations express a
profound understanding that 'll is $ne, ,nterconnected and go&erned by absolute laws, as he writes+
(or there is one %ni&erse out of all, one ?od through all, one substance and one law, one common 5eason
of all intelligent creatures and one /ruth#
(rom these absolute laws humans deri&e their reason and morality of which we are to li&e by# /he practical
ethics of the Stoics emphasises self control, contentment and li&ing simply in harmony with nature#
!&erything harmonises with me which is harmonious to thee, $ %ni&erse ## (requently consider the
connection of all things in the uni&erse# ('urelius, 8editations
:hile 8arcus 'urelius was a profound and beautiful philosopher, he did not understand how all things
were interconnected in the %ni&erse# /he Stoic9s mystical realisation that 'll is $ne and ,nterconnected
(which is the foundation of all philosophy and metaphysics can now be explained from a logical " scientific
foundation of Space and its properties as a :a&e 8edium# /he error has been the conception of matter as
discrete particles 2 which ob&iously does not explain matter9s acti&ity " flux nor its interconnection to all
other matter in the uni&erse# (See lin0s on the side of this page#
.elow you will find some &ery profound quotes from 8arcus 'urelius 2 we hope you en)oy the beauty and
wisdom of his 8editations#
?eoff -aselhurst, Qarene -owie
+ntroduction - ;arcus ,urelius ';editations' *uotes - Summary Stoicism 6hilosophy - ;arcus ,urelius 5
Stoic :ins - Top of 6a&e
&arcus Aurelius, ?&editations? 1uotations
/he %ni&erse is change, life is an opinion# (&arcus Aurelius
!&erything harmonises with me which is harmonious to thee, $ %ni&erse# Iothing for me is too early or too
late, which is in due time for thee# !&erything is fruit to me which thy seasons bring, $ IatureE from thee
are all things, in thee are all things, to thee all things return#4 (&arcus Aurelius (;ertrand $ussell, /he
-istory of :estern Philosophy
3(requently consider the connection of all things in the uni&erse#4 (&arcus Aurelius (5ussell
3:e should not say 3, am an 'thenian4 or 3, am a 5oman4 but 3, am a citi7en of the %ni&erse#44 (&arcus
Aurelius (5ussell
*onstantly thin0 of the %ni&erse as one li&ing creature, embracing one being and one soul+ how all is
absorbed into the one consciousness of this li&ing creature+ how it compasses all things with a single
purpose, and how all things wor0 together to cause all that comes to pass, and their wonderful web and
texture# (&arcus Aurelius
8en loo0 for retreats for themsel&es, the country, the seashore, the hills+ and you yourself, too, are
peculiarly accustomed to feel the same want# Net all this is &ery unli0e a philosopher, when you may at any
hour you please retreat into yourself# (or nowhere does a man retreat into more quiet or more pri&acy than
into his own mind, especially one who has within such things that he has only to loo0 into, and become at
once in perfect ease+ and by ease , mean nothing else but good beha&iour# *ontinually therefore grant
yourself this retreat and repair yourself# .ut let them be brief and fundamental truths, which will suffice at
once by their presence to wash away all sorrow, and to send you bac0 without repugnance to the life to
which you return# (&arcus Aurelius, 8editations, p1=
@eath is li0e birth, a mystery of Iature+ a coming together out of identical elements and a dissolution into
the same# (&arcus Aurelius, 8editations, p19
;L# @emocritus has saidE 3@o few things, if you would en)oy tranquility#4 (&arcus Aurelius, 8editations,
p;;
L5# :hat follows is always organically related to what went before+ for it is not li0e a simple enumeration of
units separately determined by necessity, but a rational combination+ and as .eing is arranged in a mutual
co2ordination, so the phenomena of .ecoming display no bare succession but a wonderful organic
interrelation# (&arcus Aurelius, 8editations, p;L
5eason and the method of reasoning are abilities, sufficient to themsel&es and their own operations# /hus
they start from their appropriate principle and proceed to their proposed end+ wherefore reasonable acts are
called right acts, to indicate the rightness of their path# (&arcus Aurelius, 8editations, pK1
's are your repeated imaginations so will your mind be, for the soul is dyed by its imaginations# @ye it then
in a succession of imaginations li0e theseE for instance, where it is possible to li&e, there also it is possible to
li&e wellE but it is possible to li&e in a palace, ergo it is also possible to li&e well in a palace# $r once moreE a
creature is made for that in whose interest it was createdE and that for which it was made, to this it tendsE and
to what it tends, in this is its endE and where its end is, there is the ad&antage and the good ali0e of each
creatureE therefore fellowship is the good of a reasonable creature# (&arcus Aurelius, 8editations, pK1
,s it not strange that ignorance and complaisance are stronger than wisdom# (&arcus Aurelius, 8editations,
pK1
;K# 5epeatedly dwell on the swiftness of the passage and departure of things that are and of things that come
to be# (or substance is li0e a ri&er in perpetual flux, its acti&ities are in continuous changes, and its causes in
myriad &arieties, and there is scarce anything which stands still, e&en what is near at hand+ dwell, too, on the
infinite gulf of the past and the future, in which all things &anish away# /hen how is he not a fool who in all
this is puffed up or distracted or ta0es it hardly, as if he were in some lasting scene, which has troubled him
for so longF
;L# *all to mind the whole of Substance of which you ha&e a &ery small portion, and the whole of time
whereof a small hair4s breadth has been determined for you, and of the chain of causation whereof you are
how small a lin0#
J# /he noblest 0ind of retribution is not to become li0e your enemy# (&arcus Aurelius, 8editations, pK5
5eflect upon the multitude of bodily and mental e&ents ta0ing place in the same brief time, simultaneously
in e&ery one of us and so you will not be surprised that many more e&ents, or rather all things that come to
pass, exist simultaneously in the one and entire unity, which we call the %ni&erse# (8arcus 'urelius,
8editations, pK=
K<# /a0e heed not to be transformed into a *aesar, not to be dipped in the purple dye+ for it does happen#
Qeep yourself therefore simple, good, pure, gra&e, unaffected, the friend of )ustice, religious, 0ind,
affectionate, strong for your proper wor0# :restle to continue to be the man Philosophy wished to ma0e
you# 5e&erence the gods, sa&e men# Aife is brief+ there is one har&est of earthly existence, a holy disposition
and neighbourly acts# ,n all things li0e a pupil of 'ntoninus+ his energy on behalf of what was done in
accord with reason, his equability e&erywhere, his serene expression, his sweetness, his disdain of glory, his
ambition to grasp affairs# (&arcus Aurelius, 8editations, pK9
K=# 8editate often upon the bond of all in the %ni&erse and their mutual relationship# (or all things are in a
way wo&en together and all are because of this dear to one another+ for these follow in order one upon
another because of the stress mo&ement and common spirit and the unification of matter# (&arcus
Aurelius, 8editations, pL<
$ne thing here is of great price, to li&e out life with truth and righteousness ### (&arcus Aurelius,
8editations, PL;
L=# :hene&er you desire to cheer yourself, thin0 upon the merits of those who are still ali&e with you+ the
energy of one, the instance, the modesty of another, the generosity of a third, of another some other gift# (or
nothing is so cheering as the images of the &irtues shining in the character of contemporaries, and meeting
so far as possible in a group# /herefore you should 0eep them read to your hand# (&arcus Aurelius,
8editations, PL;
5<# !ndea&our to persuade them, but act e&en if they themsel&es are unwilling, when the rule of )ustice so
directs# (&arcus Aurelius, 8editations, pL;
+ntroduction - ;arcus ,urelius ';editations' *uotes - Summary Stoicism 6hilosophy - ;arcus ,urelius 5
Stoic :ins - Top of 6a&e
(u--ary of (toicis- Philosophy
Introduction to &editations, by 0.A. $ees. 67@A
-is tutor (ronto, was a leader of the literary mo&ement of the day, and affected a highly precious style
studded with archaisms+ 8arcus felt considerable affection for him personally, but it was not long before he
began to react against an education which stressed form rather than content, and whose sole ideal was that
of literary excellence# -is reaction was towards philosophy, but towards philosophy seen not as a matter of
abstract theory but as a way of life, in the *ynic and Stoic tradition of the times, stressing moral self2
sufficiency and an ascetic disregard for external goods# (p# ii# 5ees# 19J<
:hat of the philosophical religion of (toicis-, which 8arcus himself professed, and of which his
8editations form the most widely 0nown document for the modern world, the 8anual of !pictetus
occupying the second placeF /he Stoic school has as its founder Meno of *itium in *yprus, who came to
'thens as a young man about K152K1K .#*#, studied philosophy there under &arious teachers and in
particular under *rates the *ynic and soon after K<< .#*# set up his own school in the Painted Porch or
'rcade (Stoa Poi0ile, from which his followers too0 their name# .ut to understand Stoicism we must go
bac0 a little earlier, and see what the philosophical tradition was into which Meno thus entered#
/he earliest phase of ?ree0 philosophy was that of the ,onian cosmologists, who, from the time of /hales
(c#5=5 .#*# onwards, set out to interpret the uni&erse in terms of some primary form of matter, water or air
(probably mist or 3the infinite4 (indefinite matter# (p#&# 5ees# 19J<
#eraclitus of !phesus (c# 5<<.#* , celebrated in antiquity as 3the dar04 by reason of his oracular and
cryptic mode of utterance# /his indeed exposed him only too easily to misrepresentation, sympathetic and
unsympathetic ali0e, and the Stoics saw in him the progenitor of their doctrines of cosmic reason, and of a
uni&erse in which a special significance attached to the element of fire, and which would e&entually return
to fire and be absorbed in it, through an endless series of periodical conflagrations# /his last doctrine, it is
now agreed, was not of -eraclitus himself#
/he early cosmological phase of ?ree0 philosophy drew gradually to a close (apart from later
manifestations, such as the atomism of 0e-ocritus in the second half of the fifth century# .ewildered by
the &ariety of conflicting speculations with which they were confronted, and influenced in some cases by a
radical scepticism of the possibility of 0nowing anything at all of the ultimate nature of the uni&erse, men
turned their attention to the human rather than to the cosmic scene, to the questions of ethics and politics, to
the most pressing question of allE 3:hat is the good life, and how should men 0now it and li&e itF4 (or there
were men li0e Protagoras, sophists as they were called, who claimed to teach precisely this, and there was
(ocrates too (LJ92K99 who questioned such pretensions among the sophists, but whose interest li0e theirs
was centered on problems of human conductE3:hat is &irtue, and how can it be acquiredF4 3:hat is )usticeF4
3:hat is pietyF4 and so on#
.ut Socrates was not a constructi&e philosopher2 which helps to explain why his followers held such a
bewildering &ariety of &iews 2 and what struc0 men abo&e all in him was his fearless and rugged
independence of character, con)oined with the assertion of the place of man4s reason in the proper
go&ernment of his life# (or he seems to ha&e held, in accord with what we may call the sophist tradition, that
0nowledge of the right course of action would suffice to ensure that a man carried it out, that &irtue was
0nowledge and &ice ignorance# (or him , as the Stoics later, the ideal of the wise man was all2sufficient#
'mong Socrates4 followers, Plato (L;72KL7, the greatest of all, went further than his master and
constructed a daring system of metaphysics, a system one of whose mainsprings lay in man4s moral
conceptions# /he Platonic ,dea or (orms, it was held, were the most fully real and fully 0nowable entities,
and at the apex of their hierarchy, at any rate in the 5epublic, stood the ,dea of the ?ood, in some sense the
principle of thought and of action ali0e# Plato4s ethical system, in this as in much else typically ?ree0, was
grounded in his cosmology, and ideal conduct was not ultimately separable from the 0nowledge of the
philosopher+ his 0nowledge was, indeed, itself the highest good# (p# &i# 5ees# 19J<
Ai0e both Plato and 'ristotle, Meno based his teaching about conduct on his theory of the nature of the
uni&erse in general, and the nature of man in particular# 'gain, though interpreting wisdom differently,
Meno, li0e Plato and 'ristotle, and (more closely, perhaps li0e Socrates before them, found his complete
ideal realised in his picture of the wise man# (p# &iii# 5ees# 19J<
,n the period stretching from Meno to 8arcus, (toicis- was the most important of the ?ree0 philosophical
schools# 's against the !picureans, it asserted the claims of &irtue as higher than pleasure, and, re)ecting the
domination of atoms and chance, proclaimed a uni&erse ordered by di&ine pro&idence+ as against the
Sceptics it upheld a dogmatic cosmology, and maintained the existence of truths which could be grasped
with certainty# (p# &iii# 5ees# 19J<
-ence both the rationalistic and the uni&ersalistic aspects of (toic ethics, which held that all shared a li0e in
a common nature and so were a0in to one another, and hence also its predestinarian stress on recognition of
the di&ine necessity in all things, and glad acceptance of the wise pro&idence present throughout# ,n such a
world the citadel of a man4s soul was all2important, for there and there only had he control ### (p# ix# 5ees#
19J<
(toicis- was forced to disregard in its doctrine of freedom those all2per&ading social pressures which
radically condition our beliefs and attitudes, of which 'ristotle had shown more awareness, and upon which
thin0ers of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries ha&e laid so much stress# (p# xi# 5ees# 19J<
+ntroduction - ;arcus ,urelius ';editations' *uotes - Summary Stoicism 6hilosophy - ;arcus ,urelius 5
Stoic :ins - Top of 6a&e
"in<s B &arcus Aurelius, (toic Philosophy, (toicis-
PhilosophyE Stoicism Meno 2 (amous 5oman Stoic Philosopher Ceno realised the ,nterconnection of 'll
/hings in the %ni&erse#
*icero 2 :S8 explains (amous 5oman Philosopher Cicero, $n the Iature of the ?ods 9's a philosopher, ,
ha&e a right to as0 for a rational explanation of religious faith#9
Seneca 2 (amous 5oman Stoic Philosopher Seneca on /ruth, :isdom and 6irtue# 9Aanguage of /ruth
should be Simple and Plain9
PhilosophyE ?ree0 Philosophers 2 'll is $ne (Space and 'cti&e2(lux (:a&e 8otion# Thales,
Ana)i-ander, Ana)i-enes, #eraclitus, Par-enides, Ato-ists (0e-ocritus, "ucretius), (ocrates,
Plato, 'picurus#
PhilosophyE 8orality !thics 2 /he (undamental 8orality of :orld 5eligions ?0o Unto Others ...?is
Aogically /rue as the $ther is Part of Self#
8etaphysicsE Problem of $ne and the 8any 2 .rief -istory of 8etaphysics and Solutions to the
(undamental Problems of %niting the+ One and the &any, Infinite and the Finite, 'ternal and the
Te-poral, Absolute and $elati,e, Continuous and 0iscrete, (i-ple and Co-ple), &atter and
Uni,erse#
/esla, Ii0ola 2 /esla was influenced by 6edic Philosophy that all is one and dynamic# /he :a&e Structure
of 8atter confirms 5i<ola Tesla?s /heories on $esonance and /ransfer of !nergy by :a&es in Space# 9$ne
day man will connect his apparatus to the &ery wheel wor0 of the uni&erse ### and the &ery forces that
moti&ate the planets in their orbits and cause them to rotate will rotate his own machinery#9
.oes the Most )imple )cience
Theory of %eality #or=0
'ny intelligent fool can ma0e things bigger, more complex, and more &iolent#
,t ta0es a touch of genius 2 and a lot of courage 2 to mo&e in the opposite direction#
(Albert 'instein
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication#
("eonardo da %inci
'ntroduction
/he following short article shows you how to deduce the most simple science theory of reality, the wa&e
structure of matter in Space, then deduce from this to show that it is correct# /here is no opinion in&ol&ed 2
it shows that science does wor0 2 we )ust needed the correct (most simple foundations# .efore we start ,
wish to emphasise two things+
1# :hile simplicity is nice 2 it is really the dynamic unity of reality that is important# i#e# /here must be one
substance that exists that causes and connects the many things we experience# 'nd describing reality in
terms of only one substance is ob&iously also the most simple solution# /hus we are uniting science with
metaphysics# , ha&e )ust re2written the main metaphysics page (Sanuary, ;<1< which explains this in more
detail#
;# ,t is a significant fact that there is not another page on the internet that considers what the most simple
science theory of reality is 2 which is strange gi&en $ccam9s 5a7or (principle of simplicity is fundamental
to science# /hus it is nai&e to claim science does not wor0 (the logical positi&ist " social construct &iew of
postmodern science without ha&ing considered this most simple solution# i#e# :hat we do 0now is that
science founded on discrete and separate 9particles9 does not wor0>
?eoff -aselhurst
((ebruary, ;<1<
38 .educe the Most )imple )cience Theory of %eality
(irst we deduce that the most simple theory that abides by rules of science (logic from principles U
0nowledge from senses must be founded on Space and its properties# /his then leads to the spherical
standing wa&e structure of matter in Space (where Space exists with the properties of a wa&e medium#
<easons
(.( The most simple theory must be founded on =ne thin& >substance? existin& with properties
/his is necessary to abide by two uni&ersally accepted principles of Science and 8etaphysics+
Science has a Principle of Simplicity " $ccam9s 5a7or 2 "Essentia non sunt multiplicanda praeter
necessitatem"# i#e# /he theory which deduces the most things from less assumptions is better, thus the best
theory must be founded on the most simple foundation of only one thing existing#
8etaphysics is founded on the @ynamic %nity of 5eality 2 that $ne /hing " Substance necessarily exists
and interconnects the many changing things we experience in the uni&erse#
(;radley, 1=LJ219;L :e may agree, perhaps, to understand by 8etaphysics an attempt to
0now reality as against mere appearance, or the study of first principles or ultimate truths, or
again the effort to comprehend the uni&erse, not simply piecemeal or by fragments, but
somehow as a whole#
So our tas0 is now clearer as we are limited to a foundation of only one thing " substance existing from
which to explain the reality of this world that we experience#
'ristotle (who first formali7ed metaphysics and physics and Aeibni7 explain this well+
(Aristotle, KL<.* The first philosophy (&etaphysics) is uni,ersal and is e)clusi,ely
concerned *ith pri-ary substance. ### 'nd here we will ha&e the science to study that which
is )ust as that which is, both in its essence and in the properties which, )ust as a thing that is, it
has# ### /hat among entities there must be some cause which -o,es and co-bines things# ###
/here must then be a principle of such a 0ind that its substance is acti,ity#
(:ottfried "eibni4, 1JLJ 2 171J 5eality cannot be found except in $ne single source, because
of the interconnection of all things with one another# ### , do not concei&e of any reality at all as
without genuine unity# ### , maintain also that substances, whether material or immaterial,
cannot be concei&ed in their bare essence without any acti&ity, acti,ity being of the essence of substance
in general#
's we shall see, there is an important clue here relating to motion " acti&ity being a necessary property of
substance#
(.2 This =ne Thin& 5 Substance must be Space >that we all commonly experience?
/here are many different minds and material things but only $ne common Space# /his is true when we
consider the Space around us 2 we all experience many different humans (their bodies R minds li&ing on
!arth which orbits the Sun, which orbits our galaxy as one amongst many billions within the obser&able
uni&erse 2 yet all this occurs within one common Space#
(rom this most simple foundation of Space as the one substance that exists we can then deduce that it must
be infinite (not bounded by another substance, eternal (not created by another substance and continuous
(not made of parts# 's 'ristotle wrote+
/his shows us two thingsE you cannot ha&e parts of the infinite and the infinite is indi&isible#
(.1 ;atter is formed from the @ave ;otion of Space
,t is well 0nown that there is a particle2wa&e duality for light and matter# ?i&en this most simple science
theory is founded on $ne substance, Space, we must consider the Properties of Space, thus we cannot add
9parts " particles9 to Space# So we are left only with wa&es#
/hus there is only one solution 2 Space must exist with the Properties of a :a&e 8edium, and matter is
formed from wa&e motions of Space#
So 'ristotle and Aeibni7 were largely correct, they )ust did not reali7e that matter9s acti&ity " motion really
came from the wa&e motion of Space (&ibrating Space is a simple way to imagine it#
(.) ;atter's 6article Affect is %aused by the @ave %enter of the Spherical Standin& @ave
IoteE /his is a two dimensional cross section of a spherical standing wa&e (there is a mo&ing image below
but it is ob&iously hard to show a sphere " spherical wa&e on a flat computer screen so some imagination is
needed>
Fig.6 ! The 'lectron B Positron
/he image represents the most simple form of matter, the electron# /he positron (anti2
matter is simply the opposite phase standing wa&e which sensibly explains matter "
anti2matter annihilation due to destructi&e wa&e interference# (/he proton and neutron
are more complex wa&e structures which still need further study
,t is easy to see how the particle effect of matter is formed at the :a&e *enter#
Nou can also see why Pythagoras9 theorem is not )ust a mathematical (axiomatic truth,
but fundamental to physical reality# ,f you draw two lines at right angles to one another,
radiating from the wa&e center, one K wa&elengths, the other L wa&elengths, then complete the rectangle,
magically> you find the hypotenuse is exactly 5 wa&elengths long# /his is because this wa&e diagram truly
represents how matter interacts " forms its spatial dimensions#
(urther, three dimensional space and spherical space are equi&alent, as it ta0es three &ariables to describe a
sphere# ,n fact the cause of three dimensional space is simply that matter interacts spherically (see !instein
quote below#
/he fourth dimension of 9time9 is really )ust the motion of the wa&e (motion causes time#
,t is important to realise that this conception of matter founded on wa&es in Space has a different
metaphysical foundation# *urrently in physics we ha&e a 8etaphysics of Space and /ime to which we add
discrete 9particles9 and thus also continuous 9fields9 to connect them (thus we ha&e four different things 2
space, time, matter particles and fields#
/he :a&e Structure of 8atter is founded on one thing, Space, existing as a wa&e medium# i#e# '
8etaphysics of Space and (wa&e 8otion 2 where matter is formed from the spherical standing wa&e
motions of Space# This unites (pace, Ti-e, &otion and &atter# /hus 'ristotle was also correct when he
wrote+
8o&ement, then, is also continuous in the way in which time is 2 indeed ti-e is either identical to
-o,e-ent or is so-e affection of it. ### there being two causes of which we ha&e defined in the Physics,
that of -atter and that fro- *hich the -otion co-es# ('ristotle, 8etaphysics
/his is also consistent with the fact that atomic cloc0s use the natural resonance frequency of the cesium
atom (9,19;,JK1,77< -7 to measure time#
2lbert /instein1s Theory of )pecial %elati"ity
/he argument is really complete 2 but , )ust wanted to briefly mention !instein9s relati&ity as you will then
see how close he was to the truth with his re)ection of the 9particle9 and his attempt at a continuous field
theory of matter#
/he metrics of !instein9s special relati&ity are founded on Pythagoras9 theorem (see Aorent7 /ransformation
below where an electron changes from ha&ing a spherical shape to a squashed ellipsoidal shape when it is
in motion (which is why an electron contracts in length with motion# /he important point is that the
mathematics is founded on a sphere because matter interacts spherically with other matter in the Space
around it# 's !instein writes+
(rom the latest results of the theory of relati&ity it is probable that our three dimensional space is also
approximately spherical, that is, that the laws of disposition of rigid bodies in it are not gi&en by !uclidean
geometry, but approximately by spherical geometry# (Albert 'instein, 195L
Special relati&ity is still based directly on an empirical law, that of the constancy of the &elocity of light
where dx
;
T dy
;
T d7
;
U(cdt
;
and cdt is the distance tra&eled by light c in time dt#
/he defining equation of the metric is then nothing but the Pythagorean theorem applied to the differentials
of the co2ordinates# (IoteE ,n the abo&e diagram dxUK, dyUL, d7U<, cdtU5
,n the special theory of relati&ity those co2ordinate changes (by transformation are permitted for which also
in the new co2ordinate system the quantity (cdt
;
equals the sum of the squares of the co2ordinate
differentials# Such transformations are called Aorent7 transformations# (Albert 'instein, 19KL
Fig. D ! The "orent4 Transfor-ation
,n the Aorent7 /ransformations matter becomes a squashed ellipsoid with motion# -owe&er,
pythagoras9 theorem remains true e&en when the sphere is a squashed ellipsoid#
,t is this change in cur&ature of the sphere when an electron is accelerated that !instein then
related to matter9s gra&ity " energy fields which cur&e the L@ space2time continuum# .ut really
the L@ space time continuum of !instein9s general relati&ity is simply a mo&ing spherical wa&e
in Space# /hus the 9cur&ature of the L@ space2time continuum9 is )ust the cur&ature of the
spherical (ellipsoidal wa&e, which changes when the wa&e center 9particle9 is accelerated#

/hus the most simple science theory of reality requires that matter is not a tiny particle separate from Space,
instead it is a large spherical spatially extended wa&e structure of Space (the si7e of the obser&able uni&erse
within infinite Space#
!instein9s relati&ity agrees that matter is a structure of space (not a discrete particle in space# -is error was
to wor0 with continuous fields in space2time rather than discrete standing wa&es in continuous Space#
:hen forced to summari7e the general theory of relati&ity in one sentenceE
Ti-e and space and gra,itation ha&e no separate existence from -atter# ###
Physical ob)ects are not in space, but these ob)ects are spatially extended# ,n this way the
concept 9empty space9 loses its meaning# ### /he field thus becomes an irreducible element of
physical description, irreducible in the same sense as the concept of matter (particles in the
theory of Iewton# ### /he physical reality of space is represented by a field whose
components are continuous functions of four independent &ariables 2 the co2ordinates of
space and time# Since the theory of general relati&ity implies the representation of physical
reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a
fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion# /he particle can only appear as a limited region in space in
which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high# (Albert 'instein, 195<
-istory shows that !instein9s continuous field theory of matter in space2time does not explain the discrete
properties of light and matter found in quantum theory# 'nd !instein also came to suspect this was the case,
he writes+
'll these fifty years of conscious brooding ha&e brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 9:hat
are light quantaF9 Iowadays e&ery /om, @ic0 and -arry thin0s he 0nows it, but he is mista0en# C ,
consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i#e#, on continuous structures# ,n
that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gra&itation theory included, Vand ofW the rest of
modern physics# ('lbert !instein, 195L
:e now reali7e that his relati&ity theory can be simplified by wor0ing with real wa&e motions of a
continuously connected space, rather than 9continuous fields9 in 9space2time9 (a mathematical construction#
Summary
/he rules of science (simplicity and metaphysics (dynamic unity of reality force us to conclude that matter
is formed from spherical standing wa&e motions of Space (rather than Iewton9s particles, or !instein9s
continuous fields# /his is why matter can interact with other matter in the Space around it, because all
matter (in the obser&able uni&erse is interconnected in Space by its spherical in and out wa&es#
/he :a&e *enter causes the discrete 9particle9 effect of matter that we see and interact with#
/he spherical in and out wa&es cause the field effects, but in a slightly different way than !instein imagined
because they are discrete standing wa&e effects, rather than his continuous field effects# i#e# !instein9s
continuous field theory of matter does not explain discrete properties of light and matter as determined by
quantum theory 2 whereas standing wa&e interactions (resonant coupling only occur at discrete wa&elengths
" frequencies thus explaining the discrete properties of light quanta 9photons9#
/he abo&e arguments all seem true to me, none of it is my opinion, they simply state common scientific
0nowledge combined with our common experience of existing in Space#
'nd , should add that !rwin Schrodinger actually proposed a wa&e structure of matter =< years ago
(unfortunately his wa&e equations were used by 8ax .orn as probability wa&es to find the location of the
particle, rather than treating them as real wa&es in Space# 's Schrodinger explains+
:hat we obser&e as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and &ariations in
the structure of space# Particles are just schau-<o--en (appearances# ### /he world
is gi&en to me only once, not one existing and one percei&ed# (ubject and object are
only one# /he barrier between them cannot be said to ha&e bro0en down as a result of
recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist# ### Aet me say
at the outset, that in this discourse, , am opposing not a few special statements of
quantum physics held today (195<s, , am opposing as it were the whole of it, , am
opposing its basic &iews that ha&e been shaped ;5 years ago, when &a) ;orn put
forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost e&erybody# ,
don9t li0e it, and ,9m sorry , e&er had anything to do with it# ('r*in (chrEdinger, /he
,nterpretation of Buantum Physics#
So now we must see if this Spherical :a&e Structure of 8atter wor0s 2 does it correctly deduce the
fundamentals of modern physicsF
:ell than0s to the wor0 of retired Professor of 8aths Physics, @r 8ilo :olff, we can show with
mathematical " logical precision that it wor0s perfectly#
48 The #a"e )tructure of Matter .educes Fundamentals of
Quantum Theory, /instein1s %elati"ity $ Cosmology
IoteE /o 0eep things simple , will )ust explain the most important deduction here, the remainder of the
9Simple Science9 arguments are in separate (short pages which are listed below# /he mathematical physics
page has the full list of :a&e Structure of 8atter mathematical deductions (which is substantial, though
there is still ob&iously much to do#
/he most fundamental (and simple thing to chec0 is what we deduce for relati&e motion and see if it
matches 0nown results of the two fundamental theories of physics# i#e# 8atter9s relati&istic mass increase
(!instein9s special relati&ity and the de .roglie wa&elength (quantum theory and the wa&e properties of
matter which are both deduced from the relati&e motion of matter#
So we should find that the @oppler shifted wa&e equations for two spherical standing wa&es with relati&e
motion (of their wa&e center 9particles9 show terms in the resultant wa&e equations that exactly match
quantum theory9s de .roglie wa&elength and !instein9s relati&istic mass increase (where mass - equates to
frequency f as 'FhfF-c
D
#
+e find that it e)actly deduces these t*o ter-s. /his is absolutely remar0able 2 for the first time the two
central theories of modern physics (quantum theory and !instein9s special relati&ity are united by a single
theory, which was itself deduced as the most simple science theory of reality#
Nou can read the deduction by @r 8ilo :olff (5etired Prof# of 8aths Physics or you can &iew
his &ideo where he explains this (, filmed this bac0 in ;<<< at .er0eley uni&ersity 2 it is well
worth watching>#
8ilo :olff 6ideo ,nter&iew 2 See all 8ilo :olff 6ideos
(/he &ideo is also on my physics philosophy page at Nou/ube
)ummary ( Conclusion
, ha&e 0nown of the wa&e structure of matter for ten years now# 'nd o&er that time , ha&e slowly read the
history of physics, philosophy and metaphysics# ,t is now blindingly ob&ious to me that Science does
actually wor0 2 we )ust had to get rid of the wrong foundation of matter with particle properties, and
consider space and its wa&e properties#
/hus we can now easily recogni7e the error of Physics (since the time of Iewton, where reality is
described in terms of many things 2 the ,nterconnected 8otion of 8atter 9Particles9 in Space and /ime 2
which further requires continuous 9(orces"(ields9 to connect the discrete 9Particles9#
/he correct foundation is to describe matter in
terms of one thing 2 the +a,e &otion of (pace#
/hus motion applies to space, not matter, i#e# the
(wa&e motion of Space causes matter, time and
forces " fields (interconnection#
IoteE :e ha&e a page of wa&e diagrams that will
help you &isualise the spherical standing wa&e
structure of matter (:S8 in space# .asically, we
only see the high wa&e amplitude wa&e2center and
ha&e been deluded into thin0ing matter was made
of tiny little 9particles9# ' &ery nai&e conception in
hindsight 2 and quantum physics was telling us all along that wa&es were central to light and matter
interactions>
,n ending, it is important to emphasi7e " repeat 2 this is the most simple science foundation for describing
reality 2 and most importantly, it wor0s# 'nd this surprisingly simple solution was anticipated by some
physicists, as Sohn 'rchibald :heeler wrote+
Someday we9ll understand the whole thing as one single mar&elous &ision that will seem so o&erwhelmingly
simple and beautiful that we may say to each other+ 9$h, how could we ha&e been so stupid for so longF
-ow could it ha&e been otherwise>9 (S# '# :heeler
/his is wonderful news for scientists, and for humanity# /hey )ust need to be made (gently " urgently aware
of these facts gi&en the profound consequences for humanity#
's @a&id .ohm wrote+
/he notion that all these fragments is separately existent is e&idently an illusion, and this
illusion cannot do other than lead to endless conflict and confusion# ,ndeed, the attempt to
li&e according to the notion that the fragments are really separate is, in essence, what has
led to the growing series of extremely urgent crises that is confronting us today# /hus, as
is now well 0nown, this way of life has brought about pollution, destruction of the
balance of nature, o&er2population, world2wide economic and political disorder and the
creation of an o&erall en&ironment that is neither physically nor mentally healthy for
most of the people who li&e in it# ,ndi&idually there has de&eloped a widespread feeling of helplessness and
despair, in the face of what seems to be an o&erwhelming mass of disparate social forces, going beyond the
control and e&en the comprehension of the human beings who are caught up in it# (@a&id .ohm, :holeness
and the ,mplicate $rder, 19=<
?eoff -aselhurst
Personal 5ote= , am not being arrogant or egotistical at all in writing this (, am a quiet e&olutionary
philosopher of science who li&es in the country, li0es to read and thin0 about about truth and reality, to
understand how things wor0# , 0now this 0nowledge is &ery important to our world# /he absolute nature of
the writing is simply to emphasi7e the point that science does wor0 if we ta0e simplicity " dynamic unity of
reality (metaphysics " necessary connection " $ccam9s 5a7or seriously#
-owe&er, this ob&iously requires re)ecting the discrete particle conception of matter (which is clearly a
nai&e and primiti&e conception of matter that pre2dates quantum theory and relati&ity# 'nd all students of
history 0now that old habits die hard (those standard model particle physicists and big bang cosmologists
will not change how they thin0, instead their discrete and separate 9particle9 ideas will die with them#
5eality is clearly interconnected and changing, a dynamic unity 2 this has been 0nown for o&er three
thousand years, and is confirmed by modern physics# /he :a&e Structure of 8atter in Space (&ibrating
Space or wa&ing energy fields if you prefer explains how this interconnected change occurs#
,t is effecti&ely the source code for how the uni&erse functions, ob&iously with great power and potential for
humanity (for good and bad# 't least by 0nowing the truth it gi&es us greater potential to act wisely 2 but
this is up to us# 'nd the future of -umanity will be decided by this#
(:alileo :alilei, 1J<< , wish, my dear Qepler, that we could ha&e a good laugh together at the
extraordinary stupidity of the mob# :hat do you thin0 of the foremost philosophers of this
%ni&ersityF ,n spite of my oft2repeated efforts and in&itations, they ha&e refused, with the
obstinacy of a glutted adder, to loo0 at the planets or 8oon or my telescope# ### ,n questions of
science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single indi&idual#
(&a) Planc<, 19;< ' new scientific truth does not triumph by con&incing its opponents and
ma0ing them see the light, but rather because its opponents e&entually die, and a new
generation grows up that is familiar with it#

(i-ple (cience 1uotes
/he deepest sin against the human mind is to belie&e things without e&idence# Science is simply common
sense at its best 2 that is, rigidly accurate in obser&ation, and merciless to fallacy in logic#
(Tho-as #u)ley
,gnorance more frequently begets confidence than does 0nowledgeE it is those who 0now little, not those
who 0now much, who so positi&ely assert that this or that problem will ne&er be sol&ed by science#
(Charles 0ar*in, ,ntroduction to /he @escent of 8an, 1=71
:e are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their
appearances#
((ir Isaac 5e*ton, PrincipiaE /he system of the world
Metaphysics $ Physical %eality
, ha&e tried to write this metaphysics page with simplicity and clarity in mind at all times# ,t explains (for
the first time a simple, sensible, logical solution to the problems of metaphysics 2 by describing reality in
terms of one thing that we all commonly experience as one thing 2 space#
,t is written in fi&e parts+
1# ' summary of the central points#
;# :hat is 8etaphysicsF @educing the Solution#
K# /he !rrorE Iewton9s Particles, 8athematical 8etaphysics and Physics#
L# /he Solution to the S0epticism of Postmodern 8etaphysics and Philosophy#
5# ,mportant 8etaphysics Buotes from 'ristotle, Aeibni7, -ume, Qant and !instein#
?eoff -aselhurst
(Sanuary, ;<1<
&etaphysics= (u--ary
The &etaphysics of (pace and &otion
1# :hat is 8etaphysicsF ,t is the study of the one substance that necessarily exists and causes " connects the
many material things we obser&e# ,t is useful to quote 'ristotle since he first formalised the sub)ect of
metaphysics#
The first philosophy (&etaphysics) is uni,ersal and is e)clusi,ely concerned *ith pri-ary
substance. ### 'nd here we will ha&e the science to study that which is )ust as that which is, both in its
essence and in the properties which, )ust as a thing that is, it has#
/he entire preoccupation of the physicist is with things that contain within themsel&es a principle of
mo&ement and rest# 'nd to see0 for this is to see0 for the second 0ind of principle, that from which comes
the beginning of the change# (Aristotle, 8etaphysics, KL<.*
;# /he one substance is this space we all experience existing in# 's only one substance, space, exists it
cannot be bounded by, created from, or contain another substance 2 thus it is necessarily infinite, eternal and
continuous#
K# :hat are the Properties of SpaceF ,t is a continuously connected wa&e medium 2 it has wa&es flowing
through it# (,t may ha&e more properties 2 , do not 0now#
L# /he many material things that we see as discrete and separate 9particles9 mo&ing around in this space are
really formed from wa&e motions of this space (space is &ibrating#
5# .y describing matter with a spherical in out wa&e structure we can understand how the particle effect
forms at the wa&e center and also how this 9particle9 is in continual two way communication with other
matter wa&es in the space around it#
J# /his simplifies metaphysics from the motion of matter particles in space and time to the wa&e motion of
space that causes matter and time# i#e# (rom a metaphysics of space and time to a metaphysics of space and
(wa&e motion#
7# /his unites (cience (empiricalE we all experience existing in space+ $ccam9s ra7orE simplicity of only
space existing with &etaphysics (space is the unity of substance which explains causal connection#
=# .y correcting the errors of both these sub)ects we can then sol&e the central problems of 0nowledge in
physics and philosophy as a foundation for sol&ing the central problems confronting humanity and our
future sur&i&al on earth#
9# /his is not )ust an academic discussion on metaphysics, it is physical reality 2 how you exist as matter in
space and interact with the rest of the matter of our obser&able uni&erse#
1<# /his is the source of truth and wisdom 2 both necessary for our future sur&i&al#
+hat is &etaphysics= 0iscussion B 0eductions
8etaphysics now has a reputation for being fanciful and ultimately empty of meaning# /his is not due to the
sub)ect of metaphysics itself (as concei&ed by 'ristotle, but rather due to the failure of philosophers "
metaphysicists to sol&e the fundamental problem of metaphysics, i#e#
P:hat is the one substance that exists and causes and connects our world of many different thingsFP
/he following quotes from 'ristotle, Aeibni7 and .radley explain this well#
The first philosophy (Metaphysics) is universal and is eclusively concerned
with pri!ary su"stance# ... ,nd here we will have the science to study that which is
$ust as that which is, both in its essence and in the properties which, $ust as a thin& that
is, it has.
The entire preoccupation of the physicist is with thin&s that contain within themselves a
principle of movement and rest. ,nd to see for this is to see for the second ind of
principle, that from which comes the be&innin& of the chan&e. >$ristotle, ;etaphysics,
1)4B%?
<eality cannot be found except in =ne sin&le source, because of the interconnection of all
thin&s with one another. ... + maintain also that substances, whether material or immaterial,
cannot be conceived in their bare essence without any activity, activity "eing of the essence
of su"stance in &eneral. >%ottfried &ei"ni', (BC4?
@e may a&ree, perhaps, to understand by ;etaphysics an attempt to now reality as a&ainst
mere appearance, or the study of first principles or ultimate truths, or a&ain the effort to
comprehend the universe, not simply piecemeal or by fra&ments, but somehow as a whole.
>(radley, (0)B-(.2)?

' simple way to explain metaphysics is to simply drop a ball# Iotice that you do not see any ob&ious
connection between the ball and the earth 2 yet they are ob&iously connected because we see the effect of
this connection, the ball mo&es (accelerates towards the earth# /he same argument applies to the !arth
orbiting the sun, an electron in an atom, how we can see stars across the uni&erse#
:e gi&e these connections names, e#g# light and gra&ity, but no one 0new what these hidden causal
connections were#
/his is 0nown to philosophers as -ume9s Problem of *ausation and Iecessary *onnection, but really it is
common 0nowledge that dates bac0 to the ancients 2 the Problem of the $ne and the 8any#
,t must certainly be allowed, that nature has 0ept us at a great distance from all her
secrets, and has afforded us only the 0nowledge of a few superficial qualities of
ob)ects+ while she conceals from us those powers and principles on which the influence
of those ob)ects entirely depends# (#u-e, 17K7
:hen we loo0 about us towards external ob)ects, and consider the operation of causes,
we are ne&er able, in a single instance, to disco&er any power or necessary connexion+
any quality, which binds the effect to the cause, and renders the one an infallible
consequence of the other# (#u-e, 17K7
Since we do not see the causal connection between things in space, this means that
metaphysics must somehow be founded on something that we imagine# /he problem here is that our minds
are &ery good at imagining things that do not exist, e#g# dragons and particles#
/his has allowed much to be published in the name of 9metaphysics9 which is )ust imagination and has no
relation to physical reality (thus exacerbating the poor reputation of metaphysics# Aeibni7 states this well
also+
P### a distinction must be made between true and false ideas, and that too much rein must not be gi&en to a
man9s imagination under pretext of its being a clear and distinct intellection#P (Aeibni7, 1J7<
So you see the problem of metaphysics is simple and profound 2 we must imagine this hidden connection
between things# /o sol&e this requires true 0nowledge of physical reality, such that we can understand this
hidden causal connection that our senses tell us must exist, yet we do not see#
,n the remainder of this short essay , will show you how to sol&e this problem#
/he easiest way is to )ust go bac0 o&er the history and e&olution of metaphysics, explain where we went
astray, and then show you the correct path#
The )imple )olution to the Problem of Metaphysics
P?ree0 philosophy seems to begin with a preposterous fancy, with the proposition that
water is the origin and mother2womb of all things#
,s it really necessary to stop there and become seriousF
Nes, and for three reasonsE
firstly, because the preposition does enunciate something about the origin of things+
secondly, because it does so without figure and fable+
thirdly and lastly, because it contained, although only in the chrysalis state, the idea
Ee&erything is one#
##/hat which dro&e him (/hales to this generali7ation was a metaphysical dogma,
which had its origin in a mystic intuition and which together with the e&er renewed
endea&ors to express it better, we find in all philosophies 2 the propositionE e&erything
is one>P ((riedrich Iiet7sche
/his is an important quote, confirming this importance of one underlying substance to explain how matter is
inter2connected across the uni&erse#
Surprisingly, after such a long period of failure to sol&e this problem we find that we can actually deduce
the solution#
.educing %eality& 9niting )cience !ith Metaphysics
:e )ust had to as0+ :hat is the 8ost Simple Science /heory of 5ealityF
*learly the most simple solution must be founded on only one substance existing, thus we are uniting
science with metaphysics# /his is important to emphasise, as it is not the simplicity that is important (it is
nice, but the underlying unity of substance to explain causal connection#
?i&en that we all experience many minds and
many material ob)ects, but always in one common
space, thus to abide by science (empiricism "
simplicity we ha&e no choice but to describe
reality in terms of space#
(rom here it is easy to show that there is only one
solution, a wa&e structure of matter in Space# i#e#
Space is a substance with the properties of a
continuously connected wa&e medium and matter
is formed from spherical wa&e motions of this
space (thus explaining 'ristotle9s property of
acti&ity " motion as being caused by the wa&e motion of Space#
IoteE the diagram9s circles are a two dimensional representation of three dimensional spheres " four
dimensional spherical wa&es#
'nd , do realise that this may seem radical to people brought up with particle concepts of matter (as , was,
yet physics itself tells us that matter is a large structure of space, as required by !instein9s general relati&ity
and quantum physics#
(urther we see that this solution satisfies the rules of both metaphysics and science 2 while also correcting
their errors (gi&ing substance to science 2 empiricism to metaphysics#
(cience
i Simplicity " $ccam9s ra7orE :e apply this to science itself to deduce the most simple science theory of
reality# /his pre&ents us from describing reality in terms of many discrete and separate things (matter
9particles9#
ii !mpiricalE :e all experience existing in one common space#
iii AogicalE :a&es " interconnected wa&e patterns beha&e logically#
&etaphysics
i SubstanceE $nly one substance exists, this space we all commonly experience existing in#
ii *ausation and Iecessary *onnectionE .y describing reality in terms of only one substance, space, we can
easily understand how matter9s spherical in and out wa&es are necessarily interconnected with other matter
in the space around it# /his is why you can see distant stars 2 your body is a wa&e structure of the uni&erse
&ibrating with all this other matter#
'nd hopefully it is now more clear to you this profundity of metaphysics 2 being central toE simplicity,
unity, reality, necessary connection, causation, logic, 0nowledge, certainty, senses, science and truth#
The 'rror= 5e*ton?s Particles and &athe-atical Physics
$nce we ha&e the correct solution it is easy to see where we made the error# :e )ust ha&e to go bac0 to the
time of -uygens (1J;921J95, Iewton (1JL;217;7 and Aeibni7 (1JLJ2171J#
-istory shows that we too0 the path of Iewton and tried to describe an inter2connected reality with many
discrete and separate matter 9particles9# /his then required mathematical relationships to connect the matter
particles in space and time 2 where particles ha&e 9mass9 and are connected by 9forces9 as per Iewton9s
famous law of inertia (Um# a#
!ffecti&ely Iewton (and mathematical physics replaced a metaphysics of substance with a metaphysics of
mathematics, where causal connection came from mathematical logic and axioms# -owe&er, this ne&er
explained causal connection and when they finally loo0ed for the source of this they found that mathematics
itself is incomplete (see ?odel# 's @yson writes+
, am acutely aware of the fact that the marriage between mathematics and physics, which was so
enormously fruitful in past centuries, has recently ended in di&orce# ( (reeman Sohn @yson, 8issed
$pportunities
Iewton realised this lac0 of causal connection in his mechanics, he writes+
,t is inconcei&able that inanimate brute matter should, without mediation of something else
which is not matter, operate on and affect other matter without mutual contact# ### /hat gra&ity
should be innate, inherent and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at2a2
distance, through a &acuum, without the mediation of anything else by and through which their
action may be con&eyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that , belie&e no
man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thin0ing, can e&er fall into it# So far , ha&e
explained the phenomena by the force of gra&ity, but , ha&e not yet ascertained the cause of gra&ity itself# ###
and , do not arbitrarily in&ent hypotheses# (Iewton# Aetter to 5ichard .entley ;5 (eb# 1J9K
!instein confirms this+
,n Iewtonian physics the elementary theoretical concept on which the theoretical
description of material bodies is based is the material point, or particle# /hus matter is
considered a priori to be discontinuous# /his ma0es it necessary to consider the action of
material points on one another as action2at2a2distance# Since the latter concept seems
quite contrary to e&eryday experience, it is only natural that the contemporaries of
Iewton 2 and indeed Iewton himself 2 found it difficult to accept# $wing to the almost
miraculous success of the Iewtonian system, howe&er, the succeeding generations of
physicists became used to the idea of action2at2a2distance# 'ny doubt was buried for a long time to come#
('lbert !instein, 195<
P:hen we attribute this strange attracti&e property to massi&e particles, aren9t we indulging in metaphysicsF
(or we are saying, indeed, that matter has a inner, acti&e principleE matter attracts matter# 't the time,
physicists (who called themsel&es Pnatural philosophersP accused Iewton of doing exactly that, indulging
in metaphysics, and the followers of @escartes (mostly in (rance couldn9t stomach the law of gra&itation#
:hat can we say in Iewton9s defenseF :ell, surely he was indulging in metaphysics, but with a differenceE
he wasn9t )ust saying, li0e others had been doing for centuries, that things ha&e an inner, acti&e principle and
lea&ing it at that+ he ga&e a mathematical law for that inner, acti&e principle# /hat made a lot of difference#
-e abstained from answering the metaphysical question, P:hat is this attracti&e forceFP 5ather, he )ust ga&e
a mathematical formula for it# Still, the main reason for the acceptance of Iewton9s gra&itation was its
tremendous success# 's the saying goes, nothing succeeds li0e success#P (Prof# 5icardo Iirenberg, 1997
/his is why mathematicians now seem so s0eptical of 8etaphysics as they use their mathematics to connect
things instead# -owe&er, this has led to the creation of many different 9particles9 to explain &arious matter
interactions, and ultimately to a &ery confusing and paradoxical description of physical reality# Net
8athematical physicists seem to ignore this, almost as if mathematics exists in some magical realm beyond
reality> ,t does not 2 it exists in physical reality and depends upon it for its necessary connection# (/he
mathematical physics page explains how it is in fact wa&es that are the metaphysical foundation of both
mathematics and matter#
/he correct path# :ell we )ust had to combine the ideas of -uygens (wa&es, Aeibni79s monadology (matter
and uni&erse are one interconnected thing and Iewton9s 8echanics (space# (rom this we can deduce the
correct substance (space and its properties (a wa&e medium as a partial solution to metaphysics (space may
ha&e more properties 2 , do not 0now#
/hus we simplify Iewton9s metaphysics from the motion of matter particles in space and time, to the wa&e
motion of space that causes matter and time# i#e# (rom a metaphysics of Space and /ime to a 8etaphysics of
Space and (wa&e 8otion# ,n this way we unite not only space and time but also matter and energy 2 as one
connected thing, the wa&e motion of space that causes matter and time#
's a side note, this quote from Iewton is interesting (if only he had applied it to his mechanics>
P/ruth is e&er to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things#P (,saac Iewton
8atter is a large structure of the uni&erse (not a tiny 9particle9# ' spherical wa&e structure where the wa&e
center 9particle9 is in continual two way communication with all other matter in the obser&able uni&erse due
to its spherical in and out wa&es# /hus we can now understand &ery simply and sensibly how one substance
space (and its wa&e motions is the ultimate foundation for causal connection of both physical reality and
mathematical physics#
,n ending, let us return to the start and consider why a ball falls to the
earth# :ell the wa&e equations tell us that the wa&es tra&el more slowly in
higher energy density space (where there is more matter# /hus the
spherical in wa&es that tra&el through the earth ha&e a slower &elocity than
the wa&es coming in from the space abo&e# /his causes the wa&e center to
re2position towards the center of the earth# :e call this gra&ity 2 but now
we can understand the true causal connection in physical reality (space
that causes this gra&itational attraction#

IoteE /his is a &ery approximate diagram, )ust to show the idea of how the spherical in wa&es determine the
future postion of the wa&e center (the motion of the particle# :e ha&e a page of wa&e diagrams that will
help you &isualise the spherical standing wa&e structure of matter (:S8 in space# .asically, we only see
the high wa&e amplitude wa&e2center and ha&e been deluded into thin0ing matter was made of tiny little
9particles9# ' &ery nai&e conception in hindsight 2 and quantum physics was telling us all along that wa&es
were central to light and matter interactions>
&etaphysics= (<epticis- and Post-odernis-
Some of the more significant reasons for this current s0epticism of metaphysics are+
1# :e must imagine how things are connected together 2 and this has led to a lot of fanciful nonsense being
written because 9metaphysics is beyond our senses9#
SolutionE /he spherical in out wa&es explain this hidden causal connection of matter that is the cause of our
senses# i#e# :e only see the high wa&e amplitude wa&e center, not the spherical in and out wa&es, and this
decei&ed us into thin0ing matter was a tiny 9particle9# /hus we were blind to how these discrete 9particles9
were interconnected in space and had to in&ent 9forces " fields9#
;# Iewton " mathematical physics replaced a metaphysics of substance with a metaphysics of mathematics,
then disco&ered that our mathematical theories did not quite wor0 (we could not unite quantum physics with
!instein9s relati&ity and that mathematics itself was without foundation#
SolutionE 'gain the logical beha&ior of interconnected repeating wa&e patterns explain the source of this
mathematical logic, why this is so useful in mathematical physics, while also simply uniting these two
famous physics theories#
K# /hese past failures of metaphysics ha&e resulted in our postmodern world where academics are con&inced
we cannot correctly imagine reality# /hus all truth is cultural 2 socially informed constructs which are
relati&e, e&ol&ing approximations of reality# /his has led to the extremely silly and dangerous &iew that all
truths are equal 2 )ust personal opinions really#
SolutionE :e all experience existing in one common space# /his is a uni&ersal absolute truth# :e can
deduce how a spherical wa&e structure of matter must beha&e in this space and then show that this exactly
matches how an electron beha&es# /his then explains and sol&es the central problems of physics# /here is no
opinion 2 this will be true for all people#
DDDDDDDDD
*onclusionE $nce we ha&e the correct metaphysical foundations for describing reality it is remar0ably easy
to sol&e the central problems of metaphysics and thus also physics and philosophy by understanding how
matter exists and mo&es about in Space in a necessarily interconnected way# Please see articles on the side
of this page#
'ny comments " questions please post them below on (aceboo0 *onnect or ?oogle (riends# /han0s#
?eoff -aselhurst
(Sanuary, ;<1<
&etaphysics 1uotes= On Truth, $eality 2 Principles in (cience
Aristotle &etaphysics
,t is clear, then, that wisdom is 0nowledge ha&ing to do with certain principles and
causes# .ut now, since it is this 0nowledge that we are see0ing, we must consider the
following pointE of what 0ind of principles and of what 0ind of causes is wisdom the
0nowledgeF (Aristotle, 8etaphysics, KL<.*
8etaphysics in&ol&es intuiti&e 0nowledge of unpro&able starting2points (concepts and
truth and demonstrati&e 0nowledge of what follows from them# (Aristotle,
8etaphysics, KL<.*
@emonstration is also something necessary, because a demonstration cannot go
otherwise than it does, ### 'nd the cause of this lies with the primary
premises"principles# (Aristotle, 8etaphysics
/he first philosophy (8etaphysics is uni&ersal and is exclusi&ely concerned with primary substance# ### 'nd
here we will ha&e the science to study that which is )ust as that which is, both in its essence and in the
properties which, )ust as a thing that is, it has# (Aristotle, 8etaphysics, KL<.*
/he entire preoccupation of the physicist is with things that contain within themsel&es a
principle of mo&ement and rest# 'nd to see0 for this is to see0 for the second 0ind of
principle, that from which comes the beginning of the change# (Aristotle, 8etaphysics,
KL<.*
/here must then be a principle of such a 0ind that its substance is acti&ity#
### it is impossible that the primary existent, being eternal, should be destroyed#
### that among entities there must be some cause which -o,es and co-bines things#
### about its coming into being and its doings and about all its alterations we thin0 that we ha&e 0nowledge
when we 0now the source of its mo&ement# (Aristotle, 8etaphysics, KL<.*
(or those who wish to ma0e good progress must start well+ for subsequent progress depends on the
resolution of the first pu77les, and one cannot sol&e these without 0nowing the difficulty and the confusion
of our minds# So we must first set out all the difficulties, both for these reasons and also because those who
inquire without first setting out the difficulties are li0e those who do not 0now in which direction they
should wal0, and in addition do not e&en 0now whether they would recogni7e that which they are loo0ing
for# (or the end is not clear to these, but it is for those who ha&e begun with the pu77les# 'nd also from the
point of &iew of )udging that man is better off who has heard, as it were, all the ri&al and opposed positions#
(Aristotle, 8etaphysics
:ottfried "eibni4 on &etaphysics (&onadology)
(:ottfried "eibni4, 1J7<
5eality cannot be found except in $ne single source, because of the interconnection of all
things with one another# ### , maintain also that substances, whether material or immaterial, cannot be
concei&ed in their bare essence without any acti&ity, acti,ity being of the essence of substance in general#
("eibni4, 1J7<
,t is a good thing to proceed in order and to establish propositions (principles# /his is the way to gain
ground and to progress with certainty# ### , hold that the mar0 of a genuine idea is that its possibility can be
pro&ed, either a priori by concei&ing its cause or reason, or a posteriori when experience teaches us that it is
a fact in nature#
,ndeed in general , hold that there is nothing truer than happiness, and nothing happier and sweeter than
truth# ("eibni4, 1J7<
, agree with you that it is important to examine our presuppositions, thoroughly and once for all, in order to
establish something solid# (or , hold that it is only when we can pro&e all that we bring forward that we
perfectly understand the thing under consideration# , 0now that the common herd ta0es little pleasure in
these researches, but , 0now also that the common herd ta0e little pains thoroughly to understand things#
("eibni4, 1J7<
### a distinction must be made between true and false ideas, and that too much rein must
not be gi&en to a man9s imagination under pretext of its being a clear and distinct
intellection# ("eibni4, 1J7<
.ut it is the 0nowledge of necessary and eternal truths which distinguishes us from
mere animals, and gi&es us reason and the sciences, raising us to 0nowledge of
oursel&es and ?od# ,t is this in us which we call the rational soul or mind# ("eibni4,
1J7<
:hen a truth is necessary, the reason for it can be found by analysis, that is, by
resol&ing it into simpler ideas and truths until the primary ones are reached# ,t is this
way that in mathematics speculati&e theorems and practical canons are reduced by analysis to definitions,
axioms and postulates# ("eibni4, 1J7<
0a,id #u-e &etaphysics 1uotes= On Causation B 5ecessary
Connection
,t must certainly be allowed, that nature has 0ept us at a great distance from all her
secrets, and has afforded us only the 0nowledge of a few superficial qualities of
ob)ects+ while she conceals from us those powers and principles on which the influence
of those ob)ects entirely depends# (#u-e, 17K7
:hen we loo0 about us towards external ob)ects, and consider the operation of causes,
we are ne&er able, in a single instance, to disco&er any power or necessary connexion+
any quality, which binds the effect to the cause, and renders the one an infallible
consequence of the other# (#u-e, 17K7
### experience only teaches us, how one e&ent constantly follows another+ without
instructing us in the secret connexion, which binds them together, and renders them inseparable# (#u-e,
17K7
:e then call the one ob)ect, *ause+ the other, !ffect# :e suppose that there is some connexion between
them+ some power in the one, by which it infallibly produces the other, and operates with the greatest
certainty and strongest necessity# (#u-e, 17K7
I--anuel >ant 1uotes on &etaphysics
/ime was, when she (8etaphysics was the queen of all the sciences+ and, if we ta0e
the will for the deed, she certainly deser&es, so far as regards the high importance of
her ob)ect2matter, this title of honour# Iow, it is the fashion of the time to heap
contempt and scorn upon her+ and the matron mourns, forlorn and forsa0en, li0e
-ecuba ## her empire gradually bro0e up, and intestine wars introduced the reign of
anarchy+ while the sceptics, li0e nomadic tribes, who hate a permanent habitation and settled mode of li&ing,
attac0ed from time to time those who had organi7ed themsel&es into ci&il communities# .ut their number
was, &ery happily, small+ and thus they could not entirely put a stop to the exertions of those who persisted
in raising new edifices, although on no settled or uniform plan# (I--anuel >ant, Criti3ue of Pure
$eason, 17=1
/his can ne&er become popular, and, indeed, has no occasion to be so+ for fine2spun arguments in fa&our of
useful truths ma0e )ust as little impression on the public mind as the equally subtle ob)ections brought
against these truths# $n the other hand, since both ine&itably force themsel&es on e&ery man who rises to the
height of speculation, it becomes the manifest duty of the schools to enter upon a thorough in&estigation of
the rights of speculati&e reason, and thus to pre&ent the scandal which metaphysical contro&ersies are sure,
sooner or later, to cause e&en to the masses# (I--anuel >ant, Criti3ue of Pure $eason, 17=1
Albert 'instein on Principles in Physics
IoteE /his is a summary from the main Principles in Physics page (which is &ery good#
'll logic depends upon Principles which gi&es rise to necessary consequences that are absolute and certain
(rather than mere opinions# /he aim of Science is to demonstrate that these logical deductions from (a
priori Principles exactly correspond with our sense of the real world from (a posteriori obser&ation and
experiment# 'lbert !instein explains this Scientific method &ery clearly+
(Albert 'instein Physics constitutes a logical system of thought which is in a state of
e&olution, whose basis (principles cannot be distilled, as it were, from experience by an
inducti&e method, but can only be arri&ed at by free in&ention# /he )ustification (truth
content of the system rests in the &erification of the deri&ed propositions (a priori"logical
truths by sense experiences (a posteriori"empirical truths# ### !&olution is proceeding in
the direction of increasing simplicity of the logical basis (principles# ## :e must always be
ready to change these notions 2 that is to say, the axiomatic basis of physics 2 in order to do
)ustice to percei&ed facts in the most perfect way logically# ('lbert !instein, Physics and
5eality, 19KJ
/he de&elopment during the present century is characteri7ed by two theoretical systems
essentially independent of each otherE the theory of relati&ity and the quantum theory# /he
two systems do not directly contradict each other+ but they seem little adapted to fusion into
one unified theory# (or the time being we ha&e to admit that we do not possess any general
theoretical basis for physics which can be regarded as its logical foundation# ('lbert
!instein, 19L<
,f, then, it is true that the axiomatic basis of theoretical physics cannot be extracted from
experience but must be freely in&ented, can we e&er hope to find the right wayF , answer
without hesitation that there is, in my opinion, a right way, and that we are capable of finding it# , hold it
true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed# ('lbert !instein, 195L
Albert 'instein 1uotes on &etaphysics
($e-ar<s on ;ertrand $ussell?s Theory of >no*ledge, 679G)
,n the e,olution of philosophical thought through the centuries the following question
has played a ma)or roleE what 0nowledge is pure thought able to supply independently of
sense perceptionF ,s there any such 0nowledgeF ,f not, what precisely is the relation
between our 0nowledge and the raw material furnished by sense impressionsF
/here has been an increasing s<epticis- concerning e&ery attempt by means of pure
thought to learn something about the 9ob)ecti&e world9, about the world of ?things? in
contrast to the world of 9concepts and ideas9# @uring philosophy9s childhood it was rather
generally belie&ed that it is possible to find e&erything which can be 0nown by means of mere reflection# ,t
was an illusion which anyone can easily understand if, for a moment, he dismisses what he has learned from
later philosophy and from natural science+ he will not be surprised to find that Plato ascribed a higher reality
to 9ideas9 than to empirically experienceable things# !&en in Spino7a and as late as in -egel this pre)udice
was the &italising force which seems still to ha&e played the ma)or role#
/he more aristocratic illusion concerning the unlimited penetrati&e power of thought has as its counterpart
the more plebeian illusion of nai,e realis-, according to which things 9are9 as they are percei&ed by us
through our senses# /his illusion dominates the daily life of men and of animals+ it is also the point of
departure in all of the sciences, especially of the natural sciences#
's 5ussell wrote+
9:e all start from nai,e realis-, i#e#, the doctrine that things are what they seem# :e thin0 that grass is
green, that stones are hard, and that snow is cold# .ut physics assures us that the greenness of grass, the
hardness of stones, and the coldness of snow are not the greenness, hardness, and coldness that we 0now in
our own experience, but something &ery different# /he obser&er, when he seems to himself to be obser&ing a
stone, is really, if physics is to be belie&ed, obser&ing the effects of the stone upon himself#9
?radually the con&iction gained recognition that all <no*ledge about things is exclusi&ely a wor0ing2o&er
of the raw material furnished by the senses# :alileo and #u-e first upheld this principle with full clarity
and decisi&eness# -ume saw that concepts which we must regard as essential, such as, for example, causal
connection, cannot be gained from material gi&en to us by the senses# /his insight led him to a s0eptical
attitude as concerns 0nowledge of any 0ind# 8an has an intense desire for assured 0nowledge# /hat is why
-ume9s clear message seemed crushingE the sensory raw material, the only source of our 0nowledge,through
habit may lead us to belief and expectation but not to the 0nowledge and still less to the understanding of
lawful relations#
/hen >ant too0 the stage with an idea which, though certainly untenable in the form in which he put it,
signified a step towards the solution of -ume9s dilemmaE whate&er in <no*ledge is of e-pirical origin is
ne&er certain# ,f, therefore, we ha&e definitely assured 0nowledge,it must be grounded in reason itself# /his
is held to be the case, for example, in the propositions of geometry and the principles of causality# /hese and
certain other types of 0nowledge are, so to spea0, a part of the implements of thin0ing and therefore do not
pre&iously ha&e to be gained from sense data (i#e# they are a priori 0nowledge#
/oday e&eryone 0nows, of course, that the mentioned concepts contain nothing of
the certainty, of the inherent necessity, which Qant had attributed to them# /he
following, howe&er, appears to me to be correct in Qant9s statement of the problemE
in thin0ing we use with a certain PrightP, concepts to which there is no access from
the materials of sensory experience, if the situation is &iewed from the logical point
of &iew# 's a matter of fact, , am con&inced that e&en much more is to be assertedE
the concepts which arise in our thought and in our linguistic expressions are all2
when &iewed logically2 the free creations of thought which cannot inducti,ely be
gained from sense e)periences# /his is not so easily noticed only because we ha&e
the habit of combining certain concepts and conceptual relations (propositions so
definitely with certain sense experiences that we do not become conscious of the
gulf2 logically unbridgeable2 which separates the world of sensory experiences from
the world of concepts and propositions# /hus, for example, the series of integers is
ob&iously an in&ention of the human mind, a self2created tool which simplifies the
ordering of certain sensory experiences# .ut there is no way in which this concept
could be made to grow, as it were, directly out of sense experiences#
's soon as one is at home in -ume9s critique one is easily led to belie&e that all those concepts and
propositions which cannot be deduced from the sensory raw material are, on account of their 9metaphysical9
character, to be remo&ed from thin0ing# (or all thought acquires material content only through its
relationship with that sensory material# /his latter proposition , ta0e to be entirely true+ but , hold the
prescription for thin0ing which is grounded on this proposition to be false# (or this claim2 if only carried
through consistently2 absolutely excludes thin0ing of any 0ind as 9metaphysical9#
,n order that thin0ing might not degenerate into 9metaphysics9, or into empty tal0, it is only necessary that
enough propositions of the conceptual system be firmly enough connected with sensory experiences and that
the conceptual system, in &iew of its tas0 of ordering and sur&eying sense experience, should show as much
unity and parsimony as possible# .eyond that, howe&er, the 9system9 is (as regards logic a free play with
symbols according to (logically arbitrarily gi&en rules of the game# 'll this applies as much (and in the
same manner to the thin0ing in daily life as to the more consciously and systematically constructed
thin0ing in the sciences#
.y his clear critique #u-e did not only ad&ance philosophy in a decisi&e way but also 2 though through no
fault of his 2 created a danger for philosophy in that, following his critique, a fateful 9fear of -etaphysics9
arose which has come to be a -alady of contemporary e-piricist philosophising+ this malady is the
counterpart to that earlier philosophising in the clouds, which thought it could neglect and dispense with
what was gi&en by the senses# ### ,t finally turns out that one can, after all, not get along *ithout
-etaphysics.
(Albert 'instein, 5emar0s on .ertrand 5ussell9s /heory of Qnowledge, ,deas and $pinions, 195L
&etaphysics= The Proble- of the One 2 the &any
/>plaining the One and the Many +'nfinite ( Finite, /ternal ( Temporal, 2bsolute ( %elati"e,
Continuous ( .iscrete, )imple ( Comple>, )pace ( Matter- !ith the Metaphysics of
)pace $ the #a"e )tructure of Matter
(Friedrich 5iet4sche, /he ?ree0s, 1==< ?ree0 philosophy seems to begin with a preposterous
fancy, with the proposition (of /hales that water is the origin and mother2womb of all things#
,s it really necessary to stop there and become seriousF Nes, and for three reasonsE firstly,
because the proposition does enunciate something about the origin of things+ secondly, because
it does so without figure and fable+ thirdly and lastly, because it contained, although only in the
chrysalis state, the idea Ee&erything is one# ### /hat which dro&e him (/hales to this generali7ation was a
metaphysical dogma, which had its origin in a mystic intuition and which together with the e&er renewed
endea&ours to express it better, we find in all philosophies 2 the propositionE e,erything is one/
>%ottfried &ei"ni', (BC4? <eality cannot be found except in =ne sin&le source, because of the
interconnection of all thin&s with one another. ... + maintain also that substances, whether
material or immaterial, cannot be conceived in their bare essence without any activity, activity
bein& of the essence of substance in &eneral. ... +n conclusion, nothin& should be taen as
certain without foundationsD it is therefore those who manufacture entities and substances
without &enuine unity to prove that there is more to reality than + have $ust saidD and + am waitin& for the
notion of a substance, or of an entity, which successfully comprehends all these thin&sD after which parts
and perhaps even dreams will be able one day to lay claim to reality.
>(radley, (0)B-(.2)? @e may a&ree, perhaps, to understand by ;etaphysics an attempt to
now reality as a&ainst mere appearance, or the study of first principles or ultimate truths, or
a&ain the effort to comprehend the universe, not simply piecemeal or by fra&ments, but
somehow as a whole.
>%eorge (er)eley, (C(4? Eothin& seems of more importance, towards erectin& a firm
system of sound and real nowled&e, which may be proof a&ainst the assaults of scepticism,
than to lay the be&innin& in a distinct explication of what is meant by thin&, reality, existence'
for in vain shall we dispute concernin& the real existence of thin&s, or pretend to any
nowled&e thereof, so lon& as we have not fixed the meanin& of those words.
+ntroduction' 6roblems of ;etaphysics - 6roblems of =ne 9 ;any - +nfinite 9 #inite - Aternal 9 Temporal -
,bsolute 9 <elative - %ontinuous 9 8iscrete - Simple 9 %omplex - Space 9 ;atter 5 7niverse - Top of
6a&e
'ntroduction 5 On the Fundamental Problem of Metaphysics
/he Problem of the $ne and the 8any is at the &ery foundation of all human 0nowledge (as the quotes
abo&e clearly demonstrate# ,t is a problem that has been 0nown for many thousands of years without
solution, thus it is hardly surprising that it is now accepted by many that we can ne&er sol&e the Proble- of
the One and the &any, thus we can ne&er directly 0now what exists, what reality is (what we are and how
we are interconnected to e&erything around us>#
The problem of the one and the many in metaphysics and theolo&y is insoluble' The history of philosophy
in +ndia as well as in Aurope has been one lon& illustration of the inability of the human mind to solve the
mystery of the relation of Fod to the world. @e have the universe of individuals which is not self-sufficient
and in some sense rests on Brahman, but the exact nature of the relation between them is a mystery.
>*adha)rishnan?
,n fact there is only one solution 2 which is the most simple solution#
,t is now well accepted in modern physics that 8atter interacts (e#g# Aight and ?ra&ity with all other 8atter
in the %ni&erse, as Smolin writes,
+t can no lon&er be maintained that the properties of any one thin& in the universe are independent of the
existence or non-existence of everythin& else. +t is, at last, no lon&er sensible to spea of a universe with
only one thin& in it. >&ee +!olin, (..C?
/hus to understand the Structure of 8atter we must understand the Structure of the %ni&erse, and this
means we must 0now the $ne thing that is common to and connects the 8any things within the %ni&erse#
's Aeibni7 correctly and profoundly says+
<eality cannot be found except in =ne sin&le source, because of the interconnection of all thin&s with one
another. >&ei"ni', (BC4?
/he solution is found by describing the $ne
Substance which exists (Space and its Properties
(:a&e28edium such that we can then explain the
necessary connection between the many things
(i#e# 8atter as Spherical :a&e 8otions of Space
which exist in Space#
/his minor (though ob&iously fundamental
change in the 8etaphysical foundations for
describing 5eality (from 9particles9 and spherical
9force fields9 in Space and /ime to Spherical
:a&es in Space mo&es us from the current
paradigm of the metaphysics of Space and /ime to the &etaphysics of (pace and &otion and the +a,e
(tructure of &atter.
(rom this new metaphysical foundation we then find simple sensible solutions to not )ust the problem of the
One and the &any, but to the related problems of the Infinite and the Finite, 'ternal and the Te-poral,
Absolute and $elati,e, Continuous and 0iscrete, (i-ple and Co-ple), &atter and Uni,erse#
?eoff -aselhurst, !mail
+ntroduction' 6roblems of ;etaphysics - 6roblems of =ne 9 ;any - +nfinite 9 #inite - Aternal 9 Temporal -
,bsolute 9 <elative - %ontinuous 9 8iscrete - Simple 9 %omplex - Space 9 ;atter 5 7niverse - Top of
6a&e
The Proble- of the One and the &any
+hat is the One thing that -ust ')ist to necessarily
interconnect the &any thingsH
The ;etaphysics of Space 9 ;otion explains the #oundations of ,ncient Free 9 +ndian 6hilosophy >,ll is
=ne, ,ctive-#lux?
,t is fitting to begin with 'ncient ?ree0 Philosophy, which originated from the correct realisation that there
must be $ne thing that is common to and connects the 8any things#
>,eraclitus G 344B%? ,ll thin&s come out of the one, and the one out of all thin&s.
>Friedrich -iet'sche, The Frees, (004? Free philosophy seems to be&in with a
preposterous fancy, with the proposition >of Thales? that water is the ori&in and
mother- womb of all thin&s. +s it really necessary to stop there and become seriousH Ies,
and for three reasons' firstly, because the proposition does enunciate somethin& about
the ori&in of thin&sD secondly, because it does so without fi&ure and fableD thirdly and lastly,
because it contained, althou&h only in the chrysalis state, the idea 'everythin& is one. ... That which drove
him >Thales? to this &enerali/ation was a metaphysical do&ma, which had its ori&in in a mystic intuition and
which to&ether with the ever renewed endeavours to express it better, we find in all philosophies - the
proposition' everythin& is oneJ
Ai0ewise ,ndian Philosophy (which pre2dates and li0ely founds ?ree0 Philosophy realised this $neness
which they called .rahman, and also appreciated the importance of 8otion (dynamic, acti&ity#
>Fritjof Capra, (.C2? +n +ndian philosophy, the main terms used by Kindus and Buddhists have
dynamic connotations. The word Brahman is derived from the Sansrit root brih . to &row - and
thus su&&ests a reality which is dynamic and alive. +n the words of S. <adharishnan, The
word Brahman means &rowth and is su&&estive of life, motion, pro&ress.
The 7panishads refer to Brahman as 'this uniformed, immortal, movin&', thus associatin& it
with motion even thou&h it transcends all forms. The <i& Leda uses another term to express the dynamic
character of the universe, the term <ita. This word comes from the root ri- to moveD its ori&inal meanin& in
the <i& Leda bein& 'the course of all thin&s', 'the order of nature'.
The central aim of Aastern mysticism is to experience all the phenomena in the world as manifestations of
the same ultimate reality. This reality is seen as the essence of the universe, underlyin& and unifyin& the
multitude of thin&s and events we observe. The Kindus call it Brahman, The Buddhists 8harmaaya >The
Body of Bein&? or Tathata >Suchness? and the Taoists TaoD each affirmin& that it transcends our intellectual
concepts and defies further explanation. This ultimate essence, however, cannot be separated from its
multiple manifestations. +t is central to the very nature to manifest itself in myriad forms which come into
bein& and disinte&rate, transformin& themselves into one another without end. +n its phenomenal aspect,
the cosmic =ne is thus intrinsically dynamic, and the apprehension of its dynamic nature is basic to all
schools of Aastern mysticism.
;odern physics then, pictures matter not at all as passive and inert, but bein& in a continuous dancin& and
vibratin& motion whose rhythmic patterns are determined by the molecular, atomic and nuclear structures.
This is also the way in which the Aastern mystics see the material world. They all emphasise that the
universe has to be &rasped dynamically, as it moves, vibrates and dancesD that nature is not a static but
dynamic equilibrium.
/heir error was to belie&e that $ne thing could ne&er be understood with human conceptual 0nowledge,
which requires relationships between two or more things+
The central difficulty is nown as the problem of the one and the many which, in the terms in which it
presented itself to Badarayana, is as followsD Brahman >the absolute? is eternal, immutable and perfect
>lacin& nothin&?' Kow can that which is eternal, immutable and perfect be related to what is temporal,
mutable and imperfect, i.e. the everyday world of human experience, the samsaraH >(adarayana?
The problem of the one and the many in metaphysics and theolo&y is insoluble' The history of philosophy
in +ndia as well as in Aurope has been one lon& illustration of the inability of the human mind to solve the
mystery of the relation of Fod to the world. @e have the universe of individuals which is not self-sufficient
and in some sense rests on Brahman, but the exact nature of the relation between them is a mystery.
>*adha)rishnan?
The next serious philosophical issue involved in ,dvaitism >Eon-dualism? arises in the area of
epistemolo&y or the theory of nowled&e. ,ll ordinary human experience is conceptual in nature, i.e. is
or&ani/ed under the cate&ories in which we ordinarily thin. Kowever, Brahman is said to be predicateless,
or, in other words, such that in principle no concepts apply to it' concepts presuppose division, and
Brahman is a unity. Kow, then, is any form of awareness of Brahman possible for human bein&sH
>Collinson, #ifty Aastern Thiners, 2444?
.ut once we 0now what exists, and its properties, then the solution to this problem becomes simple and
ob&ious (which explains why philosophy is 0nown as the disco&ery of the ob&ious>#
$ne thing, Space, exists, ,nfinite and !ternal, the second thing, 8otion, as the :a&e 8otion of Space, is the
property of Space, and is necessarily connected to Space as it is Space which is mo&ing " &ibrating# 'nd
once we ha&e this connection between the $ne thing Space, and the many things, i#e# 8atter as the Spherical
:a&e 8otion of Space, then we can in fact form concepts and logic (which require two necessarily
connected things, i#e# 8atter as the spherical wa&e &otion of (pace#
Aama ?o&inda had an exceptional understanding of ,ndian Philosophy and he was &ery close to the truth,
and thus the solution to this profound problem of the $ne and the 8any, when he wrote+
>&a!a %ovinda, (.CC? The fundamental element of the cosmos is Space. Space is the all-
embracin& principle of hi&her unity. Eothin& can exist without Space. Space is the precondition
of all that exists, be it material or immaterial form, because we can neither ima&ine an ob$ect
nor a bein& without space. ,ccordin& to ancient +ndian tradition the universe reveals itself in
two fundamental properties' as ;otion, and as that in which motion taes place, namely
Space. This Space is called aasa, and is that throu&h which thin&s step into visible appearance, i.e.,
throu&h which they possess extension or corporeality.
,asa is derived from the root as, 'to radiate, to shine', and has therefore the meanin& of 'ether', which is
conceived as the medium of movement. The principle of movement, however, is prana, the breath of life,
the all-powerful, all-pervadin& rhythm of the universe.
/his is a profound (yet &ery simple solution# /he 8etaphysics of Space and 8otion not only unites and
sol&es the Problem of the $ne and the 8any, but also the ,nfinite and the (inite, !ternal and the /emporal,
'bsolute and 5elati&e, *ontinuous and @iscrete, Simple and *omplex, 8atter and %ni&erse#
+ntroduction' 6roblems of ;etaphysics - 6roblems of =ne 9 ;any - +nfinite 9 #inite - Aternal 9 Temporal -
,bsolute 9 <elative - %ontinuous 9 8iscrete - Simple 9 %omplex - Space 9 ;atter 5 7niverse - Top of
6a&e
The Proble- of the Infinite and the Finite
#o* do Finite things for- *ithin One Infinite thing, (paceH
%learly there is a sense in which the infinite exists and another in which it does not. >,ristotle, 6hysics?
,t is necessary to read the article on *osmology to fully explain this, though the solution is simple once
0nown# 8atter, as Spherical ,n and $ut :a&es, determines the si7e of our finite spherical uni,erse within
an infinite (pace, i#e# matter is finite within an infinite Space#
-uygens9 Principle explains how other matter9s out wa&es combine to form our matter9s spherical ,n2:a&es,
which then deduces both 8ach9s Principle and the redshift with distance (without assuming @oppler shifts
due to an expanding uni&erse 2 thus there was no .ig .ang#
/his also explains how matter interacts with all other matter in the uni&erse (why we can see stars as matter
is the si7e of the uni&erse, though we only 9see9 the high wa&e amplitude wa&e2center 9particles9#
+ntroduction' 6roblems of ;etaphysics - 6roblems of =ne 9 ;any - +nfinite 9 #inite - Aternal 9 Temporal -
,bsolute 9 <elative - %ontinuous 9 8iscrete - Simple 9 %omplex - Space 9 ;atter 5 7niverse - Top of
6a&e
The Proble- of the 'ternal and the Te-poral
One thing -ust be 'ternal yet the &any things (e.g. (tars,
Planets, People) are Te-poral and e)perience Ti-e
/ime 2 /he Spherical Standing +a,e &otion of (pace causes matter9s acti&ity and the phenomena of
Ti-e# /his confirms Aristotle and (pino4a?s connection of 8otion and /ime, and most significantly
connects these two things bac0 to one thing Space#
;ovement, then, is also continuous in the way in which time is - indeed ti!e is either identical to
!ove!ent or is some affection of it. >,ristotle?
's Ti-e is caused by (wa&e &otion , thus only 8atter (as Spherical :a&e 8otions of Space experiences
/ime# Space is !ternal (has always existed and does not experience /ime (thus there was no .ig .ang
creation of Space"%ni&erse#

+ntroduction' 6roblems of ;etaphysics - 6roblems of =ne 9 ;any - +nfinite 9 #inite - Aternal 9 Temporal -
,bsolute 9 <elative - %ontinuous 9 8iscrete - Simple 9 %omplex - Space 9 ;atter 5 7niverse - Top of
6a&e
The Proble- of the Absolute and $elati,e
Uniting Absolute &otion, $elati,e &otion, Absolute Truth,
$elati,e Truth
But for me, truth is the soverei&n principle, which included numerous other principles. This truth is not only
truthfulness in word, but truthfulness in thou&ht also, and not only the relative truth of our conception, but
the ,bsolute Truth, the Aternal 6rinciple, that is Fod. There are innumerable definitions of Fod, because
Kis manifestations are innumerable. They overwhelm me with wonder and awe and for a moment stun me.
But + worship Fod as Truth only. + have not yet found Kim, but + am seein& after Kim. + am prepared to
sacrifice the thin&s dearest to me in pursuit of this quest. Aven if the sacrifice demanded be my very life, +
hope + may be prepared to &ive it. But as lon& as + have not realised this ,bsolute Truth, so lon& must +
hold by the relative truth as + have conceived it. (Mahat!a Mohandas %andhi)
'bsolute Space exists, but until recently we only obser&ed the relati&e motion of matter (relati&e to other
matter as explained by !instein9s /heory of 5elati&ity# /his has now changed with the obser&ation of the
*osmic 8icrowa&e .ac0ground 5adiation (*8.5 2 which is li0ely caused from low temperature
-ydrogen distributed throughout Space 2 not from 9.ig .ang9 and acts as a reference frame for our
'bsolute 8otion through an 'bsolute Space#
See articles+
PhysicsE 'lbert !instein9s /heory of Special R ?eneral 5elati&ity
PhysicsE *osmic 8icrowa&e .ac0ground 5adiation (*8.5
PhysicsE /he 8ichelson28orley !xperiment
Ai0ewise, our current (and deeply flawed postmodern philosophy is founded on relati&e truths (that the
meaning of any one word can only be defined relati&e to other words 2 there is no absolute meaning or
'bsolute /ruth, it is all tautology# /his is sol&ed by connecting our language to 'bsolute Space and its
properties as a :a&e 8edium#
See 'rticles+
PhilosophyE :ittgenstein
PhilosophyE Postmodernism
+ntroduction' 6roblems of ;etaphysics - 6roblems of =ne 9 ;any - +nfinite 9 #inite - Aternal 9 Temporal -
,bsolute 9 <elative - %ontinuous 9 8iscrete - Simple 9 %omplex - Space 9 ;atter 5 7niverse - Top of
6a&e
The Proble- of the Continuous and 0iscrete
#o* can One thing, *hich -ust be Continuous, for- -any
things, *hich -ust be 0iscreteH
Space, as $ne ,nfinite thing, must be continuous (it has no parts, which require two things, whereas matter
is finite and thus discrete# /he :a&e Structure of 8atter explains the discrete obser&ations of reality as
follows+
i Spherical Standing :a&es are finite " discrete, as are their :a&e2*enters, which we see as discrete
9particles9#
ii/he :a&elength of the spherical wa&es (about 1<
21;
is also finite and discrete#
iii /he Standing :a&e interactions of matter are discrete as only certain standing wa&e patterns are stable#
/his explains the discrete energy states of atoms#
i& !lectrons mo&e from one standing wa&e pattern to another in atoms " molecules (as they interact with
other electrons which also change wa&e states and this explains the discrete energy states of light quanta "
photons#
+ntroduction' 6roblems of ;etaphysics - 6roblems of =ne 9 ;any - +nfinite 9 #inite - Aternal 9 Temporal -
,bsolute 9 <elative - %ontinuous 9 8iscrete - Simple 9 %omplex - Space 9 ;atter 5 7niverse - Top of
6a&e
The Proble- of the (i-ple and Co-ple)
#o* can reality, being founded on One (i-ple thing, for-
&any Co-ple) thingsH
+t is the &rand ob$ect of all theory to mae these irreducible elements >principles? as simple and as few in
number as possible, without havin& to renounce the adequate representation of any empirical content
whatever. >$l"ert .instein?
There are also two inds of truths' truth of reasonin& and truths of fact. Truths of reasonin& are necessary
and their opposite is impossibleD those of fact are contin&ent and their opposite is possible. @hen a truth is
necessary, the reason for it can be found by analysis, that is, by resolvin& it into simpler ideas and truths
until the primary ones are reached. >%ottfried &ei"ni'?
The more you see how stran&ely Eature behaves, the harder it is to mae a model that explains how even
the simplest phenomena actually wor. So theoretical physics has &iven up on that. >*ichard Feyn!an?
Space, as $ne thing, must be Simple (there is nothing more simple than $ne thing, and thus 5eality must
ultimately be Simple 2 which it is>#
8atter, as many Spherical Standing :a&es, interacts with all other matter in our finite spherical uni&erse
and these many trillions upon trillions of wa&e interactions are &ery complex (and allow the e&olution of
complex interconnected ecology of life that we ha&e here on !arth# 'lso see+
!&olutionE Iature $ne ?aia *osmos 2 /he Simple foundations of the 8etaphysics of Space and 8otion and
the :a&e Structure of 8atter (:S8 explains both the *omplex !cology of 8atter in the %ni&erse and the
*omplex !cology of Aife on !arth (?aia#
+ntroduction' 6roblems of ;etaphysics - 6roblems of =ne 9 ;any - +nfinite 9 #inite - Aternal 9 Temporal -
,bsolute 9 <elative - %ontinuous 9 8iscrete - Simple 9 %omplex - Space 9 ;atter 5 7niverse - Top of
6a&e
The Proble- of (pace and &atter B Uni,erse
#o* is (pace connected to &atter ! #o* does &atter interact
*ith all the other &atter in the Uni,erseH Uniting &atter B
Uni,erse, (ubject B Object, (elf B Other
,t has been a common error to thin0 of matter as tiny particles separate from the %ni&erse when in fact
matter, as spherical wa&es the si7e of the uni&erse, determines our finite spherical uni&erse within an infinite
space# /hus it is a nai&e real (illusion to thin0 of matter as 9particles9 and is founded on the empirical a
posteriori truth that we only see the wa&e2center or 9particle9 effect of matter and not the spherical ,n and
$ut wa&es which cause the 9particle9 effect# /his explains why we can see stars across the uni&erse because
matter is the si7e of the uni&erse and interacts with all the other matter in the uni&erse> 'nd this tells us that
we humans are also as large as the uni&erse (a &ery profound and until now 9mystical9 realisation# 'lbert
!instein realised this, he writes+
Physical ob)ects are not in space, but these ob)ects are spatially extended (as fields# ,n this way
the concept 9empty space9 loses its meaning# ### /he field thus becomes an irreducible element of
physical description, irreducible in the same sense as the concept of matter (particles in the
theory of Iewton# ### /he physical reality of space is represented by a field whose components
are continuous functions of four independent &ariables 2 the co2ordinates of space and time#
Since the theory of general relati&ity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the
concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion# /he
particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are
particularly high# (Albert 'instein, 8etaphysics of 5elati&ity, 195<
, human bein& is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. @e experience
ourselves, our thou&hts and feelin&s as somethin& separate from the rest. , ind of optical delusion of
consciousness. This delusion is a ind of prison for us, restrictin& us to our personal desires and to
affection for a few persons nearest to us. =ur tas must be to free ourselves from the prison by widenin&
our circle of compassion to embrace all livin& creatures and the whole of nature in its beautyM The true
value of a human bein& is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained
liberation from the self. M @e shall require a substantially new manner of thinin& if humanity is to survive.
>$l"ert .instein, (.3)?
/he current state of our world confirms that -umanity does need a profound new way of thin0ing# :e now
0now the correct foundations for how to thin0 about our existence in the uni&erse# Please don9t ignore this 2
it is critically important for our future sur&i&al#
?eoff -aselhurst#
&etaphysics= The Proble- of the One 2 the &any
;etaphysics Solves
6roblems of Science
=ne and the ;any
8ynamic 7nity of
<eality
,ristotle ;etaphysics
Substance 9
6roperties
Benedictus de
Spino/a
;etaphysics of ;otion
Sir +saac Eewton
,bsolute Space 5
6articles
Fottfried :eibni/
;etaphysics 5
;onadolo&y
8avid Kume
;etaphysics
Eecessary %onnection
+mmanuel Nant
;etaphysics
Synthetic a priori
Nnowled&e
,lbert Ainstein
#ield Theory of ;atter
;etaphysics of
Septicism
Septical 5 Septics
*uotes
/>plaining the One and the Many +'nfinite ( Finite, /ternal ( Temporal, 2bsolute ( %elati"e,
Continuous ( .iscrete, )imple ( Comple>, )pace ( Matter- !ith The Metaphysics of
)pace and the #a"e )tructure of Matter
Amail this 6a&e to a #riendJ - Send a very cool philosophy 5 wisdom postcard - <SS
#aceboo %onnect
%onnect in an +nter-%onnected 7niverseJ
*onnect with ?eoff -aselhurst at (aceboo0 2 'dd as (riend

"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
(George Orwell)
"Hell is ruth !een oo "ate."
(homas Ho##es)
Kelp Kumanity
"$ou must #e the change you wish to see in the world."
(%ohandas Gandhi)
"&hen forced to summari'e the general theory of relativity in one sentence( ime and
space and gravitation have no separate e)istence from matter. ... Physical objects are
not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept *empty
space* loses its meaning. ... he particle can only appear as a limited region in space in
which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high. ...
he free, unhampered exchange of ideas and scientific conclusions is necessary for the
sound development of science, as it is in all spheres of cultural life. ... &e must not
conceal from ourselves that no improvement in the present depressing situation is possi#le without a severe
struggle+ for the handful of those who are really determined to do something is minute in comparison with
the mass of the lu,ewarm and the misguided. ...
Humanity is going to need a substantially new way of thinking if it is to survive!" (Albert instein)
$ur world is in great trouble due to human beha&iour founded on myths and customs that are
causing the destruction of Iature and climate change# :e can now deduce the most simple
science theory of reality 2 the wa&e structure of matter in space# .y understanding how we and
e&erything around us are interconnected in Space we can then deduce solutions to the
fundamental problems of human 0nowledge in physics, philosophy, metaphysics, theology, education,
health, e&olution and ecology, politics and society#
/his is the profound new way of thin0ing that !instein realised, that we exist as spatially extended structures
of the uni&erse 2 the discrete and separate body an illusion# /his simply confirms the intuitions of the
ancient philosophers and mystics#
?i&en the current censorship in physics " philosophy of science )ournals (based on the standard model of
particle physics " big bang cosmology the internet is the best hope for getting new 0nowledge 0nown to the
world# .ut that depends on you, the people who care about science and society, realise the importance of
truth and reality#
,t is easy to help 2 )ust clic0 on the social networ0 sites (below or grab a nice image " quote you li0e and
add it to your fa&ourite blog, wi0i or forum# :e are listed as one of the top philosophy sites on the ,nternet
(J<<,<<< page &iews " wee0 and ha&e a wonderful collection of 0nowledge from the greatest minds in
human history, so people will appreciate your contributions# /han0s> ?eoff -aselhurst 2 Qarene -owie 2
!mail
Metaphysics& .a"id ;ume
)olution to .a"id ;ume1s Problem of Causation and ecessary
Connection by e>plaining the interconnected Motion of Matter in )pace
,t appears that, in single instances of the operation of bodies, we ne&er can, by our
utmost scrutiny, disco&er any thing but one e&ent following another, without being able
to comprehend any force or power by which the cause operates, or any connexion
between it and its supposed effect# /he same difficulty occurs in contemplating the
operations of mind on body2 where we obser&e the motion of the latter to follow upon
the &olition of the former, but are not able to obser&e or concei&e the tie which binds
together the motion and &olition, or the energy by which the mind produces this effect#
/he authority of the will o&er its own faculties and ideas is not a whit more
comprehensibleE So that, upon the whole, there appears not, throughout all nature, any
one instance of connexion which is concei&able by us# 'll e&ents seem entirely loose
and separate# $ne e&ent follows another+ but we ne&er can obser&e any tie between
them# /hey seemed con)oined, but ne&er connected# 'nd as we can ha&e no idea of any thing which ne&er
appeared to our outward sense or inward sentiment, the necessary conclusion seems to be that we ha&e no
idea of connexion or force at all, and that these words are absolutely without meaning, when employed
either in philosophical reasonings or common life# (0a,id #u-e, 17K7
'ntroduction to .a"id ;ume
/he Philosopher @a&id -ume is famous for ma0ing us reali7e that until we 0now the Iecessary
*onnection"*ause of things then all human 0nowledge is uncertain, merely a habit of thin0ing based upon
repeated obser&ation (induction, and which depends upon the future being li0e the past#
:e should respect -ume9s open mind, which is necessary if we are to e&er consider new ideas and thus
ad&ance -uman 0nowledge#
, cannot find, , cannot imagine any such reasoning# .ut , 0eep my mind still open to instruction, if any one
will &ouchsafe to bestow it upon me# (0a,id #u-e, 17K7
, must confess that a man is guilty of unpardonable arrogance who concludes, because an argument has
escaped his own in&estigation, that therefore it does not really exist# , must also confess that, though all the
learned, for se&eral ages, should ha&e employed themsel&es in fruitless search upon any sub)ect, it may still,
perhaps, be rash to conclude positi&ely that the sub)ect must, therefore, pass all human comprehension#
(0a,id #u-e, 17K7
/he 8etaphysics of Space and 8otion and the :a&e Structure of 8atter (:S8 simply explains the
necessary connection of matter (cause and effect due to the interconnection (and changing &elocity of the
Spherical ,n and $ut2wa&es with all the other matter in the uni&erse#
.a"id ;ume1s Problem of Causation and ecessary Connection
+and thus 'nduction-
#u-e?s Proble- of Causation has remained unsol&ed for ;5< years (Ieither >ant nor Popper positi&ely
sol&ed it> and this lac0 of certainty, at the &ery heart of -uman Scientific Qnowledge, has greatly
pre)udiced our belief in the possibility of 8etaphysics and the certainty of Science, and has ultimately led to
the extreme s0epticism (Post-odernis- of our currently troubled and confused times# ,t is a delight to
read 0a,id #u-e, who writes brilliantly 2 beautifully blending clarity, content and style# 's his s0ills far
exceed my own, , shall gladly limit myself to ordering and presenting his words and ideas, such that , may
clearly demonstrate his Problem of *ausation (and as a consequence, ,nduction# 8ost importantly though,
by doing this it becomes possible to show how these profound problems can now, finally, be sensibly
sol&ed#
,t must certainly be allowed, that nature has 0ept us at a great distance from all her secrets, and has afforded
us only the 0nowledge of a few superficial qualities of ob)ects+ while she conceals from us those powers and
principles on which the influence of those ob)ects entirely depends# (#u-e, 17K7
:hen we loo0 about us towards external ob)ects, and consider the operation of causes, we are ne&er able, in
a single instance, to disco&er any power or necessary connexion+ any quality, which binds the effect to the
cause, and renders the one an infallible consequence of the other# (#u-e, 17K7
### experience only teaches us, how one e&ent constantly follows another+ without instructing us in the secret
connexion, which binds them together, and renders them inseparable# (#u-e, 17K7
:e then call the one ob)ect, *ause+ the other, !ffect# :e suppose that there is some connexion between
them+ some power in the one, by which it infallibly produces the other, and operates with the greatest
certainty and strongest necessity# (#u-e, 17K7
, say then, that, e&en after we ha&e experience of the operations of cause and effect, our conclusions from
that experience are not founded on (a priori reasoning, or any process of the understanding#(#u-e, 17K7
,t is allowed on all hands that there is no 0nown connexion between the sensible qualities and the secret
powers+ and consequently, that the mind is not led to form such a conclusion concerning their constant and
regular con)unction, by anything which it 0nows of their nature#(#u-e, 17K7
#u-e correctly explains that -umans do not 0now the 9Iecessary *onnexion9 between ob)ects and thus do
not 0now the relationship between *ause and !ffect# /his quite simply is the Proble- of Causation2 that
until we 0now 9what exists9 and the 9necessary connexions9 between these things that exist, then it is
impossible for -umanity to ha&e certainty of 0nowledge#
/his then leads to the further Proble- of Induction, for if we do not 0now the a priori cause of e&ents then
we ha&e no Principles from which to logically deduce our conclusions# :e are left simply obser&ing that
one e&ent follows another and seems connected, but we do not 0now how or why, thus we must depend
upon repeated obser&ation (,nduction to determine the laws of Iature (the current state of 8odern Physics
and hence tacitly assuming (without reason that the future is li0e the past# (,t is simply a habit of thin0ing to
connect two e&ents which seem to occur in con)unction and necessarily assumes that the future will be li0e
the past
##all arguments concerning existence are founded on the relation of cause and effect+ that our 0nowledge of
that relation is deri&ed entirely from experience+ and all our experimental conclusions proceed upon the
supposition that the future will be conformable to the past# #### :ithout the influence of custom, we should
be entirely ignorant of e&ery matter of fact beyond what is immediately present to the memory and senses#
(#u-e, 17K7
, shall &enture to affirm, as a general proposition, which admits of no exception, that the 0nowledge of this
relation is not, in any instance, attained by reasonings a priori+ but arises entirely from experience, when we
find that any particular ob)ects are constantly con)oined with each other# (#u-e, 17K7
,t is impossible, therefore, that any arguments from experience can pro&e this resemblance of the past to the
future+ since all these arguments are founded on the supposition of that resemblance# Aet the course of
things be allowed hitherto e&er so regular+ that alone, without some new argument or inference, pro&es not
that, for the future, it will continue so# (#u-e, 17K7
The Metaphysics of )pace $ Motion )ol"es ;ume1s Problem of Causation ( ecessary
Connection
Aet us now apply our 0nowledge of the 8etaphysics of Space and 8otion and the :a&e Structure of 8atter
(:S8 to this greatest of all -uman intellectual problems, #u-e?s Proble- of Causation and 5ecessary
Connection, which can only be sol&ed by understanding how &atter ')ists and is interconnected *ithin
this (pace of the Uni,erse#
(irst, #u-e agrees that there ob&iously is a 9necessary connexion9 between ob)ects (8atter in Space# /his
is ob&ious by the fact that Physics is able to describe many e&ents with mathematical precision# /hus if we
had 0nowledge of this 9secret connexion9 or (orce we could accurately predict (logically deduce the future
(from cause to effect without need of induction from repeated obser&ation and thus ha&ing to assume the
future is li0e the past#
,t is uni&ersally allowed that matter, in all its operations, is actuated by a necessary force, and that e&ery
natural effect is so precisely determined by the energy of its cause that no other effect, in such particular
circumstances, could possibly ha&e resulted from it# (#u-e, 17K7
/he generality of man0ind ne&er find any difficulty in accounting for the more common and familiar
operations of nature 2 such as the descent of hea&y bodies, the growth of plants, the generation of animals,
or the nourishment of bodies by foodE .ut suppose that, in all these cases, they percei&e the &ery force or
energy of the cause, by which it is connected with its effect, and is for e&er infallible in its operation#
(#u-e, 17K7
(rom the first appearance of an ob)ect, we ne&er can con)ecture what effect will result from it# .ut were the
power or energy of any cause disco&erable by the mind, we could foresee the effect, e&en without
experience+ and might, at first, pronounce with certainty concerning it, by mere dint of thought and
reasoning# (#u-e, 17K7
Iow it seems e&ident that, if this conclusion were formed by reason, it would be as perfect at first, and upon
one instance, as after e&er so long a course of experience# (#u-e, 17K7
/his question , propose as much for the sa0e of information, as with an intention of raising difficulties# ,
cannot find, , cannot imagine any such reasoning# .ut , 0eep my mind still open to instruction, if any one
will &ouchsafe to bestow it upon me# (#u-e, 17K7
/he solution to #u-e?s Proble- of Causation is realised by understanding how 8atter !xists in Space as
a Spherical Standing :a&e whose (ocal Point creates the 9Particle9 !ffect of 8atter# So now that we 0now
the /wo (undamental Principles of the :S8, we understand the *ause of the 9Particle9 !ffect, and thus we
can logically deduce the 8otion of the (ocal Point (9Particle9# .y simply considering how the 6elocity of
the Spherical ,n2:a&e changes as it flows in through other matter in the Space around it, we can thus
logically determine where those Spherical ,n2:a&es will meet at their (ocal Point thus we can determine
the future motion of the 9Particle9 !ffect# So let us re2&isit -ume9s simple problem of why a stone falls to the
earth+
:ould we, therefore, form a )ust and precise idea of necessity, we must consider whence that idea arises
when we apply it to the operation of bodies# ### ' stone or piece of metal raised into the air, and left without
any support, immediately fallsE but to consider the matter a priori, is there anything we disco&er in this
situation which can beget the idea of a downward, rather than an upward, or any other motion, in the stone
of metalF (#u-e, 17K7
(irstly, we must realise that the stone exists as many trillions of Spherical (!llipsoidal Standing :a&es
whose :a&e2*enters"(ocal Points are trapped together resonating together in the Space that we call the
8atter of the stone# /hus the reason why the stone falls to the !arth is simply because of Principle /wo# i#e#
/he Spherical (!llipsoidal ,n2:a&es tra&el more slowly through the higher mass2energy density of Space
that we call the matter of !arth than they do in the opposite direction from Space through the !arth9s
atmosphere# /his causes the (ocal Point (where the Spherical ,n2:a&es meet at their :a&e2*enters to
mo&e (accelerate towards the earth2 which we see as the stone falling# /hus as -ume demanded, we ha&e
replaced ,nducti&e Aogic from repeated obser&ation of !ffects with @educti&e Aogic from the /wo
Principles of the :S8, which demonstrate the *ause of the 9Particle9 !ffect#
The (olution to #u-e?s ?Proble- of Induction?
(or the most part, attempts to sol&e the problem of induction ha&e ta0en the form of trying to fit inducti&e
arguments into a deducti&e mould# (Ayer, 195J
(inally, why does Induction wor0, why is the future li0e the pastF ('nd it is ob&ious that it is else all our
science would be nonsense#
:ithout /rue Qnowledge of 5eality it is impossible to understand cause and effect 2 we are simply limited
to describing the effects of things upon us, without understanding the cause of these effects# 's we did not
0now how matter interacted with other matter in the Space around it (action2at2a2distance we consequently
did not understood how our human senses were connected to the world of ob)ects in Space around us and
thus what caused the percei&ed effects of our senses#
/his lac0 of 0nowledge then leads to (what Popper termed #u-e?s ?Proble- of Induction?# /his problem
can again be demonstrated using #u-e?s simple example of dropping a stone such that when , let go of the
stone it falls to earth# , can then repeat this experiment any number of times but despite this number of
repetitions does this logically (inducti&ely infer that the stone must fall the next time , let it go# #u-e
argued that it does not, that it is simply a habit of thin0ing and that it is quite possible that at some stage in
the future the stone will not fall# /his leads to the reali7ation that the logic of induction depends upon
repeated obser&ation and thus the assumption that the future is li0e the past# 's #u-e explains though+
/he supposition that the future resembles the past, is not founded on arguments of any 0ind, but is deri&ed
entirely from habit#(#u-e, 17K7
/hus #u-e?s s<epticis- is &alid and has subsequently plagued Philosophy and the sciences with a terribly
destructi&e doubt and a fertile en&ironment for all 0inds of absurdity and mysticism# %ltimately all science
depends upon obser&ation of the world for its 0nowledge, and thus -ume9s problem of induction must be
sol&ed if we are to ha&e certainty of 0nowledge# 's Ayer explains of the philosophical s0eptic+
### his contention is that any inference from past to future is illegitimate ### that it is to be doubted whether
the exercise of sense2perception can in any circumstances whate&er afford proof of the existence of physical
ob)ects# (Ayer, 195J
/he solution to this profound problem is in two parts and is beautiful in its simplicity#
i $nce we understand reality, then we understand the necessary connection of cause of the effect# /hus we
no longer depend upon repeated obser&ation to inducti&ely deduce that the stone falls when we let it go, for
we can now use deducti&e logic from first principles to deduce that the stone falls to the earth because its ,n2
:a&es are tra&eling more slowly through the Space of the !arth#
ii :e can also explain why the future is li0e the past because the ,n2:a&es (our future after flowing
through the :a&e2*enter (our present become the $ut2:a&es (our past and thus the future causes the past
and must therefore be li0e the past# /his then explains why we can trust inducti&e reasoning, for its
assumption that the future is li0e the past is &alid, and this also then explains why science has been so
successful e&en though it was founded on an inducti&e logic whose &alidity until now could not be shown to
be true#
Iow the s0eptic can still argue that while , may ha&e replaced induction with deduction, nonetheless , still
depend upon induction, i#e# upon repeated obser&ation of e&ents, to confirm the truth of the deducti&e
theory#
/his is true, but , then can )ustify this use of induction to support deduction, by showing that this wa&e
theory of matter explains why the future is similar to the past, and therefore deduce that induction is &alid#
Poppers egati"e )olution to the ;ume1s Problem of 'nduction
Popper9s negati&e solution to the problem of induction (that all truth is e&ol&ing, we can ne&er 0now the
'bsolute /ruth, but only 0now what is false through scientific method is correct while we do not 0now the
necessary connection between things (e#g# cause and effect# *on&ersely, Popper9s problem of induction is
sol&ed once we sol&e -ume9s 8etaphysical problem of *ausation and hence understand the 9necessary
connexions9 between 9what exists9# 's Popper himself confirms+
(>arl Popper, 1975 /here could easily be a little quarrel about the question which is the deeper problem+
-ume9s Problem of *ausation, or what , ha&e called the Problem of ,nduction#
$ne could argue that if the proble- of causation *ere positi,ely sol,ed 2 if we could show the existence
of a necessary lin0 between cause and effect 2 the proble- of induction *ould also be sol,ed, and
positi&ely# /hus one might say, the problem of causation is the deeper problem#
, argue the other way roundE the problem of induction is negati&ely sol&ed+ we can ne&er )ustify the truth of
a belief in a regularity# .ut we constantly use regularities, as con)ectures, as hypotheses+ and we ha&e good
reasons sometimes for preferring certain con)ectures to some of their competitors#
,t is through the falsification of our suppositions that we actually get in touch with 9reality9# ,t is the
disco&ery and elimination of our errors which alone constitute that 9positi&e9 experience which we gain from
reality#
.ut should there exist something li0e the correspondence of a theory to the facts, then this would ob&iously
be more important than mere self2consistency, and certainly also more important than coherence with any
earlier 90nowledge9 (or 9belief9+ for if a theory corresponds to the facts but does not cohere with some earlier
0nowledge, then this earlier <no*ledge should be discarded.
,t is important to explain and sol&e -ume and thus Popper, because currently many scientists belie&e that
/ruth is always an approximation which is constantly e&ol&ing# ,n fact this is not the case, the solution to
the Problem of 8etaphysics is a final solution, an 'bsolute and !ternal /ruth # Space and its wa&e motions
will always exist, as will the truth of this reality#
Metaphysics& .a"id ;ume
)olution to .a"id ;ume1s Problem of Causation and ecessary
Connection by e>plaining the interconnected Motion of Matter in )pace
;etaphysics Solves =ne and the ;any ,ristotle ;etaphysics Benedictus de Sir +saac Eewton
6roblems of Science 8ynamic 7nity of
<eality
Substance 9
6roperties
Spino/a
;etaphysics of ;otion
,bsolute Space 5
6articles
Fottfried :eibni/
;etaphysics 5
;onadolo&y
8avid Kume
;etaphysics
Eecessary %onnection
+mmanuel Nant
;etaphysics
Synthetic a priori
Nnowled&e
,lbert Ainstein
#ield Theory of ;atter
;etaphysics of
Septicism
Septical 5 Septics
*uotes
Amail this 6a&e to a #riendJ - Send a very cool philosophy 5 wisdom postcard - <SS
#aceboo %onnect
%onnect in an +nter-%onnected 7niverseJ
*onnect with ?eoff -aselhurst at (aceboo0 2 'dd as (riend

"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
(George Orwell)
"Hell is ruth !een oo "ate."
(homas Ho##es)
Metaphysics& 'mmanuel *ant
)ummary of 'mmanuel *ant1s Metaphysics8 From *antian 'dealism to
%ealism of )pace $ the #a"e )tructure of Matter8 Metaphysics of )pace
and Motion +not Time- as )ynthetic a priori Foundations8
,f we ta0e away the sub)ect (-umans, or e&en only the sub)ecti&e constitution of our
senses in general, then not only the nature and relations of ob)ects in space and time,
but e&en space and time themsel&es disappear+ and that these, as appearances, cannot
exist in themsel&es, but only in us# :hat may be the nature of ob)ects considered as
things in the-sel,es and without reference to the recepti&ity of our sensibility is quite
un0nown to us# Iot only are the raindrops mere appearances, but e&en their circular
form, nay, the space itself through which they fall, is nothing in itself, but both are
mere modifications or fundamental dispositions of our sensible intuition, whilst the transcendental ob)ect
remains for us utterly un0nown# (I--anuel >ant, Criti3ue of Pure $eason, 17=1
P8etaphysics is a dar0 ocean without shores or lighthouse, strewn with many a philosophic wrec0#P
(,mmanuel Qant
'ntroduction to 'mmanuel *ant1s Metaphysics
I--anuel >ant is the most famous metaphysicist of western philosophy, and there is no doubt that his
9*ritique of Pure 5eason9 is the most comprehensi&e analysis of 8etaphysics since 'ristotle9s pioneering
wor0 which founded this sub)ect#
%nfortunately for humanity, Qant made one small and yet fundamental mista0e# 'nd this error led to the
belief that we could ne&er 0now reality (the thing in itself, only our ideas of reality which were necessarily
incomplete#
(irstly, Qant is correct that Space is a priori, or first necessary for us to ha&e senses (which are a
posteriori#
Iatural science (physics contains in itself synthetical )udgments a priori, as principles# ... (pace then is a
necessary representation a priori, which ser&es for the foundation of all external intuitions# (I--anuel
>ant, Criti3ue of Pure $eason, 17=1
-is error is to assume that /ime is also a priori or necessary for us to sense the motion of matter 9particles9
in Space# -e writes+
/here are two pure forms of sensible intuition, as principles of 0nowledge a priori, namely space and time#
(>ant, 17=1
'nd from this he concludes that because Space and /ime cannot be united, they must both be merely ideas#
-is error can be found in the following quote where he writes+
### e&en that of motion, which unites in itself both elements (Space and /ime, presuppose something
empirical# 8otion, for example, presupposes the perception of something mo&able# .ut space considered
in itself contains nothing -o,able+ consequently motion must be something which is found in space only
through experience 2in other words, is an empirical datum# (>ant, 17=1
Please read this quote se&eral times, for it contains an error that has had profound repercussions for
humanity# /he errorF /hat ?space considered in itself contains nothing -o,able?# 'nd this error then
leads Qant to conclude that+
##in respect to the form of appearances, much may be said a priori, whilst of the thing in itself, which may
lie at the foundation of these appearances, it is impossible to say anything# (>ant, 17=1
Metaphysics of )pace and Motion +not Time- as )ynthetic a priori
/he solution to Qant9s error is to realise that the exact opposite is true, that (pace considered in itself
contains *a,e -otions, i#e# Space physically exists as a substance with the properties of a wa&e medium
and contains wa&e motions#
Qant9s error is ob&ious in hindsight, because he followed Iewton, and thus was conditioned into thin0ing
that motion applied to matter 9particles9 in space and time# /hus 9empty space9 had no 9particles9 thus motion
could not exist#
/he solution is found by replacing the particle conception of -atter in space and ti-e *ith the *a,e
structure of -atter in space#
/hus the two pure forms of sensible intuition, as principles of 0nowledge a priori, are namely (pace and
(*a,e) &otion 2 that we must place in this a priori concept of Space the correct meaning 2 that Space is a
wa&e2medium and contains within it a second thing, wa&e motions of space that form matter (i#e# synthetic a
priori 0nowledge#
/hus we mo&e from the 8etaphysics of Space and /ime to the 8etaphysics of Space and (wa&e 8otion
and finally unite these two things that gi&e rise to all other things, as the wa&e structure of matter in Space
explains#
,t is also important to understand 'ristotle9s conception of metaphysics 2 he was &ery close to the truth as
the following quotes demonstrate (, thin0 'ristotle was the most brilliant of all philosophers#
/he first philosophy (8etaphysics is uni&ersal and is exclusi&ely concerned with primary substance# ### 'nd
here we will ha&e the science to study that which is )ust as that which is, both in its essence and in the
properties which, )ust as a thing that is, it has# ###
'bout its coming into being and its doings and about all its alterations we thin0 that we ha&e 0nowledge
when we 0now the source of its -o,e-ent# ...
/he entire preoccupation of the physicist is with things that contain within themsel&es a principle of
-o,e-ent and rest# 'nd to see0 for this is to see0 for the second <ind of principle, that fro- *hich
co-es the beginning of the change# ###
/here must then be a principle of such a 0ind that its substance is acti,ity# (Aristotle, KL<.*
'ristotle is correct, the substance is space, and it has properties of a wa&e medium for spherical standing
wa&e motions that form matter#
$nce we sol&e Qant9s misunderstanding of /ime being a priori rather than 8otion, (that the Spherical :a&e
&otion of (pace causes not only /ime, but also 8atter and (orces " (ields then we can describe 5eality
correctly from this new (and most simple 8etaphysical foundation#
(ig# 1 2 /he correct foundation is to describe
matter in terms of one thing 2 the +a,e &otion
of (pace# /hus motion applies to space, not
matter, i#e# the (wa&e motion of Space causes
matter, time and forces " fields (interconnection#
IoteE :e ha&e a page of wa&e diagrams that will help you &isualise the spherical standing wa&e structure of
matter (:S8 in space# .asically, we only see the high wa&e amplitude wa&e2center and ha&e been deluded
into thin0ing matter was made of tiny little 9particles9# ' &ery nai&e conception in hindsight 2 and quantum
physics was telling us all along that wa&es were central to light and matter interactions>

:ith this new synthesis of a priori meaning added to the concept of Space, we then find that the pre&ious
errors and contradictions (paradoxes simply disappear#
Iow this is a profound solution, for this error of 8atter 9particles9 mo&ing about in Space and /ime has now
existed for ;,5<< years, and has detrimentally influence such great minds as Schopenhauer, Iiet7sche,
8ach, and !instein, and has ultimately led to our current Postmodern S0epticism and confusion#
/he articles listed on the side of the page explain this in more detail# /he wa&e structure of matter in space
is simple sensible and ob&ious once 0nown#
?eoff -aselhurst
PS 2 ' few nice quotes from Qant# 'nd the main ,mmanuel Qant philosophy page is good if you wish to
understand this argument in more detail (which is profoundly important#
/his can ne&er become popular, and, indeed, has no occasion to be so+ for fine2spun
arguments in fa&our of useful truths ma0e )ust as little impression on the public mind as
the equally subtle ob)ections brought against these truths# $n the other hand, since both
ine&itably force themsel&es on e&ery man who rises to the height of speculation, it
becomes the manifest duty of the schools to enter upon a thorough in&estigation of the
rights of speculati&e reason, and thus to pre&ent the scandal which metaphysical
contro&ersies are sure, sooner or later, to cause e&en to the masses# (I--anuel >ant,
Criti3ue of Pure $eason, 17=1
/ime was, when she (8etaphysics was the queen of all the sciences+ and, if we ta0e the will
for the deed, she certainly deser&es, so far as regards the high importance of her ob)ect2
matter, this title of honour# Iow, it is the fashion of the time to heap contempt and scorn
upon her+ and the matron mourns, forlorn and forsa0en, li0e -ecuba ## her empire gradually
bro0e up, and intestine wars introduced the reign of anarchy+ while the sceptics, li0e
nomadic tribes, who hate a permanent habitation and settled mode of li&ing, attac0ed from
time to time those who had organi7ed themsel&es into ci&il communities# .ut their number was, &ery
happily, small+ and thus they could not entirely put a stop to the exertions of those who persisted in raising
new edifices, although on no settled or uniform plan# (I--anuel >ant, Criti3ue of Pure $eason, 17=1
Metaphysics& 'mmanuel *ant
)ummary of 'mmanuel *ant1s Metaphysics8 From *antian 'dealism to
%ealism of )pace $ the #a"e )tructure of Matter8 Metaphysics of )pace
and Motion +not Time- as )ynthetic a priori Foundations8
;etaphysics Solves
6roblems of Science
=ne and the ;any
8ynamic 7nity of
<eality
,ristotle ;etaphysics
Substance 9
6roperties
Benedictus de
Spino/a
;etaphysics of ;otion
Sir +saac Eewton
,bsolute Space 5
6articles
Fottfried :eibni/
;etaphysics 5
;onadolo&y
8avid Kume
;etaphysics
Eecessary %onnection
+mmanuel Nant
;etaphysics
Synthetic a priori
Nnowled&e
,lbert Ainstein
#ield Theory of ;atter
;etaphysics of
Septicism
Septical 5 Septics
*uotes
Amail this 6a&e to a #riendJ - Send a very cool philosophy 5 wisdom postcard - <SS
#aceboo %onnect
%onnect in an +nter-%onnected 7niverseJ
*onnect with ?eoff -aselhurst at (aceboo0 2 'dd as (riend

"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
(George Orwell)
"Hell is ruth !een oo "ate."
(homas Ho##es)
Kelp Kumanity
"$ou must #e the change you wish to see in the world."
(%ohandas Gandhi)
"&hen forced to summari'e the general theory of relativity in one sentence( ime and
space and gravitation have no separate e)istence from matter. ... Physical objects are
not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept *empty
space* loses its meaning. ... he particle can only appear as a limited region in space in
which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high. ...
he free, unhampered exchange of ideas and scientific conclusions is necessary for the
sound development of science, as it is in all spheres of cultural life. ... &e must not
conceal from ourselves that no improvement in the present depressing situation is possi#le without a severe
struggle+ for the handful of those who are really determined to do something is minute in comparison with
the mass of the lu,ewarm and the misguided. ...
Humanity is going to need a substantially new way of thinking if it is to survive!" (Albert instein)
$ur world is in great trouble due to human beha&iour founded on myths and customs that are
causing the destruction of Iature and climate change# :e can now deduce the most simple
science theory of reality 2 the wa&e structure of matter in space# .y understanding how we and
e&erything around us are interconnected in Space we can then deduce solutions to the
fundamental problems of human 0nowledge in physics, philosophy, metaphysics, theology, education,
health, e&olution and ecology, politics and society#
/his is the profound new way of thin0ing that !instein realised, that we exist as spatially extended structures
of the uni&erse 2 the discrete and separate body an illusion# /his simply confirms the intuitions of the
ancient philosophers and mystics#
?i&en the current censorship in physics " philosophy of science )ournals (based on the standard model of
particle physics " big bang cosmology the internet is the best hope for getting new 0nowledge 0nown to the
world# .ut that depends on you, the people who care about science and society, realise the importance of
truth and reality#
,t is easy to help 2 )ust clic0 on the social networ0 sites (below or grab a nice image " quote you li0e and
add it to your fa&ourite blog, wi0i or forum# :e are listed as one of the top philosophy sites on the ,nternet
(J<<,<<< page &iews " wee0 and ha&e a wonderful collection of 0nowledge from the greatest minds in
human history, so people will appreciate your contributions# /han0s> ?eoff -aselhurst 2 Qarene -owie 2
!mail
"-ll that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing."
(Edmund .ur,e)
Metaphysics& 2lbert /instein
)implifying the Metaphysical foundations of 2lbert /instein1s Theory of
%elati"ity8 From /instein1s 9nified Field Theory of Matter +Continuous
)pherical Fields in )pace5Time- to the #a"e )tructure of Matter
+)pherical #a"es in Continuous space-8
'ntroduction
-i e&eryone# .elow you will find a short summary of 'lbert !instein9s comments on .ertrand 5ussell9s
/heory of Qnowledge# /his is important because it explains why a good understanding of metaphysics is
central for understanding physical reality#
/his is followed by two &ery good quotes on the importance of understanding the history of philosophy to
help us o&ercome the pre)udices of our time# 's he writesE
' 0nowledge of the historic and philosophical bac0ground gi&es that 0ind of independence from pre)udices
of his generation from which most scientists are suffering# ('lbert !instein
(inally there is a brief summary of the metaphysical foundation of 5elati&ity and lin0s to the main
5elati&ity articles#
?eoff -aselhurst
2lbert /instein 'ntroductory Quotes on Metaphysics +/instein %emar=s on Bertrand
%ussell1s Theory of *no!ledge-
,n the e,olution of philosophical thought through the centuries the following
question has played a ma)or roleE what 0nowledge is pure thought able to supply
independently of sense perceptionF ,s there any such 0nowledgeF ,f not, what
precisely is the relation between our 0nowledge and the raw material furnished by
sense impressionsF
/here has been an increasing s<epticis- concerning e&ery attempt by means of pure
thought to learn something about the 9ob)ecti&e world9, about the world of ?things? in
contrast to the world of 9concepts and ideas9# @uring philosophy9s childhood it was
rather generally belie&ed that it is possible to find e&erything which can be 0nown by
means of mere reflection# ,t was an illusion which anyone can easily understand if,
for a moment, he dismisses what he has learned from later philosophy and from
natural science+ he will not be surprised to find that Plato ascribed a higher reality to
9ideas9 than to empirically experienceable things# !&en in Spino7a and as late as in
-egel this pre)udice was the &italising force which seems still to ha&e played the
ma)or role#
/he more aristocratic illusion concerning the unlimited penetrati&e power of thought
has as its counterpart the more plebeian illusion of nai,e realis-, according to
which things 9are9 as they are percei&ed by us through our senses# /his illusion dominates the daily life of
men and of animals+ it is also the point of departure in all of the sciences, especially of the natural sciences#
's 5ussell wrote+
9:e all start from nai,e realis-, i#e#, the doctrine that things are what they seem# :e thin0 that grass is
green, that stones are hard, and that snow is cold# .ut physics assures us that the greenness of grass, the
hardness of stones, and the coldness of snow are not the greenness, hardness, and coldness that we 0now in
our own experience, but something &ery different# /he obser&er, when he seems to himself to be obser&ing a
stone, is really, if physics is to be belie&ed, obser&ing the effects of the stone upon himself#9
?radually the con&iction gained recognition that all <no*ledge about things
is exclusi&ely a wor0ing2o&er of the raw material furnished by the senses#
:alileo and #u-e first upheld this principle with full clarity and
decisi&eness# -ume saw that concepts which we must regard as essential,
such as, for example, causal connection, cannot be gained from material
gi&en to us by the senses# /his insight led him to a s0eptical attitude as
concerns 0nowledge of any 0ind# 8an has an intense desire for assured
0nowledge# /hat is why -ume9s clear message seemed crushingE the sensory
raw material, the only source of our 0nowledge,through habit may lead us to belief and expectation but not
to the 0nowledge and still less to the understanding of lawful relations#
/hen >ant too0 the stage with an idea which, though certainly untenable in the form in which he put it,
signified a step towards the solution of -ume9s dilemmaE whate&er in <no*ledge is of e-pirical origin is
ne&er certain# ,f, therefore, we ha&e definitely assured 0nowledge,it must be grounded in reason itself# /his
is held to be the case, for example, in the propositions of geometry and the principles of causality# /hese and
certain other types of 0nowledge are, so to spea0, a part of the implements of thin0ing and therefore do not
pre&iously ha&e to be gained from sense data (i#e# they are a priori 0nowledge#
/oday e&eryone 0nows, of course, that the mentioned concepts contain nothing of the
certainty, of the inherent necessity, which Qant had attributed to them# /he following,
howe&er, appears to me to be correct in Qant9s statement of the problemE in thin0ing we
use with a certain PrightP, concepts to which there is no access from the materials of
sensory experience, if the situation is &iewed from the logical point of &iew# 's a matter
of fact, , am con&inced that e&en much more is to be assertedE the concepts which arise in
our thought and in our linguistic expressions are all2 when &iewed logically2 the free
creations of thought which cannot inducti,ely be gained from sense e)periences# /his is not so easily
noticed only because we ha&e the habit of combining certain concepts and conceptual relations
(propositions so definitely with certain sense experiences that we do not become conscious of the gulf2
logically unbridgeable2 which separates the world of sensory experiences from the world of concepts and
propositions# /hus, for example, the series of integers is ob&iously an in&ention of the human mind, a self2
created tool which simplifies the ordering of certain sensory experiences# .ut there is no way in which this
concept could be made to grow, as it were, directly out of sense experiences#
's soon as one is at home in -ume9s critique one is easily led to belie&e that all those concepts and
propositions which cannot be deduced from the sensory raw material are, on account of their 9metaphysical9
character, to be remo&ed from thin0ing# (or all thought acquires material content only through its
relationship with that sensory material# /his latter proposition , ta0e to be entirely true+ but , hold the
prescription for thin0ing which is grounded on this proposition to be false# (or this claim2 if only carried
through consistently2 absolutely excludes thin0ing of any 0ind as 9metaphysical9#
,n order that thin0ing might not degenerate into 9metaphysics9, or into empty tal0, it is only necessary that
enough propositions of the conceptual system be firmly enough connected with sensory experiences and that
the conceptual system, in &iew of its tas0 of ordering and sur&eying sense experience, should show as much
unity and parsimony as possible# .eyond that, howe&er, the 9system9 is (as regards logic a free play with
symbols according to (logically arbitrarily gi&en rules of the game# 'll this applies as much (and in the
same manner to the thin0ing in daily life as to the more consciously and systematically constructed
thin0ing in the sciences#
.y his clear critique #u-e did not only ad&ance philosophy in a decisi&e way but also 2
though through no fault of his 2 created a danger for philosophy in that, following his
critique, a fateful 9fear of -etaphysics9 arose which has come to be a -alady of
contemporary e-piricist philosophising+ this malady is the counterpart to that earlier
philosophising in the clouds, which thought it could neglect and dispense with what was
gi&en by the senses# ### ,t finally turns out that one can, after all, not get along *ithout
-etaphysics.
(Albert 'instein, 5emar0s on .ertrand 5ussell9s /heory of Qnowledge, ,deas and $pinions, 195L
, fully agree with you about the significance and educational &alue of methodology as well as
history and philosophy of science# So many people today 2 and e&en professional scientists 2
seem to me li0e somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has ne&er seen a forest# '
0nowledge of the historic and philosophical bac0ground gi&es that 0ind of independence from
pre)udices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering# /his independence
created by philosophical insight is 2 in my opinion 2 the mar0 of distinction between a mere artisan or
specialist and a real see0er after truth#
(Albert 'instein to 5obert '# /hornton, 7 @ecember 19LL, !' J1257L
-ow does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with
epistemologyF ,s there no more &aluable wor0 in his specialtyF , hear many of my colleagues
saying, and , sense it from many more, that they feel this way# , cannot share this sentiment# ###
*oncepts that ha&e pro&en useful in ordering things easily achie&e such an authority o&er us
that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable gi&ens# /hus they come to be
stamped as 9necessities of thought,9 9a priori gi&ens,9 etc# /he path of scientific ad&ance is often made
impassable for a long time through such errors# (or that reason, it is by no means an idle game if we become
practiced in analy7ing the long common place concepts and exhibiting those circumstances upon which their
)ustification and usefulness depend, how they ha&e grown up, indi&idually, out of the gi&ens of experience#
.y this means, their all2too2great authority will be bro0en#
(Albert 'instein# 9!rnst 8ach#9 Physi0alische Meitschrift 17 (191JE 1<1, 1<; 2 ' memorial notice for the
philosopher, !rnst 8ach#
Metaphysical Foundations of 2lbert /instein1s Theory of %elati"ity
!instein (from (araday, 8axwell, Aorent7 represented matter as a continuous field in spacetime# !instein is
correct that there is no 9particle9 and matter is spherically spatially extended# -owe&er, the spherical 9force
field9 can be sensibly explained with the Spherical Standing :a&e Structure of 8atter# :e reali7e that
forces are caused by a change in the &elocity of the spherical ,n2wa&e (from one direction as this changes
where these ,n2wa&es meet at the wa&e2center, which we obser&e as a 9force accelerating a particle9# /he
change in ellipsoidal shape of the ,n2wa&es is the cause of !instein9s 8etrics and the 5iemannian geometry
of ?eneral 5elati&ity#
:hen forced to summari7e the general theory of relati&ity in one sentenceE
/ime and space and gra&itation ha&e no separate existence from matter#
(Albert 'instein
Physical ob)ects are not in space, but these ob)ects are spatially extended (as
fields# ,n this way the concept 9empty space9 loses its meaning# ### /he field thus becomes an
irreducible element of physical description, irreducible in the same sense as the concept of
matter (particles in the theory of Iewton# ### /he physical reality of space is represented
by a field whose components are continuous functions of four independent &ariables 2 the co2
ordinates of space and time# Since the theory of general relati&ity implies the representation of physical
reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor
can the concept of motion# /he particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field
strength or the energy density are particularly high# (Albert 'instein, 8etaphysics of 5elati&ity, 195<
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
(George Orwell)
"Hell is ruth !een oo "ate."
(homas Ho##es)
Physics= Albert 'instein?s Theory of $elati,ity
(i-plifying the &etaphysics of 'instein?s (pecial and :eneral
$elati,ity
:hen forced to summari7e the general theory of relati&ity in one sentenceE
/ime and space and gra&itation ha&e no separate existence from matter#
(Albert 'instein
Physical ob)ects are not in space, but these ob)ects are spatially extended (as
fields# ,n this way the concept 9empty space9 loses its meaning# ### /he field thus becomes an
irreducible element of physical description, irreducible in the same sense as the concept of
matter (particles in the theory of Iewton# ### /he physical reality of space is represented
by a field whose components are continuous functions of four independent &ariables 2 the co2
ordinates of space and time# Since the theory of general relati&ity implies the representation of physical
reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor
can the concept of motion# /he particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field
strength or the energy density are particularly high# (Albert 'instein, 8etaphysics of 5elati&ity, 195<
Physics constitutes a logical system of thought which is in a state of e&olution, whose basis
(principles cannot be distilled, as it were, from experience by an inducti&e method, but can
only be arri&ed at by free in&ention# /he )ustification (truth content of the system rests in the
&erification of the deri&ed propositions (a priori"logical truths by sense experiences (a
posteriori"empirical truths# ### !&olution is proceeding in the direction of increasing simplicity
of the logical basis (principles# ## :e must always be ready to change these notions 2 that is to say, the
axiomatic basis of physics 2 in order to do )ustice to percei&ed facts in the most perfect way logically#
(Albert 'instein, Physics and 5eality, 19KJ
+ntroduction to ,lbert Ainstein's Theory of <elativity - Eewton's ;echanics - Eewton 5 Time 6articles #orces
- Eewton 5 :i&ht - Eewton's :aw of +nertia - #araday A; #orce #ield - ;axwell's Aquations - :orent/ 5
Alectron - :orent/ Transformations - ,lbert Ainstein's Theory of <elativity - Special <elativity - Feneral
<elativity - Summary of Ainstein's <elativity - Top of 6a&e
Introduction
, am currently re2writing all the main pages on this website to simplify them " ma0e them a bit more human
friendly# , realise this page is quite long 2 but it contains a &ery good summary of the e&olution of Physics
and how this led to !instein9s theory of relati&ity# 8ost importantly it shows how we can simplify his
foundations of representing -atter as continuous fields in space!ti-e, to *a,es in continuous space# ,t is
actually a &ery simple ob&ious solution once realised 2 but li0e all things it ta0es a while to ad)ust to new
0nowledge# ,t does lead to a &ery simple sensible foundation for understanding physical reality, and thus
how you exist in the uni&erse# So , thin0 it is worth the effort>
?eoff -aselhurst
/he de&elopment during the present century is characteri7ed by two theoretical systems essentially
independent of each otherE the theory of relati&ity and the quantum theory# /he two systems do not directly
contradict each other+ but they seem little adapted to fusion into one unified theory# (or the time being we
ha&e to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics which can be regarded as its
logical foundation# (Albert 'instein, 19L<
's is well 0nown, there are two fundamental theories which are the pillars of modern Physics 2 'lbert
!instein9s Special and ?eneral 5elati&ity (19<5, 1915 and Buantum /heory (19<<219K<# (urther, 'lbert
!instein9s ?eneral 5elati&ity (on ?ra&itation and accelerated motion then laid the foundations for modern
*osmology (as gra&ity is a phenomena that extends across the uni&erse 2 though we now realise that charge
also plays a significant role in the e&olution of the uni&erse#
Iow it is also uni&ersally 0nown that 'lbert !instein9s 5elati&ity /heory is famous for being
incomprehensible# 'nd it e&en seems that some scientists en)oy this incomprehensibility of the uni&erse#
-owe&er, philosophy teaches us that things become absurd when we ha&e errors in our language and
metaphysical foundations# /hus the solution is not to ha&e endless arguments (and amusements o&er these
absurdities, but rather, to go bac0 to the foundations and ensure that you ha&e not made any errors#
-a&ing done this, it is clear that there is in fact a
more simple way of describing reality than
!instein9s assumption of *ontinuous (ields in
Space2/ime# :hile !instein was correct in
re)ecting the 9particle9 concept we now realise that
the 9continuous field9 concept (i#e# (araday,
8axwell, Aorent7, and which !instein used in his
/heory of 5elati&ity is also incorrect#
,nstead, it is simpler (and sol&es many problems
to describe reality from $ne thing existing, Space,
and its Properties as a :a&e 8edium for
Spherical :a&es that form 8atter# /his is
explained in the articles listed at the top of this page#
So you will find our pages a little different than most, because we are describing reality (and thus explaining
'lbert !instein9s /heory of 5elati&ity from a slightly different foundation than the current paradigm of
?particles? and ?fields? in ?(pace!Ti-e?, to a more simple foundation of (pherical (tanding +a,es in
(pace# 'nd we are describing a theory that can now be sensibly understood (so if you want absurdity and its
sensations that postmodern physics seems to en)oy, this is not a good website for you#
/hough , am primarily a philosopher " metaphysicist , ha&e read !instein a great deal, he is probably the
philosopher " scientist whom , ha&e most affection for (and , do ha&e great affection for many
philosophers# 'nd one thing that !instein understood well was the importance of understanding the history
and e&olution of 0nowledge# 's a philosopher strongly influenced by e&olution, , cannot agree more, that it
is critical (and now neglected to study the history and e&olution of 0nowledge if we are to correctly
understand it, and thus ha&e any hope of correcting the errors (and there are clearly many errors in modern
physics, as there are in philosophy and metaphysics#
*ertainly, by understanding the foundation of 0nowledge in physics at the time !instein de&eloped his
theory of relati&ity, we can now easily understand why he chose the path of representing matter as
*ontinuous Spherical 9(ields9 in Space2/ime# 'nd of most significance we can now also understand how
there is a more simple solution, by describing matter in terms of Spherical :a&es in *ontinuous Space, that
clearly explains and sol&es the problems caused by !instein9s failure to find a pure 9field theory of matter9#
/hus we must begin by considering the e&olution of the main ideas and concepts that lay at the metaphysical
foundations of 'lbert !instein9s /heory of 5elati&ity# i#e# Iewton9s 8echanics (1J=7, (araday9s
!lectromagnetic (ield /heory (1=K;, 8axwell9s !quations (1=7J and Aorent79s /heory of the !lectron
(19<<# So this page follows their 0nowledge, which ma0es for an interesting little )ourney to read about>
'nd most of the summary comes from 'lbert !instein himself 2 so it is a &ery good quality " astute history
of physics> , hope you en)oy the )ourney#
?eoff -aselhurst
+ntroduction to ,lbert Ainstein's Theory of <elativity - Eewton's ;echanics - Eewton 5 Time 6articles #orces
- Eewton 5 :i&ht - Eewton's :aw of +nertia - #araday A; #orce #ield - ;axwell's Aquations - :orent/ 5
Alectron - :orent/ Transformations - ,lbert Ainstein's Theory of <elativity - Special <elativity - Feneral
<elativity - Summary of Ainstein's <elativity - Top of 6a&e
The Particle()pace .uality of e!ton1s Mechanics +3?6@-
:e begin with a &ery good summary of 'tomism, as their ultimate conclusion, that the 9particle9 is a
conceptual tool for the logical positi&ist " mathematical physicist, but does not physically exist, is absolutely
correct# ('s the Principles state, the 9particle9 effect is *aused by the :a&e2*enter of the Spherical Standing
:a&e#
'tomism arose as an explanatory scheme with the ancient ?ree0s (around L<<.*, Aeucippus and
@emocritus, and !picurus, and the 5oman poet, Aucretius# 't the most fundamental le&el atomism is the
belief that all phenomena are explicable in terms of the properties and beha&iour of ultimate, elementary,
locali7ed entities (or 9fundamental particles9# /hus it prescribes a strategy for the construction of scientific
theories in which the beha&iour of complex bodies is to be explained in terms of their component parts# /hat
strategy has led to many of the successes of modern physical science, though these do not pro&e that there
actually are 9ultimate entities9 of the type postulated by atomism#
/heir (the atomists analysis goes 9behind9 the appearance of minute, unchangeable and indestructible 9atoms9
separated by the emptiness of 9the &oid9# ,t is the &oid which is said to ma0e change and mo&ement possible#
'll apparent change is simply the result of rearrangements of the atoms as a consequence of collisions
between them# /his seems to lead to mechanical determinism, though, in an attempt to lea&e room for
freewill, !picurus and Aucretius postulated that atoms might 9de&iate9 in their courses#
<ead the article on #ree @ill
-owe&er if 9what exists9 is 9atoms9, what of the 9&oid9F ,n different ways both 'ristotle and @escartes denied
that there could be such a thing as literally 9empty space9# Physically therefore they saw the world as a
plenum# 'tomism was also associated with atheism, since as Aucretius put it, 9Iothing can e&er be created
out of nothing, e&en by di&ine power#9 *on&ersely no thing can e&er become nothing 2 so the atomists
proposed a strict principle of conser&ation of matter#
/he attempt of the ancient atomists to sol&e a metaphysical problem about the nature of change resulted in a
brilliantly fruitful strategy for the construction of theories in the physical sciences# -owe&er there are
unanswered philosophical ob)ections to atomism and the &ery successes it has stimulated suggest that 9the
stuff of the world9 cannot ultimately be understood in terms of atomism# ' thoroughgoing positi&ism will
continue to hold that 9atomic theories9 are simply de&ices for tal0ing about obser&able phenomena# (/he
*oncise !ncyclopedia of :estern Philosophy and Philosophers, 1991
:ith this understanding of the 9particle9 in mind, and with 'lbert !instein as our guide, we shall now
explain and sol&e Iewton9s 8echanics, and thus also appreciate how this theory profoundly (though
incorrectly shaped the face of modern physics#
+ntroduction to ,lbert Ainstein's Theory of <elativity - Eewton's ;echanics - Eewton 5 Time 6articles #orces
- Eewton 5 :i&ht - Eewton's :aw of +nertia - #araday A; #orce #ield - ;axwell's Aquations - :orent/ 5
Alectron - :orent/ Transformations - ,lbert Ainstein's Theory of <elativity - Special <elativity - Feneral
<elativity - Summary of Ainstein's <elativity - Top of 6a&e
)ir 'saac e!ton Concepts of Time, Particles, and Forces
+'nstant 2ction5at5a5.istance-
Aet us now consider two &ery famous quotes from Iewton on absolute Space and /ime# Iewton9s
comments on 'bsolute Space being the foundations of the 5elati&e 8otions of 8atter in Space is absolutely
correct and &ery astute as Iewton effecti&ely predicts the e&olution of relati&ity 2 that it is easier to measure
the motion of matter relati&e to other matter, rather than to Space itself>
'bsolute Space, in its own nature, without regard to any thing external, remains always similar and
immo&able# 5elati&e Space is some mo&eable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces+ which our
senses determine, by its position to bodies+ and which is &ulgarly ta0en for immo&able space#
### 'nd so instead of absolute places and motions, we use relati&e ones+ and that without any incon&enience
in common affairs+ but in Philosophical disquisitions, we ought to abstract from our senses, and consider
things themsel&es, distinct from what are only sensible measures of them# (or it may be that there is no
body really at rest, to which the places and motions of others may be referred#
### 'bsolute, /rue, and 8athematical /ime, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard
to any thing external, and by another name is called @urationE 5elati&e, 'pparent, and *ommon /ime is
some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable measure of @uration by the means of motion,
which is commonly used instead of /rue time+ such as an -our, a @ay, a 8onth, a Near#
### (or the natural days are truly unequable, though they are commonly consider9d as equal, and used for a
measure of timeE 'stronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial
motions# ,t may be, that there is no such thing as an equable motion, whereby time may be accurately
measured# 'll motions may be accelerated and retarded, but the /rue, or equable progress, of 'bsolute time
is liable to no change# /he duration or perse&erance of the existence of things remains the same, whether the
motions are swift or slow, or none at all# (5e*ton, 1J=7
Iewton is also largely correct that /ime is intimately connected to 8otion, for /ime is ultimately caused by
the :a&e28otions of Space# ,t is also correct to assume an absolute /ime (li0e B/ rather than 5elati&ity
such that we ha&e a constant reference to measure the changing &elocity of wa&e2motion# -owe&er, /ime
does not exist as a 9thing in itself9 as Iewton thought>
'lbert !instein explains Iewton9s 8echanics lucidly and logicaly (as reflects the greatness of 'lbert
!instein#
/he first attempt to lay a uniform theoretical foundation was the wor0 of Iewton# ,n his system e&erything
is reduced to the following conceptsE
i 8ass points with in&ariable mass
ii ,nstant action2at2a2distance between any pair of mass points
iii Aaw of motion for the mass point#
Physical e&ents, in Iewton9s &iew, are to be regarded as the motions, go&erned by fixed laws, of material
points in space# /his theoretical scheme is in essence an atomistic and mechanistic one# /here was not,
strictly spea0ing, any all2embracing foundation, because an explicit law was only formulated for the actions2
at2a2distance of gra&itation+ while for other actions2at2a2distance nothing was established a priori except the
law of equality of actio and reactio# 8oreo&er, Iewton himself fully reali7ed that time and space were
essential elements, as physically effecti&e factors, of his system# (Albert 'instein, 19L<
:e now realise his ob&ious error was to introduce discrete 9particles9 with 8otion, rather than the 8otion of
Space itself, i#e# Spherical Standing :a&e 8otion, which creates the 9particle effect9 at its :a&e2*enter#
Iewton9s endea&ours to represent his system as necessarily conditioned by experience and to introduce the
smallest possible number of concepts not directly referable to empirical ob)ects is e&erywhere e&ident+ in
spite of this he set up the concept of absolute space and absolute time# (or this he has often been critici7ed
in recent years#
/herefore, in addition to masses and temporally &ariable distances, there must be something else that
determines motion# /hat something he ta0es to be relation to absolute space# -e is aware that space must
possess a 0ind of physical reality if his laws of motion are to ha&e any meaning, a reality of the same sort as
material points and their distances# (Albert 'instein, 195L
's stated in the first chapter, 'lbert !instein considered matter to be spatially extended (and represented by
Spherical (orce (ields thus he did not belie&e in the existence of a fundamental Space or /ime that was
separate from 8atter# 's with Aeibni7 and 8ach, 'lbert !instein belie&ed that all motion of matter in Space
could instead be understood as motion of matter relati&e to other matter, thus the concept of an absolute
Space became unnecessary#
,n Iewtonian physics the elementary theoretical concept on which the theoretical description of material
bodies is based is the material point, or particle# /hus matter is considered a priori to be discontinuous# /his
ma0es it necessary to consider the action of material points on one another as action2at2a2distance# Since the
latter concept seems quite contrary to e&eryday experience, it is only natural that the contemporaries of
Iewton 2 and indeed Iewton himself 2 found it difficult to accept# $wing to the almost miraculous success
of the Iewtonian system, howe&er, the succeeding generations of physicists became used to the idea of
action2at2a2distance# 'ny doubt was buried for a long time to come# (Albert 'instein, 195<
/he solution though is ob&ious once 0nown 2 to discard the discrete particle in Space and replace it with the
Spherical Standing :a&e (SS: in Space# /hen instant action2at2a2distance between discrete particles
becomes action2at2a2distance between the ,n and $ut2:a&es of the :a&e2*enters 9particles9 in Space#
/his leads to a clear understanding of how matter interacts with other matter at2a2distance in Space, as it is
the interaction of the ,n2:a&es and $ut2:a&es with other SS:s (and particularly their :a&e2*enters that
explains all matter to matter interactions in Space# /hese interactions are limited by the &elocity of the ,n2
:a&es and $ut2:a&es which is the &elocity of light c# /hus actions2at2a2distance are not instantaneous as
Iewton had assumed, but are limited by the &elocity of the ,n2:a&es (&elocity of light c, as 'lbert !instein
realised#
$n the other hand, with respect to an absolute Space, it is one purpose of this article to show that in fact
Iewton was correct, there does exist a fundamental physical Space which acts as a wa&e medium and
necessarily connects all things# Iewton9s error was to further assume the existence of the motion of material
particles in this Space, rather than the (Spherical :a&e28otion of Space itself#
Iewton9s error, of assuming too many existents, leads to two insurmountable problems+
a? Kow does matter exist as a discrete particle in Space and move throu&h the
Space around itH
's .orn explains+
$ne ob&ious ob)ection to the hypothesis of an elastic 'ether (Space arises from the necessity of ascribing
to it the great rigidity it must ha&e to account for the high &elocity of :a&es# Such a substance would
necessarily offer resistance to the motion of hea&enly bodies, particularly to that of planets# 'stronomy has
ne&er detected departures from Iewton9s Aaws of 8otion that would point to such a resistance# (;orn,
19;L
:hile .orn is correct that Space is &ery rigid and this explains the high :a&e26elocity, he (along with most
physicists mista0enly assumes that separate 9particles9 exist in this Space, and thus it is inconcei&able that
Space itself can exist as it would resist the motion of these particles# /he ob&ious solution is to replace the
concept of matter existing as discrete particles with matter existing as Spherical Standing :a&es in this
Space, thus the motion of the particle becomes the apparent motion of successi&e :a&e2*enters#
b? Kow do these discrete particles &ravitationally act-at-a-distance with other
particles separate in SpaceH
Iewton simply assumed that discrete particles could act instantly on other particles at2a2distance in Space
(Iewton9s instantaneous action2at2a2distance though he was well aware of this problem as he explains in
his famous letter to .entley+
,t is inconcei&able that inanimate brute matter should, without mediation of something else which is not
matter, operate on and affect other matter without mutual contact# ### /hat gra&ity should be innate, inherent
and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at2a2distance, through a &acuum, without the
mediation of anything else by and through which their action may be con&eyed from one to another, is to me
so great an absurdity that , belie&e no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of
thin0ing, can e&er fall into it#
So far , ha&e explained the phenomena by the force of gra&ity, but , ha&e not yet ascertained the cause of
gra&ity itself# ### and , do not arbitrarily in&ent hypotheses# (5e*ton# Aetter to 5ichard .entley ;5 (eb#
1J9K
'ction2at2a2distance has pu77led philosophers and physicists since Iewton first assumed instantaneous
action2at2a2distance for gra&itational 8ass# (or if matter is assumed to be a tiny particle, how could it
interact (instantly> with other matter at a distance in Space (across the entire uni&erseF
(or example, how do we, here on earth, sense the heat and light from the sun so distant in SpaceF :e now
reali7e that matter is not small, it is large# ,ndeed 'lbert !instein was &ery close to the truth 2 matter is
spherically spatially extended, thus as we ha&e said, Iewton9s instant action2at2a2distance from a particle
becomes action2at2a2distance from the :a&e2*enter of Spherical Standing :a&es in Space, due to the
interaction and change in &elocity of their ,n and $ut2:a&es#
(i#e# 's a consequence of Principle /wo, the ,n2:a&es of the Spherical Standing :a&e in Space interact
with other SS:s in Space (particularly their high :a&e2'mplitude"@ensity :a&e2*enters as they flow in
through them and change their &elocity accordingly# /his determines where each successi&e ,n2:a&e will
ultimately meet at their respecti&e :a&e2*enter (i#e# the future position of the :a&e2*enter " 9particle9
which causes the apparent motion (acceleration of the 9particle9# /his then explains action2at2a2distance
(from the :a&e2*enter and why it is not instantaneous, but rather, is limited by the &elocity of the ,n2
:a&es " 6elocity of light c#
+ntroduction to ,lbert Ainstein's Theory of <elativity - Eewton's ;echanics - Eewton 5 Time 6articles #orces
- Eewton 5 :i&ht - Eewton's :aw of +nertia - #araday A; #orce #ield - ;axwell's Aquations - :orent/ 5
Alectron - :orent/ Transformations - ,lbert Ainstein's Theory of <elativity - Special <elativity - Feneral
<elativity - Summary of Ainstein's <elativity - Top of 6a&e
(ir Isaac 5e*ton?s Concept of "ight as a Particle
,t is true that Iewton tried to reduced light to the motion of material points in his corpuscular theory of
light# Aater on, howe&er, as the phenomena of finite &elocity, polari7ation, diffraction, and interference of
light forced upon this theory more and more unnatural modifications, -uygens9 undulatory wa&e theory of
light pre&ailed# (Albert 'instein, 19KJ
'lbert !instein clearly reali7ed, as did physicists of the time, that the particle concept of light is unable to
explain experimental phenomena li0e polari7ation, diffraction, and interference, which are ob&iously
explained by wa&e phenomena# /his di&ide between Iewton9s particle conception of light and -uygens9
wa&e theory of light was decided by /homas Noung9s (1=<1 famous double slit experiment which showed
interference patterns that could only be explained by a wa&e theory# (or how could a single particle tra&el
through two slits and interfere with itselfF
(urther, as 'lbert !instein argues, it is impossible to explain how particles of matter emit and absorb
particles of light#
:hat in that case becomes of the material points of which light is composed when the light is absorbedF
(Albert 'instein, 19K1
So while Iewton9s particle theory for light and matter had substantial logical (mathematical success at
explaining certain phenomena, particularly the orbits of planets, it clearly produced many paradoxes due to
its fundamental error of assuming the existence of discrete particles#
Net no serious doubt of the mechanical (particle foundation of physics arose, in the first place because
nobody 0new where to find a foundation of another sort# $nly slowly, under the irresistible pressure of
facts, there de&eloped a new foundation of physics, 9(ield9 physics# (Albert 'instein, 195L
:e shall shortly consider the 9(ield9 physics, but before this we need to finally explain Iewton9 famous Aaw
of ,nertia+
'n ob)ect at rest will remain at rest and an ob)ect in motion will continue in motion with a constant &elocity
unless it experiences a net external force# ((er*ay, 199;
+ntroduction to ,lbert Ainstein's Theory of <elativity - Eewton's ;echanics - Eewton 5 Time 6articles #orces
- Eewton 5 :i&ht - Eewton's :aw of +nertia - #araday A; #orce #ield - ;axwell's Aquations - :orent/ 5
Alectron - :orent/ Transformations - ,lbert Ainstein's Theory of <elativity - Special <elativity - Feneral
<elativity - Summary of Ainstein's <elativity - Top of 6a&e
(ir Isaac 5e*ton?s "a* of Inertia F F -.a
8ass is caused by the 5elationship between *hange in 6elocity c of the ,n2:a&e and the resultant *hange
in Aocation of the :a&e2*enter " 'cceleration of the 9Particle9#
.y understanding the properties of space and how they effect the &elocity of wa&es we can now simply
explain 5e*ton?s "a* of Inertia FF-.a which is at the &ery heart of Physics#
i 'ny *hange in 6elocity of the Spherical ,n2:a&es from $ne @irection *hanges where these ,n2:a&es
meet at their respecti&e :a&e2*enter which we see as the 'ccelerated 8otion of the 9Particle9# (/his is the
cause of matter interactions " forces " field effects, i#e# Iewton9s Aaw of ,nertia (Um#a
ii /he Spherical ,n2:a&es are formed from the -uygens9 *ombination of $ut2:a&es from 'll other 8atter
in our (inite Spherical %ni&erse# (/his is the *ause of 8ach9s Principle 2 the 8ass (mass2energy density of
space of an ob)ect is determined by all the other matter in the %ni&erse#
/his explains how matter 9particles9 (:a&e2*enters are 9Iecessarily *onnected9 to other 8atter in the Space
around them, and thus leads to the explanation of 9(orce9 and Iewton9s famous Aaw of ,nertia (orce U 8ass
X 'cceleration ((Um#a
*onsider the Spherical ,n2:a&es of $ne !lectron " Spherical Standing :a&e (SS:#
,f there is no change in the &elocity of the Spherical ,n2:a&e then there can be no change in the apparent
motion of the :a&e2*enter " 9particle9#
i#e# ,f the Spherical ,n2:a&es comes in with the same &elocity in all directions then the :a&e2*enter "
9particle9 will remain stationary in the same place in Space#
*on&ersely, if there is a change in &elocity of the Spherical ,n2:a&es in one direction then this will also
cause a change in the location where the wa&e center 9particle9 forms in Space which we see as the motion
(acceleration of the :a&e2*enter " 9particle9#
So when we consider the future motion of a particle we must actually consider the &elocity of the Spherical
,n2:a&es only, for it is logical that this alone determines where these ,n2:a&es will meet at their future
:a&e2*enters#
/his is the underlying cause of the Aaw of ,nertia and the concepts of force, mass and acceleration# :e can
now translate the language of physics into the language of the :S8# :hen we apply a (orce to an ob)ect
we are in fact changing the &elocity of their ,n2:a&es, and this causes the wa&e center to re2position# ,t is
this relationship between the change in &elocity of ,n2:a&es and the change in location (apparent motion "
acceleration of the :a&e2*enter that causes the concept of 8ass and explains the necessary connection
between apparently discrete matter particles# (i#e# 'ction2at2a2distance#
/hough this is perhaps a little confusing upon first reading, with time it becomes more ob&ious that the
Spherical :a&e Structure of 8atter simplifies and sol&es the problems of Iewton9s 8echanics by remo&ing
the concept of discrete 9particles9 and replacing this with Spherical :a&e 8otions of Space whose :a&e2
*enter9s *ause the 9Particle9 !ffect#
Aet us now consider the next ma)or e&olution in the theoretical foundation of Physics, (araday9s
!lectromagnetic (orce (ields#
+ntroduction to ,lbert Ainstein's Theory of <elativity - Eewton's ;echanics - Eewton 5 Time 6articles #orces
- Eewton 5 :i&ht - Eewton's :aw of +nertia - #araday A; #orce #ield - ;axwell's Aquations - :orent/ 5
Alectron - :orent/ Transformations - ,lbert Ainstein's Theory of <elativity - Special <elativity - Feneral
<elativity - Summary of Ainstein's <elativity - Top of 6a&e
Faraday?s 'lectro-agnetic Force Field, ParticleBField 0uality
(6IJD)
(araday9s *ontinuous !lectromagnetic (orce (ield is a 8athematical 'pproximation of 8any @iscrete
Standing :a&e ,nteractions#
/he greatest change in the axiomatic basis of physics 2 in other words, of our conception of the structure of
reality 2 since Iewton laid the foundation of theoretical physics was brought about by (araday9s and
8axwell9s wor0 on electromagnetic field phenomena# (Albert 'instein, 19K1
(araday (1=K; de&eloped the mathematical concept of the 9electro2magnetic force field9 as a way of
mathematically describing action2at2a2distance for charged particles (i#e# electrons and protons# /his is a
continuous mathematical 9plotting9 of the effects (forces and thus accelerated motions that matter has on
other matter in the Space around it, thus it is a description of effects rather than causes (,nducti&e " a
posteriori rather than deducti&e " a priori# 'nd this becomes important when you read -ume and Qant, for
they explain that the ultimate Principles of Physics must be a priori, not a posteriori>#
/his field concept replaced Iewton9s instant action2at2a2distance between discrete particles# ,mportantly, the
electromagnetic (e2m field is a ,ector (directional quantity that defines force and direction of acceleration
of many charged particles upon one another# ,t is continuous in the sense that the distance and force between
particles can &ary by infinitely small amounts#
(or example, electrons near one another in Space experience a mutual force of repulsion and this beha&iour
can be mathematically described using (araday9s e2m field which quantifies this force and describes how it
&aries with distance and direction# 's 'lbert !instein explains+
(araday must ha&e grasped with unerring instinct the artificial nature of all attempts to refer electromagnetic
phenomena to actions2at2a2distance between electric particles reacting on each other# -ow was each single
iron filing among a lot scattered on a piece of paper to 0now of the single electric particles running round in
a nearby conductorF
'll these electric particles together seemed to create in the surrounding space a condition which in turn
produced a certain order in the filings# /hese spatial states, today called fields, would, he was con&inced,
furnish the clue to the mysterious electromagnetic interactions# -e concei&ed these fields as states of
mechanical stress in an elastically distended body (ether"space# (or at that time this was the only way one
could concei&e of states that were apparently continuously distributed in space# /he peculiar type of
mechanical interpretation of these fields remained in the bac0ground 2 a sort of placation of the scientific
conscience in &iew of the mechanical (Iewtonian tradition of (araday9s time# (Albert 'instein, 19L<
,t seems that the 9electromagnetic force field9 is a poorly understood concept which causes considerable
confusion# ,t is quite basic though, as it is nothing more than a mathematical description of how matter
affects and mo&es other matter in the Space around it# /his mathematical 9force field9 is a &ery powerful tool
for mathematical physicists (as is the particle and as a consequence many physicists (including (araday,
8axwell, and Aorent7 imagined this 9field9 to be real and therefore assumed that an 9'ether9 (made up of
many smaller particles> must exist in Space as the medium for this 9field9# .orn describes the ether as
follows+
/he undulatory, or wa&e theory, on the other hand, sets up an analogy between the propagation of light and
the motion of wa&es on the surface of water or sound wa&es in air# (or this purpose it has to assume the
existence of an elastic medium that permeates all transparent bodies+ this is the luminiferous ether# /he
indi&idual particles of this substance merely oscillate about their positions of equilibrium# /hat which
mo&es on as the light wa&e is the state of motion of the particles and not the particles themsel&es# (;orn,
19;L
,n fact there is no 9ether9 simply because there are no 9force fields9# .oth are mathematical constructions
(rather clumsy and confusing ones at that to try to explain how matter 9particles9 interacted with other
9particles9 in the space around them# $nce we understand the Spherical :a&e Structure of 8atter in Space
though, then we no longer need these mathematical ideas, instead we realise that Space itself is a continuous
wa&e medium (which necessarily connects all things and there are no such things as discrete particles#
+ntroduction to ,lbert Ainstein's Theory of <elativity - Eewton's ;echanics - Eewton 5 Time 6articles #orces
- Eewton 5 :i&ht - Eewton's :aw of +nertia - #araday A; #orce #ield - ;axwell's Aquations - :orent/ 5
Alectron - :orent/ Transformations - ,lbert Ainstein's Theory of <elativity - Special <elativity - Feneral
<elativity - Summary of Ainstein's <elativity - Top of 6a&e
Ma>!ell1s /Auations $ the Finite Belocity of Light #a"es +36@?-
:hen 8axwell (1=7J used this field theory to assume that light was an !lectromagnetic :a&e, and then
correctly deduced the finite &elocity of light, it was a powerful logical argument for the existence of the
electromagnetic force field, and that light was a wa&e li0e change in the field (electromagnetic radiation
that propagated with the &elocity of light c through the ether#
,n fact 8axwell was simply confirming that all :a&e2*enter to :a&e2*enter (particle interactions are not
instantaneous as Iewton assumed, but are limited by the &elocity of the ,n2:a&es which is the 6elocity of
Aight c#
So while 8axwell misunderstood the true nature of the wa&es (which are physical wa&es in Space rather
than mathematical &ector e2m wa&es, he is largely correct# /his new 0nowledge was significant as it
established the importance of the finite &elocity of light c and further enhanced the field theory, thus
re)ecting Iewton9s theory of particles and instant action2at2a2distance#
/he precise formulation of the time space laws of those fields was the wor0 of 8axwell (1=7<s# ,magine
his feelings when the differential equations he had formulated pro&ed to him that the electromagnetic fields
spread in the form of polari7ed wa&es and with the speed of light> /o few men in the world has such an
experience been &ouchsafed#
$nly after -ert7 (1=== had demonstrated experimentally the existence of 8axwell9s electromagnetic wa&es
did resistance to the new theory brea0 down# 'nd what was true for electrical action could not be denied for
gra&itation# !&erywhere Iewton9s (instant actions2at2a2distance ga&e way to fields spreading with finite
&elocity#
't that thrilling moment he surely ne&er guessed that the riddling nature of light, apparently so
completely sol&ed, would continue to baffle succeeding generations# (Albert 'instein, 195L
'nd this is true# .ecause they were using a mathematical construction of a continuous e2m wa&e, rather than
the true Spherical Standing :a&e, they were in for a rather disturbing disco&ery not long thereafter# (or
standing wa&e interactions only occur at discrete frequencies, li0e notes on the string of a guitar, thus while
the true Spherical Standing :a&e Structure of 8atter predicts that wa&e interactions will be discrete, the
continuous e2m wa&e does not anticipate this#
/hus when 8ax Planc0 (19<< disco&ered that there are only certain allowed discrete energy states for
electrons in molecules and atoms, and that light is only e&er emitted and absorbed by electrons in discrete
amounts or 9quanta9, contrary to 8axwell9s formulation that light is a continuous electromagnetic wa&e, then
this caused a fundamental problem for the field theory that was ne&er resol&ed# ,t is only now, with
0nowledge of the true foundations of physics and reality, that we can understand, and thus anticipate and
correct, the errors of contemporary modern physics# (/his is explained in more detail in Buantum /heory
+ntroduction to ,lbert Ainstein's Theory of <elativity - Eewton's ;echanics - Eewton 5 Time 6articles #orces
- Eewton 5 :i&ht - Eewton's :aw of +nertia - #araday A; #orce #ield - ;axwell's Aquations - :orent/ 5
Alectron - :orent/ Transformations - ,lbert Ainstein's Theory of <elativity - Special <elativity - Feneral
<elativity - Summary of Ainstein's <elativity - Top of 6a&e
"orent4?s Theory of the 'lectron (67AA)
-endri0 Aorent7 in /he /heory of the !lectron describes the electron as a spherical spatially extended
electromagnetic field about a charged particle (electron in the ether# /hus inad&ertently he continued this
error of assuming the 9field9 to be real, and described the electron as a charged particle that somehow
9generated9 a spherical spatially extended 9field9 in the ether around it# /his was profound simply because
'lbert !instein used Aorent79s foundations to de&elop his 9field9 theory of matter which founds his theory of
5elati&ity# 's 'lbert !instein explains+
't the turn of the century the theoretical physicists of all nations considered -#'# Aorent7 as the leading
mind among them, and rightly so# /he physicists of our time are mostly not fully aware of the decisi&e part
which -#'# Aorent7 played in shaping the fundamental ideas in theoretical physics# /he reason for this
strange fact is that Aorent79s basic ideas ha&e become so much a part of them that they are hardly able to
reali7e quite how daring these ideas ha&e been and to what extent they ha&e simplified the foundations of
physics#
/hen came -#'# Aorent79s decisi&e simplification of the theory# -e based his in&estigations with unfaltering
consistency upon the following hypothesesE
/he seat of the electromagnetic field is the empty space# ,n it there are only one electric and one magnetic
field &ector# /his field is generated by atomistic electric charges upon which the field in turn exerts
ponderomoti&e forces# /he only connection between the electromagnetic field and ponderable matter arises
from the fact that elementary electric charges are rigidly attached to atomistic particles of matter# (or the
latter Iewton9s law of motion holds#
%pon this simplified foundation Aorent7 based a complete theory of all electromagnetic phenomena 0nown
at the time, including those of the electrodynamics of mo&ing bodies# ,t is a wor0 of such consistency,
lucidity, and beauty as has only rarely been attained in an empirical science# (Albert 'instein, 195L
Aorent7 imagined that the ether exists throughout Space and that matter"fields existed as a state of this ether#
,ndeed one of the most important of our fundamental assumptions must be that the ether not only occupies
all space between molecules, atoms, or electrons, but that it per&ades all these particles# :e shall add the
hypothesis that, though the particles may mo&e, the ether always remains at rest#
, cannot but regard the ether, which can be the seat of an electromagnetic field with its energy and its
&ibrations, as endowed with a certain degree of substantiality, howe&er different it may be from all ordinary
matter# ("orent4, /he /heory of the !lectron, 19<J
,n fact Aorent7 was &ery close to the truth, if he had )ust discarded the old notions of 9particles9 and 9fields9
then his concept of &ibrations " wa&e motions of the ether, and the equi&alence of the ether with Space
would ha&e been correct and would then ha&e led to the correct conception of matter as the spherical wa&e
motion of Space#
's 8ax .orn writes+
Aorent7 proclaimed the &ery radical thesis which had ne&er before been asserted with such definitenessE /he
ether is at rest in absolute space# ,n principle this identifies the ether with absolute space# 'bsolute space is
no &acuum, but something with definite properties whose state is described with the help of two directed
quantities, the electrical field ! and the magnetic field -, and, as such is called the ether# (;orn, 19;L
/hus we now realise that Aorent79s fundamental problem was belie&ing that the e2m field physically existed#
/he solution is to reali7e that, yes, a fundamental Space does exist, as (araday, 8axwell, and Aorent7
sensibly imagined, but it is a wa&e medium for real wa&es in a physical medium, described by their :a&e
'mplitude only (Scalar wa&es# Space does not exist as an 9ether9 for mathematical e2m wa&es of force
(&ector wa&es that must include both force and direction of force for both !lectric and 8agnetic (ields#
/o aid this understanding, let us now ha&e 'lbert !instein summari7e this confusing state of affairs that had
arisen by the early 19<<s#
,t became clear that there existed in free space states which propagated themsel&es in *a,es as well as
locali7ed fields which were able to exert forces on electrical masses or magnetic poles brought to the spot#
Since it would ha&e seemed utterly absurd to the physicists of the nineteenth century to attribute physical
functions or states to space itself, they in&ented a medium per&ading the whole of space, on the model of
ponderable matter (i#e# tiny particles that mo&ed bac0wards and forwards as they propagated wa&es the
ether, which was supposed to act as a &ehicle for electromagnetic phenomena, and hence for those of light
as well# /he picture was, then, as followsE space is filled by the ether, in which the material corpuscles or
atoms of ponderable matter swim around+ the atomic structure of the latter had been securely established by
the turn of the century (19<<# /hus the introduction of the field as an elementary concept ga&e rise to an
inconsistency of the theory as a whole#
8axwell9s theory, although adequately describing the beha&iour of electrically charged particles in their
interaction with one another, does not explain the beha&iour of electrical densities, i#e#, it does not pro&ide a
theory of the particles themsel&es# /hey must therefore be treated as mass points on the basis of the old
Iewtonian theory# /he combination of the idea of a continuous field with that of material points
discontinuous in space appears inconsistent# -ence the material particle has no place as a fundamental
concept in a field theory# /hus e&en apart from the fact that gra&itation is not included, 8axwell9s
electrodynamics cannot be considered a complete theory# (Albert 'instein, 195<
's 'lbert !instein explains though, the particle was a necessary part of the e&olution of the field theory, for
9forces9 must ha&e 9particles9 to act upon>
/he participation of matter in electromagnetic phenomena has its origin only in the fact that the elementary
particles of matter carry unalterable masses and electric charges and on this account are sub)ect on the one
hand to the actions of ponderomoti&e (Iewtonian " 8ass forces and on the other hand possess the property
of generating a field (*harge# /he elementary particles obey Iewton9s law of motion for material points#
/his is the basis on which -# '# Aorent7 obtained his syntheses of Iewton9s mechanics and 8axwell9s field
theory#
/he wea0ness of this theory lies in the fact that it tried to determine the phenomena by a combination of
partial differential equations (8axwell9s field equations for empty space and total differential equations
(equations of motion of point particles, which procedure was ob&iously unnatural# /he inadequacy of this
point of &iew manifested itself in the necessity of assuming finite dimensions for the particles in order to
pre&ent the electromagnetic field existing at the surfaces from becoming infinitely large#
/he 8axwell equations in their original form do not, howe&er, allow such a description of particles, because
their corresponding solutions contain a singularity# /heoretical physicists ha&e tried for a long time (19KJ,
therefore, to reach the goal by a modification of 8axwell9s equations# /hese attempts ha&e, howe&er, not
been crowned with success#
/hus it happened that the goal of erecting a pure electromagnetic field theory of matter remained unattained
for the time being, although in principle no ob)ection could be raised against the possibility of reaching such
a goal# :hat appears certain to me, howe&er, is that, in the foundations of any consistent field theory the
particle concept -ust not appear in addition to the field concept. /he whole theory must by based solely
on partial differential equations and their singularity2free solutions# (Albert 'instein, 19KJ
>Eote' , sin&ularity is where the radius of the particle tends to /ero thus the field stren&th tends to infinity
and the mathematics to describe it fails. ,nd this led to #eynman's problems of 'renormalisation' as
explained in the ,rticle on *uantum Theory.?
/his explains why 'lbert !instein tried to de&elop a field theory of matter (without the use"need of
particles though he ne&er succeeded in this &enture, simply because matter, as a Spherical Standing :a&e
8otion of Space cannot be described by continuous force fields# (i#e# Standing :a&e interactions are
discrete, not continuous> /hus he writes+
Since the theory of general relati&ity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the
concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion# /he
particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are
particularly high# (Albert 'instein, 195L
:e now realise his error of wor0ing with 9spherical force fields9 rather than Spherical :a&e 8otions, whose
changing &elocities of ,n2:a&es cause the apparent motions of the particles and thus the 9forces9 between
these particles> /hus he was correct to discard the concept of discrete particles, his error was to also discard
the concept of motion and wor0 with 9forces9 when a careful analysis leads to the realisation that 8otion is
more fundamental than (orce (i#e# /hat (orce requires the measurement of 8otion#
:e shall consider this in more detail shortly, but first let us proceed with the further disco&eries of Aorent7#
+ntroduction to ,lbert Ainstein's Theory of <elativity - Eewton's ;echanics - Eewton 5 Time 6articles #orces
- Eewton 5 :i&ht - Eewton's :aw of +nertia - #araday A; #orce #ield - ;axwell's Aquations - :orent/ 5
Alectron - :orent/ Transformations - ,lbert Ainstein's Theory of <elativity - Special <elativity - Feneral
<elativity - Summary of Ainstein's <elativity - Top of 6a&e
The Lorent< Transformations $ ;o! the /lectron Changes /llipsoidal )hape #ith Motion
$n -ow a *hange in 6elocity of the ,n2:a&e (6el# of Aight c *auses a *hange in !llipsoidal Shape of the
,n2:a&e, and also *auses a *hange in the (uture Position and /hus the 'pparent 8otion ('cceleration of
the :a&e2*enter#
/hus far we ha&e largely considered a SS: stationary in Space, so let us now consider a SS: where the
:a&e2*enter appears to be mo&ing through Space, as this then leads to the Aorent7 /ransformations and the
foundations of Special 5elati&ity#
's the particle does not exist, and instead we are considering the beha&iour of the :a&e2*enter of a SS:,
we reali7e that the motion of the particle through Space is actually the apparent motion of successi&e :a&e2
*enters which are determined by where each successi&e spherical (in reality ellipsoidal ,n2:a&e meets at
its respecti&e :a&e2*enter#
Fig=6.@.6 The 'llipsoidal (hape of a &o,ing +a,e!Center= ,f the ,n2:a&es on the right are slowed down
as they tra&el in through Space of higher mass2energy density of space (Principle ,, then they are stretched
bac0 into an ellipsoidal shape (rather than being exactly spherical and ha&e a shorter :a&elength# ,t is this
change in ellipsoidal shape and :a&elength of the ,n2:a&e which causes the apparent motion of the :a&e2
*enter and thus the Aorent7 /ransformations#
,f a :a&e2*enter is to mo&e through Space then it is clear that we must change the &elocity of the ,n2:a&es
from one side relati&e to the other such that they no longer meet in the same place# /hus by changing the
&elocity of the ,n2:a&es we cause the :a&e2*enter to change its position in Space# /his is the cause of
acceleration (and in fact of all forces, as per Iewton9s Aaw of ,nertia (Um#a#
/his also explains the foundation of the Aorent7 transformations and how this was used by 'lbert !instein
to de&elop his special and general relati&ity#
/o begin, if we slow down the ,n2:a&e on one side of the :a&e2*enter then these ,n2:a&es will meet
more in the direction of the slower ,n2:a&es# (urther, the spherical shape of the ,n2:a&es will become
ellipsoidal and this change in shape will directly relate to the apparent motion of the :a&e2*enter (particle#
' con&enient analogy is to imagine the point (particle where the ,n2:a&e meets at its :a&e2*enter as a
footstep, and the motion of the particle through Space can be imagined as a sequence of discrete steps
corresponding to where each successi&e ,n2:a&e meets at its :a&e2*enter#
/he Aorent7 /ransformations pro&ide formulas for the change of ellipsoidal shape of matter (as a spatially
extended e2m field with motion of the :a&e2*enter (particle and how this affects 8ass, /ime and
Aength"@imension# /he motion (and change in ellipsoidal shape is simply relati&e between the source and
obser&er, it ma0es no difference as to who is mo&ing# (/his formula for change of mass and dimension has
been amply &erified in particle accelerators and /6 tubes#
's .orn confirms+
Aorent7 assumed that e&ery mo&ing electron contracts in the direction of motion, so that from a sphere it
becomes a flattened spheroid of re&olution, the amount of flattening depending in a definite way on the
&elocity# /his hypothesis seems at first sight strange# ,t certainly gi&es a simpler formula for the way
electromagnetic mass depends on &elocity than does 'braham9s theory, but this in itself does not )ustify it#
(;orn, 19;L
's the dimension of matter as Spherical :a&e 8otions is determined by .$/- the wa&elength and shape
of the ellipsoidal standing wa&es about the :a&e2*entre of the electron (matter, which relates to the
motion of the centre, thus the mo&ing electron9s spatial dimensions must be distorted into an ellipsoidal
shape# /his explains the true foundations of the Aorent7 /ransformations and the 9null result9 of the
8ichelson28orley experiment# 'nd Aorent7 was &ery close to the truth in explaining this, he writes+
,n order to explain this absence of any effect of the !arth9s translation (in the 8ichelson"8orley
experiment, , ha&e &entured the hypothesis, that the dimensions of a solid body undergo slight change, of
the order of &
;
"c
;
, when it mo&es through the ether#
(rom this point of &iew it is natural to suppose that, )ust li0e the electromagnetic forces, the molecular
attractions and repulsions are somewhat modified by a translation imparted to the body, and this may &ery
well result in a change of dimensions# ### /he electrons themsel&es become flattened ellipsoids# ("orent4,
19<J
Fig= 6.@.D The &ichelson!&orley e)peri-ent *ith the center of an ellipsoidal *a,e syste- as the
obser,er. @ue to our dimension being determined by wa&elength, we shall always measure arm 1 of an
interferometer, to be the same length as that of arm ;, irrespecti&e of which direction we may rotate the
interferometer# /he arms are both 7 wa&elengths long# (rom this we can conclude that it will ta0e the same
time for the ellipsoidal ,n2:a&es to propagate in to the center along arm 1 as it does along arm ;# (/his must
be true, as the electron 9particle is caused by the :a&e2*enter of the ellipsoidal wa&e system, and this is
where the ellipsoidal wa&e meets, ob&iously at the same time# 's there is no time difference for the two
paths, no interference is obser&ed#
I$/!E /his diagram is not exactly accurate, but it gi&es you the general idea>
/he 8ichelson 8orley experiment confirms that this is true, and that the light ta0es the same time to tra&el
each path# /his is a general principle, and is the cause of 'lbert !instein9s principle of special relati&ity#
/his enables 'lbert !instein to postulate that the &elocity of light is always measured to be the same, as this
is true# 'lbert !instein writes+
/he so called special or restricted relati&ity theory is based on the fact that 8axwell9s equations (and thus
the law of propagation of light in empty space are con&erted into equations of the same form, when they
undergo a Aorent7 transformation# (Albert 'instein, 195L
So now let us briefly explain 'lbert !instein9s 5elati&ity, which has had such a profound, and yet ultimately
confusing, impact on modern physics#
+ntroduction to ,lbert Ainstein's Theory of <elativity - Eewton's ;echanics - Eewton 5 Time 6articles #orces
- Eewton 5 :i&ht - Eewton's :aw of +nertia - #araday A; #orce #ield - ;axwell's Aquations - :orent/ 5
Alectron - :orent/ Transformations - ,lbert Ainstein's Theory of <elativity - Special <elativity - Feneral
<elativity - Summary of Ainstein's <elativity - Top of 6a&e
2lbert /instein1s Theory of %elati"ity +3C7D,3C3D-
/he special theory, on which the general theory rests, applies to all physical phenomena with the exception
of gra&itation+ the general theory pro&ides the law of gra&itation and its relation to the other forces of nature#
('lbert !instein, 1919
/he theory of relati&ity may indeed be said to ha&e put a sort of finishing touch to the mighty intellectual
edifice of 8axwell and Aorent7, inasmuch as it see0s to extend field physics to all phenomena, gra&itation
included# ('lbert !instein, 19KL
'lbert !instein9s Special and ?eneral 5elati&ity relate to the !mpirical (a posteriori truth that the laws of
Iature, and thus the &elocity of light, are always measured to be the same for all obser&ers irrespecti&e of
their motion relati&e to one another# (Principle of 5elati&ity
So for example, as the earth is orbiting the sun, classically one would expect that we would measure
different &elocities for the light we see from stars when we are mo&ing towards them rather than away from
them, yet measurements always gi&e the same &alue for the &elocity of light from the stars, irrespecti&e of
our motion#
+ntroduction to ,lbert Ainstein's Theory of <elativity - Eewton's ;echanics - Eewton 5 Time 6articles #orces
- Eewton 5 :i&ht - Eewton's :aw of +nertia - #araday A; #orce #ield - ;axwell's Aquations - :orent/ 5
Alectron - :orent/ Transformations - ,lbert Ainstein's Theory of <elativity - Special <elativity - Feneral
<elativity - Summary of Ainstein's <elativity - Top of 6a&e
Albert 'instein? (pecial $elati,ity (67A9)
The Principle of 5e*tonian $elati,ity. The la*s of &echanics
are the sa-e in all inertial (non!accelerated) reference fra-es.
Iewton, amongst others, noticed that the laws of mechanics seemed to be the same irrespecti&e of the
obser&er9s (constant motion through Space# ,f you throw a ball &ertically in the air it comes bac0 down
&ertically# ,t does not matter whether you are standing still on the earth, or mo&ing with a constant &elocity
(Iewton used the example of a ship across the surface of the earth, it still goes straight up and down
relati&e to the person who throws it#
,f, relati&e to Q, Q9 is a uniformly mo&ing co2ordinate system de&oid of rotation, then natural phenomena
run their course with respect to Q9 according to exactly the same general laws as with respect to Q# /his
statement is called the principle of relati&ity# (Albert 'instein, 195L
/his was an obser&ational"empirical fact that has been 0nown since the se&enteenth century# ,t was 'lbert
!instein who used this fact, but applied it to Aorent79s !lectromagnetic /heory of the !lectron, rather than
simply to Iewton9s mechanics, to de&elop his theory of special and general relati&ity which ga&e rise to his
geometry of space2time, his 9cur&ature of space9 that explained the motion of bodies in a gra&itational field#
,t is the purpose of this chapter to follow his logic, but for the first time we can explain this from the true
foundation of what exists, from the foundation of the Spherical Standing :a&e Structure of 8atter in a
/hree @imensional Space#
:hile this truth of the :a&e Structure of 8atter greatly simplifies 'lbert !instein9s 5elati&ity, , again
emphasi7e that some patience and effort to re2read sections will be required, but that the reward for this
effort will be a clear understanding of the most famous theory e&er constructed# ('nd a certain exhilaration
at understanding how gra&ity wor0s>
/>plaining the T!o Postulates of )pecial %elati"ity +2lbert /instein, 3C7D-
1# ### the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be &alid for all frames of reference for which the
equations of mechanics hold good# ### ' co2ordinate system that is mo&ed uniformly and in a straight line
relati&e to an inertial system is li0ewise an inertial system# .y the 9special principle of relati&ity9 is meant the
generali7ation of this definition to include any natural e&ent whate&erE thus, e&ery uni&ersal law of nature
which is &alid in relation to a co2ordinate system * must also be &alid, as it stands, in relation to a co2
ordinate system *9 which is in uniform translatory motion relati&e to *# (Albert 'instein, 195L
'nd therefore the 6elocity of Aight (as one of the laws of electrodynamics has the same measured &alue in
all inertial (non2accelerated reference frames#
;# /he second principle, on which the special theory of relati&ity rests, is the 9principle of constant &elocity
of light in &acuo#9 /his principle asserts that light in &acuo always has a definite &elocity of propagation
(independent of the state of motion of the obser&er or of the source of the light# /he confidence which
physicists place in this principle springs from the successes achie&ed by the electrodynamics of 8axwell
and Aorent7# (Albert 'instein, 195L
'lbert !instein (19<5 cle&erly combined the wor0 of (araday, 8axwell and Aorent7 to propose the 9/heory
of Special 5elati&ity9 which described the effects of relati&e 8otion (inertial or non2accelerated on the
properties of matter# -is famous postulate being that the laws of Iature (mechanics and electrodynamics
are the same for all obser&ers irrespecti&e of their motion (non2accelerated, which leads to the further
postulate that the &elocity of light must always be measured to be the same irrespecti&e of motion#
:hat these two postulates logically say is that if you measure the &elocity of light c to ha&e a particular
&alue, then irrespecti&e of which inertial (non2accelerated reference frame you are mo&ing in, you will
always measure the &elocity of light c to ha&e the same &alue# /his same measurement for the &elocity of
light is an experimental fact# .ut this does not mean that the &elocity of light in Space is constant# /he
&elocity of light is not constant, but it is always measured to be the same, and this fact has caused enormous
confusion within 8odern Physics#
:hen a :a&e2*enter is mo&ing through Space (See (igE 1#7#1 then the cause of this is a difference in
&elocity of the ,n2:a&es from one side to the other, but there is also a compensating change in wa&elength
such that the &elocity of the ,n2:a&es is always measured to be the same# .ecause 'lbert !instein
incorrectly assumed that the &elocity of light was constant and thus the same in all directions, he had to
ad)ust his rate of time to compensate for this difference in the &elocity of light which is the cause of motion#
,t is true though that if the &elocity of the ,n2:a&es does not change, then the resultant :a&e2*enter does
not accelerate and must tra&el with a constant &elocity (i#e# non accelerated motion#
Fig= 6.8.6= Pythagoras? Theore- is Caused by the (pherical shape of &atter as a (pherical +a,e
&otion of (pace. (urther, three dimensional space and spherical space are equi&alent, as it ta0es three
&ariables to describe the surface of a sphere# ,n fact the cause of three dimensional space is simply that
matter interacts spherically
!instein correctly reali7ed that matter was spherically spatially extended, and thus interacted with other
matter spherically (this being the cause of Pythagoras9 /heorem#
(rom the latest results of the theory of relati&ity it is probable that our three dimensional space is also
approximately spherical, that is, that the laws of disposition of rigid bodies in it are not gi&en by !uclidean
geometry, but approximately by spherical geometry# ('instein, 195L
.ut !instein did not actually 0now how matter existed in Space+
/he theory of relati&ity leads to the same law of motion without requiring any special hypothesis
whatsoe&er as to the structure and beha&ior of the electron# ('instein, 195L
-is theory is empirically (a posteriori founded from obser&ation of how matter 9pushes9 other matter
around, thus his 9representation9 of matter as spherical force fields#
'lbert !instein9s 8etric equation is simply Pythagoras9 /heorem applied to the three spatial co2ordinates,
and equating them to the displacement of a ray of light#
Special relati&ity is still based directly on an empirical law, that of the constancy of the &elocity of light#
dx
;
T dy
;
T d7
;
U(cdt
;
where cdt is the distance tra&eled by light c in time dt#
/he fact that such a metric is called !uclidean is connected with the following# /he postulation of such a
metric in a three dimensional continuum is fully equi&alent to the postulation of the axioms of !uclidean
?eometry# /he defining equation of the metric is then nothing but the Pythagorean theorem applied to the
differentials of the co2ordinates# (Albert 'instein, 19KL
,n the special theory of relati&ity those co2ordinate changes (by transformation are permitted for which also
in the new co2ordinate system the quantity (cdt
;
(fundamental in&ariant dS
;
equals the sum of the squares
of the co2ordinate differentials# Such transformations are called Aorent7 transformations# (Albert 'instein,
19KL
/he reason why Special 5elati&ity wor0s mathematically is twofoldE
i Special relati&ity assumes that the &elocity of light is constant, and thus if there is no change in the
&elocity of the ,n2:a&e then there can be no acceleration of the :a&e2*enter# /his explains why special
relati&ity is limited to relati&e motion between matter that is non2accelerated# (,nertial reference frames
ii ,n 'lbert !instein9s 8etric !quations the displacement of the light beam is determined by cdt, thus it
ma0es no difference, mathematically spea0ing, if the &elocity of light is assumed constant, and thus time is
changed to 0eep the metrical equation true (as 'lbert !instein did or con&ersely, to assume a constant
/ime, and that the &elocity of ,n2:a&es (Aight is changed# 's it turns out, it is this latter case which is true,
and this differing &elocity of the ,n2:a&es (from one side of the :a&e2*enter relati&e to the other is the
cause of the apparent motion of :a&e2*enters#
Significantly, 'lbert !instein confirms this &iew, that the &elocity of light is not always constant, when he
writes+
(Special relati&ity is founded on the basis of the law of the constancy of the &elocity of light# .ut the
general theory of relati&ity cannot retain this law# $n the contrary, we arri&ed at the result that according to
this latter theory the &elocity of light must always depend on the co2ordinates when a gra&itational field is
present# (Albert 'instein, 195L
8ost importantly though, despite these changes in the &elocity of the ,n2:a&es, their &elocity is always
measured to be the same#
/his curious phenomena occurs because for any relati&e difference in the &elocity of the ,n2:a&e from one
side of the :a&e2*enter to the other, there is a corresponding change in wa&elength (which determines
length, such that the same ,n2:a&e always meets at its :a&e2*enter at the same time# 's &elocity is
length"time then the &elocity of the ,n2:a&e (&elocity of light c is always measured to be the same, and the
difference in wa&e &elocity from one side to the other causes the apparent motion of the :a&e2*enter
through Space# ,t seems that many people mista0enly assume that the &elocity of light is constant, it is not,
but is always measured to be the same (irrespecti&e of motion 2 this fact has caused much confusion#
.ecause 'lbert !instein misunderstood time (as his geometry of relati&ity had no dynamic :a&e 8otion,
which is the true cause of time this then partly explains why he disli0ed Buantum /heory (though there are
many reasons to disli0e B/ due to its absurd interpretations>#
### the methods introduced by quantum mechanics are not li0ely to gi&e a useful basis for the whole of
physics# ,n the Schrodinger equation, absolute time, and also the potential energy, play a decisi&e role, while
these two concepts ha&e been recogni7ed by the theory of relati&ity as inadmissible in principle# (Albert
'instein, 195L
Iow it is this relationship about the change in wa&elength and ellipsoidal dimension with 8otion that is at
the heart of 5elati&ity so it is important to hear what Aorent7 has to say on the sub)ect+
###the simplest course is certainly to consider the electrons themsel&es as wholly immutable, as perfectly
rigid spheres, with a constant uniformly distributed surface charge# ## .ut, unfortunately, it is at &ariance
with our theorem# ### ,t is for this reason that , ha&e examined what becomes of the theory, if the electrons
themsel&es are considered as liable to the same changes of dimensions as the bodies in which they are
contained# ### the explanation of 8ichelson9s experimental result, ### admit, for mo&ing bodies, only a
contraction, determined by the coefficient in the direction of the line of motion# /he electrons themsel&es
become flattened ellipsoids#
/his would enable us to predict that no experiment made with a terrestrial source of light will e&er show us
an influence of the !arth9s motion#
,t is clear that, since the obser&er is unconscious of these changes, ( the contraction of a measuring rod in the
direction of motion, relying on his rod, he will not find the true shape of bodies# -e will ta0e for a sphere
what really is an ellipsoid,
'ttention must now be drawn to a remar0able reciprocity that has been pointed out by 'lbert !instein# ###
Aet us now imagine that each obser&er and (one is mo&ing with constant &elocity relati&e to the other is
able to see the system to which the other belongs, ### ,t will be clear by what has been said that the
impressions recei&ed by the two obser&ers and would be ali0e in all respects# ,t would be impossible to tell
which of them mo&es or stands still with respect to the ether# ### /his is a point which 'lbert !instein has
laid particular stress on, in a theory in which he starts from what he calls the principle of relati&ity#
, cannot spea0 here of the many highly interesting applications which 'lbert !instein has made of this
principle# -is results concerning electromagnetic and optical phenomena agree in the main with those which
we ha&e obtained in the preceding pages, the chief difference being that 'lbert !instein simply postulates
what we ha&e deduced, ### from the fundamental equations of the electromagnetic field# .y doing so, he may
certainly ta0e credit for ma0ing us see in the negati&e result of experiments li0e those of 8ichelson,
5ayleigh and .race, not a fortuitous compensation of opposing effects, but the manifestation of a general
and fundamental principle#
Net, , thin0, something may also be claimed in the fa&our of the form in which , ha&e presented the theory# ,
cannot but regard the ether, which can be the seat of an electromagnetic field with its energy and its
&ibrations, as endowed with a certain degree of substantiality, howe&er different it may be from all ordinary
matter# ("orent4, 19<J
/hus Aorent7 was correct+
,n order to explain this absence of any effect of the !arth9s translation, , ha&e &entured the hypothesis, that
the dimensions of a solid body undergo slight change when it mo&es through the ether# ("orent4, 19<J
8ost profoundly, Aorent7 first deduced the foundations of 'lbert !instein9s 5elati&ity from the assumption
of a rigid Space (ether, and that the cause of the electromagnetic field effect that he was using was in fact
&ibrations in this Space"!ther#
/hough 'lbert !instein related relati&e motions of matter only to other matter and not bac0 to an absolute
Space li0e Aorent7 did, (which is mathematically simpler , suppose the important point is that the Aogic of
5elati&ity is founded on, and completely consistent with, an 'bsolute Space# (*ontrary to current opinions
(rom Aorent79s purely mathematical foundation 'lbert !instein then de&eloped his /heory of 5elati&ity,
which assumed that matter existed as a spherical spatially extended field which changes ellipsoidal shape
with motion and thus also with acceleration (which leads to the ellipsoidal geometry which underpins
?eneral 5elati&ity and gra&itation#
'lbert !instein too0 one further step than Aorent7 though, and assumed (li0e Aeibni7 and 8ach that all
motion of matter was relati&e only to other matter, he writes+
,t has, of course, been 0nown since the days of the ancient ?ree0s that in order to describe the mo&ement of
a body, a second body is needed to which the mo&ement of the first is referred# (Albert 'instein, 1919
.y doing this 'lbert !instein effecti&ely renounced the concept of a fundamental Space separate from
matter (as a field, as he explains below+
Since the field exists e&en in a &acuum, should one concei&e of the field as state of a 9carrier9, or should it
rather be endowed with an independent existence not reducible to anything elseF ,n other words, is there an
9aether9 which carries the field+ the aether being considered in the undulatory state, for example, when it
carries light wa&esF /he question has a natural answerE .ecause one cannot dispense with the field concept,
it is preferable not to introduce in addition a carrier with hypothetical properties# (Albert 'instein, 195<
Physical ob)ects are not in space, but these ob)ects are spatially extended# ,n this way the concept 9empty
space9 loses its meaning#
/he field thus becomes an irreducible element of physical description, irreducible in the same sense as the
concept of matter (particles in the theory of Iewton# (Albert 'instein, 195L
.y using 'lbert !instein9s own words it is now possible to show that his ideas need only a slight
modification 2 from his foundation that matter is a spherical spatially extended 9field9, to a foundation based
upon Space rather than matter, and that matter is caused by Spherical Standing :a&es in Space#
'lbert !instein is correct in asserting that matter is spherically spatially extended, and thus to re)ect the
concept of the particle+
'ccording to general relati&ity, the concept of space detached from any physical content (matter, ob)ects
does not exist# /he physical reality of space is represented by a field whose components are continuous
functions of four independent &ariables 2 the co2ordinates of space and time# Since the theory of general
relati&ity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or
material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion# /he particle can only appear
as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high# (Albert
'instein, 195<
'lbert !instein is nearly correct when he says that the particle can only appear as a limited region in Space
in which the field strength"energy density is particularly high, for this is simply the high :a&e2'mplitude R
@ensity of the :a&e2*enter of the Spherical Standing :a&e# /his ob&iously explains why 8atter can ne&er
exceed the 6elocity of Aight# 's the particle is in fact the :a&e2*enter of a Spherical Standing :a&e
(SS:, it is impossible for this :a&e2*enter to e&er mo&e faster than the &elocity of the incoming wa&es,
which is the &elocity of light#
%nfortunately 'lbert !instein incorrectly assumed that a mathematical description of effects, the spherical,
spatially extended continuous force field, was the best way of representing reality# ,n fact these force field
effects are caused by the changing &elocity of the ,n2:a&es which determine the future position of the
:a&e2*enter (and thus the apparent force and accelerated motion of the particle# ,n essence the field theory
is a continuous mathematical approximation of effects which are caused by many discrete (quantum
standing wa&e interactions# -ence the :a&e Structure of 8atter (:S8 explains the 9cause9 of both the
9field9 and the 9particle effects9#
/hough most of 'lbert !instein9s discussion of Space is in terms of matter interactions described by fields,
it is important to realise that 'lbert !instein actually 0new that Space must somehow exist and ha&e
properties that caused these force fields, he writes+
5ecapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relati&ity space is endowed with physical
qualities+ in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether# 'ccording to the general theory of relati&ity space
without ether is unthin0able+ for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no
possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring2rods and cloc0s, nor therefore any
space2time inter&als in the physical sense# (Albert 'instein, Aeiden Aecture, 19;<
,n ending this summary of Special 5elati&ity, it is important to ac0nowledge the great power of this
mathematical theory, as 'lbert !instein explains (for it leads directly to 'lbert !instein9s famous !Umc
;
#
.ut now we realise that this equi&alence of 8atter and !nergy is simply because they are both
manifestations of the same thing, :a&e28otion of Space#
/he heuristic method of the special theory of relati&ity is characteri7ed by the following principleE only
those equations are admissible as an expression of natural laws which do not change their form when the co2
ordinates are changed by means of the Aorent7 transformation (co&ariance of equations with respect to the
Aorent7 transformations# /his method led to the disco&ery of the necessary connection between momentum
and energy, between electric and magnetic field strength, electrostatic and electrodynamic forces, inert mass
and energy+ thus the number of independent concepts and fundamental equations was reduced# (Albert
'instein, 19KL
+ntroduction to ,lbert Ainstein's Theory of <elativity - Eewton's ;echanics - Eewton 5 Time 6articles #orces
- Eewton 5 :i&ht - Eewton's :aw of +nertia - #araday A; #orce #ield - ;axwell's Aquations - :orent/ 5
Alectron - :orent/ Transformations - ,lbert Ainstein's Theory of <elativity - Special <elativity - Feneral
<elativity - Summary of Ainstein's <elativity - Top of 6a&e
Albert 'instein?s :eneral $elati,ity
On Accelerated &otion and :ra,itation. 6769
:hen forced to summari7e the general theory of relati&ity in one sentenceE
/ime and space and gra&itation ha&e no separate existence from matter# ('lbert !instein
?eneral 5elati&ity extends special 5elati&ity to include accelerated 8otion, and the relationship between
(orce, 8ass and 'cceleration (and /ime and @imension, thus it is important to first as0 9:hy does
'cceleration of 8atter in Space !xist in our %ni&erseF9
$nly once we understand this can we possibly understand 'lbert !instein9s ?eneral 5elati&ity#
/he solution, as pre&iously explained, is quite simple# .y understanding the Spherical ,n and $ut :a&e
structure of 8atter (SS:s we deduce that any change in &elocity of the ,n2:a&es (Principle /wo causes a
change in where the ,n2:a&es meet at their :a&e2*enters which we obser&e as the accelerated 8otion of
the particle# /his is why acceleration exists and is defined as a change in &elocity 2 because it is caused by a
change in &elocity of the ,n2:a&es>
/his change in the &elocity of wa&es in Space is dependent upon the mass2energy density of space (for
?ra&itational 8ass, and is the true physical cause of ?eneral 5elati&ity and 'lbert !instein9s gra&itational
fields, thus explaining 'lbert !instein9s comment that+
(Special relati&ity is founded on the basis of the law of the constancy of the &elocity of light# .ut the
general theory of relati&ity cannot retain this law# $n the contrary, we arri&ed at the result that according to
this latter theory the &elocity of light must always depend on the co2ordinates when a gra&itational field is
present# ('lbert !instein
Aet us now consider the concept of 8ass more closely#
On 'nertial Mass and :ra"itational Mass
Iow for the principle of the conser&ation of mass# 8ass is defined by the resistance that a body opposes to
its acceleration (inert mass# ,t is also measured by the weight of the body (gra&ity mass# /hat these two
radically different definitions lead to the same &alue for the mass of a body is in itself an astonishing fact# ###
'ccording to the principle 2 namely, that masses remain unchanged under any physical or chemical changes
2 the mass appeared to be the essential (because un&arying quality of matter#
Physicists accepted this principle up to a few decades ago# .ut it pro&ed inadequate in the face of the special
theory of relati&ity# ,t was therefore merged with the energy principle# ### :e might say that the principle of
the conser&ation of energy, ha&ing preciously swallowed up that of the conser&ation of heat, now proceeded
to swallow that of the conser&ation of mass 2 and holds the field alone# (Albert 'instein, 19LJ
,t is an unsatisfactory feature of classical mechanics that in its fundamental laws the same mass constant
appears in two different roles, namely as 9inertial mass9 in the law of motion, and as 9gra&itational mass9 in
the law of gra&itation# (Albert 'instein, 19KJ
Aet us then explain these two related forms of 8ass, ,nertial and ?ra&itational, as then we can clearly
understand why they are equi&alent
a) Inertial Mass
,magine the :a&e2*enter (electron of a Spherical Standing :a&e (SS: in free Space away from massi&e
bodies# 's the mass2energy density of space is the same in all directions, therefore the &elocity of the ,n2
:a&es is the same from all directions and does not change, thus the ,n2:a&es will always meet at the same
point in Space (the :a&e2*enter# /his is the physical foundation of inertial mass 2 a body remains
stationary (it does not accelerate if there is no change in the &elocity of the ,n2:a&e# (Io forces act upon
it#
b) Gravitational Mass
*onsider the same stationary :a&e2*enter (electron of a SS: but now imagine a massi&e body, such as
the !arth, placed to one side of the electron# :hat effect will this ha&eF
:e can consider this massi&e body, the earth, as a place of Space of &ery high mass2energy density of
space# /herefore the &elocity of ,n2:a&es and $ut2:a&es (&elocity of light will be slower in this Space as
Principle ,, states# /his therefore causes a change in shape of the ,n2:a&es (and $ut2:a&es due to a
slowing of their &elocity in this high mass2energy density of Space resulting in a change in ellipsoidal shape
or the SS: and results in the :a&e2*enter (electron mo&ing towards the Space of higher mass2energy
density of space (the earth#
On the Equivalence of Inertial Mass and Gravitational Mass
'nd so we see that it is Principle /wo which causes both gra&itational mass and inertial mass# 's it is the
same principle that causes both, this explains their equi&alence#
Aet us now consider a simple example of this equi&alence that will ma0e it easier to understand#
,magine standing in a room, the room existing in Space away from any stars or other massi&e bodies# :e
would be weightless in the Space as there would be no gra&itational effect#
Iow if we imagine the room being accelerated upwards, (relati&e to the floor, at 9#=m"s, as the occupant of
the room, we would not be able to tell if we are being accelerated or if we are in the !arth9s gra&itational
field#
(urther, if there is a rope attached to an ob)ect hanging from the ceiling of the room, the tension in the rope
could be due either to the inertia caused by accelerating the room, or to the ob)ect9s weight due to its mass in
a gra&itational field# /his is the empirical equi&alence of gra&itational and inertial mass#
/he establishment of this general principle of relati&ity is made easier by a fact of experience that has long
been 0nown, namely, that the weight and the inertia of a body are controlled by the same constant (equality
of inertial and gra&itational mass# /his hasty consideration suggests that a general theory of relati&ity must
supply the laws of gra&itation, and the consistent following up of the idea has )ustified our hopes# .ut the
path was thornier than one might suppose, because it demanded the abandonment of !uclidean geometry#
/his is what we mean when we tal0 of the 9cur&ature of space9# /he fundamental concepts of the 9straight
line9, the 9plane9, etc#, thereby lose their precise significance in physics#
,n the general theory of relati&ity the doctrine of space and time, or 0inematics, no longer figures as a
fundamental independent of the rest of physics# /he geometrical beha&iour of bodies and the motion of
cloc0s rather depend on gra&itational fields which in their turn are produced by matter# ('lbert !instein,
1919
/he principle of the equi&alence of inertial and gra&itational mass could now be formulated quite clearly as
followsE in a homogenous gra&itation field all motions ta0e place in the same way as in the absence of a
gra&itational field in relation to uniformly accelerated co2ordinate system# ('lbert !instein, 19KL
/here is no reason to exclude the possibility of interpreting this beha&iour as the effect of a 9true9
gra&itational field (principle of equi&alence of inertial"gra&itational mass# /his interpretation implies that '
is an 9inertial system9, e&en though it is accelerated with respect to another inertial system# ('lbert !instein,
195<
'nd so we see that 'lbert !instein based his mathematics for gra&itation, on the fact that 8atter in an
accelerated reference frame (,nertial 8ass beha&ed the same as 8atter in a gra&itational field
(?ra&itational 8ass# (Principle of !qui&alence#
/hus if we 0now the Aorent7 transformation for mo&ing with a constant &elocity, (which require linear
transformations of the co2ordinate system then we can calculate how the Aorent7 transformation would
change if the reference frame is now accelerated#
## the theory of gra&itation is based on the principle of equi&alence discussed abo&e and rests on the
following considerationE according to the theory of special relati&ity, light has a constant &elocity of
propagation# ,f a light ray in a &acuum starts from a point, designated by the co2ordinates Y1, Y;, and YK in
a three dimensional co2ordinate system, at the time YL+ it spreads as a spherical wa&e and reaches a
neighbouring point (Y1TdY1, Y;TdY;, YKTdYK at the time YLTdYL#
,ntroducing the &elocity of light, c, we write the expressionE
dY1
;
T dY;
;
T dYK
;
U (c#dYL
;
/his expression represents an ob)ecti&e relation between neighbouring space time points in four dimensions,
and it holds for all inertial systems, pro&ided the co2ordinate transformations are restricted to those of
special relati&ity# /he relation loses this form, howe&er, if arbitrary continuous transformations of the co2
ordinates are admitted in accordance with the principle of general relati&ity# (/he equations expressing the
laws of Iature must be co&ariant with respect to all continuous transformations of the co2ordinates# /his is
the principle of general relati&ity# (Albert 'instein, 195L
'lbert !instein is thus forced to use a cur&ed (non2linear co2ordinate system (rather than linear as per
Special 5elati&ity and the Aorent7 /ransformations, which he found from the wor0 of ?auss and 5iemann
(called symmetrical tensors#
,n order to account for the equality of inert and gra&itational mass within the theory it necessary to admit
non2linear transformations of the four co2ordinates# 8athematics suggests an answer which is based of the
fundamental in&estigations of ?auss and 5iemann# (Albert 'instein, 195L
/o introduce this non2linear transformation, it was necessary for 'lbert !instein to ad)ust the &elocity of
light dependent upon the energy density (gra&itational field of Space# /his is true, because it is this change
in &elocity of :a&e 8otion that is the cause of ?ra&ity#
's 'lbert !instein says+ (and we 0now that we ha&e repeated this quote 2 but it is important and
misunderstood>
(Special relati&ity is founded on the basis of the law of the constancy of the &elocity of light# .ut the
general theory of relati&ity cannot retain this law# $n the contrary, we arri&ed at the result that according to
this latter theory the &elocity of light must always depend on the co2ordinates when a gra&itational field is
present# (Albert 'instein, 195L
+ntroduction to ,lbert Ainstein's Theory of <elativity - Eewton's ;echanics - Eewton 5 Time 6articles #orces
- Eewton 5 :i&ht - Eewton's :aw of +nertia - #araday A; #orce #ield - ;axwell's Aquations - :orent/ 5
Alectron - :orent/ Transformations - ,lbert Ainstein's Theory of <elativity - Special <elativity - Feneral
<elativity - Summary of Ainstein's <elativity - Top of 6a&e
(u--ary of 'instein?s $elati,ity
')plaining and (ol,ing the Proble-s of 'instein?s $elati,ity
!instein (from (araday, 8axwell, Aorent7 represented matter as a continuous spherical electromagnetic
force field in spacetime# !instein is correct that there is no 9particle9 and matter is spherically spatially
extended# -owe&er, the spherical 9force field9 can be sensibly explained with the Spherical Standing :a&e
Structure of 8atter#
:e reali7e that forces are caused by a change in the &elocity of the spherical ,n2wa&e (from one direction
as this changes where these ,n2wa&es meet at the wa&e2center, which we obser&e as a 9force accelerating a
particle9#
/he change in ellipsoidal shape of the ,n2wa&es is the cause of !instein9s 8etrics and the 5iemannian
geometry of ?eneral 5elati&ity# :ith this new understanding let us then briefly summari7e the problems of
!instein9s 5elati&ity, as their solutions become ob&ious once we understand the Spherical Standing :a&e
Structure of 8atter#
i? Ainstein's <elativity is a Theory of a posteriori Affects not a priori %auses, and is
founded on ;any thin&s >;atter? rather than =ne thin& >Space?.
!instein did not 0now how matter existed in Space and his electromagnetic field theory of matter is
,nducti&e (empirical " a posteriori and describes effects (of relati&e motion#
/he theory of relati&ity leads to the same law of motion without requiring any special hypothesis
whatsoe&er as to the structure and beha&ior of the electron# ('instein, 195L
-is theory is empirically (a posteriori founded from obser&ation of how matter 9pushes9 other matter around
(thus his 9representation9 of matter as spherical force fields#
's !rnst 8ach insistently pointed out, the Iewtonian theory is unsatisfactory in the following respectE if
one considers motion from the purely descripti&e, not from the causal, point of &iew, it only exists as
relati&e motion of things with respect to one another#
,t compelled Iewton to in&ent a physical space in relation to which acceleration was supposed to exist# /his
introduction ad hoc of the concept of absolute space, while logically unacceptionable, ne&ertheless seems
unsatisfactory#
*onsidered logically, concepts are free creations of the human intelligence, tools of thought, which are to
ser&e the purpose of bringing experiences into relation with each other, so that in this way they can be better
sur&eyed# /he attempt to become conscious of the empirical sources of these fundamental concepts should
show to what extent we are actually bound to these concepts# ,n this way we become aware of our freedom
to create new concepts#
@escartes argued somewhat on these linesE space is identical with extension, but extension is connected with
bodies+ thus there is no space without bodies and hence no empty space#
,t appears to me, therefore, that the formation of the concept of the material ob)ect must precede our
concepts of time and space# (Albert 'instein, 195L
8etaphysics, as a true description of 5eality, must be based on a priori causes 'I@ these must be united
bac0 to one common thing that causes and connects the many things (matter# /he 8etaphysics of Space
and 8otion is founded on the a priori existence of $ne thing, Space and its properties as a wa&e2medium,
that $ne thing, Space, must first exist for 8any things, matter to be able to exist and mo&e about in an
interconnected manner (as reality shows#
ii? %ontinuous #ields do Eot Axplain the 8iscrete Aner&y :evels of ;atter and :i&ht
as 8etermined by *uantum Theory.
/he !lectric and 8agnetic (orce (ields were first founded on repeated obser&ations (,nduction " a
posteriori of how many trillions of charged 9particles9 (electrons and protons beha&ed# /his explains why
the fields were continuous, as many trillions of discrete standing wa&e interactions blend together into a
continuous force# /hus the continuous field can ne&er describe the real standing wa&e interactions of matter,
as !instein came to reali7e#
/he great stumbling bloc0 for the field theory lies in the conception of the atomic structure of matter and
energy# (or the theory is fundamentally non2atomic in so far as it operates exclusi&ely with continuous
functions of space, in contrast to classical mechanics whose most important element, the material point, in
itself does )ustice to the atomic structure of matter# ('instein, 195L
iii? Ainstein's '#ields' require '6articles'.
's !instein used the empirical"theoretical foundations de&eloped by (araday, 8axwell and Aorent7 he
required the existence of a 9Particle9 to somehow generate the 9(ield9 which in turn acted on other 9Particles9#
/he special and general theories of relati&ity, which, though based entirely on ideas connected with the
field2theory, ha&e so far been unable to a&oid the independent introduction of material points, C the
continuous field thus appeared side by side with the material point as the representati&e of physical reality#
/his dualism remains e&en today disturbing as it must be to e&ery orderly mind# ('instein, 195L
iv? Ainstein's %ontinuous #ield Theory of ;atter &ives rise to Sin&ularities and
+nfinite #ields.
/he 8axwell equations in their original form do not, howe&er, allow such a description of particles, because
their corresponding solutions contain a singularity# /heoretical physicists ha&e tried for a long time (19KJ,
therefore, to reach the goal by a modification of 8axwell9s equations# /hese attempts ha&e, howe&er, not
been crowned with success# :hat appears certain to me, howe&er, is that, in the foundations of any
consistent field theory the particle concept must not appear in addition to the field concept# /he whole
theory must by based solely on partial differential equations and their singularity2free solutions# ('instein,
195L
's :olff explains (see Buantum /heory, the equation for a scalar spherical wa&e gi&e rise to a finite wa&e2
amplitude at the wa&e2center (consistent with obser&ation whereas spherical &ector electromagnetic fields
tend to infinity as the radius tends to 7ero (and there are no &ector e2m solutions in spherical coordinates>#
v? Ainstein <e$ects both '6articles' and ;otion.
:hile !instein correctly re)ected the point 9particle9 concept of matter, he assumed that 8otion only applied
to 9particles9 (a common error> thus he also re)ected the concept of 8otion, and represented matter as
spherical force fields# /he error is twofold+ firstly, he did not consider the (wa&e 8otion of Space itself,
and secondly, he should ha&e reali7ed that to measure forces we must first measure the change in 8otion of
a particle, thus 8otion is a priori to forces (i#e# (orce U d!"dx#
Since the theory of general relati&ity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the
concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion#
('instein, 195L
:e now reali7e that neither the 9Particle9 nor the continuous electromagnetic force 9(ield9 is a complete
description of 5eality thus we must re)ect both the ?Particle? and the ?Field?, and what remains is &otion#
-ence we can now clearly see both !instein9s error and the true path left to explore 2 the study of Space as a
wa&e medium for wa&e 8otion 2 and that the Spherical :a&e 8otion of Space explains both the 9particle9
(wa&e2center and 9forces9 (change in &elocity of ,n2:a&es, which changes the location of the :a&e2
*enter#
vi? Ainstein ,ssumed ;atter %aused Space <ather than the @ave-;otion of Space
%ausin& ;atter.
!instein was profoundly influenced by 8ach+
8ach, in the nineteenth century, was the only one who thought seriously of the elimination of the concept of
space, in that he sought to replace it by the notion of the totality of the instantaneous distances between all
material points# (-e made this attempt in order to arri&e at a satisfactory understanding of inertia#
('instein, 195L
.ecause we only obser&e the motion of matter relati&e to all the other matter in the uni&erse, thus !instein
thought that matter, rather than Space, must be the central perspecti&e for representing 5eality# /hus
!instein9s 5elati&ity is empirically (a posteriori founded from obser&ing the motion of matter relati&e to
other matter#
/he 8etaphysics of Space and 8otion is founded on the a priori fact that Space is first necessary for matter
to be able to exist and mo&e about# !instein is empirically correct, and at the same time this was his error
because 8etaphysics (and thus 5eality is not founded on empirical obser&ations#
,n reality there is no motion of matter, there is only the spherical wa&e2motion of Space, and the changing
location of the wa&e2center gi&es the 9illusion9 of the motion of matter 9particles9# (/hus !instein9s 5elati&ity
is founded on an illusion that matter mo&es, when it is Space which is mo&ing " &ibrating#
Iewton was ultimately correct+
'nd so instead of absolute places and motions, we use relati&e ones+ and that without any incon&enience in
common affairs+ but in Philosophical disquisitions, we ought to abstract from our senses, and consider
things themsel&es, distinct from what are only sensible measures of them# (5e*ton, 1J=7
(urther, Aorent79s assumption of an 'bsolute Space is the foundation for the Aorent7 transformations and
thus for !instein9s 5elati&ity#
, cannot but regard the ether, which can be the seat of an electromagnetic field with its energy and its
&ibrations, as endowed with a certain degree of substantiality, howe&er different it may be from all ordinary
matter# ("orent4, /he /heory of the !lectron, 19<J
!instein choose to ignore Space " 'ether and wor0 with relati&e motions of matter to other matter, with
matter being represented by spherical fields#
/he electromagnetic fields are not states of a medium, and are not bound down to any bearer, but they are
independent realities which are not reducible to anything else# ('lbert !instein, Aeiden Aecture, 19;<
,n other words, is there an ether which carries the field+ the ether being considered in the undulatory state,
for example, when it carries light wa&esF /he question has a natural answerE .ecause one cannot dispense
with the field concept, it is preferable not to introduce in addition a carrier with hypothetical properties#
('lbert !instein, 195<
$nce we realise that the particle and the continuous electromagnetic field it generates are both merely ideas,
human approximations to reality, then we sol&e these problems# :e return to Aorent79s foundation of $ne
thing Space, and its properties as a wa&e medium (&ibrations and replace the spherical particle R field with
the spherical wa&e 8otion of Space# /he idea of the field theory of matter misled !instein, and yet !instein
also realised that there must somehow be a Space that interconnects matter#
5ecapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relati&ity space is endowed with physical
qualities+ in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether# 'ccording to the general theory of relati&ity space
without ether is unthin0able+ for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no
possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring2rods and cloc0s, nor therefore any
space2time inter&als in the physical sense# .ut this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality
characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be trac0ed through time# /he idea of
motion may not be applied to it# ('lbert !instein, Aeiden Aecture, 19;<
vii? Ainstein Eever 7nited the Alectroma&netic 9 Fravitational #ields into a 7nified
#ield Theory for ;atter
!instein9s 5elati&ity requires both an !lectromagnetic (orce (ield to explain *harge, and a ?ra&itational
(ield to explain 8ass# -e tried and failed throughout his life to unite these two fields into one (and to
remo&e the 9particle9 concept from them#
.ut the idea that there exist two structures of space independent of each other, the metric2gra&itational and
the electromagnetic, was intolerable to the theoretical spirit# :e are prompted to the belief that both sorts of
field must correspond to a unified structure of space# (!instein, 195L
:e can now unite these two fields by demonstrating how they are both caused by the properties of Space,
i#e# that the wa&e &elocity &aries with both wa&e2amplitude (charge and mass2energy density of space
(mass#
viii? Ainstein's '%urvature of the #our 8imensional Space-Time %ontinuum'
/he concept of the 9cur&ature of space9 is a mathematical construction of !instein9s general relati&ity# ,n
reality Space is not 9cur&ed9, instead (for gra&itational forces the mass2energy density of space &aries
dependent upon the nearby proximity of matter (SS:s, and this causes a &ariation in the &elocity of
wa&es"light which changes the ellipsoidal shape of matter and causes the cur&ed path of matter and light in
Space# 'nd this caused !instein considerable problems (it too0 him ten years to wor0 out the ellipsoidal
geometry for gra&ity"general relati&ity>
.ut the path (of general relati&ity was thornier than one might suppose, because it demanded the
abandonment of !uclidean geometry# /his is what we mean when we tal0 of the 9cur&ature of space9# /he
fundamental concepts of the 9straight line9, the 9plane9, etc#, thereby lose their precise significance in physics#
(Albert 'instein, 195L
(urther, the four dimensional space2time continuum simply means that three spatial dimensions and a time
dimension are required to define the motion of bodies and the path of light in three dimensional Space#
/he non2mathematician is sei7ed by a mysterious shuddering when he hears of 9four2dimensional9 things, by
a feeling not unli0e that awa0ened by thoughts of the occult# 'nd yet there is no more common2place
statement than that the world in which we li&e is a four2dimensional space2time continuum# Space is a three2
dimensional continuum# ### Similarly, the world of physical phenomena is naturally four dimensional in the
space2time sense# (or it is composed of indi&idual e&ents, each of which is described by four numbers,
namely, three space co2ordinates x, y, 7, and the time co2ordinate t# (Albert 'instein, 195L
/he inseparability of time and space emerged in connection with electrodynamics, or the law of propagation
of light#
:ith the disco&ery of the relati&ity of simultaneity, space and time were merged in a single continuum in a
way similar to that in which the three dimensions of space had pre&iously merged into a single continuum#
Physical space was thus extended to a four dimensional space which also included the dimension of time#
/he four dimensional space of the special theory of relati&ity is )ust as rigid and absolute as Iewton9s space#
(Albert 'instein, 195L
,n fact the spherical wa&e 8otion of Space requires three spatial dimensions and a (wa&e motion dimension
(rather than a time dimension, as motion causes time# Iow this is &ery important, for it is this 9cur&ature9
that largely led to !instein9s early fame# ,t was the prediction by !instein that light cur&ed as it gra7ed the
sun (subsequently confirmed by obser&ation during a solar eclipse on the ;9th 8ay 1919 that resulted in
his ?eneral /heory of 5elati&ity becoming widely accepted and &ery famous# -is general principle is
correct though, matter does determine the geometric properties of Space+
'ccording to the general theory of relati&ity, the geometrical properties of space are not independent, but
they are determined by matter# ('instein, 195L
Concluding $e-ar<s
/owards the end of his life !instein was acutely aware that he had failed to reali7e his dream of a unified
field theory for matter and that the continuous spherical spatially extended continuous field may not truly
represent the reality of matter# ,n 195L !instein wrote to his friend 8ichael .esso expressing his frustration+
'll these fifty years of conscious brooding ha&e brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 9:hat
are light quantaF9 Iowadays e&ery /om, @ic0 and -arry thin0s he 0nows it, but he is mista0en# C ,
consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i#e#, on continuous structures# ,n
that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gra&itation theory included, Vand ofW the rest of
modern physics#
'lbert !instein9s ?eneral /heory of 5elati&ity (?/5 has been summari7ed as, ?The -atter of the uni,erse
deter-ines the properties of (pace, and the properties of (pace deter-ine the beha,iour of -atter.?
/he ?/5 is an experimentally correct description of the uni&erse but how or why it occurs was mysterious#
:ith the :a&e Structure of 8atter (:S8 we now see the existence of a uni&ersal symmetry and
interdependence of all matter in the uni&erse# /he :a&e Structure of 8atter is the cause of this profound
symmetry#
Principle /wo of the :S8 can be rephrased as, 'll wa&es from matter of the uni&erse determine the mass2
energy density of space which determines the &elocity of the wa&es c which then determines the beha&iour
of matter in Space#
:e can further shorten this to 8atter affects Space affects 8atter#
/hus the :a&e Structure of 8atter (:S8 explains the fundamental origins of 'lbert !instein9s ?eneral
/heory of 5elati&ity (?/5 and its application to the cosmic scale gra&itational motion of the matter of
planets, stars, galaxies, etc#
Significantly though, the :S8 also explains the Buantum realm, and how :a&e2*enters (particles interact
with other particles in the Space around them, thus explaining Buantum /heory and the cause of the discrete
9quanta9 (photon properties of light# -ence the Spherical Standing :a&e Structure of 8atter explains both
the large scale (*osmic realm geometry of ?eneral 5elati&ity (gra&ity as well as the small scale (Buantum
realm particle interactions of Buantum /heory (light# ('s a true description of reality must#
'll that needs to be done now is for some cle&er and curious 8athematician to apply the /wo Principles of
the :S8 to 'lbert !instein9s 5elati&ity and show that the two are mathematically equi&alent# /his
mathematics will be simpler, contain no infinities"singularities, and will also be consistent with Buantum
/heory and *osmology# /hus there now exists the opportunity for mathematical physicists to explore a
profound new logical language which should pro&ide many solutions to their current problems and in time
lead to a re&olution of their sub)ect#
2lbert /instein Cosmology
/>plaining 2lbert /instein1s Cosmological Constant and ho! our Finite
)pherical 9ni"erse e>ists !ithin an 'nfinite )pace
/he supreme tas0 of the physicist is to arri&e at those uni&ersal elementary laws from which the cosmos can
be built up by pure deduction# ('lbert !instein, 195L
*an we &isuali7e a K@ uni&erse which is finite yet unboundedF ('lbert !instein, 195L
/he results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the uni,erse would necessarily be
spherical#
, must not fail to mention that a theoretical argument can be adduced in fa&our of the hypothesis of a finite
uni,erse.
/he general theory of relati&ity teaches that the inertia of a gi&en body is greater as there are more
ponderable masses in proximity to it+ thus it seems &ery natural to reduce the total inertia of a body to
interactions between it and the other bodies in the uni&erse,
as indeed, e&er since Iewton4s time, gra&ity has been completely reduced to interaction between bodies#
('lbert !instein, 195L
' human being is part of the whole called by us uni&erse, a part limited in time and space# :e experience
oursel&es, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest# ' 0ind of optical delusion of
consciousness# /his delusion is a 0ind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection
for a few persons nearest to us# $ur tas0 must be to free oursel&es from the prison by widening our circle of
compassion to embrace all li&ing creatures and the whole of nature in its beautyC /he true &alue of a
human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which they ha&e obtained liberation
from the self# C :e shall require a substantially new manner of thin0ing if humanity is to sur&i&e# ('lbert
!instein, 195L
+ntroduction - Eewton, ;ach, Ainstein +nfinite ;ass 6aradox - %osmolo&y' ;ach's 6rinciple - Ainstein's
'%urvature of )8 Space-Time %ontinuum' - Ainstein's #amous %osmolo&ical >,nti&ravity? %onstant - Top of
6a&e
'ntroduction to 2lbert /instein1s Cosmology $ #)M
!instein9s ?eneral 5elati&ity requires a finite spherical uni&erse (it cannot be infinite because of 8ach9s
Principle, with which !instein strongly agreed, that the mass of a body is finite, is determined by all other
matter in the uni&erse, thus all other matter in uni&erse must be finite#
/wo problems+
a :hat surrounds this finite spherical uni&erseF (!instein used his spherical ellipsoidal geometry of
?eneral 5elati&ity to propose cur&ed space 2 if you tra&el in any one direction you will cur&e around and
e&entually return to your starting point 2 subtle, cle&er, weird, wrong#
b :hat stops finite spherical uni&erse gra&itationally collapsing (thus !instein9s *osmological " 'ntigra&ity
*onstant#
;# /wo disco&eries, one theoretical, one empirical sent *osmology down the path of the .ig .ang /heory
for the creation of our uni&erse#
a (riedman used !instein9s equations to show that an expanding uni&erse was possible by the equations,
and sol&ed the problem of the collapsing uni&erse and thus remo&ed the need for !instein9s *osmological
constant# !instein was reluctant 2 belie&ing in a static (non2expanding uni&erse#
b /hen -ubble famously showed the relationship between distance and redshift# ,f @oppler shift caused
this redshift then it meant stars " galaxies were mo&ing apart#
!instein, swayed by this argument, changed his mind 2 thus his comment 98y biggest blunder9 referring to
the *osmological *onstant#
's we shall explain though, this is not the correct solution, in fact !instein9s 9cosmological constant is
largely correct, but it is not caused by anti2gra&ity within the uni&erse, but by the gra&itational forces of
matter outside our finite spherical uni&erse within an infinite space# (urtherE
1# 5edshift with distance is not @oppler effect, but caused by -uygens Principle (a wa&e can be treated as
an infinite number of spherical wa&e sources# ,t is necessary that all other matter9s out2wa&es must combine
in a -uygens wa&e front, to form our spherical ,n2:a&es# :e absolutely are a part of the uni&erse (not
separate " discrete bodies 2 our matter formed from all other matter in the uni&erse# /his explains 8ach9s
Principle and redshift with distance (in the article, particularly equation of the cosmos, it shows the
mathematical deductions from wa&e theory correctly deduce 8ach9s Principle (8ilo :olff and 5edshift
with distance#
;# /o understand *osmology you must understand the relationship between the finite and the infinite# /he
big bang does not explain this, it was not until 8ilo :olff applied 0nowledge of the :a&e Structure of
8atter to the study of the *osmos that this problem could be sol&ed#
a Space is ,nfinite (one thing existing must be infinite but our spherical uni&erse is finite# 8atter is finite#
:e unite these two finite things, matter and uni&erse, by realising that matter, as a spherical standing wa&e
formed by other matter9s out wa&es, determines the si7e of our finite spherical uni&erse# 8atter and %ni&erse
are the same thing " are united#
b @ue to this sharing of wa&es, only a finite number (about 1<Z=< of other Spherical Standing :a&es
combine with our matter# /he article shows two separate deductions for this, one by myself (simple and
one by 8aths Physicist 8ilo :olff (mathematical, logically equi&alent#
/hus there are an infinite number of finite spherical uni&erses within an infinite space#
, realise that some of this will not ma0e much sense to you at first# , am sure though, that after reading on
the :a&e Structure of 8atter, you will find it to be actually &ery simple and sensible in how it explains and
sol&es many of the problems of *osmology#
.efining 19ni"erse1
*urrent .ig .ang *osmology defines Uni,erse as both+
i 'll that exists (both Space and 8atter
ii (inite and Spherical#
/he :a&e Structure of 8atter *osmology (being founded on $ne thing Space requires that Space is
,nfinite, but that we only interact with a finite sphere of matter within that ,nfinite Space# /hus the current
9.ig .ang9 definition of %ni&erse is wrong according to :S8#
So you can either re2define %ni&erse by maintaining meaning one+
i %ni&erse is all that exists (both Space and 8atter which :S8 says is ,nfinite 2 thus %ni&erse is ,nfinite#
.ut then
ii (inite and Spherical %ni&erse is wrong# /he %ni&erse is no longer finite and spherical, and effecti&ely
has the same meaning as ,nfinite Space " all that exists# 'nd you then ha&e no word for the finite spherical
region of space that we interact with other matter (which causes our ,n2:a&es# ,t also becomes &ery
confusing when considering 8ach9s Principle and !instein9s ?eneral 5elati&ity (see below#
$ur other option is to re2define %ni&erse as the (inite sphere of Space (and other matter we see and interact
with (and that contributes to our ,n2:a&es, while Space itself is ,nfinite#
/his pro&ides a better definition as then the finite spherical uni&erse still ma0es sense with respect to 8ach9s
Principle and !instein ?eneral 5elati&ity#
/hus in this :a&e Structure of 8atter *osmology the Uni,erse is defined as follows+
/niverse' The #inite Spherical re&ion of ;atter and Space that we can see and interact with >within an
+nfinite Space?. =nly this other matter's =ut-@aves contribute to the formation of our ;atter's in-@aves. i.e.
Kuy&ens' 6rinciple - and this is the cause of ;ach's 6rinciple, that the mass of our matter is determined by
all the other matter in our finite spherical universe >because it is created by itJ?.
+ntroduction - Eewton, ;ach, Ainstein +nfinite ;ass 6aradox - %osmolo&y' ;ach's 6rinciple - Ainstein's
'%urvature of )8 Space-Time %ontinuum' - Ainstein's #amous %osmolo&ical >,nti&ravity? %onstant - Top of
6a&e
5e*ton, &ach and 'instein?s Infinite &ass Parado)
:e begin this section with a fairly long quote from !ric Aerner, though it is important, as it pro&ides a
historical analysis of !instein4s 5elati&ity, the birth of the 9.ig .ang9 and its influence on Society+
($n Io&ember 9, 1919 the Iew Nor0 /imes, Page six E !*A,PS! S-$:!@ ?5'6,/N 6'5,'/,$I,
and below, @,6!5S,$I $( ' A,?-/ 5'N '**!P/!@ 'S '((!*/,I? I!:/$I9S P5,I*,PA!,
-',A!@ 'S !P$*- 8'Q,I?# .5,/,S- S*,!I/,S/ *'AAS /-! @,S*$6!5N $I! $( /-!
?5!'/!S/ $( -%8'I '*-,!6!8!I/S# 'n obser&ation of the 8ay ;9, 1919, solar eclipse had
confirmed !instein9s prediction of the bending of light from a distant star by the sun9s gra&ity# /his
&indication of his general theory of relati&ity was announced at a meeting of the 5oyal 'stronomical
Society#
:hy was !instein9s theory, not e&en briefly described in this first article, so outstandingF $ne scientist
noted that the effect on practical astronomy of the small differences from Iewton9s laws would not be &ery
great# .ut 9it was chiefly in the field of philosophical thought that the change would be felt#9 /he /imes
reported, 9space would no longer be loo0ed on as extending indefinitely in all directions# Straight lines
would not exist in !instein9s space# /hey would all be cur&ed and if they tra&eled far enough they would
return to their starting point#9
/hus the first public announcement of !instein9s theory suddenly proclaimed the falsity of a basic
cosmological tenet, that the uni&erse is infinite# 8ore surprises came the next day when a /imes headline
declared, A,?-/S 'AA 'SQ!: ,I /-! -!'6!IS, 8!I $( S*,!I*! 8$5! $5 A!SS '?$?# Iot
only was the new theory shoc0ing in its implication, but it was incomprehensible as wellE S# S# /hompson
stated that it was useless to detail the theory to the man in the street, for it could only be expressed in strictly
scientific terms, being 3purely mathematical#4 ,n fact, the /imes went on, !instein himself had warned his
publishers that there were not more than twel&e people in the whole world who could understand his theory#
!instein9s new theory appealed to scientists, reporters, and editors because it brought a &ision of the uni&erse
as a whole, a &ision that appeared as a solace to a tormented society# /he cosmology !instein de&eloped in
1917, two years after formulating his general theory, had, for many scientists, a terrific aesthetic and
philosophical attraction# ,n part, this was based on the appeal of general relati&ity itself# 's 'lf&en has
written, 3Io one can study ?eneral 5elati&ity without being impressed by its unquestionable mathematical
beauty#4
'nd, moreo&er, it was demonstrated not only in its prediction that light near the sun would be bent by
gra&ity, but by subtle &ariations in the orbit of 8ercury which Iewtonian gra&itation had not been able to
explain# Iewton and other scientists had always been bothered that gra&ity appeared to act 3at a distance4, a
magical influence in empty space# ?eneral relati&ity eliminates this problem, showing that mass cur&es the
space around it li0e a weight resting on a sheet pulled taut at the edges# ,t is this cur&ature of the space that
results in gra&ity, not the direct action of one ob)ect on another#
.ut beautiful as it was, this change in gra&itational theory was not what captured the imagination of
scientists and the press# ,t was instead !instein9s cosmological speculations of a closed, finite uni&erse#
?ra&ity, !instein argued, would cur&e the entire cosmos around into a four2dimensional sphere, finite, yet
without boundaries# !instein9s spherical uni&erse is static, eternally unchanging, ruled by his elegant
equations#
/o a society shattered by :orld :ar 1, this &ision of a calm, ordered uni&erse must ha&e been tremendously
reassuring# :hen man0ind is progressing, the dynamic changing infinite uni&erse, the 3restless uni&erse4, as
Sir Sames Sean called it, seems exciting and challenging# .ut when human affairs are in shambles, and
change no longer means progress but can mean uphea&al and death, a finite and static uni&erse li0e
!instein9s can appear a balm to tortured souls, )ust as 'ugustine9s hierarchical cosmos seemed to offer
refuge from the confusion and misery of the fourth century#
's one of !instein9s biographers, physicist 'braham Pais, wrote, 3!instein9s disco&ery appealed to deep
mythic themes# ' new man appears abruptly, the suddenly famous @r# !instein# -e carries a message of a
new order in the uni&erse ## -is mathematical language is sacred, ### the fourth dimension, light has weight,
space is warped# -e fulfils two profound needs in man, the need to 0now and the need not to 0now but to
belie&e#4 ,n a time of death and uncertainty, 3he represents order and power# -e became the di&ine man of
the twentieth century#4
:hate&er the complex moti&es that produced the myth of !instein and the general theory of relati&ity, it has
had a profound impact on twentieth2century science# Iineteen nineteen became a fault line in the history of
science, and in that year the main trends that were to lead to the acceptance of the .ig .ang began#
's 'lf&en points out, it is quite ironic that a triumph of science led to the resurgence of myth# /he most
unfortunate effect of the !instein myth is the enshrinement of the belief, re)ected for four hundred years,
that science is incomprehensible, that only an initiated priesthood can fathom its mysteries#
'lf&en wrote sixty years later, 3/he people were told that the true nature of the physical world could not be
understood except by !instein and a few other geniuses who were able to thin0 in four dimensions# Science
was something to belie&e in, not something which should be understood# Soon the best2sellers among the
popular science boo0s became those that presented scientific results as insults to common sense# $ne of the
consequences was that the limit between science and pseudo2science began to be erased# /o most people it
was increasingly difficult to find any difference between science and science fiction#4 :orse still, the
constant reiteration of science9s incomprehensibility could not fail to turn many against science and
encourage anti2intellectualism#
The Birth Of The Big Bang
!instein had first formulated his conception of a static, finite uni&erse in 1917, two years after de&eloping
the general theory of relati&ity# .ut he soon saw its flaws# ' static, closed uni&erse could not remain static,
because its own gra&itation would cause it to collapse#
*learly, !instein reasoned, something pre&ents the collapse of the uni&erse, something li0e the centrifugal
force of rotation, but not rotation itself# /his force must somehow increase with distanceE it had ne&er been
obser&ed on earth or in the solar system, but it must be strong enough at cosmological distances to
o&ercome gra&ity# -e introduced a new term into his equations of gra&ity, 3the cosmological constant,4 a
repulsi&e force whose strength increases proportionally to the distance between two ob)ects, )ust as the
centrifugal force of a rigidly rotating body increases proportionally to its radius# .ut this force, he thought,
acts in all directions equally, li0e gra&ity, so it does not disturb the symmetry of the uni&erse#
/o preser&e his conception of a static uni&erse, !instein set the cosmological constant to a le&el that would
balance gra&ity exactly, so that its repulsi&e force neutrali7ed the tendency of the uni&erse to collapse#
,n 19;L new obser&ations changed the picture radically# (or a decade, astronomers had been measuring the
spectra of stars in nearby galaxies# ,n nearly all cases, the spectra shifted slightly toward the red# Scientists
had long 0nown the simplest explanation of these redshifts is that the galaxies are mo&ing away, shifting the
frequency of light to the red (an analogous phenomenon ma0es the pitch of a train whistle rise as it
approaches and fall as it recedes# ,t seemed strange that, rather than mo&ing randomly, the galaxies all
seemed to be mo&ing away from each other and from us#
## Aemaitre de&eloped a new cosmological theory# Studying !instein9s equations, he found, as others had
before him, that the solution !instein proposed was unstable+ a slight expansion would cause the repulsi&e
force to increase and gra&ity to wea0en, leading to unlimited expansion, or a slight contradiction would,
&ice &ersa, lead to collapse# Aemaitre, independently reaching conclusions achie&ed fi&e years earlier by the
5ussian mathematician 'lexander (riedmann, showed that !instein9s uni&erse is only one special solution
among infinite possible cosmologies2 some expanding, some contracting, depending on the &alue of the
cosmological constant and the 3initial conditions4 of the uni&erse#
Aemaitre synthesised this purely mathematical result with :irt79s and -ubble9s tentati&e obser&ations, and
concluded that the uni&erse as a whole must be expanding, then any of the cosmological scenarios that led
to expansion could be a &alid description of the uni&erse# .ut cosmic repulsion and gra&ity are not delicately
balanced2 repulsion predominates in an expanding uni&erse#
Aemaitre put forward his hypothesis of an expanding uni&erse in a little20nown publication in 19;7, and
within two years his wor0 and (riedmann9s had become widely 0nown and accepted in the tiny cosmology
fraternity# .y this time, 19;9, -ubble had published the first results showing the redshift relation,
apparently confirming Aemaitre9s idea of an expanding uni&erse#
.ut if the uni&erse is finite in space, then it must be finite in time as well, Aemaitre argued# /hus the non2
singular solutions that Aemaitre found2 in which the uni&erse has no beginning2 were unacceptable# /he
only ones that corresponded to Aemaitre9s philosophical &iews were closed in space and limited in time#
!ddington ga&e him a further rationale for loo0ing at singular solutions2 the second law indicates that the
uni&erse must ha&e originated at a state of low entropy#
(rom these two philosophical premises, Aemaitre de&eloped his concept of the 3prime&al atom4, the first
&ersion of the .ig .ang# 't a 19K1 meeting of the .ritish 'ssociation on the !&olution of the %ni&erse, he
put his ideas forward for the first time# .eginning from the idea that entropy is e&erywhere increasing, he
reasoned, quantum mechanics (de&eloped in the twenties shows that as entropy increases, the number of
quanta 2 indi&idual particles in the uni&erse 2 increases# /hus, if we trace this bac0 in time, the entire
uni&erse must ha&e been a single particle, a &ast prime&al atom with 7ero radius# -e identified this instant
with the singularity of some relati&istic solutions# Sust as uranium and radium atoms decay into subatomic
particles, so this giant nucleus, as the uni&erse expanded, explosi&ely split up into smaller and smaller units,
atoms of the si7e of galaxies decaying into atoms the si7e of suns and so on down to our present2day atoms#
('ric K. "erner, /he .ig .ang Ie&er -appened, 1991
:ith this summary in mind let us now turn to the ideas of 'lbert !instein+
,f we ponder o&er the questions as to how the uni&erse (space, considered as a whole, is to be regarded, the
first answer that suggests itself to us is surely thisE 's regards space (and time the uni&erse is infinite# /here
are stars e&erywhere, so that the density of matter, although &ariable in detail, is ne&ertheless on the a&erage
e&erywhere the same# ,n other wordsE -owe&er far we might tra&el through space, we should find
e&erywhere an attenuated swarm of fixed stars of approximately the same 0ind and density# ('instein,
195L
!instein thought it sensible that space was infinite, as the concept of a finite sphere of Space with a center
and a boundary seemed unreasonable# 's we ha&e explained, !instein9s (and many other philosopher9s
belief in an infinite Space and time as being the most ob&ious and sensible uni&erse is correct, this being a
necessary consequence of the Spherical Standing :a&e Structure for 8atter#
%nfortunately for !instein, limited understanding of 8ach9s Principle and lac0 of 0nowledge of how 8atter
exists in Space and is interconnected with other 8atter in the Space around it (/he :a&e Structure of
8atter pre&ented this from being possible at the time, and led to the current confusion and paradox of
modern cosmology# So let us now explain (using the ideas of !instein how the :a&e Structure of 8atter,
and particularly the -uygens9 combination of ,n2:a&es and $ut2:a&es, sol&es these problems and
paradoxes#
!instein continues+
/his &iew of an infinite space is not in harmony with the theory of Iewton#
/he latter theory requires that the uni&erse should ha&e a 0ind of center in which the density of stars is a
maximum, and that as we proceed outwards from this center the group2density of the stars should diminish,
until finally, at great distances, it is succeeded by an infinite region of emptiness# /he stellar uni&erse ought
to be a finite island in an infinite ocean of space# ('instein, 195L
*learly !instein thin0s this 9island9 uni&erse unreasonable, nonetheless, it is a logical consequence of
Iewton9s force laws as he explains below+
'ccording to the theory of Iewton, the number of 9lines of force9 which come from infinity and terminate in
a mass m is proportional to the mass m# ,f, on the a&erage, the mass density Po is constant throughout the
uni&erse, then a sphere of &olume 6 will enclose the a&erage mass Po 6# /hus the number of lines of force
passing through the surface ( of the sphere into its interior is proportional to Po 6# (or unit area of the
surface of the sphere the number of lines of force which enters the sphere is thus proportional to Po 6"( or
to Po 5# -ence the intensity of the field at the surface would ultimately become infinite with increasing
radius 5 of the sphere, which is impossible# ('instein, 195L
!instein correctly argues that as the radius 5 of the spherical uni&erse tended to infinity then if this infinite
matter in distant Space contributed to the mass of our matter, our matter would necessarily ha&e an infinite
mass 2 which it clearly does not# /he solution is to reali7e that matter is a SS: that shares its wa&es with
other SS:s in Space, so once the radius increases past a certain radius (the si7e of our (inite Spherical
%ni&erse then we can no longer consider the contributions of $ut2:a&es from this farther distant matter 2
:e ha&e already counted and used their wa&e contributions which ma0e up the SS:s of closer matter#
($therwise we would be counting the same wa&es twice, three times etc# etc#
's we ha&e explained (sorry for the repetition but it is important>, it is this solution (of the sharing or
-uygens4 combination of wa&es that enables SS:s to exist with a finite mass2energy density, mass and
si7e (the si7e of our uni&erse within an infinite Space#
:ithout this 0nowledge though, the problem of matter ha&ing a finite mass and yet being part of ,nfinite
Space was impossible to explain# 's !instein writes+
Iewton included the infinity of space and time in his fundamental principles and speculated on the question
of whether or not the stars were finite in number and filled only a finite part of the infinite space# -e came
to the conclusion that the number of stars must be infinite and spread rather uniformly through space, for a
finite number would collapse in consequence of their mutual attraction# Aater it turned out that this
argument led to mathematical difficulties of so se&ere a 0ind that e&en modifications of the Iewtonian law
of gra&itation for large distances were contemplated# ('instein, 195L
,n order to escape this dilemma, Seeliger suggested a modification of Iewton9s law, in which he assumes
that for great distances the forces of attraction between two masses diminishes more rapidly than would
result with the in&erse square law# ,n this way it is possible for the mean density of matter to be constant
e&erywhere, e&en to infinity, without infinitely large gra&itational fields being produced# :e thus free
oursel&es from the distasteful conception that the material uni&erse ought to possess something of the nature
of a center# $f course we purchase our emancipation from the fundamental difficulties mentioned, at the
cost of a modification and complication of Iewton9s law which has neither empirical nor theoretical
foundation# ('instein, 195L
:hile Seeliger9s solution is in fact correct, without 0nowledge of the Spherical :a&e Structure of 8atter
and the -uygens9 combination and sharing of wa&es, he had no theoretical foundation for this solution# :e
can now clearly understand the solution to this problem of infinite mass by reali7ing that distant SS:s
contribute less and less to our ,n2:a&es with increasing distance (hence their contribution to our mass2
energy density and mass diminishes and their gra&itational effect upon us li0ewise diminishes#
/hus the Spherical Standing :a&e Structure of 8atter in an infinite three dimensional Space now pro&ides
this new theoretical foundation which deduces exactly what !instein and Seeliger required> /here is no
9island9 of masses in an infinite empty Space# ,nstead, matter is distributed uniformly throughout an infinite
Space, but it contributes less and less to our ,n2:a&es, and thus our mass, with increasing distance thus
pre&enting our mass from becoming infinite, and also pre&enting our finite uni&erse from collapsing on
upon itself due to gra&itational forces#
+ntroduction - Eewton, ;ach, Ainstein +nfinite ;ass 6aradox - %osmolo&y' ;ach's 6rinciple - Ainstein's
'%urvature of )8 Space-Time %ontinuum' - Ainstein's #amous %osmolo&ical >,nti&ravity? %onstant - Top of
6a&e
&ach?s Principle
#o* the 0istant (tars 0eter-ine Our Inertial &ass
!instein himself started with the con&iction that !rnst 8ach was correct# .ut at the end of the day he had to
sadly admit that his equations were not 8achian and that general relati&ity was a 9local9 theory# .ut we ha&e
seen that the equations were not wrong (after all they )ust represent conser&ation of mass2energy and
momentum# ,t was the fact that particles reali4ed their -ass by co--unication *ithin their creation
light sphere that -ade the physics &achian 2 and that had been omitted in the con&entional solution#
/his becomes terribly important from another aspect, namely quantum mechanics# ,n the small mass2energy
regime, discrete rather than continuous phenomena are encountered# !mpirically this is a well2&alidated
physics# .ut to the despair of generations of physicists, it appears impossible to unify general relati&ity and
quantum mechanics# Perhaps the outstanding aspect of quantum phenomena, howe&er, is that they in&ol&e
non2local physics# ,f we ma0e classical dynamics a non2local theory then we open the prospects of unifying
these two branches of physics# (Arp, 199=
-alton 'rp ma0es some &ery good obser&ations, and the solution to these problems can now be clearly
understood# 8atter is 9nonlocal9 and is in fact a Spherical Standing :a&e Structure that determines the si7e
of our finite spherical %ni&erse#
'nd as !instein confirms, general relati&ity requires that the uni&erse be finite and spherical+
, must not fail to mention that a theoretical argument can be adduced in fa&our of the hypothesis of a finite
uni&erse# /he general theory of relati&ity teaches that the inertial mass of a gi&en body is greater as there are
more ponderable masses in proximity to it+ thus it seems &ery natural to reduce the total inertia of a body to
interactions between it and the other bodies in the uni&erse, as indeed, e&er since Iewton4s time, gra&ity has
been completely reduced to interaction between bodies# ('instein, 195L
,t is true that the mass (inertia of a body is affected by other matter in the Space around it# /his is because
mass is related to mass2energy density of space of the ,n2:a&es (the greater the mass2energy density of
space, the greater the mass so the more matter around a body, then the more their $ut2:a&es are
contributing to that body9s ,n2:a&es and thus increasing its mass2energy density of space and inertial mass#
's the inertial mass of our matter is finite (not infinite, therefore, either matter and"or Space must be finite+
or the matter ($ut2:a&es which contribute to our ,n2:a&es must be finite within an infinite Space# 's
explained abo&e, it is this latter option which we now reali7e to be the correct solution#
' similar argument about inertial mass was made in 1==K by !rnst 8ach (who !instein greatly respected
and agreed with# 8ach boldly stated that, Iewton9s law of ,nertia FF-.a, was established by all the matter
of the uni&erse # 't that time the un0nown origin of Iewton9s inertia law attracted frequent attention# 8ach
(&ery cle&erly saw the connection between inertia and distant matter in the uni&erse from considerations on
the following experiment, which produces two fundamentally different ways of measuring a body9s rotation
in SpaceE
(irst, without loo0ing at the s0y, one can measure the centripetal (inertial force on a rotating mass m using
Iewton9s law in the form FF-aF-,
D
Br to find circumferential speed ,#
/he second way is to compare an ob)ect9s angular position and circumferential speed & relati&e to the distant
fixed stars#
5emar0ably, both methods gi&e exactly the same result and this was a great mystery at the time#
8ach reali7ed that the inertia law required a means to lin0 the inertial beha&iour of each body with all other
matter (the stars of our uni&erse# 8ach is reputed to ha&e said, 9:hen the subway )er0s, it is the distant
stars which throw us down#9 !instein agreed#
'lthough most scientists ha&e been intrigued by 8ach9s Principle, its truth was not recogni7ed by most
scientists because a paradox, termed instant 9'ction2at2a2@istance9 was seen in it by persons who declared
that it is impossible for all the distant matter of the uni&erse to instantaneously act upon a mo&ing body here
on earth# :e now understand that their error was to regard matter as discrete 9Particles9#
/his paradox is completely resol&ed by the :a&e Structure of 8atter (:S8 which shows that all distant
matter establishes its presence throughout the uni&erse by their ,n2:a&es and $ut2:a&es which produce a
nearly uniform mass2energy density of space throughout Space# /hus the 9presence9 of distant matter from
our uni&erse already exists at each point in our Space# /here is no need for instant action2at2a2distance#
'ccelerated :a&e2*enters interact with the Space around them whose mass2energy density of space is
determined by all the matter in our uni&erse# Iothing is instantaneous# :a&es only tra&el at speed c, which
is determined by the mass2energy density of space#
(/he &elocity of wa&es in Space, c, is slower in Space of higher mass2energy density of space as per the
:S8 Principle#
,t should be noted here though, that 8ach was only partly correct# 8ach, li0e !instein, belie&ed that all
matter interactions could be considered relati&e to other matter, thus the concept of Space was largely
ignored#
,n fact it is the other way around (Iewton was correct and it is Space which exists and causes 8atter, and
the mass2energy density of space determines the beha&iour of matter (SS:s in this Space# /his then
explains how distant matter contributes to the mass2energy density of space of our ,n2:a&es and thus our
inertial mass#
%sing the hindsight of the :a&e Structure of 8atter (:S8 it is now clear that not only was 8ach largely
correct for inertia but his concept applies to all the other natural laws as well# !ach of the laws and the
natural constants is determined by the inherent properties of Space, and in particular the mass2energy
density of space which is established by the other matter of our uni&erse# :e li&e in a uni&erse in which
each part depends on the whole# 'gain we emphasi7e that the modern paradoxes were largely produced by
the ancient concept of discrete 9Particles9 and these paradoxes are now resol&ed by abandoning the 9Particle9
concept and replacing it with the Spherical Standing :a&e Structure of 8atter whereby the :a&e2*enter
causes the obser&ed 9Particle9 effect#
+ntroduction - Eewton, ;ach, Ainstein +nfinite ;ass 6aradox - %osmolo&y' ;ach's 6rinciple - Ainstein's
'%urvature of )8 Space-Time %ontinuum' - Ainstein's #amous %osmolo&ical >,nti&ravity? %onstant - Top of
6a&e
/instein1s Cur"ature of Four .imensional )pace5Time Continuum
/he concept of the 9cur&ature of space9 is a mathematical construction of !instein9s general relati&ity# ,n
reality Space is not cur&ed, instead, the mass2energy density of space &aries dependent upon the nearby
proximity of matter (SS:s, and this causes a &ariation in the &elocity of wa&es"light (as the central
Principle of the :S8 states which is the cause of the cur&ed path of matter and light in Space# /his
slowing of wa&es in higher mass2energy density of Space is the cause of gra&ity and explains, for example,
why light cur&es past the sun, and why the earth orbits the sun#
Iow it seems that many people do not correctly understand the meaning of the four dimensional space2time
continuum, but it simply means that three spatial dimensions and a time dimension are required to define the
motion of bodies and the path of light in three dimensional Space#
/he non2mathematician is sei7ed by a mysterious shuddering when he hears of 9four2dimensional9 things, by
a feeling not unli0e that awa0ened by thoughts of the occult# 'nd yet there is no more common2place
statement than that the world in which we li&e is a four2dimensional space2time continuum# Space is a three2
dimensional continuum# ### Similarly, the world of physical phenomena which was briefly called 9world9 by
8in0ows0i is naturally four dimensional in the space2time sense# (or it is composed of indi&idual e&ents,
each of which is described by four numbers, namely, three space co2ordinates x, y, 7, and the time co2
ordinate t# ('instein, 195L
!instein is absolutely correct, if we wish to define the location of successi&e :a&e2*enters (motion of
3Particle4 of the ,n2:a&es of a Spherical Standing :a&e in Space then we require /hree @imensions for
the Spherical :a&e Structure in Space, and $ne @imension for the 8otion of the :a&es# /hus we could
number the Spherical ,n2:a&es 1,;,K,L ### counting out from the center, and thus plot successi&e :a&e2
*enters for each successi&e ,n2:a&e (e#g# (x1,y1,71,1 (x;,y;,7;,; and these four dimensional plots would
describe the apparent motion of the :a&e2*enters (3Particle4 through /hree @imensional Space# (/hus we
see how /ime is caused by :a&e 8otion#
,t is important to reali7e though, that 8atter9s *ur&ature of the 9(our @imensional Space2/ime *ontinuum9
is $nly 8athematically /rue# (or 8atter mo&ing past a massi&e body in /hree @imensional Space (e#g# an
asteroid mo&ing past the !arth then it is the relationship between the high mass2energy density of space of
the !arth, which slows the ,n2:a&e26elocity (and shortens the :a&elength and stretches the Spherical ,n2
:a&es into an !llipsoidal Shape that causes the 5esultant :a&e2*enter9s of the asteroid to 8o&e in a
*ur&ed ('ccelerated Path (which !instein 8athematically and correctly @escribes using (our @imensions
of Space and /ime, as is necessarily required to determine the 8otion of an ob)ect in /hree @imensional
Space>#
.ut the path (of general relati&ity was thornier than one might suppose, because it demanded the
abandonment of !uclidean geometry# /his is what we mean when we tal0 of the 9cur&ature of space9# /he
fundamental concepts of the 9straight line9, the 9plane9, etc#, thereby lose their precise significance in physics#
,n the general theory of relati&ity the doctrine of space and time, or 0inematics, no longer figures as a
fundamental independent of the rest of physics# /he geometrical beha&iour of bodies and the motion of
cloc0s rather depend on gra&itational fields which in their turn are produced by matter# ('instein, 1919
Iow this is &ery important, for it is this 9cur&ature9 that largely led to !instein9s early fame# 's we ha&e
explained, the measurable properties affected by the presence of spherically spatially extended 8atter in
Space is that the path of nearby light and matter is caused to be cur&ed# ,t was the prediction by !instein that
light cur&ed as it gra7ed the sun (subsequently confirmed by obser&ation during a solar eclipse on the ;9th
8ay 1919 that resulted in his ?eneral /heory of 5elati&ity becoming widely accepted and &ery famous>
Sust li0e an asteroid, the cur&ed path of light is simply caused by the higher mass2energy density of space
near 8atter and the resultant slower :a&e26elocity# !instein is largely correct when he writes+
/he particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength " energy density is
particularly high#
.ut we now understand his error of representing matter as spherical force fields and reali7e that it is actually
the :a&e2'mplitude and mass2energy density of space of Spherical Standing :a&es in Space which is
particularly high at the :a&e2*enter"4Particle4# -is general principle is correct though, matter does
determine the geometric properties of Space+
'ccording to the general theory of relati&ity, the geometrical properties of space are not independent, but
they are determined by matter# ('lbert !instein
/hus &ery tiny differences of :a&e28edium @ensity occur near &ery large masses such as the Sun due to
this cumulati&e effect of many trillions of high mass2energy density of space :a&e2*enters# /his increasing
mass2energy density of Space slows the &elocity of the wa&e fronts and causes them to cur&e slightly when
passing massi&e bodies li0e our sun#
(urther, an infinite Space that has matter distributed uniformly must be 9flat9 rather than 3cur&ed4 when
considered o&er large scales of distance#
's our finite spherical uni&erse is part of this infinite Space then this uniform distribution of matter (on the
large scale explains our 9flat9 uni&erse# ,n the deri&ation of Iewton9s Aaw of ,nertia, the finite range of
matter whose $ut2:a&es contribute directly to our ,n2:a&es, and thus contribute to our inertial mass,
required that the density of matter ha&e the &alue J#
D
B Ipi:, (See :olff references that is, of a 9flat9
uni&erse in general relati&ity#
+ntroduction - Eewton, ;ach, Ainstein +nfinite ;ass 6aradox - %osmolo&y' ;ach's 6rinciple - Ainstein's
'%urvature of )8 Space-Time %ontinuum' - Ainstein's #amous %osmolo&ical >,nti&ravity? %onstant - Top of
6a&e
/>plaining /instein1s Famous Cosmological +2ntigra"ity- Constant
:e begin with a &ery nice (and important quote from -alton 'rp on !instein4s famous 3*osmological
*onstant (which is really )ust an assumed anti2gra&ity force+
Ai0e most people, , grew up with the recei&ed wisdom that !instein9s ?eneral 5elati&ity was so profound
and complicated that only a &ery few people in the world understood it# .ut e&entually it dawned on me that
the essential idea was &ery simple, and it was only the elaboration4s that were complicated# /he simplest
mathematical expression of ?eneral 5elati&ity is+ ? U /
/he / represents the energy and momentum of a system of particles# ,n order to describe their beha&iour in
great generality, they are considered to be in a space whose geometrical properties (e#g## cur&ature of space2
time are described by ?#
Iow the solution to this equation tells us how these particles beha&e with time# /he important feature of this
solution is &ery simple to &isuali7e, either the initial energy is large and the ensemble continues to expand or
the energy is small and the ensemble collapses under the force of gra&ity# /his is the unstable uni&erse
which distressed !instein and caused him to introduce the cosmological constant (a special energy term
which )ust balanced the uni&erse#
.ut in 19;; the 5ussian 8athematician, 'lexander (riedmann, put forth a solution in which the spatial
separations of the particles expanded with time# 't first reluctant, !instein later embraced the expanding
uni&erse solution so enthusiastically that he renounced his cosmological 3fudge factor4 as 3the greatest
blunder of my life4# /he Aundmar02-ubble relation was in the air at the time, and it seemed an ideal
synthesis to interpret the redshifts of the extragalactic nebulae as the recession &elocity of their expanding
space2time reference frame# .ut basically, the theory was that the galaxies at our time were expanding away
from each other, and therefore must ha&e all originated in a 3.ig .ang42 that is, the uni&erse was created
instantaneously out of nothing# (Arp, 199=
Aet us now consider !instein9s thoughts on the sub)ect of his famous *osmological ('nti2?ra&ity *onstant+
8y original considerations on the Structure of Space 'ccording to the ?eneral /heory of 5elati&ity were
based on two hypothesesE
1# /here exists an a&erage density of matter in the whole of space (the finite spherical uni&erse which is
e&erywhere the same and different from 7ero#
;# /he magnitude (radius of space (the finite spherical uni&erse is independent of time#
.oth these hypotheses pro&ed to be consistent, according to the general theory of relati&ity, but only after a
hypothetical term was added to the field equations, a term which was not required by the theory as such nor
did it seem natural from a theoretical point of &iew (9cosmological term of the field equations9# ('instein,
195;
!instein is largely correct with his two hypotheses 2 his problem was that he had to assume that the uni&erse
was finite and spherical (because of 8ach9s Principle and that matter4s mass is finite, and this necessarily
meant that gra&ity would cause it to collapse upon itself# /hus he required a 9cosmological constant9
(effecti&ely a repulsi&e or anti2gra&itational force to pre&ent the matter in a finite spherical uni&erse from
collapsing upon itself#
:ith the :S8 though, we reali7e that our finite spherical uni&erse is in fact only part of an infinite Space
that continues to be filled with an a&erage distribution of matter# /hus this matter external to our uni&erse
gra&itationally attracts our matter and thus pre&ents the matter in our uni&erse from collapsing#
/his explains !instein9s need for a cosmological constant 2 but it is not a gra&itationally repulsi&e force as
!instein imagined (and which we do not obser&e, rather, it is simply the normal gra&itational attraction of
matter outside our finite spherical uni&erse which pre&ents our uni&erse from collapsing#
.ut as chance would ha&e it !instein found another explanation and thus famously renounced his
cosmological constant as 3my greatest mista0e4# 's it turns out, this error has led to =< years of confusion,
and to the rather mystical belief that our uni&erse arose from nothing (no Space or /ime in a 9.ig .ang9
about fifteen billion years ago# ,n hindsight it is now clear to us that the 9.ig .ang9 theory is a human
construction which satisfies our natural human instincts for spiritual"mystical (creation explanations of
things we don9t yet understand#
So let us now further explain how the chance disco&eries of others led to this error, and in so doing finally
mo&e beyond creation theories and reali7e that the spatial world we see around us is what exists 2 and has
always existed#
!instein continues his argument+
-ypothesis ; (a static finite spherical uni&erse which requires a repulsi&e cosmological constant to pre&ent
it collapsing appeared una&oidable to me at the time, since , thought that one would get into bottomless
speculations if one departed from it#
-owe&er, already in the 9twenties, the 5ussian mathematician (riedman showed that a different hypothesis
was natural from a purely theoretical point of &iew# -e reali7ed that it was possible to preser&e hypothesis 1
(a&erage density of matter without introducing the less natural cosmological term into the field equations of
gra&itation, if one was ready to drop hypothesis ;# Iamely, the original field equations admit a solution in
which the 9world radius9 (radius of the finite spherical uni&erse depends on time [expanding space\# ,n that
sense one can say, according to (riedman, that the theory demands an expansion of space# ('instein, 195;
So !instein reali7ed that if the uni&erse was expanding (i#e# remo&e hypothesis ; then there was no longer
any need for his cosmological constant to pre&ent the uni&erse from collapsing# Iow initially !instein had
re)ected this idea, but then a remar0able coincidence occurred which caused him to change his mind, and led
to the current confusions of *osmology# !instein continues+
' few years later -ubble showed, by special in&estigation of the extra2galactic nebulae, that the spectral
lines emitted showed a red shift which increases regularly with distance of the nebulae# /his can be
interpreted in regard to our present 0nowledge only in the sense of @oppler9s principle, as an expansi&e
motion of the system of stars in the large 2 as required, according to (riedman, by the field equations of
gra&itation# -ubble9s disco&ery can, therefore, be considered to some extent as a confirmation of the theory#
('instein, 195;
$ne thing that is &ery interesting (and disturbing is how 0nowledge gets corrupted o&er time# /his
particularly applies to the idea that 9#ubble disco,ered that the uni,erse *as e)panding9# -e did no such
thing, #ubble disco,ered a relationship bet*een redshift and distance 2 one possible cause of this is the
@oppler shift due to matter mo&ing away from other matter (an expanding uni&erse# Iow this is a
profoundly different thing to say, and yet it is simply ama7ing as to the number of respected scientists who
say that -ubble disco&ered that the uni&erse was expanding (which is not science> 's !ric Aerner correctly
notices+
,n one of its se&eral &ariations the big bang cosmological theory is almost uni&ersally accepted as the most
reasonable theory for the origin and e&olution of the uni&erse# ,n fact, it is so well accepted that &irtually
e&ery media article, story or program that touches on the sub)ects of astronomy or cosmology presents the
big bang (.. as a &irtual pro&en fact# 's a result, the great ma)ority of the literate populace of the world,
including most of the scientists of the world, accepts big bang theory (../ as scientific fact# ("erner,
1991
,t should be pointed out that -ubble himself was not con&inced that red shift was exclusi&ely due to
@oppler effect# %p to the time of his death he maintained that &elocities inferred from red shift
-easure-ents should be referred to as apparent ,elocities#9 (&itchell, 1997
.elow we quote a few scientists who ha&e made this error, simply because we wish to strongly ma0e the
point about how we begin to assume things to be true, abo&e and beyond what the obser&ation tells us+
'bout 19;9 the 'merican astronomer -ubble demonstrated the existence of a strange correlation bet*een
distance and speed of the nebulae= they all -o,e out*ards, a*ay fro- us, and *ith a ,elocity *hich
increases proportional to the distance+ or, in other words, the system of the spiral nebulae is expanding 2
)ust as the primiti&e comparison of this system with a gas had suggested to earlier thin0ers# Iow if one
regards the expansion to ha&e been the same in the past as it is today, one is led to the idea that the whole
system must ha&e had a beginning when all matter was condensed in a small 9supernucleus,9 and one can
calculate the time inter&al since this 9beginning of the world9 and the present instant# /he result obtained
from -ubble9s data was ;<<< to K<<< millions of years#
8eanwhile the relati&istic cosmology initiated by !instein and @e Sitter began to ripen in the hands of
(riedmann, Aemaitre, /olman, 5obertson and others# ' series of new possible models of the world were
disco&ered between the extreme cases found by !instein and @e Sitter, and the question arose which of
them fitted the empirical facts best, in particular those facts established by -ubble# /oday there are many
ramifications and refinements of the theory and there has been so enormous an increase of obser&ational
material that it is difficult to )udge the actual situation# 'arlier ideas *hich see-ed to be -ost fertile ha,e
turned out to be too narro* or e,en *rong# (;orn, 19JL
,n the years following his proof of the existence of other galaxies, -ubble spent his time cataloguing their
distances and obser&ing their spectra# 't that time most people expected the galaxies to be mo&ing around
quite randomly, and so expected to find as many blue2shifted spectra as red2shifted ones# ,t was quite a
surprise, therefore, to find that -ost gala)ies appeared red!shifted= nearly all *ere -o,ing a*ay fro-
us/ 8ore surprisingly still was the finding that -ubble published in 19;9E e&en the si7e of a galaxy9s red
shift is not random, but is directly proportional to the galaxy9s distance from us# $r, in other words, the
farther a galaxy is, the faster it is mo&ing away> 'nd that meant that the uni&erse could not be static, as
e&eryone pre&iously thought, but is in fact expanding+ the distance between the different galaxies is growing
all the time#
In 67D7, 'd*in #ubble -ade the land-ar< obser,ation that *here,er you loo<, distant gala)ies are
-o,ing rapidly a*ay fro- us# ,n other words, the uni&erse is expanding# /his means at earlier times
ob)ects would ha&e been closer together# ## -ubble9s obser&ations suggested that there was a time, called the
big bang, when the uni&erse was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense# (#a*<ing, 19==
$nly after the astronomer !dwin -ubble had studied the motions of galaxies and independently disco&ered
that the uni&erse was expanding# (+erthei-, 1997
, am quite simply ama7ed that these good scientists can write such loose 9science9# -opefully this will be an
important lesson to -umanity 1 that we must always distinguish between empirical obser&ations 2 and
theories " interpretations founded on those obser&ations>
%nfortunately for !instein, and for science in general, they did not possess the correct 0nowledge of how
matter finitely exists within an ,nfinite Space# ,f they had then they would ha&e realised two profound
things+
i /hat !instein4s *osmological *onstant is largely correct, but is caused by the gra&itational forces of
matter outside our finite spherical uni&erse which pre&ent our uni&erse from gra&itationally collapsing#
ii /hus there is no need for an expanding uni&erse, and then they would ha&e realised, from the correct
:S8, that the redshift is caused by decreasing :a&e interactions with distance#
Quantum Physics& 2lbert /instein
The )pherical )tanding #a"e )tructure of Matter +#)M- e>plains
2lbert /instein1s Light Quanta 1Photon1 ( Photoelectric /ffect of
Quantum Theory
/he quanta really are a hopeless mess#
('lbert !instein, $n doing Buantum /heory calculations with :olfgang Pauli
, still do not belie&e that the statistical method of the Buantum /heory is the last word, but for the time
being , am alone in my opinion# ('lbert !instein, $n Buantum /heory, p1;5 19KJ
Nou belie&e in the ?od who plays dice, and , in complete law and order in a world which ob)ecti&ely exists,
and which ,, in a wildly speculati&e way, am trying to capture# , firmly belie&e, but , hope that someone will
disco&er a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis than it has been my lot to find# !&en the great
initial success of the Buantum /heory does not ma0e me belie&e in the fundamental dice2game, although ,
am well aware that our younger colleagues interpret this as a consequence of senility# Io doubt the day will
come when we will see whose instincti&e attitude was the correct one# ('lbert !instein to 8ax .orn, $n
Buantum /heory, 19LL
!instein thin0s he has a continuous field theory that a&oids 9spoo0y action at a distance9, but the calculation
difficulties are &ery great# -e is quite con&inced that some day a theory that does not depend on
probabilities will be found# (8ax .orn letters to 'lbert !instein, p15= 8ar 19L7
/he more success the quantum theory has, the sillier it loo0s#
('lbert !instein to -einrich Mangger on Buantum /heory, 8ay ;<, 191;
, thin0 that a 9particle9 must ha&e a separate reality independent of the measurements# /hat is an electron has
spin, location and so forth e&en when it is not being measured# , li0e to thin0 that the moon is there e&en if ,
am not loo0ing at it# ('lbert !instein
'll my attempts to adapt the theoretical foundation of physics to this new type of 0nowledge (Buantum
/heory failed completely# ,t was as if the ground had been pulled out from under one, with no firm
foundation to be seen anywhere, upon which one could ha&e built#
(P# ' Schlipp, 'lbert !insteinE Philosopher 1 Scientist, $n Buantum /heory, 19L9
+ntroduction - @S; #ounded on =ne 6rinciple' Space Axists as @ave ;edium - ;ax 6lan's *uantum
Aner&y States - :ouis de Bro&lie' ;atter @aves - %ompton @avelen&th of the Alectron - Schrodin&er @ave
Aquations - #orces of %har&e and :i&ht - <esonant %ouplin& as %ause of :i&ht - @erner Keisenber&'s
7ncertainty 6rinciple 9 ;ax Born's '6robability @aves' +nterpretation of *uantum Theory - <ichard
#eynman's *uantum Alectrodynamics >*A8? - 6roblem of '<enormalisation' - Solution to E= Lector @ave
Solutions of ;axwell's Aquations in Spherical %o-ordinates - @olff's Axplanation of A6< >,lbert Ainstein,
6odolsy, <osen? - *uantum Theory Summary - Top
'ntroduction to Quantum Theory& 2lbert /instein
/he de&elopment during the present century is characteri7ed by two theoretical systems essentially
independent of each otherE the theory of relati,ity and the 3uantu- theory# /he two systems do not
directly contradict each other+ but they seem little adapted to fusion into one unified theory#
!xperiments on interference made with particle rays ha&e gi&en brilliant proof that the *a,e character of
the pheno-ena of -otion as assumed by the theory do, really, correspond to the facts#
de .roglie concei&ed an electron re&ol&ing about the atomic nucleus as being connected with a hypothetical
wa&e train, and made intelligible to some extent the discrete character of .ohr9s 9permitted9 paths by the
stationary (standing) character of the corresponding *a,es# (Albert 'instein, 19L<
,t is ob&ious that :a&es are central to Buantum /heory and thus to understanding the structure of 8atter#
/he problem has been the further introduction of the 9particle9 concept, and thus the resulting paradox of the
9Particle":a&e9 duality#
,n this article we begin, as is necessary, by briefly describing the 8etaphysics of Space and 8otion and the
Spherical Standing :a&e Structure of 8atter# :e then demonstrate (from $ne Principle that the solution to
this apparent paradox is to simply explain how the discrete 9particle9 properties of 8atter and Aight (quanta
are in fact caused by Standing :a&e interactions#
.asically !instein is correct, 8atter is a Spherically Spatially extended structure of Space (there is no
9particle9 though most importantly we ha&e simplified !instein9s ideas from 8atter as *ontinuous Spherical
(ields in Space2/ime to 8atter as Spherical :a&es in *ontinuous Space#
+ntroduction - @S; #ounded on =ne 6rinciple' Space Axists as @ave ;edium - ;ax 6lan's *uantum
Aner&y States - :ouis de Bro&lie' ;atter @aves - %ompton @avelen&th of the Alectron - Schrodin&er @ave
Aquations - #orces of %har&e and :i&ht - <esonant %ouplin& as %ause of :i&ht - @erner Keisenber&'s
7ncertainty 6rinciple 9 ;ax Born's '6robability @aves' +nterpretation of *uantum Theory - <ichard
#eynman's *uantum Alectrodynamics >*A8? - 6roblem of '<enormalisation' - Solution to E= Lector @ave
Solutions of ;axwell's Aquations in Spherical %o-ordinates - @olff's Axplanation of A6< >,lbert Ainstein,
6odolsy, <osen? - *uantum Theory Summary - Top
One Principle of the +a,e (tructure of &atter
On +hat ')ists and its Properties
=ne Thin& Space Axists with the 6roperties of a @ave-;edium
The Formation of Matter from #a"es in )pace
8atter !xists as Spherical Standing :a&es in Space#
/he 3Particle4 !ffect of 8atter is *aused by the :a&e2*enter of the Spherical Standing :a&es# (See (ig# 1
T U
(ig 1# /his (&ery rough diagram shows how the Spherical ,n and $ut :a&es form a Standing :a&e around
the :a&e2*enter 9particle9#
The Properties of )pace
i Space, as $ne things existing, is necessarily ,nfinite, !ternal and *ontinuous (there are no 9particles9#
ii /he &elocity of :a&es in Space is the 6elocity of Aight c#
/his :a&e 6elocity is not constant and is determined by both the :a&e 'mplitude and mass2energy density
of Space# i# e#
-igh :a&e 'mplitude :a&es Propagate with a (aster :a&e 6elocity# (e#g# wa&es on water# /his is the
cause of *harge#
-igh mass2energy density Space causes a Slower :a&e 6elocity# (e#g# cur&ature of light near Sun# /his is
the cause of ?ra&itational 8ass#
The Properties of Matter +Forces and )i<e of Matter-
i 'ny *hange in 6elocity of the Spherical ,n2:a&es from $ne @irection changes where these ,n2:a&es
meet at their respecti&e :a&e2*enter which we see as a 9(orce 'ccelerating a Particle9#
/his is the *ause of 5e*ton?s "a* of Inertia= (orce U 8ass X 'cceleration# (See (ig# ;
ii /he Spherical ,n2:a&es are formed from the -uygens9 *ombination of $ut2:a&es from 'll other 8atter
in our (inite Spherical %ni&erse# (See (ig# K
/his is the *ause of &achLs Principle= 8atter9s 8ass (mass2energy density is @etermined by all other
8atter in the %ni&erse#
Fig. D :ra,ity is Caused by the (lo*ing of the In!+a,es. ,n fact 'AA forces are caused by a change in
&elocity of the ,n2:a&es which changes the location of the :a&e2*enter, and which we obser&e as the
accelerated motion of the 9particle9
Fig. J #uygensL Principle e)plains ho* our In!+a,es are created by other &atterLs Out!+a,es
/he remainder of this article is deduced from this $ne Principle (thus it is necessary and certain, not our
opinion and we are assuming that the reader understands these metaphysical principles and their
importance to the Scientific 8ethod (Physics, Philosophy, 8etaphysics# :e should also add that this
central Principle of the :a&e Structure of 8atter not only explains and sol&es the problems of Buantum
/heory, but also !instein9s 5elati&ity and *osmology, and thus unites these three famous sub)ects for the
first time# (, 0now this is a big claim, but you can determine this for yoursel&es#
So let us now explain and sol&e the many problems and paradoxes of Buantum /heory using the /wo
Principles of the 8etaphysics of Space and 8otion and the Spherical :a&e Structure of 8atter#
@uring the years 19<<219K<, many experiments were done on the interactions of light beams, particle
beams, and metal targets# 'nalysis of these experiments showed that Aight and 8atter had both Particle and
:a&e properties# 's we ha&e said, the solution to this apparent paradox of the Particle":a&e duality is to
simply explain how the discrete 9particle9 properties (quanta are in fact caused by standing :a&e
interactions#
/o do this we must begin by explaining the experimental foundations of Buantum /heory
1# 8ax Planc09s @isco&ery of the Particle (Buantum Properties of Aight, !Uhf# (19<<
;# de .roglie9s @isco&ery of the :a&e Properties of !lectron ,nteractions, yUh"m&# (19;7
K# /he !qui&alence of !nergy, 8ass and (requency and the *ompton :a&elength N of the !lectron
NUh"mc U ;#LKX1<
21;
m#
+ntroduction - @S; #ounded on =ne 6rinciple' Space Axists as @ave ;edium - ;ax 6lan's *uantum
Aner&y States - :ouis de Bro&lie' ;atter @aves - %ompton @avelen&th of the Alectron - Schrodin&er @ave
Aquations - #orces of %har&e and :i&ht - <esonant %ouplin& as %ause of :i&ht - @erner Keisenber&'s
7ncertainty 6rinciple 9 ;ax Born's '6robability @aves' +nterpretation of *uantum Theory - <ichard
#eynman's *uantum Alectrodynamics >*A8? - 6roblem of '<enormalisation' - Solution to E= Lector @ave
Solutions of ;axwell's Aquations in Spherical %o-ordinates - @olff's Axplanation of A6< >,lbert Ainstein,
6odolsy, <osen? - *uantum Theory Summary - Top
383 Ma> Planc=1s .isco"ery of the Particle +Quantum- Properties of Light +3C77-
,n 19<< 8ax Planc0 made a profound disco&ery# -e showed (from purely formal"mathematical foundations
that light must be emitted and absorbed in discrete amounts if it was to correctly describe obser&ed
phenomena (i#e# .lac0body radiation#
Prior to then light had been considered as a continuous electromagnetic wa&e, thus the discrete nature of
light was completely unexpected, as 'lbert !instein explains+
'bout fifteen years ago V1=99W nobody had yet doubted that a correct account of the electrical, optical, and
thermal properties of matter was possible on the basis of ?alileo2Iewtonian mechanics applied to molecular
motion and of 8axwell9s theory of the electromagnetic field# (Albert 'instein, 1915
/hen Planc0 showed that in order to establish a law of heat radiation (,nfra red light wa&es consonant with
experience, it was necessary to employ a method of calculation whose incompatibility with the principles of
classical physics became clearer and clearer# (or with this method of calculation, Planc0 introduced into
physics the quantum hypothesis, which has since recei&ed brilliant confirmation# (Albert 'instein, 191L
,n the year nineteen hundred, in the course of purely theoretical (mathematical in&estigation, 8ax Planc0
made a &ery remar0able disco&eryE the law of radiation of bodies as a function of temperature could not be
deri&ed solely from the Aaws of 8axwellian electrodynamics# /o arri&e at results consistent with the
rele&ant experiments, radiation of a gi&en frequency f had to be treated as though it consisted of energy
atoms (photons of the indi&idual energy hf, where h is Planc09s uni&ersal constant# @uring the years
following, it was shown that light was e&erywhere produced and absorbed in such energy quanta# ,n
particular, Iiels .ohr was able to largely understand the structure of the atom, on the assumption that the
atoms can only ha&e discrete energy &alues, and that the discontinuous transitions between them are
connected with the emission or absorption of energy quantum# /his threw some light on the fact that in their
gaseous state elements and their compounds radiate and absorb only light of certain sharply defined
frequencies# (Albert 'instein, 19L<
!&en the ?ree0s had already concei&ed the atomistic nature of matter and the concept was raised to a high
degree of probability by the scientists of the nineteenth century# .ut it was Planc09s law of radiation that
yielded the first exact determination 2 independent of other assumptions 2 of the absolute magnitudes of
atoms# 8ore than that, he showed con&incingly that in addition to the atomistic structure of matter there is a
0ind of atomistic structure to energy, go&erned by the uni&ersal constant h, which was introduced by Planc0#
/his disco&ery became the basis of all twentieth2century research in physics and has almost entirely
conditioned its de&elopment e&er since# :ithout this disco&ery it would not ha&e been possible to establish
a wor0able theory of molecules and atoms and the energy processes that go&ern their transformations#
8oreo&er, it has shattered the whole framewor0 of classical mechanics and electrodynamics and set science
a fresh tas<= that of finding a ne* conceptual basis for all physics# @espite remar0able partial gains, the
problem is still far from a satisfactory solution# (Albert 'instein, 195<
'lbert !instein (19<5 used Planc09s relationship to explain the results of the photoelectric effect which
showed that the energy ! of e)ected electrons was wholly dependent upon the frequency f of incident light
as described in the equation !Uhf# ,t is ironic that in 19;1 'lbert !instein was awarded the Iobel Pri7e for
this disco&ery, though he ne&er belie&ed in particles and ac0nowledged that he did not 0now the cause of
the discrete energy transfers (photons which were contradictory to his continuous field theory of matter>
,n 195L 'lbert !instein wrote to his friend 8ichael .esso expressing his frustration+
'll these fifty years of conscious brooding ha&e brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 9:hat
are light quantaF9 Iowadays e&ery /om, @ic0 and -arry thin0s he 0nows it, but he is mista0en# (Albert
'instein, 195L
8ost importantly, 'lbert !instein also suspected that 8atter could not be described by a continuous
spherical force field+
, consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i#e#, on continuous structures#
,n that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gra&itation theory included, Vand ofW the rest of
modern physics# (Albert 'instein, 195L
'lbert !instein9s suspicions were well )ustified, for he had spent a lifetime trying (and failing to create a
unified field theory of matter that explained both Buantum /heory " Aight and 5elati&ity " ?ra&ity#
,n fact 8atter, as a Spherical Standing :a&e which causes the 9(ield9 effect, interacts with other matter in
discrete standing wa&e patterns, not with continuous force fields as he had imagined, thus his tas0 was
ultimately impossible, as he sadly came to realise towards the end of his life#
-owe&er, his wor0 on the photoelectric effect confirmed that light energy was only emitted and absorbed by
electrons in discrete amounts or quanta# /his quanta of light energy soon became 0nown as the 9photon9 (i#e#
discrete li0e a particle and led to the paradox that light beha&ed both as a continuous e2m wa&e (8axwell,
'lbert !instein as well as a discrete particle"photon (Planc0, 'lbert !instein# So we see that 'lbert
!instein was partly responsible for the disco&ery of the particle"photon concept of light, though he
completely re)ected the notion of discrete particles# -e writes+
Since the theory of general relati&ity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field,
the concept of particles or -aterial points cannot play a funda-ental part, nor can the concept of
motion# (Albert 'instein
'lbert !instein is correct that there are no discrete particles, and that /he particle can only appear as a
limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high# .ut it is the
high :a&e2'mplitude of the :a&e2*enter of a Spherical Standing :a&e in Space (not of a continuous
spherical force field that causes the particle effect# /hus of three concepts, particles, force fields, and
-otion, it finally turns out that 8otion, as the spherical wa&e motion of space, is the correct concept, as it
then explains both particles and fields# ((or further explanation see 'rticle on 5elati&ity
,t is most important to realise though that 'lbert !instein was correct in imagining matter as being spatially
extended, as he explains+
, wished to show that space time is not necessarily something to which one can ascribe to a separate
existence, independently of the actual ob)ects of physical reality# Physical objects are not in space, but
these objects are spatially e)tended# ,n this way the concept empty space loses its meaning# (Albert
'instein
,t is certainly true that the particle and its forces are &ery useful mathematical concepts, unfortunately, they
also cause many problems and paradoxes because they are approximations to reality and do not physically
exist# :e can now finally sol&e these problems by understanding the reason for these discrete energy states,
which are due to the fact that standing wa&es only exist at discrete frequencies, li0e notes on the string of a
guitar, thus while the correct Spherical Standing :a&e Structure of 8atter predicts that energy exchanges
will be discrete, as obser&ed, the continuous e2m wa&e does not anticipate this#
/hus the Spherical Standing :a&e Structure of 8atter explains 8ax Planc09s (19<< disco&ery that there
are only certain allowed discrete energy states for electrons in molecules and atoms, and further, that light is
only e&er emitted and absorbed by electrons in discrete or 9quantum9 amounts, as the electrons mo&e from
one stable standing wa&e pattern to another# (/his is explained in more detail in section 1#L
+ntroduction - @S; #ounded on =ne 6rinciple' Space Axists as @ave ;edium - ;ax 6lan's *uantum
Aner&y States - :ouis de Bro&lie' ;atter @aves - %ompton @avelen&th of the Alectron - Schrodin&er @ave
Aquations - #orces of %har&e and :i&ht - <esonant %ouplin& as %ause of :i&ht - @erner Keisenber&'s
7ncertainty 6rinciple 9 ;ax Born's '6robability @aves' +nterpretation of *uantum Theory - <ichard
#eynman's *uantum Alectrodynamics >*A8? - 6roblem of '<enormalisation' - Solution to E= Lector @ave
Solutions of ;axwell's Aquations in Spherical %o-ordinates - @olff's Axplanation of A6< >,lbert Ainstein,
6odolsy, <osen? - *uantum Theory Summary - Top
384 de Broglie1s .isco"ery of the #a"e Properties of /lectron 'nteractions +3C4@-
/he next step was ta0en by de .roglie# -e as0ed himself how the discrete states could be understood by the
aid of current concepts, and hit on a parallel with stationary (standing) *a,es, as for instance in the case of
proper frequencies of organ pipes and strings in acoustics# (Albert 'instein, 195L
,t is with some frustration that , now read these quotes, as it is ob&ious in hindsight as to their errors, and
how simply they can now be sol&ed> de .roglie9s realisation that standing wa&es exist at discrete
frequencies and thus energies is ob&iously true and important, yet he continued with the error of the particle
concept and thus imagined particles mo&ing in a wa&eli0e manner> Ionetheless, as he was close to the truth
he had considerable success with his theory, and these predicted wa&e properties of matter were shortly
thereafter confirmed from experiments (@a&isson and ?ermer, 19;7 on the scattering of electrons through
crystals (which act as diffraction slits# 's 'lbert !instein confirms+
!xperiments on interference made with particle rays ha&e gi&en brilliant proof that the *a,e character of
the phenomena of -otion as assumed by the theory does, really, correspond to the facts# (Albert 'instein,
195L
So by 19;7 the wa&e properties of matter had been predicted theoretically by de .roglie, and then
confirmed by experiment# .ut unfortunately these scientists continued to belie&e in the existence of discrete
particles, and thus they misinterpreted this most important disco&ery of the standing wa&e properties of
matter#
38483 de Broglie1s 'ncorrect 'nterpretation of the )tanding #a"es as the #a"e5Li=e Motion of
a Particle in Orbit +3C4@-
,n 191K, Iiels .ohr had de&eloped a simple (though only partly correct model for the hydrogen atom that
assumed+ ($ur further comments in brac0ets
i /hat the electron particle mo&es in circular orbits about the proton particle# (/his is nearly correct, they
are not 9orbits9 but complex Standing :a&e patterns
ii $nly certain orbits are stable# (/his is nearly correct, only certain Standing :a&e patterns are resonantly
stable
iii Aight is emitted and absorbed by the atom when the electron 9)umps9 from one allowed orbital state to a
another# (/his is nearly correct, the electrons mo&e from one stable Standing :a&e pattern to another# /his
is 0nown as 95esonant *oupling9 and is explained in Section 1#L#
/his early atomic model had some limited success because it was ob&iously created to explain the discrete
energy states of light emitted and absorbed by bound electrons in atoms or molecules, as disco&ered by
Planc0 in 19<<#
de .roglie was aware of .ohr9s model for the atom and he cle&erly found a way of explaining why only
certain orbits were 9allowed9 for the electron# 's 'lbert !instein explains+
de .roglie concei&ed an electron re&ol&ing about the atomic nucleus as being connected with a hypothetical
wa&e train, and made intelligible to some extent the discrete character of .ohr9s 9permitted9 paths by the
stationary (standing character of the corresponding wa&es# (Albert 'instein, 19L<
(igE 1#;#1 /he allowed discrete orbits of the electron as imagined by de .roglie#
de .roglie assumed that because light had both particle and wa&e properties, that this may also be true for
matter# /hus he was not actually loo0ing for the wa&e structure of matter# ,nstead, as matter was already
assumed to be a particle, he was loo0ing for wa&e properties of matter to complement the 0nown particle
properties# 's a consequence of this particle"wa&e duality, de .roglie imagined the standing wa&es to be
related to discrete wa&elengths and standing wa&es for certain orbits of the electron particle about the
proton# (5ather than considering the actual standing wa&e structure of the electron itself#
(rom de .roglie9s perspecti&e, and from modern physics at that time, this solution had a certain charm# ,t
maintained the particle 2 wa&e duality for .$/- light and matter, and at the same time explained why only
certain orbits of the electron (which relate to whole numbers of standing wa&es were allowed, which fitted
beautifully with Iiels .ohr model of the atom# de .roglie further explains his reasoning for the
particle"wa&e duality of matter in his 19;9 Iobel Pri7e acceptance speech+
$n the one hand the quantum theory of light cannot be considered satisfactory since it defines the energy of
a light particle (photon by the equation !Uhf containing the frequency f# Iow a purely particle theory
contains nothing that enables us to define a frequency+ for this reason alone, therefore, we are compelled, in
the case of light, to introduce the idea of a particle and that of frequency simultaneously# $n the other hand,
determination of the stable motion of electrons in the atom introduces integers, and up to this point the only
phenomena in&ol&ing integers in physics were those of interference and of normal modes of &ibration# /his
fact suggested to me the idea that electrons too could not be considered simply as particles, but that
frequency (wa&e properties must be assigned to them also# (de ;roglie, 19;9
/he solution to their problems was first found by :olff (19=J# -e disco&ered two things+
(irstly, from reading (eynman9s Ph@ thesis (see reference, (eynman and :heeler, 19L5 he was aware of
(eynman9s conception of charged particles which 9somehow9 generated Spherical !lectromagnetic ,n and
$ut :a&es ((eynman called them ad&anced and retarded wa&es, but :olff realised that there are no
solutions for spherical &ector electromagnetic wa&es (which are mathematical wa&es which require both a
quantity of force and a direction of force, i#e# &ector# :olff had the foresight to try using real wa&es, which
are Scalar (defined by their :a&e2'mplitude only#
'nd this then led to a series of remar0able disco&eries#
-e realised that spherical ,n and $ut2:a&es remo&ed the need for a separate particle, as the :a&e2*enter of
the Spherical :a&es created the particle effect#
-e then disco&ered that when one spherical standing wa&e was mo&ing relati&e to another the @oppler shifts
ga&e rise to .$/- the de ;roglie +a,elength 'I@ the &ass increase of Albert 'instein?s $elati,ity#
(i#e# :olff demonstrated that when two charged particles (:a&e2*enters of two SS:s are mo&ing relati&e
to one another they gi&es rise to beats of interference (caused by the @oppler shifting of the ,n and $ut
:a&es due to relati&e 8otion which were identified in experiments as the de .roglie wa&elength yUh"m&,
and also ga&e rise to the frequency increases and thus energy"mass increases (as !Uhf Umc
;
of special
5elati&ity#
/hus in the one equation he had deduced, with mathematical certainty, the two obser&ed phenomena due to
relati&e motion, which respecti&ely found central parts of both Buantum /heory and 'lbert !instein9s
Special 5elati&ity# ((or the first time uniting these two theories from one common theoretical foundation>
/his then led to his further wor0 on resonant coupling which finally sol&ed the pu77le of the 9photon9 and
explained why light energy is only e&er emitted and absorbed in discrete amounts# (See Section 1#L
%nfortunately for modern physics, and ultimately for human 0nowledge, this ob&ious solution was ne&er
considered by de .roglie, 'lbert !instein, .ohr, Schrodinger, -eisenberg, @irac, .orn, (eynman, etc# etc#
/hus the now ob&ious solution of realising that matter was a Spherical Standing :a&e that causes the point
particle effect at the :a&e2*enter remained un0nown and ignored, and instead, the confusing and
paradoxical concept of the particle " wa&e duality was retained#
+ntroduction - @S; #ounded on =ne 6rinciple' Space Axists as @ave ;edium - ;ax 6lan's *uantum
Aner&y States - :ouis de Bro&lie' ;atter @aves - %ompton @avelen&th of the Alectron - Schrodin&er @ave
Aquations - #orces of %har&e and :i&ht - <esonant %ouplin& as %ause of :i&ht - @erner Keisenber&'s
7ncertainty 6rinciple 9 ;ax Born's '6robability @aves' +nterpretation of *uantum Theory - <ichard
#eynman's *uantum Alectrodynamics >*A8? - 6roblem of '<enormalisation' - Solution to E= Lector @ave
Solutions of ;axwell's Aquations in Spherical %o-ordinates - @olff's Axplanation of A6< >,lbert Ainstein,
6odolsy, <osen? - *uantum Theory Summary - Top
38E The Compton #a"elength +48FEG37
534
m- of the /lectron HIh(mc +3C4E-
's stated, in hindsight there were many clues as to the :a&e Structure of the !lectron# 'nother ob&ious
clue being that the electron itself has a 9*ompton9 wa&elength (named after 'merican experimental physicist
-olly *ompton who disco&ered this from experiments with electron beams# .ut unfortunately they had
come to accept the particle " wa&e duality of matter and simply continued to assume that somehow this
paradoxical conception of matter was true, and thus beyond human comprehension# (So they stopped
loo0ing for an ob&ious solution>
So let us briefly explain the *ompton :a&elength# !xperiments show that !nergy is directly related to both
(requency and 8ass (this is true since we now realise that they are 'AA caused by :a&e28otion# 's we
0now from experiment the energy ! and mass m of the electron, and the &elocity of light c, we can calculate
the *ompton :a&elength N of the !lectron as follows+ !UhfUmc; and fUc"N, thus hc"NU mc
;
resulting in
NUh"mc which for the !lectron U ;#LKX1<
21;
m#

Fig= D.J The Co-pton +a,elength () of the 'lectron 2 :hile this wa&elength is related to the
actual :a&elength of the Spherical Standing :a&e, it is more complex than this# 's the Spherical ,n2:a&e
flows in towards the :a&e2*enter, both its :a&e2'mplitude and mass2energy density of space increase,
thus the &elocity and wa&elength will also change# (/hus there is still a substantial amount of mathematical
analysis required on how the :a&elength of the !lectron changes with distance from the :a&e2*enter#


+ntroduction - @S; #ounded on =ne 6rinciple' Space Axists as @ave ;edium - ;ax 6lan's *uantum
Aner&y States - :ouis de Bro&lie' ;atter @aves - %ompton @avelen&th of the Alectron - Schrodin&er @ave
Aquations - #orces of %har&e and :i&ht - <esonant %ouplin& as %ause of :i&ht - @erner Keisenber&'s
7ncertainty 6rinciple 9 ;ax Born's '6robability @aves' +nterpretation of *uantum Theory - <ichard
#eynman's *uantum Alectrodynamics >*A8? - 6roblem of '<enormalisation' - Solution to E= Lector @ave
Solutions of ;axwell's Aquations in Spherical %o-ordinates - @olff's Axplanation of A6< >,lbert Ainstein,
6odolsy, <osen? - *uantum Theory Summary - Top
38F The )chrodinger #a"e /Auations are founded on )tanding #a"e 'nteractions +3C46-
Buantum theory was thus essentially founded on the experimental obser&ations of frequency and
wa&elength for both light and matter# /hese empirical facts are ob&iously consistent with the Spherical
Standing :a&e structure of matter#
1# Planc09s disco&ery that energy is related to frequency in the equation !Uhf
;# /he !qui&alence of !nergy, (requency and 8ass !UhfUmc
;
, which deduces the *ompton :a&elength
NUh"mc
K# /he de .roglie wa&elength yUh"m&
,t was !rwin Schrodinger who disco&ered that when frequency f and de .roglie wa&elength y were
substituted into general wa&e equations it becomes possible to express energy ' and momentum m& (from
the abo&e equations as wa&e functions 2 thus a confined particle (e#g# an electron in an atom"molecule with
0nown energy and momentum functions could be described with a certain wa&e function# (rom this it was
further found that only certain frequency wa&e functions, li0e frequencies on musical strings, were allowed
to exist# /hese allowed functions and their frequencies depended on the confining structure (atom or
molecule that the electron was bound to (analogous to how strings are bound to a &iolin, and only then can
they resonate at certain frequencies#
Significantly, these allowed frequencies corresponded to the obser&ed discrete frequencies of light emitted
and absorbed by electrons bound in atoms"molecules# /his further confirmed the standing wa&e properties
of matter, and thus that only certain standing wa&e frequencies could exist which corresponded to certain
energy states# /he agreement of obser&ed frequencies and Schrodinger9s :a&e !quations further established
the fundamental importance of Buantum /heory and thus the :a&e properties of both light and matter# 's
'lbert !instein explains+
-ow can one assign a discrete succession of energy &alues ! to a system specified in the sense of classical
mechanics (the energy function is a gi&en function of the co2ordinates x and the corresponding momenta
m&F Planc09s constant h relates the frequency f U!"h to the energy &alues !# ,t is therefore sufficient to
assign to the system a succession of discrete frequency f &alues# /his reminds us of the fact that in acoustics
a series of discrete frequency &alues is coordinated to a linear partial differential equation (for gi&en
boundary conditions namely the sinusoidal periodic solutions# ,n corresponding manner, Schrodinger set
himself the tas0 of coordinating a partial differential equation for a scalar *a,e function to the gi&en energy
function ! (x, m&, where the position x and time t are independent &ariables# (Albert 'instein, 19KJ
'nd here we ha&e a final piece of the pu77le in a sense, for it was Schrodinger who disco&ered that the
standing *a,es are scalar *a,es rather than &ector electromagnetic wa&es# /his is a most important
difference# !lectromagnetic wa&es are &ector wa&es 2 at each point in Space the wa&e equations yield a
&ector quantity which describes both a direction and an amplitude (si7e of force of the wa&e, and this
relates to the original construction of the e2m field by (araday which described both a force and a direction
of how this force acted on other matter#
Spherical :a&e 8otions of Space are Scalar wa&es 2 at each point in Space the wa&e equations yield a
single quantity which simply describes the wa&e amplitude (there is no directional component# (or
example, sound wa&es are scalar wa&es where the wa&e amplitude describes the 8otion (or compression of
the wa&e medium (air# Ai0ewise Space is a nearly rigid :a&e28edium which propagates :a&e28otions#
:ith de ;roglie?s introduction of the concept of standing *a,es to explain the discrete energy states of
atoms and molecules, and the introduction of scalar *a,es by (chrodinger, they had intuiti&ely grasped
important truths of nature as 'lbert !instein confirms+
!xperiments on interference made with particle rays ha&e gi&en brilliant proof that the wa&e character of the
phenomena of motion as assumed by the theory does, really, correspond to the facts#
/he de .roglie2Schrodinger method, which has in a certain sense the character of a field theory, does indeed
deduce the existence of only discrete states, in surprising agreement with empirical facts# ,t does so on the
basis of differential equations applying a 0ind of resonance argument# (Albert 'instein, 19;7
So let us now explain in more detail this phenomena of Aight energy being emitted and absorbed in discrete
amounts (photons due to 5esonant Standing :a&e interactions# (irstly, we must understand Principle /wo
and realise that the &elocity of wa&e 8otions in Space is not constant, and in fact depends upon both the
:a&e2'mplitude and the mass2energy density of space (square of :a&e2'mplitude# /hese are simply the
properties of Space as a :a&e2medium#
+ntroduction - @S; #ounded on =ne 6rinciple' Space Axists as @ave ;edium - ;ax 6lan's *uantum
Aner&y States - :ouis de Bro&lie' ;atter @aves - %ompton @avelen&th of the Alectron - Schrodin&er @ave
Aquations - #orces of %har&e and :i&ht - <esonant %ouplin& as %ause of :i&ht - @erner Keisenber&'s
7ncertainty 6rinciple 9 ;ax Born's '6robability @aves' +nterpretation of *uantum Theory - <ichard
#eynman's *uantum Alectrodynamics >*A8? - 6roblem of '<enormalisation' - Solution to E= Lector @ave
Solutions of ;axwell's Aquations in Spherical %o-ordinates - @olff's Axplanation of A6< >,lbert Ainstein,
6odolsy, <osen? - *uantum Theory Summary - Top
38F83 On the Forces of Charge and Light
,t is the nature of Principles that they are stated rather than deduced# /hus we must state the Properties of
Space, as Principles, and then demonstrate that logical deductions from these Principles do in fact
correspond to obser&ation# :hat we ha&e found is that if Space beha&es in the following way, then it gi&es
rise to deductions which correspond to obser&ation and experiment#
/he :a&e 6elocity (&elocity of light c &aries with both the :a&e2'mplitude and the mass2energy density
of space (the square of the :a&e2'mplitude#
i /he greater the :a&e2'mplitude the greater the :a&e26elocity#
ii /he greater the mass2energy density of space the slower the :a&e26elocity#
:e do not 0now why Space, as a :a&e28edium, beha&es this way, other than to say that these are simply
the properties of Space# :hat we do disco&er though, is that from these foundations we get a simple
explanation of both *harge"Aight and 8ass"?ra&ity#
's gra&ity is explained in the article on 5elati&ity, the general idea is only briefly summarised here# :hen
,n2:a&es tra&el in through other 8atter " :a&e28otions of Space, they slightly slow down due to the
increased mass2energy density of space, and this causes the :a&e2*enters to naturally mo&e together, which
we obser&e as ?ra&itational attraction# 's mass2energy density of space is always positi&e (squares are
always positi&e, this always causes a slowing of the ,n2:a&es, thus explaining why gra&ity is always
attracti&e#
$n the other hand, :a&e2'mplitude is both positi&e and negati&e, thus interacting :a&e2'mplitudes can
either increase or decrease (i#e# combine or cancel out, causing either an increase or decrease in the &elocity
of the ,n2:a&es, and a consequent mo&ing together, or mo&ing apart of the :a&e2*enters# ,t is this property
of Space that causes *harge " !lectromagnetic (ields and in a slightly more complex manner, Aight#
/herefore when we place two electrons near one another in Space, then the :a&e2'mplitude of Space
between them increases because the :a&es are in phase and the :a&e2'mplitudes combine and increase,
thus the :a&e26elocity increases (opposite to gra&ity9s slowing of ,n2:a&es and this causes the :a&e2
*enters to mo&e apart# /his explains the electrical repulsion of li0e charges#
*on&ersely, if we place an electron and a positron (anti2matter being the opposite phase :a&e28otion to
8atter, thus a positron is the opposite phase to an electron then the :a&e2'mplitude between the two
:a&e2*enters tends to cancel out and become smaller, thus the :a&e26elocity between the two :a&e2
*enters decreases (li0e gra&ity and thus causes the :a&e2*enters to mo&e together#
,n fact this also explains the electron " positron (matter " antimatter annihilation, as the :a&e2*enters will
e&entually o&erlap one2another and the :a&e2'mplitudes will completely cancel out (due to their equal and
opposite phase and thus disappear#
/his explains *harge, but does not explain Aight, which is slightly more complex, though it is still caused
by the same fundamental properties of Space#
+ntroduction - @S; #ounded on =ne 6rinciple' Space Axists as @ave ;edium - ;ax 6lan's *uantum
Aner&y States - :ouis de Bro&lie' ;atter @aves - %ompton @avelen&th of the Alectron - Schrodin&er @ave
Aquations - #orces of %har&e and :i&ht - <esonant %ouplin& as %ause of :i&ht - @erner Keisenber&'s
7ncertainty 6rinciple 9 ;ax Born's '6robability @aves' +nterpretation of *uantum Theory - <ichard
#eynman's *uantum Alectrodynamics >*A8? - 6roblem of '<enormalisation' - Solution to E= Lector @ave
Solutions of ;axwell's Aquations in Spherical %o-ordinates - @olff's Axplanation of A6< >,lbert Ainstein,
6odolsy, <osen? - *uantum Theory Summary - Top
38F84 On %esonant Coupling as the Cause of Light
:hat we must further realise is that Aight is only emitted and absorbed by electrons bound in atoms or
molecules, and these electrons ha&e some complex repeating Standing :a&e28otion about the nucleus#
/hus the electrons beha&e as 9oscillating resonators9 and it is common 0nowledge to electrical engineers and
physicists that two interconnected resonators can undergo resonant coupling, where one resonator decreases
in frequency and the other one increases a corresponding amount#
/hus two bound resonating electrons (oscillators exchange energy much li0e classical coupled oscillators,
such as electric circuits or )oined pendulums# /he coupling pro&ided by the non2linear centers of the
resonances (high :a&e2'mplitude :a&e2*enters where the :a&e26elocities change causes them to
change &elocity, frequency, and wa&elength, due to the interaction (modulation of each other9s wa&es#
Since significant coupling can only occur between two oscillators which possess the same resonant
elements, the frequency (energy changes are equal and opposite# /his we obser&e as the law of
conser&ation of energy#
:hen opposite changes of frequency (energy ta0es place between two resonances, energy seems to be
transported from the center of one resonance to another# :e obser&e a loss of energy where frequency
decreases and added energy where it increases# /he exchange appears to tra&el with the speed of the ,I
wa&es of the recei&ing resonance which is c, the &elocity of light#
:hen large numbers of changes occur together, so we can sample part of it, we see a beam of light# :hen
single exchanges occur we see photons as discrete energy exchanges# /he transitory modulated wa&es
tra&eling between two resonances (as the !lectrons":a&e2*enters mo&e from one standing wa&e pattern to
another create the illusion of the photon# 'n exchange may require 1<
=
to 1<
15
cycles to complete,
depending on the degree of coupling and species of resonance#
(or example, if one oscillator were an electron, its frequency mc
;
"h is about 1<
;K
hert7, and if the transition
time were 1<
2=
seconds, the frequency change requires about 1<
15
cycles to complete# Such a large number of
cycles implies, in engineering slang, a large B &alue, which indicates great precision of the equal and
opposite changes in oscillator frequency, and the conser&ation of energy#
(igE 1#L#; Aight is *aused by the 5esonant *oupling of two bound :a&e2*enters of Spherical Standing
:a&es (!lectrons with oscillating wa&e functions# /his diagram is only an approximation, but it gi&es you
some idea of the 9secondary9 wa&elength (the 9electromagnetic9 wa&elength of light caused by the
interactions of the ,n and $ut2:a&es of the two !lectrons":a&e2*enters#
/hus we realise that these different standing :a&e patterns cause a cyclical oscillation in the Shape of the ,n
and $ut2:a&es which describes a wa&e function that is ultimately the cause of the 9electromagnetic9
wa&elength and frequency of light# 's only certain discrete 9orbits9 (standing wa&e functions exist for the
:a&e2*enter of the Spherical Standing :a&e, then it can only exchange frequencies in discrete le&els
which correspond to discrete energy exchanges of light 9photons9# i#e# !Uhf where only discrete frequencies
(f area resonantly stable and thus 9allowed9# (/here are no separate light 9particles " photons9 or collapsing
wa&e functions, both being mathematical existents only>
8ost importantly, these standing wa&e interactions and resonant coupling are the reason for Schrodinger9s
Standing :a&e !quations and their ob&ious success at explaining the allowed energy states for electrons in
atoms, and thus the discrete photon effect of light as these electrons mo&e from one resonant standing wa&e
pattern (quantum state to another#
+ntroduction - @S; #ounded on =ne 6rinciple' Space Axists as @ave ;edium - ;ax 6lan's *uantum
Aner&y States - :ouis de Bro&lie' ;atter @aves - %ompton @avelen&th of the Alectron - Schrodin&er @ave
Aquations - #orces of %har&e and :i&ht - <esonant %ouplin& as %ause of :i&ht - @erner Keisenber&'s
7ncertainty 6rinciple 9 ;ax Born's '6robability @aves' +nterpretation of *uantum Theory - <ichard
#eynman's *uantum Alectrodynamics >*A8? - 6roblem of '<enormalisation' - Solution to E= Lector @ave
Solutions of ;axwell's Aquations in Spherical %o-ordinates - @olff's Axplanation of A6< >,lbert Ainstein,
6odolsy, <osen? - *uantum Theory Summary - Top
38D ;eisenberg1s 9ncertainty Principle $ Born1s 1Probability #a"es1 'nterpretation of QT
+3C46-
=n %hance and 6robability in a Eecessarily +nterconnected finite spherical 7niverse within a Eon-
8etermined +nfinite Space
't the same time that the wa&e properties of matter were disco&ered, two further disco&eries were made that
also profoundly influenced (and confused the future e&olution of modern physics#
(irstly, :erner -eisenberg de&eloped the uncertainty principle which tells us that we (the obser&er can
ne&er exactly 0now both the position and momentum of a particle# 's e&ery obser&ation requires an energy
exchange (photon to create the obser&ed 9data9, some energy (wa&e state of the obser&ed ob)ect has to be
altered# /hus the obser&ation has a discrete effect on what we measure# i#e# :e change the experiment by
obser&ing it> (' large part of their problem though was to continue to assume the existence of discrete
particles and thus to try to exactly locate both their position and motion, which is impossible as there is no
discrete particle>
(urther, because both the obser&ed position and momentum of the particle can ne&er be exactly 0nown,
theorists were left trying to determine the probability of where, for example, the 9particle9 would be
obser&ed#
.orn (19;= was the first to disco&er (by chance and with no theoretical foundation that the square of the
quantum wa&e equations (which is actually the mass2energy density of space could be used to predict the
probability of where the particle would be found# Since it was impossible for both the wa&es and the
particles to be real entities, it became customary to regard the wa&es as unreal probability wa&es and to
maintain the belief in the 9real9 particle# %nfortunately (profoundly this maintained the belief in the
particle"wa&e duality, in a new form where the 9quantum9 scalar standing wa&es had become 9probability
wa&es9 for the 9real9 particle#
'lbert !instein unfortunately agreed with this probability wa&e interpretation, as he belie&ed in continuous
force fields (not in wa&es or particles thus to him it was sensible that the wa&es were not real, and were
mere descriptions of probabilities# -e writes+
$n the basis of quantum theory there was obtained a surprisingly good representation of an immense &ariety
of facts which otherwise appeared entirely incomprehensible# .ut on one point, curiously enough, there was
failureE it pro&ed impossible to associate with these (chrodinger *a,es definite -otions of the mass points
2 and that, after all, had been the original purpose of the whole construction# /he difficulty appeared
insurmountable until it was o&ercome by .orn in a way as simple as it was unexpected# /he de .roglie2
Schrodinger wa&e fields were not to be interpreted as a mathematical description of how an e&ent actually
ta0es place in time and space, though, of course, they ha&e reference to such an e&ent# 5ather they are a
-athe-atical description of what we can actually 0now about the system# /hey ser&e only to ma0e
statistical statements and predictions of the results of all measurements which we can carry out upon the
system# (Albert 'instein, 19L<
,t seems to be clear, therefore, that .orn9s statistical interpretation of quantum theory is the only possible
one# /he wa&e function does not in any way describe a state which could be that of a single system+ it
relates rather to many systems, to an ?ense-ble of syste-s? in the sense of statistical -echanics# (Albert
'instein, 19KJ
'lbert !instein is correct in one sense, mista0en in another# ,t is true that matter is intimately interconnected
to all the other matter in the uni&erse by the Spherical ,n and $ut2:a&es, something quantum theory
disco&ered but ne&er correctly understood#
/his has become 0nown as quantum entanglement and relates to the famous experiment posed by 'lbert
!instein, Podols0y, and 5osen (!P5 (see Section 1#7 for an explanation of this experiment and when later
technology allowed its experimental testing, it confirmed quantum theory9s entanglement#
'lbert !instein assumed this interconnectedness was due to the spherical spatially extended field structure
of matter, instead, it is due to the interaction of the spherical spatially extended Standing :a&es of matter
with other matter9s :a&e2*enters distant in Space# !xplaining this Standing :a&e interaction of matter with
other matter in the Space around it (action2at2a2distance is largely the purpose of this 'rticle and is one of
the great powers of the 8etaphysics of Space and 8otion and the Spherical :a&e Structure of 8atter#
Ionetheless, 'lbert !instein was &ery close to the truth# -e realised that because matter is spherically
spatially extended we must gi&e up the idea of complete locali7ation and 0nowledge of the 9particle9 in a
theoretical model# (or the particle is nothing but the :a&e2*enter of a Spherical Standing :a&e, and thus
can ne&er be isolated as an entity in itself, but is dependent on its interactions with all the other 8atter in the
%ni&erse# 'nd it is this lac0 of 0nowledge of the system as a whole that is the ultimate cause of the
uncertainty and resultant probability inherent in Buantum /heory#
/hus the last and most successful creation of theoretical physics, namely quantum mechanics (B8, differs
fundamentally from both Iewton9s mechanics, and 8axwell9s e2m field# (or the quantities which figure in
B89s laws ma0e no claim to describe physical reality itself, but only probabilities of the occurrence of a
physical reality that we ha&e in &iew# ('lbert !instein, 19K1
, cannot but confess that , attach only a transitory importance to this interpretation# , still belie&e in the
possibility of a model of reality 2 that is to say, of a theory which represents things themsel&es and not
merely the probability of their occurrence# $n the other hand, it seems to me certain that we must gi&e up
the idea of complete locali7ation of the particle in a theoretical model# /his seems to me the permanent
upshot of -eisenberg9s principle of uncertainty# ('lbert !instein, 19KL
'lbert !instein belie&ed that 5eality could be represented by spherical force fields, that reality was not
founded on chance (as .ohr and -eisenberg argued but on necessary connections between things (thus his
comment 9?od does not play dice9># -e was largely correct, 8atter is necessarily connected due to the
Spherical Standing :a&e Structure of 8atter, but due to lac0 of 0nowledge of the system as a whole (the
%ni&erse, and the fact that it is impossible to determine an ,nfinite system (of which our finite spherical
uni&erse is a part 2 see 'rticle on *osmology, then this gi&es rise to the chance and uncertainty found in
Buantum /heory#
+ntroduction - @S; #ounded on =ne 6rinciple' Space Axists as @ave ;edium - ;ax 6lan's *uantum
Aner&y States - :ouis de Bro&lie' ;atter @aves - %ompton @avelen&th of the Alectron - Schrodin&er @ave
Aquations - #orces of %har&e and :i&ht - <esonant %ouplin& as %ause of :i&ht - @erner Keisenber&'s
7ncertainty 6rinciple 9 ;ax Born's '6robability @aves' +nterpretation of *uantum Theory - <ichard
#eynman's *uantum Alectrodynamics >*A8? - 6roblem of '<enormalisation' - Solution to E= Lector @ave
Solutions of ;axwell's Aquations in Spherical %o-ordinates - @olff's Axplanation of A6< >,lbert Ainstein,
6odolsy, <osen? - *uantum Theory Summary - Top
38? 2 Brief 2nalysis of Feynman1s Quantum /lectrodynamics +Q/., 3CFD-
B!@ is founded on the assumption that charged 9particles9 somehow generate spherical electromagnetic
(&ector ,n and $ut :a&es (a dynamic &ersion of Aorent79s /heory of the !lectron, as (eynman uses
spherical electromagnetic :a&es, rather than static force fields# ,t is important to realise though, that li0e
most post2modern physicists, 5ichard (eynman was a Aogical Positi&ist# /hus he did not belie&e in the
existence of either particles or wa&es, he simply used this conceptual language as a way of representing how
matter beha&es in a logical way# 's he says+
## some things that satisfy the rules of algebra can be interesting to mathematicians e&en though they don9t
always represent a real situation# (Feyn-an
/his explains why he had such success and such failure at the same time, as he had the correct spherical
wa&e structure of 8atter, but he continued with two further errors, the existence of the particle, and the use
of &ector 9electromagnetic9 wa&es (mathematical wa&es of force, rather than using the correct scalar
9quantum9 wa&es# ,t is this error of (eynman9s that ultimately led :olff to ma0e his remar0able disco&eries
of the :S8#
/he problem for B!@ is twofold+
(irstly, there is the Problem of 95enormalisation9 2 (eynman must assume finite dimensions for the particle,
else the spherical electromagnetic wa&es would reach infinite fields strengths when the radius of the
spherical electromagnetic wa&es tends to 7ero# /here must be some non27ero cut2off that is arbitrarily
introduced by ha&ing a 9particle9 of a certain finite si7e# !ffecti&ely, (eynman gets infinities in his equations,
and then he subtract infinity from infinity and puts in the correct empirical answer (which is not good
mathematics, but it does then wor0 extraordinarily well>
Secondly, it is a mathematical fact that there are no &ector wa&e solutions of the 8axwell !quations (which
found electromagnetic fields in spherical co2ordinates>
/hese are profound problems that ha&e caused contradiction and paradox within Buantum /heory to the
present day, and ha&e led to the self fulfilling belief that we can ne&er correctly describe and understand
5eality#
### the more you see how strangely Iature beha&es, the harder it is to ma0e a model that explains how e&en
the simplest phenomena actually wor0# So theoretical physics has gi&en up on that# (Feyn-an
,n fact Iature beha&es in a &ery sensible and logical way (which explains why mathematical physics exists
as a sub)ect and can describe so many phenomena, and also explains how we 9humans9 ha&e been able to
e&ol&e a logical aspect to our minds># /hat it is not Iature which is strange, but our incorrect conceptions
of Iature> 8ost importantly, the simple sensible solutions to these problems can be easily understood once
we 0now the correct :a&e Structure of 8atter#
+ntroduction - @S; #ounded on =ne 6rinciple' Space Axists as @ave ;edium - ;ax 6lan's *uantum
Aner&y States - :ouis de Bro&lie' ;atter @aves - %ompton @avelen&th of the Alectron - Schrodin&er @ave
Aquations - #orces of %har&e and :i&ht - <esonant %ouplin& as %ause of :i&ht - @erner Keisenber&'s
7ncertainty 6rinciple 9 ;ax Born's '6robability @aves' +nterpretation of *uantum Theory - <ichard
#eynman's *uantum Alectrodynamics >*A8? - 6roblem of '<enormalisation' - Solution to E= Lector @ave
Solutions of ;axwell's Aquations in Spherical %o-ordinates - @olff's Axplanation of A6< >,lbert Ainstein,
6odolsy, <osen? - *uantum Theory Summary - Top
38?83 The )olution to the Problem of 1%enormalisation18
5ichard (eynman9s Ph@ thesis (with S# '# :heeler, 19L5 used Spherical ,I ('d&anced and $%/
(5etarded e2m wa&es to in&estigate this spherical e2m field effect around the electron and how accelerated
electrons could emit light (e2m radiation to be absorbed by other electrons at2a2distant in space#
$ne &exing problem of this e2m field theory was that it led to infinitely high fields (singularities at the
center of the point particle electron# /his was a&oided with a mathematical process called renormalisation
whereby infinity was subtracted from infinity and the correct experimental result was substituted into the
equation# ,t was @irac who pointed out that this is not good mathematics 2 and (eynman was well aware of
this>
,n 19K7 Paul @irac wrote+
, must say that , am &ery dissatisfied with the situation, because this so called good theory does in&ol&e
neglecting infinities which appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way# /his is )ust not
sensible mathematics# Sensible mathematics in&ol&es neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small 2
not neglecting it )ust because it is infinitely great and you do not want it> (0irac, 19K7
5ichard (eynman was ob&iously also aware of this problem, and had this to say about renormalisation#
.ut no matter how cle&er the word, it is what , call a dippy process> -a&ing to resort to such hocus pocus
has pre&ented us from pro&ing that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self consistent#
### , suspect that renormalisation is not mathematically legitimate# (Feyn-an, 19=5
'lbert !instein was also aware of this problem as he explains in his critique of Aorent79s electromagnetic
field theory for electrons (as it is still the same fundamental problem of the particle " electromagnetic field
duality#
/he inadequacy of this point of &iew manifested itself in the necessity of assuming finite dimensions for the
particles in order to pre&ent the electromagnetic field existing at their surfaces from becoming infinitely
large# (Albert 'instein, 19KJ
(eynman9s Spherical ,I $%/ wa&e theory is largely correct (and of course explains his success but his
error of using &ector e2m wa&es resulted in infinities at the point particle as the radius tended to 7ero, and
this led to the errors of renormalisation# ,n reality, 8atter, as a structure of scalar spherical quantum wa&es,
has a finite wa&e amplitude at the :a&e2*enter (as obser&ed and thus eliminates the infinities and the
problems of renormalisation found in (eynman9s Buantum !lectrodynamics (B!@#(See the :or0 of :olff
at Buantum8atter#com for a complete explanation#
+ntroduction - @S; #ounded on =ne 6rinciple' Space Axists as @ave ;edium - ;ax 6lan's *uantum
Aner&y States - :ouis de Bro&lie' ;atter @aves - %ompton @avelen&th of the Alectron - Schrodin&er @ave
Aquations - #orces of %har&e and :i&ht - <esonant %ouplin& as %ause of :i&ht - @erner Keisenber&'s
7ncertainty 6rinciple 9 ;ax Born's '6robability @aves' +nterpretation of *uantum Theory - <ichard
#eynman's *uantum Alectrodynamics >*A8? - 6roblem of '<enormalisation' - Solution to E= Lector @ave
Solutions of ;axwell's Aquations in Spherical %o-ordinates - @olff's Axplanation of A6< >,lbert Ainstein,
6odolsy, <osen? - *uantum Theory Summary - Top
38?84 The )olution to the Problem of there being O Bector #a"e )olutions of Ma>!ell1s
/Auations in )pherical Co5ordinates
Sames 8axwell (1=7J used the experimental (empirical results of (araday, *oulomb, etc# to de&elop four
equations, now famous, whose solutions described an electromagnetic (e2m wa&e which correctly deduced
the &elocity of light c# 8axwell was correct that light is a wa&e tra&eling with &elocity c 2 but it is a wa&e
de&eloped from the interaction of the ,I and $%/ wa&es of two spherical standing wa&es whose :a&e2
*enters are bound in resonant standing wa&e patterns# (/hus it is the interaction of four wa&es which
probably explains why there are four 8axwell !quations#
/he 8axwell9s !quations (8#!#, which describe the formation of electric fields ! by a charge distribution q
and changing magnetic fields -, as well as the formation of the - field by a changing ! and electric currents
i, cannot describe a spherical electromagnetic wa&e> ,t is a mathematical fact that there are no wa&e
solutions of the 8#!#s in spherical co2ordinates> $nly the scalar 9quantum9 wa&e equation has spherical wa&e
solutions# Similarly, there are no imaginable 8#!# solutions for a 9photon particle9# ,t is clear that the 8#!#s
are not fundamental and the photon is only a mathematical construction#
/he failure of the 8#!# in spherical co2ordinates can be imagined by saying, Nou cannot comb the hair on a
tennis ball# /his means that if you attempt to comb down an ! field (the hair representing the electric &ector
e&erywhere flat onto a tennis ball (a spherical surface, you must create a 9cowlic09 somewhere on the ball
which frustrates your attempt to comb it#
/he questions arise, :hy did theorists continue to fa&our the e2m field, the photon, and 8#!# for 7< years in
spite of the well20nown flagrant failure of the mathematical description to agree with obser&ationF :hy
were alternati&e descriptions of nature not soughtF :e suspect the answer is because it wor0ed once the
errors were remo&ed with a bit of 9hocus pocus9 mathematics and the aid of empirical data#
%nfortunately, this logical positi&ist &iew to retain the point particle and &ector force fields has been the root
cause of the many paradoxes and mysteries surrounding quantum theory# /he resulting confusion has been
increasingly exploited in the popular press# ,nstead of searching for the simple beha&iour of nature, the
physics community found that 9wa&e2particle duality9 was an exciting launching pad for more complex
proposals that found support from go&ernment funding agencies# /he search for truth was put into limbo
and wa&e2particle duality reigned#
$nce we understand though, that the particle theory of matter is a mathematical (logical positi&ist
description of nature, then it becomes less confusing# !ssentially the particle is a mathematical construction
to describe energy exchange# ,t says nothing about the energy exchange mechanism and thus ma0es no
comment about how the particle exists, how it mo&es through Space, what the Space around the particle is
made of, and how matter particles 9emit9 and 9absorb9 photon particles with other matter particles distant in
Space#
Aet us then consider one fundamentally important argument of (eynman9s that light must be a particle#
(or many years after Iewton, partial reflection by two surfaces was happily explained by a theory of
wa&es,X but when experiments were made with &ery wea0 light hitting photomultipliers, the wa&e theory
collapsedE as the light got dimmer and dimmer, the photomultipliers 0ept ma0ing full si7ed clic0s 2 there
were )ust fewer of them# "ight beha,es as particles#
X /his idea made use of the fact that wa&es can combine or cancel out, and the calculations based on this
model matched the results of Iewton9s experiments, as well as those done for hundreds of years afterwards#
.ut when experiments were de&eloped that were sensiti&e enough to detect a single photon, the wa&e theory
predicted that the clic0s of a photomultiplier would get softer and softer, whereas they stayed at full strength
2 they )ust occurred less and less often# Io reasonable model could explain this fact#
/his state of confusion was called the wa&e 2 particle duality of light# (Feyn-an, 19=5
(eynman though is incorrect in two ways+
(irstly, he is ma0ing un)ustified assumptions beyond what is obser&ed# ,t is true that light energy is emitted
and absorbed in discrete amounts between two electrons# .ut we @$ I$/ $.S!56! any 9Particles9 2 we
only obser&e discrete energy exchanges>
Secondly, the solution is to reali7e that the Spherical Standing :a&e Structure of 8atter actually demands
that all energy exchanges for light be of discrete amounts because this is what occurs for 95esonant
*oupling9, and for standing :a&e interactions in general#
,t is also interesting to see how simply (eynman summari7es B!@+
So now, , present to you the three basic actions, from which all the phenomena of light and electrons arise#
2'ction O1E ' photon goes from place to place#
2'ction O;E 'n electron goes from place to place#
2'ction OKE 'n electron emits or absorbs a photon#
/his can now be simplified to two actions with the :S8+
'ction O1E 'n !lectron, as the :a&e2*enter of a Spherical Standing :a&e, goes from place to place in
Space (as determined by the spherical ,n2:a&es#
'ction O;E 'n !lectron resonantly couples with another !lectron (emits or absorbs a photon
$nce we realise that there are no separate electron or photon particles, thus we remo&e the problem as to
how an electron particle can interact with a separate photon particle> /hus this solution is actually more
consistent (and simpler than (eynman9s B!@, particularly when we consider (eynman9s further explanation
of a positron being an electron which goes bac0wards in /ime#
/he bac0wards2mo&ing electron when &iewed with time mo&ing forwards appears the same as an ordinary
electron, except that it is attracted to normal electrons 2 we say it has a positi&e charge# (or this reason it9s
called a positron# /he positron is a sister particle to the electron, and is an example of an anti2particle# ##/his
phenomena is general# !&ery particle in Iature has an amplitude to mo&e bac0wards in time, and therefore
has an anti2particle# (Feyn-an, 19=5
's :olff explains this is simply a mathematical truth caused by the fact that a negati&e time in the wa&e
equations changes the phase of the standing wa&es to be equal and opposite, which corresponds to
antimatter# ('ntimatter does no mo&e 9bac0wards in time9>
(urther, notice what (eynman says about photons, which are treated as particles in B!@, and thus by
(eynman9s logic there should also be anti2photons, whereas the :S8 is clear on this point 2 there are anti2
electrons (positrons which are opposite phase Spherical Standing :a&es, but there are no separate photon
particles, thus no anti2photons>
'nd what about photonsF Photons loo0 exactly the same in all respects when they tra&el bac0wards in time,
so they are their own anti2particles# Nou see how cle&er we are at ma0ing an exception part of the rule>
(Feyn-an, 19=5
:hile it may be cle&er, it is not good philosophy, and it has led to a &ery confused and absurd modern
physics# Surely it is time for physicists to start considering the fundamental theoretical problems of the
existing theories and to appreciate that the 8etaphysics of Space and 8otion and the Spherical :a&e
Structure of 8atter is a simple, sensible, and ob&ious way to sol&e these problems>
(inally, let us explain how we can experimentally confirm the Spherical :a&e Structure of 8atter (which
would ob&iously be &ery con&incing to the s0eptics>
+ntroduction - @S; #ounded on =ne 6rinciple' Space Axists as @ave ;edium - ;ax 6lan's *uantum
Aner&y States - :ouis de Bro&lie' ;atter @aves - %ompton @avelen&th of the Alectron - Schrodin&er @ave
Aquations - #orces of %har&e and :i&ht - <esonant %ouplin& as %ause of :i&ht - @erner Keisenber&'s
7ncertainty 6rinciple 9 ;ax Born's '6robability @aves' +nterpretation of *uantum Theory - <ichard
#eynman's *uantum Alectrodynamics >*A8? - 6roblem of '<enormalisation' - Solution to E= Lector @ave
Solutions of ;axwell's Aquations in Spherical %o-ordinates - @olff's Axplanation of A6< >,lbert Ainstein,
6odolsy, <osen? - *uantum Theory Summary - Top
38@ #olff1s />planation of the Famous 2lbert /instein, Podols=y, %osen +/P%- and Further
Predictions
'The 7ltimate 6aradox - Bell's Theorem' by ;ilo @olff, Axplorin& the 6hysics of the 7nnown 7niverse,
(..)
,n l9K5, 'lbert !instein, Podols0y, and 5osen (!P5 put forward a gedan0en (thought experiment whose
outcome they thought was certain to show that there existed natural phenomena that quantum theory could
not account for# /he experiment was based on the concept that two e&ents cannot influence each other if the
distance between them is greater than the distance light could tra&el in the time a&ailable# ,n other words,
only local e&ents inside the light sphere can influence one another#
/heir experimental concept was later used by Sohn .ell (19JL to frame a theorem which showed that either
the statistical predictions of quantum theory or the Principle of Aocal !&ents is incorrect# ,t did not say
which one was false but only that both cannot be true, although it was clear that 'lbert !instein expected
/he Principle to be affirmed#
:hen later experiments (*lauser R (reedman 197;+ 'spect, @alibard, and 5oger, 19=;+ and others
confirmed that quantum theory was correct, the conclusion was startling# /he Principle of Aocal !&ents
failed, forcing us to recogni7e that the world is not the way it appears# :hat then is the real nature of our
worldF
/he important impact of .ell9s /heorem and the experiments is that they clearly thrust, a formerly only
philosophical dilemma of quantum theory, into the real world# /hey show that post2modern physics9 ideas
about the world are somehow profoundly deficient# Io one understood these results and only scant scientific
attention has been paid to them#
(igure 1#7#1 !xperiment to test .ell9s theorem# Polari7ed photons are emitted at the center, pass through the
ad)ustable polari7ation filters on the left and right, and enter detectors on each side# *oincidences
(simultaneous detection are recorded and plotted as a function of the angular difference between the two
settings of the polari7ation filters#
The /ssence of Bell1s Theorem
-is theorem relates to the results of an experiment li0e the one shown in (igure 1#7#1 (see abo&eE ' source
of two paired photons, obtained from the simultaneous decay of two excited atomic states, is at the center#
't opposite sides, are located two detectors of polari7ed photons# /he polari7ation filters of each detector
can be set parallel to each other, or at some other angle, freely chosen# ,t is 0nown that polari7ations of
paired photons are always parallel to each other, but random with respect to their surroundings# So, if the
detector filters are set parallel, both photons will be detected simultaneously# ,f the filters are at right angles,
the two photons will ne&er be detected together# /he detection pattern for settings at intermediate angles is
the sub)ect of the theorem#
.ell (and 'lbert !instein, Podols0y, and 5osen assumed that the photons arri&ing at each detector could
ha&e no 0nowledge of the setting of the other detector# /his is because they assumed that such information
would ha&e to tra&el faster than the speed of light 2 prohibited by 'lbert !instein9s Special 5elati&ity# /heir
assumption reflects the Principle of Aocal *auses, that is, only e&ents local to each detector can affect its
beha&iour#
.ased on this assumption, .ell deduced that the relationship between the angular difference between
detector settings and the detected coincidences of photon pairs was linear, li0e line A in (igure 1#7#;# -is
deduction comes from the symmetry and independence of the two detectors, as followsE ' setting difference
of Y, at one detector has the same effect as a difference Y, at the other detector# -ence if both are mo&ed Y,
the total angular difference is ;Y and the total effect is twice as much, which is a linear relationship#
(igure 1#7#; /he result of an experiment to test .ell9s theorem @ata points 5 of the experiments are shown
with blac0 dots# /hey agree with the line B8, predicted by the quantum mechanics, and do not agree with
the line A, predicted by 'lbert !instein9s concept of causality#
/his was a big surprise, because the failure of causality suggests that the communication is ta0ing place at
speeds greater than the &elocity of light#
/he cur&ed line is the calculation obtained from standard quantum theory# .ell, 'lbert !instein, Podols0y,
and 5osen, or anyone who does not belie&e in superluminal speeds, would expect to find line A#
,n fact, the experiments yielded points 5, which agreed with line B8# /he predictions of quantum theory
had destroyed the assumptions of 'lbert !instein, Podols0y and 5osen>
/he results of these experiments were so disbelie&ed that they were repeated by other persons, using
different photon sources, as well as particles with paired spins# /he most recent experiment by 'spect,
@alibard, and 5oger, used acousto2optical switches at a frequency of 5<8-7 which shifted the settings of
the polari7ers during the flight of the photons, to completely eliminate any possibility of local effects of one
detector on the other# Ie&ertheless, they reported that the !P5 assumption was &iolated by fi&e standard
de&iations, whereas quantum theory was &erified within experimental error (about ;]#
.o on5local 'nfluences />ist0
.ell9s /heorem and the experimental results imply that parts of the uni&erse are connected in an intimate
way (i#e# not ob&ious to us and these connections are fundamental (quantum theory is fundamental# -ow
can we understand themF /he problem has been analysed in depth (:heeler R Mure0 19=K, d9!spagnat
19=K, -erbert 19=5, Stapp 19=;, .ohm R -iley 19=L, Pagels 19=;, and others without resolution# /hose
authors tend to agree on the following description of the non2local connectionsE
1# /hey lin0 e&ents at separate locations without 0nown fields or matter#
;# /hey do not diminish with distance+ a million miles is the same as an inch#
K# /hey appear to act with speed greater than light#
*learly, within the framewor0 of science, this is a perplexing phenomenon# ,n some mysterious quantum
way, communication does appear to ta0e place faster than light between the two detectors of the apparatus#
/hese results showed that our understanding of the physical world is profoundly deficient#
/>plaining the /P%5Bell 1'nstant1 Communication
/he Spherical :a&e Structure of 8atter, particularly the beha&iour of the ,n and $ut :a&es, is able to
resol&e this pu77le so that the appearance of instant communication is understood and yet neither 'lbert
!instein nor B8 need be wrong#
,n order to show this, it is necessary to carefully loo0 at the detailed process of exchanging energy between
two atoms, by the action of the ,I"$%/ wa&es of both atoms# 5emember that for resonant coupling it is
necessary for the ,n and $ut :a&es of both electrons to interact with one another# /he passage of both ,n2
:a&es through both :a&e2*enters precedes the actual frequency shifts of the source and detector# ' means
to detect this first passage e&ent is not a capability of the usual photo2detector apparatus and remains totally
unnoticed# .ut the ,n2:a&es are symmetrical counterparts of the $ut2:a&es and carry the information of
their polari7ation state between parts of the experimental apparatus before the $ut2:a&es cause a departing
photon e&ent# /he ,I2wa&es tra&el with the speed of light so there is no &iolation of relati&ity#
't this point you may be inclined to disbelie&e the reality of the ,n2:a&e# .ut there is other e&idence for it#
5emember, it explains the de .roglie wa&elength and thereby B8# ,t is necessary to explain the relati&istic
mass increase of a mo&ing ob)ect or the symmetry in its direction of motion# ,t is responsible for the finite
force of the S5 electron at its center# 're all of these merely coincidenceF !specially, it is the combination
of ,n and $ut :a&es which explains these laws, not )ust the ,n2:a&es# ,f you belie&e in one you are forced
to belie&e in the other#
(Iote added by -aselhurst 2 ,n fact without ,n2:a&es there can be no $ut2:a&es, as the $ut2:a&es are
simply the ,n2:a&es after they ha&e propagated ,n and $ut through the :a&e2*enter# /hus effecti&ely
:olff is saying that the electrons in the experiment are already interconnected with one another, and hence
are already 9aware9 of one another9s resonant state and polari7ation, before the paired photons are emitted# ,t
is this subtle interconnection of 8atter that explains the apparent conflict of the !P5 experiment#
Can Proof of the 'n5#a"es be Found0
For so-eone to really belie,e a ne* theory, an e)peri-ent to sho* the e)istence of ne* pheno-ena
not pre,iously <no*n is -ost persuasi,e# /o pro&e the existence of the ,n2:a&es (and thus the pre2
existing interconnection of the electrons with the rest of the apparatus would be )ust such a critical
experiment#
/his can li0ely be accomplished with an apparatus of the type used by 'spect, @alibard, and 5ogers (19=;
except that instead of ma0ing a random filter setting during a photon9s passage time, the filter setting
should occur during the ti-e period preceding photon departure# /he purpose is to frustrate
communication by the ,n2:a&es# 's the ,n2:a&es are necessary to the energy exchange process, then the
result of the experiment would be a linear relation between the angular difference of the two filters# /his
would be the result originally expected by 'lbert !instein for the !P5 experiment#
(!nd of Section from 8ilo :olff#
/he :a&e Structure of 8atter is a profound new way of loo0ing at how 8atter exists and interacts with
other matter in Space# :olff has explained a &ery simple change to a &ery famous experiment that currently
causes Buantum /heory, and -uman intellectual 0nowledge in general, profound problems and paradoxes#
/hus it seems to us absolutely essential that this experiment be re2done as suggested abo&e# :e sincerely
hope that this wor0 on the 8etaphysics of Space and 8otion and the Spherical :a&e Structure of 8atter
will ultimately lead to this new 9Paradigm9 being ta0en seriously, and that this experiment will be performed
sooner rather than later>
+ntroduction - @S; #ounded on =ne 6rinciple' Space Axists as @ave ;edium - ;ax 6lan's *uantum
Aner&y States - :ouis de Bro&lie' ;atter @aves - %ompton @avelen&th of the Alectron - Schrodin&er @ave
Aquations - #orces of %har&e and :i&ht - <esonant %ouplin& as %ause of :i&ht - @erner Keisenber&'s
7ncertainty 6rinciple 9 ;ax Born's '6robability @aves' +nterpretation of *uantum Theory - <ichard
#eynman's *uantum Alectrodynamics >*A8? - 6roblem of '<enormalisation' - Solution to E= Lector @ave
Solutions of ;axwell's Aquations in Spherical %o-ordinates - @olff's Axplanation of A6< >,lbert Ainstein,
6odolsy, <osen? - *uantum Theory Summary - Top
1uantu- Theory (u--ary
Buantum /heory (19<<219K< disco&ered four main things+
a .oth matter and light sometimes beha&e as particles and sometimes beha&e as wa&es# (Planc0, de
.roglie
b Schrodinger9s Standing :a&e equations can be used to describe the allowed discrete energy states for
electrons (:a&e2*enters in atoms or molecules#
c ,t is impossible to 0now both the location and momentum of a particle and this inherent uncertainty can
be calculated using the square of the :a&e equation to determine the probability of where the particle will
be found# (-eisenberg, .orn
d 8atter seems to be subtly interconnected with other matter in the %ni&erse# (!P5 !xperiment
:ith the 8etaphysics of Space and 8otion and the :a&e Structure of 8atter we can now sensibly explain
these phenomena+
a /he solution of the particle"wa&e duality of matter is ob&ious 2 8atter is a Spherical Standing :a&e
which creates a 9particle effect9 at the :a&e2*enter9# /he solution to the particle"wa&e duality of light is
more complex (though it is still ob&ious once 0nown and is a consequence of the standing wa&e structure of
matter and that only discrete standing wa&e interactions can occur during 95esonant *oupling9 of two bound
electrons#
b Schrodinger9s :a&e equations confirm this discrete standing wa&e interaction, that only certain discrete
standing wa&e frequencies between matter are resonantly stable which causes frequency (and thus energy
exchanges to be in discrete 9quanta9 which can be mathematically explained as 9particle"photon9 interactions#
c .ecause Spherical Standing :a&es are the si7e of the %ni&erse, their ,n2:a&es are interacting with all
the other matter in the %ni&erse# 's we exist as complex arrangements of :a&e2*enters here on earth, we
do not ha&e immediate 0nowledge of how these ,n2:a&es are interacting with this other matter in the
uni&erse, and must simply wait until the ,n2:a&es arri&e at the :a&e2*enter where we obser&e these
changes in motion and position of the :a&e2*enter# /his lac0 of 0nowledge causes the uncertainty as to
how a :a&e2*enter will mo&e about o&er time and thus qualitati&ely explains why probability based upon
wa&e equations can describe this uncertainty#
d /he 'lbert !instein, Podols0y, 5osen (!P5 experiment performed by 'spect in 197; famously and
contro&ersially confirmed the apparent instant interconnection of particles and contradicted 'lbert !instein9s
5elati&ity which requires that all matter to matter interactions be limited by the &elocity of light# 'lbert
!instein is in fact correct, the error of the experiment was to assume matter was a particle rather than the
:a&e2*enter of a Spherical Standing :a&e#
$nce this is understood then it explains how matter is subtly interconnected with other matter in the Space
around it (by the ,n and $ut2:a&es and leads to a minor change in the experiment which will confirm the
8etaphysics of Space and 8otion and the Spherical :a&e Structure of 8atter as a sensible and ob&ious
solution to the problems and paradoxes of not only Buantum /heory, but also of 'lbert !instein9s 5elati&ity
and *osmology#
(u--ary 2 (i-ple (olution to &ain Proble-s of Albert 'instein?s
$elati,ity Theory
Fro- $epresenting &atter as Continuous Fields in (pace!Ti-e
(&athe-atical) to &atter as (pherical +a,es in Continuous
(pace (Physical)
Physical ob)ects are not in space, but these ob)ects are spatially extended (as fields# ,n this way the concept
9empty space9 loses its meaning# ### /he field thus becomes an irreducible element of physical description,
irreducible in the same sense as the concept of matter (particles in the theory of Iewton# ### /he physical
reality of space is represented by a field whose components are continuous functions of four independent
&ariables 2 the co2ordinates of space and time# Since the theory of general relati&ity implies the
representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot
play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion# /he particle can only appear as a limited region in
space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high# (Albert 'instein, 195<
@hen forced to summari/e the &eneral theory of relativity in one sentence'
Ti!e and space and gravitation have no separate existence from !atter. >$l"ert .instein?
'ntroduction
-ello# /his page is in two parts# /o begin, a summary of the metaphysical foundations of !instein9s
5elati&ity, and how they can be simplified from !instein9s attempt of 5epresenting 8atter as Continuous
(pherical Fields in (pace!Ti-e (8athematical
to describing 8atter as (pherical +a,es in Continuous (pace (Physical#
/his is followed by a summary of = central problems of the /heory of 5elati&ity that !instein could not
sol&e, simply because he was wor0ing from a foundation of continuous spherical fields, rather than
spherical standing wa&es# /he solutions to these problems are &ery ob&ious once we ha&e the correct wa&e
foundations for matter interactions#
,t should be emphasised here, that though these changes may seem tri&ial, they are not# :hile they confirm
!instein9s &iew that 8atter and Space (and /ime, ?ra&ity are united, this :a&es in Space foundation sol&es
the central problems of 'lbert !instein9s /heory of 5elati&ity, while also pro&iding a sensible solution to
Buantum /heory (which is in great need of sensible foundations to remo&e all the nonsense " quantum
weirdness that currently flourishes due to the errors of the particle conception of matter# :e should not
forget the ob&ious 2 Buantum /heory is founded on wa&e equations# /his is because standing wa&es only
exist at discrete frequencies, as do their interactions#
$ur minds change slowly to new 0nowledge, which always seems strange at first# So , hope you will read
and thin0 about this# ,t is &ery simple and ob&ious once 0nown# 'nd , cannot help but thin0 it is important#
!n)oy,
?eoff -aselhurst
)hort )ummary of Physics and the #a"e )tructure of Matter in )pace
't a fundamental le&el 8odern Physics is founded on the concepts of particles and fields in space and time.
(urther difficulties arise because both light and matter exhibit a particle " wa&e duality, and there are two
main fields, charge (electromagnetic and mass (gra&itational " inertial# :hile this is still a little simplistic,
it ma0es the point that we ha&e a number of different concepts without any clear understanding of how they
are connected# /his causes numerous problems for -uman 0nowledge (and society, as we do not
understand the necessary connections between these many things we experience# 'nd as -ume made clear
(see @a&id -ume9s Problem of *ausation and Iecessary *onnection, without this 0nowledge of necessary
connection between things that exist we can ha&e no causal theory of 0nowledge, lea&ing the Sciences
founded on ,nduction from repeated obser&ation which is always uncertain (rather than deduction from
metaphysical principles which is certain+
!xperience only teaches us, how one e&ent constantly follows another+ without instructing us in the secret
connexion, which binds them together, and renders them inseparable# (0a,id #u-e
So how do we sol&e these problemsF , thin0 the simplest way to explain this is to list these central concepts
of physics, show which path 'lbert !instein too0 to try and unite them from a common foundation (which
he failed to do, and then demonstrate from the most simple foundation (founded on $ne thing Space
existing as a :a&e 8edium how we can finally unite these concepts in a meaningful way that describes
reality without paradox or contradiction# Iow , 0now that most of you will be &ery s0eptical of such a big
claim, but the solution is pretty simple and ob&ious once 0nown so , hope you will perse&ere (and it is
concise " short>#
Central Concepts of Modern Physics
Iewton9s 8echanics 2 Space, /ime, 8atter as Particles with 98ass9, (orce U 8ass by 'cceleration#
*ontinuous !lectromagnetic (ield /heory ((araday, 8axwell, Aorent7, !instein " 5elati&ity 2 8atter as
Particles with 9*harge9, *ontinuous Spherical !lectromagnetic (ields, Aight as 6ector !lectromagnetic
:a&es, ?ra&itational (ields (local theory 2 all matter interactions limited by &elocity of light c
@iscrete Buantum /heory (Planc0, !instein, de .roglie, Schrodinger, .orn 2 Aight as @iscrete Particles
(Photons, Scalar :a&es, Probability :a&es, Particle :a&e @uality (Aight R 8atter, Buantum
!ntanglement (apparently non local theory 2 appear to be instantaneous matter interactions#
:hile this is still a little simplistic, you can see how confusing Physics becomes when you ha&e so many
concepts, some of which clearly contradict others (e#g# light and matter beha&e as both particles and *a,es,
discrete particles and continuous fields, local and non local interactions# 'lbert !instein attempted to
simplify this mess with his 9field theory of matter9 where he discarded the 9particle9 concept and tried to
represent matter as spherical fields in space2time, as he writes+
Physical ob)ects are not in space, but these ob)ects are spatially extended (as fields# ,n this way the concept
9empty space9 loses its meaning# ### /he field thus becomes an irreducible element of physical description,
irreducible in the same sense as the concept of matter (particles in the theory of Iewton# ### /he physical
reality of space is represented by a field whose components are continuous functions of four independent
&ariables 2 the co2ordinates of space and time# Since the theory of general relati&ity implies the
representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot
play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion# /he particle can only appear as a limited region in
space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high# (Albert 'instein, 195<
@hen forced to summari/e the &eneral theory of relativity in one sentence'
Ti!e and space and gravitation have no separate existence from !atter. >,lbert Ainstein?
Iow there are a number of Problems with 'lbert !instein9s (ield /heory of 8atter (see below, as he was
well aware, and which, late in his life, caused him to write to his friend 8ichael .esso expressing his
frustration+
,ll these fifty years of conscious broodin& have brou&ht me no nearer to the answer to the question, '@hat
are li&ht quantaH' Eowadays every Tom, 8ic and Karry thins he nows it, but he is mistaen. M +
consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures.
+n that case, nothin& remains of my entire castle in the air, &ravitation theory included, Oand ofP the rest of
modern physics. >,lbert Ainstein, (.3)?
,n hindsight it is easier to understand !instein9s error 2 the clue is that Buantum /heory9s disco&ery of the
wa&e properties of matter did not occur until 19;=, whereas !instein9s continuous electromagnetic field
foundations were de&eloped from 19<5 to 191J based largely on the ideas of Sames *ler0 8axwell
(8axwell9s !quations, 1=7<s and Aorent79s /heory of the !lectron (19<<# So basically his mista0e was to
wor0 with fields in space2time (mathematical rather than real wa&es in Space (physical, largely because he
did not ha&e 0nowledge of the :a&e properties of matter when he de&eloped his /heory of 5elati&ity#
,n terms of the 8etaphysical foundations of Physics, the central error has been to try and describe reality
from the &any material things we experience, matter 9particles9# (i#e# Science, which is empirically
founded# 'nd e&en though !instein re)ected the 9particle9, his field theory of matter is still founded on this
priority of matter (that matter9s field interactions cause the effect of space and time#
-owe&er, 8etaphysics has 0nown for se&eral thousand years that it is necessary to describe reality from
One thing existing to explain matter9s interconnection in Space and the %ni&erse# 's 'ristotle, Aeibni7 and
.radley write+
The first philosophy >;etaphysics? is universal and is exclusively concerned with primary substance. ... ,nd
here we will have the science to study that which is, both in its essence and in the properties which, $ust as
a thin& that is, it has. >$ristotle, 1)4B%?
<eality cannot be found except in =ne sin&le source, because of the interconnection of all thin&s with one
another. ... + do not conceive of any reality at all as without &enuine unity.
>%ottfried &ei"ni', (BC4?
@e may a&ree, perhaps, to understand by ;etaphysics an attempt to now reality as a&ainst mere
appearance, or the study of first principles or ultimate truths, or a&ain the effort to comprehend the
universe, not simply piecemeal or by fra&ments, but somehow as a whole. >(radley, (0)B-(.2)?
.y abiding by this central rule of 8etaphysics and describing 5eality in /erms of $ne thing existing,
(pace, and its Properties as a +a,e &ediu- for (pherical (tanding +a,es that form &atter, we find a
&ery simple solution to all of the abo&e problems of Physics (again this is a big claim, but this website does
explain many of these things# .asically !instein is correct, 8atter is a Spherically Spatially extended
structure of Space (there is no 9particle9 though most importantly we ha&e simplified !instein9s ideas from+
8atter as *ontinuous Spherical (ields in Space2/ime
to
8atter as Spherical :a&es in *ontinuous Space#
,t is then quite simple to show thatE
/he discrete ?particle? effect of -atter is caused by the +a,e!Center of the Spherical Standing :a&es (the
diagram shows that this is an ob&ious solution to the particle " wa&e duality of matter>#
/he discrete ?particle? effect of light is caused by discrete (tanding +a,e ,nteractions " 5esonant
*oupling#
/ime is caused by +a,e &otion (as spherical wa&e motions of Space which cause matter9s acti&ity and the
phenomena of time#
Forces B Fields are caused by wa&e interactions of the Spherical ,n and $ut :a&es with other matter in the
uni&erse which change the location of the :a&e2*enter (and which we 9see9 as a 9force accelerating a
particle9#
1uantu- 'ntangle-ent is li0ewise caused by the ,nteraction between the ,n and $ut2:a&es and all the
other matter in the uni&erse, thus matter is always subtly connected to other matter in the uni&erse (i#e#
matter is large not small, we only see the :a&e2*enter and ha&e been decei&ed by its 9particle9 effect#
-owe&er, !instein9s 9Aocality9 is correct, all matter to matter interactions are limited by the &elocity of
:a&es in Space#
$f most significance (the real beauty of this solution is that not only does it sol&e the problems of 'lbert
!instein9s /heory of 5elati&ity, but it also sol&es the basic problems of Buantum /heory " Buantum
8echanics (founded on :a&e !quations and *osmology (uniting finite matter R uni&erse with infinite
eternal space 2 the .ig .ang /heory being founded on a basic error#
A si-ple solution to the Proble-s of Albert 'instein?s Theory of
$elati,ity
The +a,e (tructure of &atter in (pace
!instein (from (araday, 8axwell, Aorent7 represented matter as a continuous spherical field in spacetime#
!instein is correct that there is no 9particle9 and matter is spherically spatially extended (8atter and Space
are $ne and the same thing># -owe&er, the spherical 9force field9 can be sensibly explained with the
Spherical Standing :a&e Structure of 8atter# :e reali7e that forces are caused by a change in the &elocity
of the spherical ,n2wa&e (from one direction as this changes where these ,n2wa&es meet at the wa&e2center,
which we obser&e as a 9force accelerating a particle9# /he change in ellipsoidal shape of the ,n2wa&es is the
cause of !instein9s 8etrics and the 5iemannian geometry of ?eneral 5elati&ity#
:ith this new understanding let us then briefly summari7e the problems of !instein9s 5elati&ity, as their
solutions become ob&ious once we understand the Spherical Standing :a&e Structure of 8atter#
i? Ainstein's <elativity is a Theory of a posteriori Affects not a priori %auses, and is
founded on ;any thin&s >;atter? rather than =ne thin& >Space?.
!instein did not 0now how matter existed in Space and his electromagnetic field theory of matter is
,nducti&e (empirical " a posteriori and describes effects (of relati&e motion#
The theory of relativity leads to the same law of motion without requirin& any special hypothesis
whatsoever as to the structure and behavior of the electron. >.instein, (.3)?
-is theory is empirically (a posteriori founded from obser&ation of how matter 9pushes9 other matter around
(thus his 9representation9 of matter as spherical force fields#
,s Arnst ;ach insistently pointed out, the Eewtonian theory is unsatisfactory in the followin& respect' if one
considers motion from the purely descriptive, not from the causal, point of view, it only exists as relative
motion of thin&s with respect to one another.
+t compelled Eewton to invent a physical space in relation to which acceleration was supposed to exist.
This introduction ad hoc of the concept of absolute space, while lo&ically unacceptionable, nevertheless
seems unsatisfactory.
%onsidered lo&ically, concepts are free creations of the human intelli&ence, tools of thou&ht, which are to
serve the purpose of brin&in& experiences into relation with each other, so that in this way they can be
better surveyed. The attempt to become conscious of the empirical sources of these fundamental concepts
should show to what extent we are actually bound to these concepts. +n this way we become aware of our
freedom to create new concepts.
8escartes ar&ued somewhat on these lines' space is identical with extension, but extension is connected
with bodiesD thus there is no space without bodies and hence no empty space.
+t appears to me, therefore, that the formation of the concept of the material ob$ect must precede our
concepts of time and space. >$l"ert .instein, (.3)?
8etaphysics, as a true description of 5eality, must be based on a priori causes 'I@ these must be united
bac0 to one common thing that causes and connects the many things (matter# /he 8etaphysics of Space
and 8otion is founded on the a priori existence of $ne thing, Space and its properties as a wa&e2medium,
that $ne thing, Space, must first exist for 8any things, matter to be able to exist and mo&e about in an
interconnected manner (as reality shows#
ii? %ontinuous #ields do Eot Axplain the 8iscrete Aner&y :evels of ;atter and :i&ht
as 8etermined by *uantum Theory.
/he !lectric and 8agnetic (orce (ields were first founded on repeated obser&ations (,nduction " a
posteriori of how many trillions of charged 9particles9 (electrons and protons beha&ed# /his explains why
the fields were continuous, as many trillions of discrete standing wa&e interactions blend together into a
continuous force# /hus the continuous field can ne&er describe the real standing wa&e interactions of matter,
as !instein came to reali7e#
The &reat stumblin& bloc for the field theory lies in the conception of the atomic structure of matter and
ener&y. #or the theory is fundamentally non-atomic in so far as it operates exclusively with continuous
functions of space, in contrast to classical mechanics whose most important element, the material point, in
itself does $ustice to the atomic structure of matter. >.instein, (.3)?
iii) 'instein?s ?Fields? re3uire ?Particles?.
's !instein used the empirical"theoretical foundations de&eloped by (araday, 8axwell and Aorent7 he
required the existence of a 9Particle9 to somehow generate the 9(ield9 which in turn acted on other 9Particles9#
The special and &eneral theories of relativity, which, thou&h based entirely on ideas connected with the
field-theory, have so far been unable to avoid the independent introduction of material points, M the
continuous field thus appeared side by side with the material point as the representative of physical reality.
This dualism remains even today disturbin& as it must be to every orderly mind. >.instein, (.3)?
iv? Ainstein's %ontinuous #ield Theory of ;atter &ives rise to Sin&ularities and
+nfinite #ields.
The ;axwell equations in their ori&inal form do not, however, allow such a description of particles, because
their correspondin& solutions contain a sin&ularity. Theoretical physicists have tried for a lon& time >(.1B?,
therefore, to reach the &oal by a modification of ;axwell's equations. These attempts have, however, not
been crowned with success. @hat appears certain to me, however, is that, in the foundations of any
consistent field theory the particle concept must not appear in addition to the field concept. The whole
theory must by based solely on partial differential equations and their sin&ularity-free solutions. >.instein,
(.3)?
's :olff explains (see Buantum /heory, the equation for a scalar spherical wa&e gi&e rise to a finite wa&e2
amplitude at the wa&e2center (consistent with obser&ation whereas spherical &ector electromagnetic fields
tend to infinity as the radius tends to 7ero (and there are no &ector e2m solutions in spherical coordinates>#
v? Ainstein <e$ects both '6articles' and ;otion.
:hile !instein correctly re)ected the point 9particle9 concept of matter, he assumed that 8otion only applied
to 9particles9 (a common error> thus he also re)ected the concept of 8otion, and represented matter as
spherical force fields# /he error is twofold+ firstly, he did not consider the (wa&e 8otion of Space itself,
and secondly, he should ha&e reali7ed that to measure forces we must first measure the change in 8otion of
a particle, thus 8otion is a priori to forces (i#e# (orce U d!"dx#
Since the theory of &eneral relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the
concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion.
>.instein, (.3)?
:e now reali7e that neither the 9Particle9 nor the continuous electromagnetic force 9(ield9 is a complete
description of 5eality thus we must re)ect both the ?Particle? and the ?Field?, and what remains is &otion#
-ence we can now clearly see both !instein9s error and the true path left to explore 2 the study of Space as a
wa&e medium for wa&e 8otion 2 and that the Spherical :a&e 8otion of Space explains both the 9particle9
(wa&e2center and 9forces9 (change in &elocity of ,n2:a&es, which changes the location of the :a&e2
*enter#
vi? Ainstein ,ssumed ;atter %aused Space <ather than the @ave-;otion of Space
%ausin& ;atter.
!instein was profoundly influenced by 8ach+
;ach, in the nineteenth century, was the only one who thou&ht seriously of the elimination of the concept
of space, in that he sou&ht to replace it by the notion of the totality of the instantaneous distances between
all material points. >Ke made this attempt in order to arrive at a satisfactory understandin& of inertia.?
>.instein, (.3)?
.ecause we only obser&e the motion of matter relati&e to all the other matter in the uni&erse, thus !instein
thought that matter, rather than Space, must be the central perspecti&e for representing 5eality# /hus
!instein9s 5elati&ity is empirically (a posteriori founded from obser&ing the motion of matter relati&e to
other matter#
/he 8etaphysics of Space and 8otion is founded on the a priori fact that Space is first necessary for matter
to be able to exist and mo&e about# !instein is empirically correct, and at the same time this was his error
because 8etaphysics (and thus 5eality is not founded on empirical obser&ations# ,n reality there is no
motion of matter, there is only the spherical wa&e2motion of Space, and the changing location of the wa&e2
center gi&es the 9illusion9 of the motion of matter 9particles9# (/hus !instein9s 5elati&ity is founded on an
illusion that matter mo&es, when it is Space which is mo&ing " &ibrating#
/hus Iewton was ultimately correct+
,nd so instead of absolute places and motions, we use relative onesD and that without any inconvenience
in common affairsD but in 6hilosophical disquisitions, we ou&ht to abstract from our senses, and consider
thin&s themselves, distinct from what are only sensible measures of them. >-ewton, (B0C?
(urther, Aorent79s assumption of an 'bsolute Space is the foundation for the Aorent7 transformations and
thus for !instein9s 5elati&ity#
+ cannot but re&ard the ether, which can be the seat of an electroma&netic field with its ener&y and its
vibrations, as endowed with a certain de&ree of substantiality, however different it may be from all ordinary
matter. >&orent', The Theory of the Alectron, (.4B?
!instein choose to ignore Space " 'ether and wor0 with relati&e motions of matter to other matter, with
matter being represented by spherical fields#
The electroma&netic fields are not states of a medium, and are not bound down to any bearer, but they are
independent realities which are not reducible to anythin& else. >,lbert Ainstein, :eiden :ecture, (.24?
+n other words, is there an ether which carries the fieldD the ether bein& considered in the undulatory state,
for example, when it carries li&ht wavesH The question has a natural answer' Because one cannot
dispense with the field concept, it is preferable not to introduce in addition a carrier with hypothetical
properties. >,lbert Ainstein, (.34?
$nce we realise that the particle and the continuous field it generates are both merely ideas, human
approximations to reality, then we sol&e these problems# :e return to Aorent79s foundation of $ne thing
Space, and its properties as a wa&e medium (&ibrations and replace the spherical particle R field with the
spherical wa&e 8otion of Space# /he idea of the field theory of matter misled !instein, and yet !instein also
realised that there must somehow be a Space that interconnects matter#
<ecapitulatin&, we may say that accordin& to the &eneral theory of relativity space is endowed with
physical qualitiesD in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. ,ccordin& to the &eneral theory of relativity
space without ether is unthinableD for in such space there not only would be no propa&ation of li&ht, but
also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time >measurin&-rods and clocs?, nor therefore
any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thou&ht of as endowed with the
quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consistin& of parts which may be traced throu&h time. The
idea of motion may not be applied to it. >,lbert Ainstein, :eiden :ecture, (.24?
vii? Ainstein Eever 7nited the Alectroma&netic 9 Fravitational #ields into a 7nified
#ield Theory for ;atter
!instein9s 5elati&ity requires both an !lectromagnetic (orce (ield to explain *harge, and a ?ra&itational
(ield to explain 8ass# -e tried and failed throughout his life to unite these two fields into one (and to
remo&e the 9particle9 concept from them#
But the idea that there exist two structures of space independent of each other, the metric-&ravitational and
the electroma&netic, was intolerable to the theoretical spirit. @e are prompted to the belief that both sorts
of field must correspond to a unified structure of space. >Ainstein, (.3)?
:e can now unite these two fields by demonstrating how they are both caused by the properties of Space,
i#e# that the wa&e &elocity &aries with both wa&e2amplitude (charge and mass2energy density of space
(mass#
viii? Ainstein's '%urvature of the #our 8imensional Space-Time %ontinuum'
/he concept of the 9cur&ature of space9 is a mathematical construction of !instein9s general relati&ity# ,n
reality Space is not 9cur&ed9, instead (for gra&itational forces the mass2energy density of space &aries
dependent upon the nearby proximity of matter (SS:s, and this causes a &ariation in the &elocity of
wa&es"light which changes the ellipsoidal shape of matter and causes the cur&ed path of matter and light in
Space# 'nd this caused !instein considerable problems (it too0 him ten years to wor0 out the ellipsoidal
geometry for gra&ity"general relati&ity>
But the path >of &eneral relativity? was thornier than one mi&ht suppose, because it demanded the
abandonment of Auclidean &eometry. This is what we mean when we tal of the 'curvature of space'. The
fundamental concepts of the 'strai&ht line', the 'plane', etc., thereby lose their precise si&nificance in
physics. >$l"ert .instein, (.3)?
(urther, the four dimensional space2time continuum simply means that three spatial dimensions and a time
dimension are required to define the motion of bodies and the path of light in three dimensional Space#
The non-mathematician is sei/ed by a mysterious shudderin& when he hears of 'four-dimensional' thin&s,
by a feelin& not unlie that awaened by thou&hts of the occult. ,nd yet there is no more common-place
statement than that the world in which we live is a four-dimensional space-time continuum. Space is a
three-dimensional continuum. ... Similarly, the world of physical phenomena is naturally four dimensional in
the space-time sense. #or it is composed of individual events, each of which is described by four numbers,
namely, three space co-ordinates x, y, /, and the time co-ordinate t. >$l"ert .instein, (.3)?
The inseparability of time and space emer&ed in connection with electrodynamics, or the law of
propa&ation of li&ht.
@ith the discovery of the relativity of simultaneity, space and time were mer&ed in a sin&le continuum in a
way similar to that in which the three dimensions of space had previously mer&ed into a sin&le continuum.
6hysical space was thus extended to a four dimensional space which also included the dimension of time.
The four dimensional space of the special theory of relativity is $ust as ri&id and absolute as Eewton's
space. >$l"ert .instein, (.3)?
,n fact the spherical wa&e 8otion of Space requires three spatial dimensions and a (wa&e motion dimension
(rather than a time dimension, as motion causes time# Iow this is &ery important, for it is this 9cur&ature9
that largely led to !instein9s early fame# ,t was the prediction by !instein that light cur&ed as it gra7ed the
sun (subsequently confirmed by obser&ation during a solar eclipse on the ;9th 8ay 1919 that resulted in
his ?eneral /heory of 5elati&ity becoming widely accepted and &ery famous# -is general principle is
correct though, matter does determine the geometric properties of Space+
,ccordin& to the &eneral theory of relativity, the &eometrical properties of space are not independent, but
they are determined by matter. >.instein, (.3)?
Concluding $e-ar<s
/owards the end of his life !instein was acutely aware that he had failed to reali7e his dream of a unified
field theory for matter and that the continuous spherical spatially extended force field may not truly
represent the reality of matter# ,n 195L !instein wrote to his friend 8ichael .esso expressing his frustration+
,ll these fifty years of conscious broodin& have brou&ht me no nearer to the answer to the question, '@hat
are li&ht quantaH' Eowadays every Tom, 8ic and Karry thins he nows it, but he is mistaen. M +
consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures.
+n that case, nothin& remains of my entire castle in the air, &ravitation theory included, Oand ofP the rest of
modern physics.
'lbert !instein9s ?eneral /heory of 5elati&ity (?/5 has been summari7ed as, ?The -atter of the uni,erse
deter-ines the properties of (pace, and the properties of (pace deter-ine the beha,iour of -atter.?
/he ?/5 is an experimentally correct description of the uni&erse but how or why it occurs was mysterious#
:ith the :a&e Structure of 8atter (:S8 we now see the existence of a uni&ersal symmetry and
interdependence of all matter in the uni&erse# /he :a&e Structure of 8atter is the cause of this profound
symmetry#
Principle /wo of the :S8 can be rephrased as, 'll wa&es from matter of the uni&erse determine the mass2
energy density of space which determines the &elocity of the wa&es c which then determines the beha&iour
of matter in Space#
:e can further shorten this to 8atter affects Space affects 8atter#
/hus the :a&e Structure of 8atter (:S8 explains the fundamental origins of 'lbert !instein9s ?eneral
/heory of 5elati&ity (?/5 and its application to the cosmic scale gra&itational motion of the matter of
planets, stars, galaxies, etc#
Significantly though, the :S8 also explains the Buantum realm, and how :a&e2*enters (particles interact
with other particles in the Space around them, thus explaining Buantum /heory and the cause of the discrete
9quanta9 (photon properties of light# -ence the Spherical Standing :a&e Structure of 8atter explains both
the large scale (*osmic realm geometry of ?eneral 5elati&ity (gra&ity as well as the small scale (Buantum
realm particle interactions of Buantum /heory (light# ('s a true description of reality must#
'll that needs to be done now (though this is no easy tas0 , imagine> is for some cle&er and curious
8athematician to apply the /wo Principles of the :S8 to 'lbert !instein9s 5elati&ity and show that the
two are mathematically equi&alent# /his mathematics will be simpler, contain no infinities"singularities, and
will also be consistent with Buantum /heory and *osmology# /hus there now exists the opportunity for
mathematical physicists to explore a profound new logical language which should pro&ide many solutions to
their current problems and in time lead to a re&olution of their sub)ect#
+o!e *eference quotes (for !y use)
.ut the idea that there exist two structures of space independent of each other, the metric2gra&itational and
the electromagnetic, was intolerable to the theoretical spirit# :e are prompted to the belief that both sorts of
field must correspond to a unified structure of space# (!instein, 195L
'ccording to the general theory of relati&ity, the geometrical properties of space are not independent, but
they are determined by matter# ('instein, 195L
/he theory of relati&ity may indeed be said to ha&e put a sort of finishing touch to the mighty intellectual
edifice of 8axwell and Aorent7, inasmuch as it see0s to extend field physics to all phenomena, gra&itation
included# (Albert 'instein, 19KL
5ecapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relati&ity space is endowed with physical
qualities+ in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether# 'ccording to the general theory of relati&ity space
without ether is unthin0able+ for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no
possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring2rods and cloc0s, nor therefore any
space2time inter&als in the physical sense# (Albert 'instein, Aeiden Aecture, 19;<
/he great stumbling bloc0 for the field theory lies in the conception of the atomic structure of matter and
energy# (or the theory is fundamentally non2atomic in so far as it operates exclusi&ely with continuous
functions of space, in contrast to classical mechanics whose most important element, the material point, in
itself does )ustice to the atomic structure of matter# ('instein, 195L
Metaphysics& )ir 'saac e!ton
The Metaphysics of )pace and the #a"e )tructure of Matter unites )ir
'saac e!ton1s 2bsolute )pace and his Particle conception of matter8
,t seems probable to me that ?od in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard,
impenetrable, mo&able particles, of such si7es and figures, and with such other properties,
and in such proportion to space, as most conduced to the end for which he formed them+
and that these primiti&e particles being solids, are incomparably harder than any porous
bodies compounded of them+ e&en so &ery hard, as ne&er to wear or brea0 in pieces+ no
ordinary power being able to di&ide what ?od himself made one in the first creation#
(5e*ton, (rom 9/he /ao of Physics9, *apra
6article 5 Space 8uality of Eewton's ;echanics - +saac Eewton on Time, 6articles, #orces - Eewton's
%oncept of :i&ht as 6article - Eewton's :aw of +nertia - Top of 6a&e
The Particle ( )pace .uality of e!ton1s Mechanics +3?6@-
:e begin with a &ery good summary of 'tomism, as their ultimate conclusion, that the 9particle9 is a
conceptual tool for the logical positi&ist " mathematical physicist, but does not physically exist, is absolutely
correct# ('s the principles of the :a&e Structure of 8atter state, the 9particle9 effect of matter is caused by
the :a&e2*enter of the Spherical Standing :a&es#
'tomism arose as an explanatory scheme with the ancient ?ree0s (around L<<.*, Aeucippus and
@emocritus, and !picurus, and the 5oman poet, Aucretius# 't the most fundamental le&el atomism is the
belief that all phenomena are explicable in terms of the properties and beha&iour of ultimate, elementary,
locali7ed entities (or 9fundamental particles9# /hus it prescribes a strategy for the construction of scientific
theories in which the beha&iour of complex bodies is to be explained in terms of their component parts# /hat
strategy has led to many of the successes of modern physical science, though these do not pro&e that there
actually are 9ultimate entities9 of the type postulated by atomism#
/heir (the atomists analysis goes 9behind9 the appearance of minute, unchangeable and indestructible 9atoms9
separated by the emptiness of 9the &oid9# ,t is the &oid which is said to ma0e change and mo&ement possible#
'll apparent change is simply the result of rearrangements of the atoms as a consequence of collisions
between them# /his seems to lead to mechanical determinism, though, in an attempt to lea&e room for
freewill, !picurus and Aucretius postulated that atoms might 9de&iate9 in their courses# (See references on
*osmology for an explanation of (ree :ill
-owe&er if 9what exists9 is 9atoms9, what of the 9&oid9F ,n different ways both 'ristotle and @escartes denied
that there could be such a thing as literally 9empty space9# Physically therefore they saw the world as a
plenum# 'tomism was also associated with atheism, since as Aucretius put it, 9Iothing can e&er be created
out of nothing, e&en by di&ine power#9 *on&ersely no thing can e&er become nothing 2 so the atomists
proposed a strict principle of conser&ation of matter#
/he attempt of the ancient atomists to sol&e a metaphysical problem about the nature of change resulted in a
brilliantly fruitful strategy for the construction of theories in the physical sciences# -owe&er there are
unanswered philosophical ob)ections to atomism and the &ery successes it has stimulated suggest that 9the
stuff of the world9 cannot ultimately be understood in terms of atomism# ' thoroughgoing positi&ism will
continue to hold that 9atomic theories9 are simply de&ices for tal0ing about obser&able phenomena# (/he
*oncise !ncyclopedia of :estern Philosophy and Philosophers, 1991
:ith this understanding of the 9particle9 in mind, and with 'lbert !instein as our guide, we shall now
explain and sol&e Iewton9s 8echanics, and thus also appreciate how Iewton9s theory profoundly (though
incorrectly shaped the face of modern physics#
6article 5 Space 8uality of Eewton's ;echanics - +saac Eewton on Time, 6articles, #orces - Eewton's
%oncept of :i&ht as 6article - Eewton's :aw of +nertia - Top of 6a&e
)ir 'saac e!ton1s Concepts of Time, Particles, $ Forces
+On the Problem of 2ction5at5a5.istance-
Aet us now consider two &ery famous quotes from Iewton on absolute Space and /ime# Iewton9s
comments on 'bsolute Space being the foundations of the 5elati&e 8otions of 8atter in Space is absolutely
correct and &ery astute as Iewton effecti&ely predicts the e&olution of relati&ity 2 that it is easier to measure
the motion of matter relati&e to other matter, rather than to Space itself>
'bsolute Space, in its own nature, without regard to any thing external, remains always similar and
immo&able# 5elati&e Space is some mo&eable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces+ which our
senses determine, by its position to bodies+ and which is &ulgarly ta0en for immo&able space# ###
'nd so instead of absolute places and motions, we use relati&e ones+ and that without any incon&enience in
common affairs+ but in Philosophical disquisitions, we ought to abstract from our senses, and consider
things themsel&es, distinct from what are only sensible measures of them# (or it may be that there is no
body really at rest, to which the places and motions of others may be referred# ###
'bsolute, /rue, and 8athematical /ime, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to
any thing external, and by another name is called @urationE 5elati&e, 'pparent, and *ommon /ime is some
sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable measure of @uration by the means of motion, which
is commonly used instead of /rue time+ such as an -our, a @ay, a 8onth, a Near# ###
(or the natural days are truly unequable, though they are commonly consider9d as equal, and used for a
measure of timeE 'stronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial
motions# ,t may be, that there is no such thing as an equable motion, whereby time may be accurately
measured# 'll motions may be accelerated and retarded, but the /rue, or equable progress, of 'bsolute time
is liable to no change# /he duration or perse&erance of the existence of things remains the same, whether the
motions are swift or slow, or none at all# (Iewton, 1J=7
Iewton is also largely correct that /ime is intimately connected to 8otion, for /ime is ultimately caused by
the :a&e28otions of Space# ,t is also correct to assume an absolute /ime (li0e B/ rather than 5elati&ity
such that we ha&e a constant reference to measure the changing &elocity of wa&e2motion# -owe&er, /ime
does not exist as a 9thing in itself9 as Iewton thought>
'lbert !instein explains Iewton9s 8echanics lucidly and logicaly (as reflects the greatness of 'lbert
!instein#
/he first attempt to lay a uniform theoretical foundation was the wor0 of Iewton# ,n his system e&erything
is reduced to the following conceptsE
i 8ass points with in&ariable mass
ii ,nstant action2at2a2distance between any pair of mass points
iii Aaw of motion for the mass point#
Physical e&ents, in Iewton9s &iew, are to be regarded as the motions, go&erned by fixed laws, of material
points in space# /his theoretical scheme is in essence an atomistic and mechanistic one# /here was not,
strictly spea0ing, any all2embracing foundation, because an explicit law was only formulated for the actions2
at2a2distance of gra&itation+ while for other actions2at2a2distance nothing was established a priori except the
law of equality of actio and reactio# 8oreo&er, Iewton himself fully reali7ed that time and space were
essential elements, as physically effecti&e factors, of his system# ('lbert !instein, 19L<
:e now realise his error was to introduce discrete 9particles9 with 8otion, rather than the 8otion of Space
itself, i#e# Spherical Standing :a&e 8otion, which creates the 9particle effect9 at the :a&e2*enter#
Iewton9s endea&ours to represent his system as necessarily conditioned by experience and to introduce the
smallest possible number of concepts not directly referable to empirical ob)ects is e&erywhere e&ident+ in
spite of this he set up the concept of absolute space and absolute time# (or this he has often been critici7ed
in recent years# /herefore, in addition to masses and temporally &ariable distances, there must be something
else that determines motion# /hat something he ta0es to be relation to absolute space# -e is aware that space
must possess a 0ind of physical reality if his laws of motion are to ha&e any meaning, a reality of the same
sort as material points and their distances# ('lbert !instein, 195L
's explained in %niting 8etaphysics and Physics, 'lbert !instein considered matter to be spatially
extended (and represented by Spherical (orce (ields thus he did not belie&e in the existence of a
fundamental Space or /ime that was separate from 8atter (he imagined that matter caused Space and /ime,
whereas the :a&e Structure of 8atter states the opposite, that Space Vand it wa&e motionsW cause 8atter
and /ime# 's with Aeibni7 and 8ach, 'lbert !instein belie&ed that all motion of matter in Space could
instead be understood as motion of matter relati&e to other matter, thus the concept of an absolute Space
became unnecessary#
,n Iewtonian physics the elementary theoretical concept on which the theoretical description of material
bodies is based is the material point, or particle# /hus matter is considered a priori to be discontinuous# /his
ma0es it necessary to consider the action of material points on one another as action2at2a2distance# Since the
latter concept seems quite contrary to e&eryday experience, it is only natural that the contemporaries of
Iewton 2 and indeed Iewton himself 2 found it difficult to accept# $wing to the almost miraculous success
of the Iewtonian system, howe&er, the succeeding generations of physicists became used to the idea of
action2at2a2distance# 'ny doubt was buried for a long time to come# ('lbert !instein, 195<
/he solution though is ob&ious once 0nown 2 to discard the concept of the discrete particle in Space and
replace it with the Spherical Standing :a&e Structure of 8atter (:S8 in Space#
/hen instant action2at2a2distance between discrete particles becomes action2at2a2distance between the ,n and
$ut2:a&es of the :a&e2*enters 9particles9 in Space# /his leads to a clear understanding of how matter
interacts with other matter at2a2distance in Space, as it is the interaction of the ,n2:a&es and $ut2:a&es
with other SS:s (and particularly their :a&e2*enters that explains all matter to matter interactions in
Space# /hese interactions are limited by the &elocity of the ,n2:a&es and $ut2:a&es which is the &elocity
of light c# /hus actions2at2a2distance are not instantaneous as Iewton had assumed, but are limited by the
&elocity of the ,n2:a&es (&elocity of light c, as 'lbert !instein realised, and obser&ation confirms#
$n the other hand, with respect to an absolute Space, it is one purpose of this article to show that in fact
Iewton was correct, there does exist a fundamental physical Space which acts as a wa&e medium and
necessarily connects all things# Iewton9s error was to further assume the existence of the motion of material
particles in this Space, rather than the (Spherical :a&e28otion of Space itself#
Iewton9s error, of assuming too many existents (a common error, leads to two insurmountable problems+
a) How does matter exist as a discrete particle in Space and move through the Space around it
's .orn explains+
$ne ob&ious ob)ection to the hypothesis of an elastic 'ether (Space arises from the necessity of ascribing
to it the great rigidity it must ha&e to account for the high &elocity of :a&es# Such a substance would
necessarily offer resistance to the motion of hea&enly bodies, particularly to that of planets# 'stronomy has
ne&er detected departures from Iewton9s Aaws of 8otion that would point to such a resistance# (.orn,
19;L
:hile .orn is correct that Space is &ery rigid and this explains the high :a&e26elocity, he (along with most
physicists mista0enly assumes that separate 9particles9 exist in this Space, and thus it is inconcei&able that
Space itself can exist as it would resist the motion of these particles# /he ob&ious solution is to replace the
concept of matter existing as discrete particles with matter existing as Spherical Standing :a&es in this
Space, thus the motion of the particle becomes the apparent motion of successi&e :a&e2*enters#
b) How do these discrete particles gravitationall! act"at"a"distance with other particles separate in
Space
Iewton simply assumed that discrete particles could act instantly on other particles at2a2distance in Space
(Iewton9s instantaneous action2at2a2distance though he was well aware of this problem as he explains in
his famous letter to .entley+
,t is inconcei&able that inanimate brute matter should, without mediation of something else which is not
matter, operate on and affect other matter without mutual contact# ### /hat gra&ity should be innate, inherent
and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at2a2distance, through a &acuum, without the
mediation of anything else by and through which their action may be con&eyed from one to another, is to me
so great an absurdity that , belie&e no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of
thin0ing, can e&er fall into it#
So far , ha&e explained the phenomena by the force of gra&ity, but , ha&e not yet ascertained the cause of
gra&ity itself# ### and , do not arbitrarily in&ent hypotheses# (Iewton# Aetter to 5ichard .entley ;5 (eb#
1J9K
'ction2at2a2distance has pu77led philosophers and physicists since Iewton first assumed instantaneous
action2at2a2distance for gra&itational 8ass# (or if matter is assumed to be a tiny particle, how could it
interact (instantly> with other matter at a distance in Space (across the entire uni&erseF (or example, how
do we, here on earth, sense the heat and light from the sun so distant in Space#
:e now reali7e that matter is not small, it is large# ,ndeed 'lbert !instein was &ery close to the truth 2
matter is spherically spatially extended, thus as we ha&e said, Iewton9s instant action2at2a2distance from a
particle becomes action2at2a2distance from the :a&e2*enter of Spherical Standing :a&es in Space, due to
the interaction and change in &elocity of their ,n and $ut2:a&es#
i#e# ' consequence of Principle /wo, the ,n2:a&es of the Spherical Standing :a&e in Space interact with
other SS:s in Space (particularly their high :a&e2'mplitude"@ensity :a&e2*enters as they flow in
through them and change their &elocity accordingly# /his determines where each successi&e ,n2:a&e will
ultimately meet at their respecti&e :a&e2*enter (i#e# the future position of the :a&e2*enter " 9particle9
which causes the apparent motion (acceleration of the 9particle9# /his then explains action2at2a2distance
(from the :a&e2*enter and why it is not instantaneous, but rather, is limited by the &elocity of the ,n2
:a&es " 6elocity of light c#
6article 5 Space 8uality of Eewton's ;echanics - +saac Eewton on Time, 6articles, #orces - Eewton's
%oncept of :i&ht as 6article - Eewton's :aw of +nertia - Top of 6a&e
)ir 'saac e!ton1s Concept of Light as a Particle
,t is true that Iewton tried to reduced light to the motion of material points in his corpuscular theory of
light# Aater on, howe&er, as the phenomena of finite &elocity, polari7ation, diffraction, and interference of
light forced upon this theory more and more unnatural modifications, -uygens9 undulatory wa&e theory of
light pre&ailed# ('lbert !instein, 19KJ
'lbert !instein clearly reali7ed, as did physicists of the time, that the particle concept of light is unable to
explain experimental phenomena li0e polari7ation, diffraction, and interference, which are ob&iously
explained by wa&e phenomena# /his di&ide between Iewton9s particle conception of light and -uygens9
wa&e theory of light was decided by /homas Noung9s (1=<1 famous double slit experiment which showed
interference patterns that could only be explained by a wa&e theory# (or how could a single particle tra&el
through two slits and interfere with itselfF
(urther, as 'lbert !instein argues, it is impossible to explain how particles of matter emit and absorb
particles of light#
:hat in that case becomes of the material points of which light is composed when the light is absorbedF
('lbert !instein, 19K1
So while Iewton9s particle theory for light and matter had substantial logical (mathematical success at
explaining certain phenomena, particularly the orbits of planets, it clearly produced many paradoxes due to
its fundamental error of assuming the existence of discrete particles#
Net no serious doubt of the mechanical (particle foundation of physics arose, in the first place because
nobody 0new where to find a foundation of another sort# $nly slowly, under the irresistible pressure of
facts, there de&eloped a new foundation of physics, 9(ield9 physics# ('lbert !instein, 195L
:e shall shortly consider the 9(ield9 physics, but before this we need to finally explain Iewton9 famous Aaw
of ,nertia+
'n ob)ect at rest will remain at rest and an ob)ect in motion will continue in motion with a constant &elocity
unless it experiences a net external force# (Serway, 199;
6article 5 Space 8uality of Eewton's ;echanics - +saac Eewton on Time, 6articles, #orces - Eewton's
%oncept of :i&ht as 6article - Eewton's :aw of +nertia - Top of 6a&e
(ir Isaac 5e*ton?s "a* of Inertia F F -.a
*oncisely stated 2 8ass is caused by the 5elationship between the *hange in 6elocity c of the ,n2:a&es
(from one direction and the resultant *hange in Aocation of the :a&e2*enter which we see as the
9'cceleration of the Particle9#
,t is necessary to correctly understand Principle /wo for this explains 5e*ton?s "a* of Inertia FF-.a
which is at the &ery heart of Physics#
0rinciple Two - 1n the -ecessary Connections "etween 2hat .ists
i 'ny *hange in 6elocity of the Spherical ,n2:a&es from $ne @irection *hanges where these ,n2:a&es
meet at their respecti&e :a&e2*enter which we see as the 'ccelerated 8otion of the 9Particle9# (/his is the
*ause of 'll (orces, i#e# Iewton9s Aaw of ,nertia (Um#a
ii /he Spherical ,n2:a&es are formed from the -uygens9 *ombination of $ut2:a&es from 'll other 8atter
in our (inite Spherical %ni&erse# (/his is the *ause of 8ach9s Principle 2 the 8ass (mass2energy density of
space of an ob)ect is determined by all the other matter in the %ni&erse#
Principle /wo explains how matter 9particles9 (as :a&e2*enters are 9Iecessarily *onnected9 to other 8atter
in the Space around them, and thus leads to the explanation of 9(orce9 and Iewton9s famous and most
important Aaw of ,nertia (orce U 8ass X 'cceleration ((Um#a
Aet us consider the Spherical ,n2:a&es of $ne !lectron " Spherical Standing :a&e (SS:# ,f there is no
change in the &elocity of the Spherical ,n2:a&e then there can be no change in the apparent motion of the
:a&e2*enter " 9particle9# i#e# ,f the Spherical ,n2:a&es comes in with the same &elocity in all directions then
the :a&e2*enter " 9particle9 will remain stationary in the same place in Space# *on&ersely, if there is a
change in &elocity of the Spherical ,n2:a&es in one direction then this will also cause a change in motion
(acceleration of the :a&e2*enter " 9particle9# So when we consider the future motion of a particle we must
actually consider the &elocity of the Spherical ,n2:a&es only, for it is logical that this alone determines
where these ,n2:a&es will meet at their future :a&e2*enters#
/his is the underlying cause of the Aaw of ,nertia and the concepts of force, mass and acceleration# :e can
now translate the language of physics into the language of the :S8# :hen we apply a (orce to an ob)ect
we are in fact changing the &elocity of their ,n2:a&es, and this causes an acceleration (change in apparent
motion of the particle effect at the :a&e2*enter# ,t is this relationship between the change in &elocity of ,n2
:a&es and the change in 8otion of the :a&e2*enter that causes the concept of 8ass and explains the
necessary connection between things that exist# (i#e# 'ction2at2a2distance#
/hough this is perhaps a little confusing upon first reading, with time it becomes more ob&ious that the
Spherical :a&e Structure of 8atter simplifies and sol&es the problems of Iewton9s 8echanics by remo&ing
the concept of discrete 9particles9 and replacing this with Spherical :a&e 8otions of Space whose :a&e2
*enter9s *ause the 9Particle9 !ffect#
(inally, it is important to reali7e that 'insteinLs $elati,ity e&ol&ed largely from 5e*ton?s &echanics
(6@I8), Faraday?s 'lectro-agnetic Field Theory (6IJD), &a)*ellLs '3uations (6I8@) and "orent4?s
Theory of the 'lectron (67AA!67A@)# .y applying this new 8etaphysical foundation to these earlier
theories we can correct their errors, and this then leads to a simple solution to the problems of !instein4s
5elati&ity#
&etaphysics= ;enedictus (;aruch) de (pino4a
On One Infinite (ubstance (:od, 5ature, (pace)
and the Interconnected &otion of &atter
9@eus si&e Iatura9 (?od or Iature
#### we are a part of nature as a whole, whose order we follow# ((pino4a, !thics, 1J7K
+ntroduction - Spino/a ;etaphysics' =ne +nfinite Substance >Fod, Eature, Space? - Spino/a ;etaphysics
of ;otion - Top of 6a&e
'ntroduction to Benedict de )pino<a
.aruch Spino7a was born in 'msterdam in 1JK; into a Sewish family# -e had a Sewish education, resisted
orthodoxy and was later excommunicated of heresy and changed his name to .enedictus de Spino7a in 1J5J
(commonly spelt 9.enedict9# /he *hristians didn9t thin0 much of Spino7a either (though his whole
philosophy is based on ?od and the orthodox accused him of atheism#
@espite such ill treatment and unpopularity (his main philosophical wor0 9!thics9 was published
posthumously .enedictus de Spino7a li&ed a simple and noble life polishing lenses, displaying an
indifference to money, fame and power# 's .enedict Spino7a writes+
' free man, who li&es among ignorant people, tries as much as he can to refuse their benefits# ## -e who
li&es under the guidance of reason endea&ours as much as possible to repay his fellow4s hatred, rage,
contempt, etc# with lo&e and nobleness# ((pino4a, !thics
Spino7a9s !thics is written in fi&e parts, in a highly logical style of definitions, propositions and proofs# ,t
begins with his 8etaphysics, 9*oncerning ?od9, and then later addresses the Iature of 8ind, !motions,
,ntellect, 5eason and :ill#
(or Spino7a, ?od and Iature were $ne# ,n !thics he describes ?od as of $ne ,nfinite !ternal Substance
which exists#
!xcept ?od no substance can be granted or concei&ed# ## !&erything, , say, is in ?od, and all things which
are made, are made by the laws of the infinite nature of ?od, and necessarily follows from the necessity of
his essence# ((pino4a, !thics
So from Spino7a9s 8etaphysics, we can understand that humans (and our minds are necessarily united to
the whole, since there is only one substance+ reality is a unity which we call ?od or Iature#
Spino7a also realised the connection of 8otion and /ime, as he writes+
Io one doubts but that we imagine ti-e from the &ery fact that we imagine other bodies to be -o,ed
slower or faster or equally fast# :e are accustomed to determine duration by the aid of some measure of
-otion# ((pino4a, !thics)
(urther, Spino7a shows great insight into the ,nterconnected 8otions of 8atter+
:hen a number of bodies of the same or different si7e are dri&en so together that they remain united one
with the other, or if they are mo&ed with the same or different rapidity, so that they communicate their
motions one to another in a certain ratio, those bodies are called reciprocally united bodies (corpora in&icem
unita, and we say that they all form one body or indi&idual, which is distinguished from the rest by this
union of the bodies# ((pino4a, !thics
+ntroduction - Spino/a ;etaphysics' =ne +nfinite Substance >Fod, Eature, Space? - Spino/a ;etaphysics
of ;otion - Top of 6a&e
&etaphysics of (pino4a
One Infinite 'ternal (ubstance (:od, 5ature, (pace)
.ut if men would gi&e heed to the nature of substance they would doubt less concerning the Proposition
that ')istence appertains to the nature of substanceE rather they would rec0on it an axiom abo&e all
others, and hold it among common opinions# (or then by substance they would understand that which is in
itself, and through itself is concei&ed, or rather that whose 0nowledge does not depend on the 0nowledge of
any other thing# ((pino4a, 1J7K
(pino4a (with Aristotle understood the importance of 8otion, most significantly, (pino4a was particularly
aware of the importance of the relati&e and interconnected 8otions of 8atter+ (as becomes e&ident when we
later consider the -uman .ody and 8ind, and our unique -uman ,dentity#
:hen a number of bodies of the same or different si7e are dri&en so together that they remain united one
with the other, or if they are mo&ed with the same or different rapidity, so that they communicate their
motions one to another in a certain ratio, those bodies are called reciprocally united bodies (corpora in&icem
unita, and we say that they all form one body or indi&idual, which is distinguished from the rest by this
union of the bodies# ((pino4a, 1J7K
)pace is 'nfinite
's only $ne thing, Space, exists, there can be no boundary to Space (as a boundary is between two things
thus Space is unbounded and therefore ,nfinite# 's ;la<e famously wrote+
,f the doors of perception were cleansed, e&erything would be seen as it is, infinite# (;la<e
(pino4a states the logic of One Infinite (ubstance+
Io two or more substances can ha&e the same attribute and it appertains to the nature of substance that it
should exist# ,t must therefore exist finitely or infinitely# .ut not finitely# (or it would then be limited by
some other substance of the same nature which also of necessity must existE and then two substances would
be granted ha&ing the same attribute, which is absurd# ,t will exist, therefore, infinitely# ((pino4a
)pace is Continuous
/here can be no 9Particles9 because 9Particles9 require two things 2 the 9Particle9 and the Space around the
9Particle9, thus Space is a continuous medium# $r as Aristotle says+
/his shows us two thingsE you cannot ha&e parts of the infinite and the infinite is indi&isible# (Aristotle
)pace is 2geless and /ternal
/here are two separate arguments for an ageless and eternal Space which logically support one another+
i 's only one thing, Space, exists, there can be no creation of Space as creation requires two things (Space,
and that which is not Space but created Space thus Space is 'geless and !ternal#
' substance cannot be produced from anything else E it will therefore be its own cause, that is, its essence
necessarily in&ol&es existence, or existence appertains to the nature of it# ((pino4a, 1J7K
ii /ime is a consequence of the (inite 6elocity of :a&es in Space, thus it ta0es time for a :a&e to flow
from place to place# /ime does not exist as a thing in itself, it is, li0e the 9Particle9, an effect of :a&es in
Space, not a cause> /hus /ime only applies to :a&es in Space (i#e# matter and not to Space itself#
/herefore Space was not created for this requires the concept of time (that the Space that now exists was
created at some time in the past thus Space is 'geless and !ternal# (Space simply exists#
,t need hardly be pointed out that with things that do not change there is no illusion with respect to time,
gi&en the assumption of their unchangeability# (Aristotle
+ntroduction - Spino/a ;etaphysics' =ne +nfinite Substance >Fod, Eature, Space? - Spino/a ;etaphysics
of ;otion - Top of 6a&e
&etaphysics of &otion
;enedict de (pino4a on the Interconnected &otions of &atter
Io one doubts but that we imagine ti-e from the &ery fact that we imagine other bodies to be -o,ed
slower or faster or equally fast# :e are accustomed to determine duration by the aid of some measure of
-otion# !"pino#a, thics$
:hen a number of bodies of the same or different si7e are dri&en so together that they remain united one
with the other, or if they are mo&ed with the same or different rapidity, so that they communicate their
motions one to another in a certain ratio, those bodies are called reciprocally united bodies (corpora in&icem
unita, and we say that they all form one body or indi&idual, which is distinguished from the rest by this
union of the bodies# ((pino4a, !thics, p5<
/he Spherical Standing +a,e &otion of (pace causes matter9s acti&ity and the phenomena of Ti-e# /his
confirms Aristotle and (pino4a?s connection of 8otion and /ime, and most significantly connects these
two things bac0 to one thing Space#
8otion must always ha&e been in existence, and the same can be said for time itself, since it is not e&en
possible for there to be an earlier and a later if time does not exist# 8o&ement, then, is also continuous in the
way in which time is 2 indeed time is either identical to mo&ement or is some affection of it# (/here is,
howe&er, only one continuous mo&ement, namely spatial mo&ement, and of this only circular rotation#
(Aristotle, 8etaphysics
On Mathematics, Mathematical Physics, Truth and %eality
I$/!E /hese pages deal with the Philosophy and 8etaphysics of 8athematics and the 8athematical
treatment of the :a&e Structure of 8atter (:S8# /he theoretical physic pages (Buantum /heory,
!instein9s 5elati&ity and *osmology are treated separately#
8athematics is, , belie&e, the chief source of the belief in eternal and exact truth,
as well as a sensible intelligible world# (.ertrand 5ussell
8athematics has the completely false reputation of yielding infallible conclusions# ,ts infallibility is nothing
but identity# /wo times two is not four, but it is )ust two times two, and that is what we call four for short#
.ut four is nothing new at all# 'nd thus it goes on and on in its conclusions, except that in the higher
formulas the identity fades out of sight# (Sohann :olfgang 6on ?oethe
Content
-ello !&eryone,
/his page has the following content+
:hat is 8athematics and how can it !xist in the %ni&erse#
Iewton replaced *ausal *onnection of 5eality with *ausal *onnection of 8athematics
8athematics @oes not @escribe 5eality, only its Buantities
8athematical ('xiomatic /ruths 6s# /ruths of Physical 5eality
!mpirical (acts 6s# /heoretical ,nterpretations
!ssays on Philosophy " 8etaphysics of 8athematics
8athematical /reatment of the :a&e Structure of 8atter
-ope you find it interesting>
?eoff -aselhurst
#hat is Mathematics and ho! can it />ist in the 9ni"erse0
$ne reason why mathematics en)oys special esteem, abo&e all other sciences, is that its propositions are
absolutely certain and indisputable, ### -ow can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human
thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the ob)ects of reality# ('lbert
!instein
?i&en the :a&e Structure of 8atter in Space it is now possible to explain what mathematics is, how it can
exist in the uni&erse, and thus why it is so well suited for describing physical quantities (mathematical
physics#
(or mathematics to exist physical reality must+
i *ontain discrete " finite quantities (that can thus be counted " numbered#
ii /hese discrete things must be necessarily connected to one another (so they interact in a logical manner#
/he :a&e Structure of 8atter confirms this#
Aogic comes from the necessary interconnection and beha&ior of the spherical in out wa&e motions of
Space, which is determined by the properties of Space (existing as a wa&e medium# ,n particular, wa&es
form into complex wa&e patterns that interact logically " necessarily, and which are represented by our
larger scale patterns that we call numbers#
Buantities include the wa&elength, &elocity, frequency and amplitude of the wa&es, their energy, and the
number of wa&e center 9particles9 that exist in Space#
'nd now, than0s to some great wa&e machine technology you can actually see how wa&es can form patterns
" numbers# /hus you can see for yoursel&es how mathematical logic can exist in the uni&erse due to the
logical interconnection of wa&e patterns#
<esearchers at ,ishima
:aboratories >;itsui Qosen?, worin&
in con$unction with professor Shi&eru
Eaito of =saa 7niversity, have
developed a device that uses waves
to draw text and pictures on the
surface of water.
/he de&ice, called '8$!.'
('d&anced 8ultiple $rgani7ed
!xperimental .asin, consists of 5<
water wa&e generators encircling a
cylindrical tan0 1#J meters in
diameter and K< cm deep# '8$!.'
is capable of spelling out the entire
roman alphabet# !ach letter or picture
remains on the water surface only for
a moment, but they can be produced
in succession on the surface e&ery K
seconds#

Mathematics and Music
/he relationship between mathematics and music (&ibrations " sound wa&es is also well 0nown, and in
hindsight it is ob&ious that mathematics, maths physics, music (sound wa&es and musical instruments exist
because matter is a wa&e structure of Space# /his is why all matter &ibrates and has a resonant frequency#
8athematics may be considered as a logical relationship language de&eloped upon the concept " definition
of one# (rom this one, we can logically define two, three, etc# which we call numbers# -ence a number is
some relationship to one#
$nce we ha&e whole numbers then we can define add, subtract, multiply and di&ide# (ractions, squares,
cubes, etc, all became possible, as more and more complexly defined relationships between numbers
e&ol&ed#
(rom this unity of one, a language with a set of logical rules has e&ol&ed which enables us to exactly
compare the quantitati&e relationship between different things# 's .ertrand 5ussell wrote+
8athematical 0nowledge is, in fact, merely &erbal 0nowledge# PKP means P;T1P, and PLP means PKT1P#
-ence it follows (though the proof is long that PLP means the same as P;T;P# /hus mathematical
0nowledge ceases to be mysterious# (.ertrand 5ussell, -istory of :estern Philosophy
/he next thing we must consider is how our mind can create and understand this precise mathematical logic,
as .rouwer states+
$ne cannot inquire into the foundations and nature of mathematics without del&ing into the question of the
operations by which the mathematical acti&ity of the mind is conducted# ,f one failed to ta0e that into
account, then one would be left studying only the language in which mathematics is represented rather than
the essence of mathematics# (Auit7en .rouwer
,f we consider life on earth one billion years ago, humans did not exist# /hus mathematics existence must be
found by considering the e&olution of the human brain and mind# :hy has the brain e&ol&ed such that it is
able to de&elop and understand mathematics, which then allows a mathematical 9description9 of IatureF
/he answer is found by considering our e&olution# /he mind can be considered as a relationship machine
which has e&ol&ed to understand the logical consistency of the world about us and hence relate things in a
systematic and logical manner#
e#g# $nce eating poison fruit was related with dying, then this relationship remained true and consistent# ,n
this way a logical mind is a natural e&olutionary consequence of the logical uni&erse (as it enhances our
sur&i&al#
/his is why we are able to thin0 in terms of mathematics# $ur brain is a logical relationship machine, and
mathematics is a logical relationship language# ('nd yes, we are also highly emotional creatures too 2 so our
mind has a complex mix of logical and illogical " emotional aspects#
e!ton replaced Causal Connection of %eality !ith Causal Connection of Mathematics
Since Iewton mathematics has replaced reality as the source of causal connection, where continuous forces
connect discrete matter particles in space and time# !&en Iewton realised this limitation, but since
mathematical physics wor0s so well it was forgotten# 's Iewton and !instein wrote+
,t is inconcei&able that inanimate brute matter should, without mediation of something else which is not
matter, operate on and affect other matter without mutual contact# ### /hat gra&ity should be innate, inherent
and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at2a2distance, through a &acuum, without the
mediation of anything else by and through which their action may be con&eyed from one to another, is to me
so great an absurdity that , belie&e no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of
thin0ing, can e&er fall into it# So far , ha&e explained the phenomena by the force of gra&ity, but , ha&e not
yet ascertained the cause of gra&ity itself# ### and , do not arbitrarily in&ent hypotheses# (Iewton# Aetter to
5ichard .entley ;5 (eb# 1J9K
,n Iewtonian physics the elementary theoretical concept on which the theoretical description of material
bodies is based is the material point, or particle# /hus matter is considered a priori to be discontinuous# /his
ma0es it necessary to consider the action of material points on one another as action2at2a2distance# Since the
latter concept seems quite contrary to e&eryday experience, it is only natural that the contemporaries of
Iewton 2 and indeed Iewton himself 2 found it difficult to accept# $wing to the almost miraculous success
of the Iewtonian system, howe&er, the succeeding generations of physicists became used to the idea of
action2at2a2distance# 'ny doubt was buried for a long time to come# ('lbert !instein, 195<
P:hen we attribute this strange attracti&e property to massi&e particles, aren9t we indulging in metaphysicsF
(or we are saying, indeed, that matter has a inner, acti&e principleE matter attracts matter# 't the time,
physicists (who called themsel&es Pnatural philosophersP accused Iewton of doing exactly that, indulging
in metaphysics, and the followers of @escartes (mostly in (rance couldn9t stomach the law of gra&itation#
:hat can we say in Iewton9s defenseF :ell, surely he was indulging in metaphysics, but with a differenceE
he wasn9t )ust saying, li0e others had been doing for centuries, that things ha&e an inner, acti&e principle and
lea&ing it at that+ he ga&e a mathematical law for that inner, acti&e principle# /hat made a lot of difference#
-e abstained from answering the metaphysical question, P:hat is this attracti&e forceFP 5ather, he )ust ga&e
a mathematical formula for it# Still, the main reason for the acceptance of Iewton9s gra&itation was its
tremendous success# 's the saying goes, nothing succeeds li0e success#P (Prof# 5icardo Iirenberg, 1997
/his is why mathematicians now seem so s0eptical of 8etaphysics as they use their mathematics to connect
things instead# .ut mathematics does not exist in some magical realm 2 it exists in physical reality and
depends upon it for its necessary connection#
:e now 0now this causal connection 2 matter is a spherical wa&e structure where the wa&e center 9particle9
is in continual two way communication with all other matter in the obser&able uni&erse due to its spherical
in and out wa&es# So one substance space (and its wa&e motions is the ultimate foundation for the causal
connection of both physical reality and mathematical physics#
Mathematics .oes ot .escribe %eality, Only its Quantities
,t is commonly written by maths physicists that the correct language for describing reality is mathematics
(which is hardly surprising gi&en their de&otion to the sub)ect# /hus they tend to be dismissi&e of
philosophy " metaphysics and the belief of the ancients ('ristotle in particular that we could directly
describe reality with e&eryday language and concepts#
, ha&e added some of the most important physics quotes below relating to this 2 and in each case , as0 that
you consider two things+
i /o 0eep the :a&e Structure of 8atter (:S8 in mind (thus matter is a spatially extended spherical
standing wa&e structure of the uni&erse, not a tiny particle#
ii 'nd to question the source of the truth as to their claims (as you will see, they )ust state things, there is no
proof, thus in reality it is merely opinion#
### the progress of science has itself shown that there can be no pictorial representation of the wor0ings of
nature of a 0ind that would be intelligible to our limited minds# /he study of physics has dri&en us to the
positi&ist conception of physics# :e can ne&er understand what e&ents are, but must limit oursel&es to
describing the pattern of e&ents in mathematical termsE no other aim is possible #### the final har&est will
always be a sheaf of mathematical formulae# /hese will ne&er describe nature itself, but only our
obser&ations on nature# (Sir Sames Seans, 19L;
8athematics is the only good metaphysics# (:illiam /homson .aron Qel&in
/he idea that something can be both a wa&e and a particle defies imagination, but the existence of this
wa&e2particle PdualityP is not in doubt# ### ,t is impossible to &isuali7e a wa&e2particle, so don9t try# ## /he
notion of a particle being Pe&erywhere at onceP is impossible to imagine# (Paul @a&ies, Superforce
(rom these experiments it is seen that both matter and radiation possess a remar0able duality of character, as
they sometimes exhibit the properties of wa&es, at other times those of particles# Iow it is ob&ious that a
thing cannot be a form of wa&e motion and composed of particles at the same time 2 the two concepts are
too different# ### /he solution of the difficulty is that the two mental pictures which experiment lead us to
form 2 the one of the particles, the other of the wa&es 2 are both incomplete and ha&e only the &alidity of
analogies which are accurate only in limiting cases# ### Aight and matter are both single entities, and the
apparent duality arises in the limitations of our language# ###
,t is not surprising that our language should be incapable of describing the processes occurring within the
atoms, for, as has been remar0ed, it was in&ented to describe the experiences of daily life, and these consist
only of processes in&ol&ing exceedingly large numbers of atoms# (urthermore, it is &ery difficult to modify
our language so that it will be able to describe these atomic processes, for words can only describe things of
which we can form mental pictures, and this ability, too, is a result of daily experience# (ortunately,
mathematics is not sub)ect to this limitation, and it has been possible to in&ent a mathematical scheme 2 the
quantum theory 2 which seems entirely adequate for the treatment of atomic processes+ for &isuali7ation,
howe&er, we must content oursel&es with two incomplete analogies 2 the wa&e picture and the corpuscular
picture#P (-eisenberg, 19K<
-eisenberg is certainly correct that 9Aight and matter are both single entities, and the apparent duality arises
in the limitations of our language#9
/he mista0e was to assume that this limitation was inherent in our language, thus we could ne&er directly
describe reality and must limit oursel&es to describing the 9pattern of e&ents in mathematical terms9#
's it turns out the limitation came from ha&ing the wrong language 2 a language founded on discrete
9particles9 in space2time (mathematical rather than spherical standing wa&es in space (physical# 'nd some
maths physicists ha&e come to this same conclusion as to the limitations of mathematical physics, as @yson
writes+
, am acutely aware of the fact that the marriage between mathematics and physics, which was so
enormously fruitful in past centuries, has recently ended in di&orce# ( (reeman Sohn @yson, 8issed
$pportunities
:e can now clearly understand how a 9particle9
can exist 9e&erywhere at once9> as the 9particle9
effect is formed at the wa&e center of Spherical
Standing :a&e the si7e of the obser&able
uni&erse# 'nd this solution is really &ery ob&ious
once considered>
/hus the reason why we can ha&e a pictorial
representation of reality is because the wa&e
nature of reality causes numerous wa&e
phenomena (sound wa&es, wa&es on water, etc
all around us such that our minds ha&e e&ol&ed a
suitable language to describe reality#
-istory shows that the particle2wa&e duality for both light and matter has pu77led and decei&ed our greatest
thin0ers o&er the past eighty years since its disco&ery# ,t has resulted in the seemingly strange paradox of
.ohr9s 9*openhagen @octrine9 that the particle and the wa&e somehow 9complement9 one another and
represent a limitation in the ability of our human languages to describe reality# /his led Physicists to accept
the particle2wa&e duality and to belie&e that no further enquiry could be made into the true nature of reality#
's (eynman writes, when discussing the beha&ior of a light 9photon particle9 in the double slit experiment+
/he more you see how strangely Iature beha&es, the harder it is to ma0e a model that explains how e&en
the simplest phenomena actually wor0# So theoretical physics has gi&en up on that# ### :hat , am going to
tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school### ,t is my
tas0 to con&ince you not to turn away because you don9t understand it# Nou see my physics students don9t
understand it# ### /hat is because , don9t understand it# Iobody does# (5ichard P# (eynman, /he Strange
/heory of Aight and 8atter
!ffecti&ely we ha&e accepted a paradox of the particle " wa&e duality and assumed it must be true and
therefore we cannot understand reality 2 and this has become a self fulfilling prophecy (thus physicists
stopped loo0ing for a physical description of reality#
So there is a certain irony in the following quote from (eynman 2 as it is actually quite close to the truth# '
spherical standing wa&e is li0e the many layers of an onion>
People say to me, P're you loo0ing for the ultimate laws of physicsFP Io, ,9m not### ,f it turns out there is a
simple ultimate law which explains e&erything, so be it^ that would be &ery nice to disco&er# ,f it turns out
it9s li0e an onion with millions of layers### then that9s the way it is# ($ichard Feyn-an
Mathematical Truths Bs Truths of Physical %eality
/oday9s scientists ha&e substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after
equation, and e&entually build a structure which has no relation to reality# (Ii0ola /esla
,nterestingly though, once we ha&e a logical language which describes the mathematical relationship
between ob)ects, then we can do away with the ob)ects and simply consider the exact logical (mathematical
relationships# -ence mathematics has a remar0able power which people did not understand, that further
enhanced its mystical aspect#
8athematics was associated with a more refined type of error# 8athematical 0nowledge appeared to be
certain, exact, and applicable to the real world+ moreo&er it was obtained by mere thin0ing, without the need
of obser&ation# *onsequently, it was thought to supply an ideal, from which e&eryday empirical 0nowledge
fell short# ,t was supposed on the basis of mathematics, that thought is superior to sense, intuition to
obser&ation# ,f the world of sense does not fit mathematics, so much the worse for the world of sense# ###
/his form of philosophy begins with Pythagoras# (.ertrand 5ussell
-erein lies the great wea0ness, and the great strength of mathematics# ,t is possible to e&ol&e more and more
complex relationships between things, which shed light on ideas far beyond the original relationships#
%nfortunately, it is also possible that these things do not actually exist, except as e&ol&ed complex
mathematical relationships#
/he s0eptic will sayE P,t may well be true that this system of equations is reasonable from a logical
standpoint# .ut this does not pro&e that it corresponds to nature#P Nou are right, dear s0eptic# !xperience
alone can decide on truth# ### Pure logical thin0ing cannot yield us any 0nowledge of the empirical worldE all
0nowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it#
('lbert !instein, 195L
Some things that satisfy the rules of algebra can be interesting to mathematicians e&en though they don9t
always represent a real situation# (5ichard P# (eynman
(rom this we can conclude that there are two types of mathematical truths#
i 8athematical /ruths only#
ii 8athematical /ruths which also correspond to Physical 5eality#
'n important example of a mathematical truth which is also true of physical reality is Pythagoras9
theorem# /his is the reason for this relationship4s great power, and its use in !instein9s metrics#
(SeeE @educing the 8ost Simple Science /heory of 5eality
(or an example of a simple mathematical truth only, let us consider the partial reflection of light by glass of
&arying thic0ness# ,f we assume that the light is either reflected by the front surface of the glass or the bac0
surface of the glass, then by summing (eynman9s probability arrows for both paths we can correctly
calculate the probability of light reflecting from any thic0ness of glass#
.ut you may rightly as0, what are 9surfaces9, and how do they reflect lightF
'nd you would of course be wasting your time, because light does not reflect from the surface of glass# 's
(eynman writes+
/hus we can get the correct answer for the probability of partial reflection by imagining (falsely that all
reflection comes from only the front and bac0 surfaces# ,n this intuiti&ely easy analysis, the 9front surface9
and 9bac0 surface9 arrows are mathematical constructions that gi&e us the right answer, whereas #### a more
accurate representation of what is really going onE partial reflection is the scattering of light by electrons
inside the glass# (5ichard P# (eynman
/his is a fundamental limitation of mathematics# ,t is quite possible to ha&e a true mathematical relationship,
that suggests a particular physical model, and yet the theory may be completely wrong# /his ma0es
mathematics &ery confusing and decepti&e#
, mention this because it is &ery important in explaining why mathematical physics is now so absurd as
many of its mathematical truths ha&e been misunderstood, which has resulted in incorrect theoretical
interpretations (which is why a correct 0nowledge of physical reality is so important to mathematicians "
mathematical physics#
/mpirical Facts Bs Theoretical 'nterpretations
/here are three &ery important errors currently in modern physics that relate to this confusion between
empirical facts and theoretical interpretations#
Light and the .iscrete Photon Particle
Aight is empirically consistent with the idea of light as photon particles with discrete energy (the
photoelectric effect# .ut the beha&ior of light is also consistent with the idea that light is a wa&e
(interference, diffraction, two slit experiment# /his has of course led to famous paradox of the particle "
wa&e duality for light# So how can this inconsistent relationship between light wa&es and photon particles be
trueF
/he solution is simple once 0nown#
,t is an empirical fact that light energy is discrete 2 it is an incorrect theoretical interpretation that light is a
discrete particle#
/he correct theoretical interpretation is pro&ided by the wa&e structure of matter, as resonant coupling only
occurs at discrete frequencies, thus all light interactions are discrete#
So we see that the 9photon particle9 is equi&alent to light reflecting of the surface of glass# /hey are both
incorrect theoretical interpretations of empirical facts " physical truths# /hus we can now explain light4s dual
nature in terms of a wa&e theory, while accepting the empirical truth of its particle nature " discrete energy
exchange#
/instein1s %elati"ity& Constant Belocity of Light $ Changing Time
,n 19<5 'lbert !instein published his theory on the photoelectric effect, and the idea of light as discrete
bundles of energy (for which he recei&ed a Iobel pri7e in 19;1# !instein was a ;J year old mathematical
physicist who was &ery cle&er at finding mathematical relationships that were consistent with experiment#
-e also published his theory of special relati&ity at this time# /herefore it is hardly surprising to find that
this is also a mathematical relationship which is not physically true#
,n special relati&ity (non accelerating reference frames it is assumed that the &elocity of light is constant
(principle of relati&ity# -owe&er, while it is an empirical fact that the &elocity of light is always measured
to be the same, it is a theoretical interpretation that the &elocity of light is constant (a subtle but important
difference#
's the :a&e Structure of 8atter shows, the &elocity of light actually changes, but the wa&elength and thus
dimension also changes which results in the &elocity of light always being measured the same#
Nou can see why this is mathematically true by considering the metric equations of special relati&ity (which
is simply Pythagoras9 /heorem applied to the three spatial co2ordinates, and equating them to the
displacement of a ray of light#
Special relati&ity is still based directly on an empirical law, that of the constancy of the &elocity of light#
dx
;
T dy
;
T d7
;
U(cdt
;
where cdt is the distance tra&eled by light c in time dt#
/he fact that such a metric is called !uclidean is connected with the following# /he postulation of such a
metric in a three dimensional continuum is fully equi&alent to the postulation of the axioms of !uclidean
?eometry# /he defining equation of the metric is then nothing but the Pythagorean theorem applied to the
differentials of the co2ordinates#
,n the special theory of relati&ity those co2ordinate changes (by transformation are permitted for which also
in the new co2ordinate system the quantity (cdt
;
equals the sum of the squares of the co2ordinate
differentials# Such transformations are called Aorent7 transformations# (Albert 'instein, 19KL
.ecause it is true mathematically that cdt U tdc then you can 0eep the &elocity of light constant, and change
the time as !instein did, or you can 0eep time constant and change &elocity of light as the wa&e structure of
matter requires# .oth will still be consistent with the empirical fact that we always measure the &elocity of
light to be the same# .ut only the wa&e structure of matter is physically true (the &elocity of light does
actually change>#
, realise this is confusing 2 but it is )ust a quir0 of physical reality (not my fault># 'nd this confusion is now
endemic throughout modern physics so understanding the truth of what is actually going on in physical
reality is &ery important> (:e ha&e some good pages on !instein9s theory of relati&ity if you want to
understand this better#
%edshift !ith .istance is .ue to .oppler )hifts Thus 9ni"erse is />panding
,t is an empirical fact that we obser&e a redshift with distance# -owe&er, it is a theoretical interpretation that
the redshift is due to a @oppler shift " receding &elocity, thus the uni&erse is expanding#
/he physically true cause (correct theoretical interpretation is that redshift with distance is due to
decreasing wa&e interactions with distance# i#e# Space is infinite, but our 9obser&able9 uni&erse (as part of
infinite space is finite and spherical# /hus as two wa&e center 9particles9 mo&e further apart, there is less
o&erlap of their respecti&e obser&able spherical uni&erses, thus less wa&e interactions " energy exchange,
which must cause a redshift with distance# /he uni&erse is not expanding 2 there was no .ig .ang# ,t is &ery
simple#
*osmology 2 -ow our finite spherical obser&able uni&erse exists within infinite eternal Space# !ffecti&ely
each wa&e center 9particle9 is at the center of its obser&able uni&erse, and its in wa&es are formed from this
other matter9s out wa&es (also see -uygens Principle#
/he *osmological25edshift !xplained by the ,ntersection of -ubble Spheres ($bser&able %ni&erse# /he
cosmological redshift is described by the intersection of two -ubble spheres, where a -ubble sphere is
defined as a range o&er which spherical quantum2wa&es interact, specifically 5u U 1#9 _ 1<;J m# (8ichael
-arney
Conclusion
,t is clear that this misunderstanding of the complex mix of mathematical truths and physical truths 2
empirical facts and theoretical interpretations is creating ha&oc in modern physics (and allowing all sorts of
nonsense to be published#
-owe&er, by understanding the physical truth of the wa&e structure of matter in space it becomes possible to
separate mathematical truths from physical truths by ha&ing the correct theoretical foundations# /his will
ob&iously ha&e great benefits in remo&ing the conflict and confusion that currently causes such harm not
only to mathematical physics, but to all the sciences (and ultimately our society#
Could -atter and -atter *a,es be deri,ableH
*# $# -aw0ings and 5# 8# -aw0ings
%erici /ollege0 .raddon0 -./.. -ustralia 1234
/he similarity in beha&iour between matter and radiation suggests that matter may ha&e an electromagnetic
origin# ,t is shown that two light2speed wa&es with opposite directions of propagation yield a formalism
which is identical to that describing the properties of matter# (or spherical wa&es, particle localisation is also
obtained and phase wa&es are generated, the properties of which match identically with matter wa&e
properties#
Presented as a poster at the 'ustralian ,nstitute of Physics Sixth Iational *ongress, 'ugust 19=L#
See Preamble for bac0ground information on the 'uthor and the history of his ideas on the :a&e Structure
of 8atter
+ntroduction - %ounter-&oin& @aves - #ree 6article =bserved at <est - #ree 6article in ;otion - Froup
@ave 9 6hase @ave - 7ncertainty <elations - 8ouble Slit 8iffraction - ,nnihilation 9 ;eson 8ecay -
%onsideration of ,mplitude - %oncludin& <emars - ,ppendix , Beat 6henomena - ,ppendix B Spin
*uantum Eumber - <eferences
38 'ntroduction
/he self field model of the electron (19<L 2 19<J, presented in its &aried forms by 'braham and Aorent7 V1W
, was the first electromagnetic description of matter to recei&e ma)or ac0nowledgment# /heir wor0s, which
ha&e now become classics in their own right, were significant, not only because of their technical insight but
because they symbolised a growing belief that the substance of matter was fundamentally electromagnetic#
Such a con&iction, now as then, has not been entirely unfounded when we consider that the same inertial,
gra&itational and wa&e properties are possessed by all particles whether material or electromagnetic# /he
annihilation of matter into radiation during collisions, the creation of matter from radiation and the
spontaneous decay of the
o
meson, totally and purely into radiation, add further support to this &iew#
@espite the success of the self field model, it was shown to contain difficulties V;W # @e&elopments, by @irac
(19K= VKW , 5ohrlich (19J< VLW and others, ha&e been concerned primarily with o&ercoming these problems
while attempting to 0eep the basic ideas of the model intact#
,n a different area, *oster and Shepans0i (19J9 V5W applied the same formalism to gravito-inertial fields,
using 5ohrlich9s findings to circum&ent some of the earlier problems, but it has hardly drawn the same
degree of interest to date# ,n both the electromagnetic and gra&itational cases, static fields are considered
appropriate in describing a particle# 5adiating wa&es are utilised only during particle interactions# /he
difficulty here is that the matter wa&e seems to be a permanent feature of a particle+ where the particle goes
its matter wa&e follows# Aogic would therefore dictate that a more complete description should contain
undulating fields, e&en when the particle is not interacting#
/he wa&e beha&iour of matter has attracted much speculation since it was first postulated and &erified, but
ultimately a thorough grasp of the meaning of matter wa&es has remained elusi&e# $ur treatment of them as
an entirely different phenomenon, lac0ing a deeper deri&ation, may explain why attempts to better
understand them ha&e proceeded slowly and ha&e made little progress to date#
:hat follows uses a semi2classical approach which incorporates continuous light2speed wa&es# ,t attempts
to show how a pair of such wa&es, propagating in opposite directions radially from a central point, accounts
precisely for matter wa&e beha&iour# (rom this e&ol&es a description of matter itself# ?i&en the connection
between matter and radiation during interactions, we assume the light2speed wa&es are electromagnetic#
+ntroduction - %ounter-&oin& @aves - #ree 6article =bserved at <est - #ree 6article in ;otion - Froup
@ave 9 6hase @ave - 7ncertainty <elations - 8ouble Slit 8iffraction - ,nnihilation 9 ;eson 8ecay -
%onsideration of ,mplitude - %oncludin& <emars - ,ppendix , Beat 6henomena - ,ppendix B Spin
*uantum Eumber - <eferences
48 Counter5going #a"es
/wo clues suggest the abo&e approach# /he first has a tacit lin0 to the particle properties of matter and the
second to its wa&e properties# (irstly, standing wa&es, li0e particles at rest, possess energy but no net
momentum# ,t might therefore be possible to associate a free particle at rest with a standing wa&e (i#e# a pair
of identical wa&es with opposite directions of propagation# /he second clue relates to the nature of such
wa&es#
*onsider two harmonic wa&es propagating in a non2dispersi&e medium, but differing slightly in angular
frequency and wa&enumber# /his will produce temporal beats# (or wa&es propagating in the same direction,
the group speed, , and the phase speed, , equal the speed, , of the original wa&es# /hus the following
equation holds
(1
(or wa&es propagating in mutually opposed directions, equation (1 still holds, but it is easily shown
(appendix ' that and # :hen the speed of the counter2going wa&es is that of light in vacuo
and when has the &alue , equation (1 becomes,
(;
/he coincidence between (; and the famous de .roglie phase wa&e speed strongly suggests that we adopt a
model of matter wa&es represented by counter2going electromagnetic radiation#
+ntroduction - %ounter-&oin& @aves - #ree 6article =bserved at <est - #ree 6article in ;otion - Froup
@ave 9 6hase @ave - 7ncertainty <elations - 8ouble Slit 8iffraction - ,nnihilation 9 ;eson 8ecay -
%onsideration of ,mplitude - %oncludin& <emars - ,ppendix , Beat 6henomena - ,ppendix B Spin
*uantum Eumber - <eferences
E8 Free Particle Obser"ed at %est
8ore specifically, we describe an elementary particle as composed of two continuous electromagnetic
wa&es, one propagating outwardly from a source and one propagating inwardly to a sin0, the source"sin0
occupying the same position in space# /his accommodates the spherical nature of a particle VJW# /he wa&es
may be considered to represent a general solution to the wa&e equation V7W # /hey thus ha&e the same
angular frequency and wa&enumber, and , when obser&ed in the particle9s rest frame V=W # %sing
spherical polars, we collapse the irrele&ant functions of each term into a general amplitude, #
/he particle description then ta0es the form
(K
(outgoing wa&e (ingoing wa&e
where and is the energy and the magnitude of the momentum of each wa&e and
where Planc09s constant di&ided by ; # /o some degree, is arbitrary+ it may represent undulations in
the four &ector of potential or the electric field# :hether represents these or scalar wa&es, there may be
scope to introduce spin (see appendix .#
/he identity
(L
is now applied to (K to obtain
(5
,n this form, describes a spherical standing wa&e, of energy , corresponding to the rest energy of the
particle# 's will be seen later, is related to the *ompton wa&elength#
/he sine part of (5 describes the standing wa&e en&elope, which undulates radially from its source"sin0#
*onsequently, , and hence the energy density, undulates radially# $utward attenuation also occurs, due
to terms of the type , contained in # 'ssuming independence of and , these combined effects gi&e
the appearance of a localised, though smeared, particle with an internal structure in the form of a dense core
en&eloping the source"sin0 and surrounded by concentric shells of alternating high and low energy density#
/his is represented in figure 1#
,t follows from the abo&e description that the outgoing wa&e will attenuate with increasing distance from the
source"sin0, while the ingoing wa&e will grow as it approaches the source"sin0# /his is indicati&e of the
wa&e9s general beha&iour which is expressed in the following wayE the amplitude of the wave at a point
depends inversely on its displacement from its source5sin, and is independent of the path ta,en #y the wave#
!nergy lost by the outgoing wa&e is absorbed by the ingoing wa&e, gi&ing a system with no net energy loss#
/he net momentum of the system is also 7ero because of the counter2going motion of the inward and
outward wa&e# /his is a desirable condition in which the particle remains uniformly stable#
(igure 1
,mpression of a typical particle in cross section, showing shells
of high electromagnetic energy density surrounding a central core#
+ntroduction - %ounter-&oin& @aves - #ree 6article =bserved at <est - #ree 6article in ;otion - Froup
@ave 9 6hase @ave - 7ncertainty <elations - 8ouble Slit 8iffraction - ,nnihilation 9 ;eson 8ecay -
%onsideration of ,mplitude - %oncludin& <emars - ,ppendix , Beat 6henomena - ,ppendix B Spin
*uantum Eumber - <eferences
F8 Free Particle in Motion
/he standing wa&e, representati&e of the particle, is now obser&ed to mo&e at a speed in the positi&e
direction along the 72axis# ,n the obser&er9s frame, @oppler shifts occur# :e represent the energy of the
outgoing and ingoing wa&e in the obser&er9s frame by and respecti&ely, and their corresponding
momenta in this frame by and # /he relati&istic transformations for these quantities are gi&en by the
usual electromagnetic @oppler expressions, namely
(J
and
(7
where and the 7enith angle is the angle made by the obser&er9s line of &iew and the
72axis, when the source"sin0 is at the retarded position V9W # ,nterestingly, by interchanging the signs in
equations (J and (7, it can be shown that (for a gi&en the energy and momentum of an outgoing wa&e
whose source mo&es in one direction are indistinguishable from the energy and momentum of an ingoing
wa&e whose sin0 mo&es in the opposite direction at the same speed#
/he non2rest expression equi&alent to (K is then gi&en by
(=
(outgoing wa&e (ingoing wa&e
'pplying identity (L gi&es
(9
where
, (1<a, (1<b
and
, (11a, (11b
' comparison of (5 and (9 indicates that the particle, seen in its rest frame as a standing wa&e, is now
percei&ed in the new frame as beats, the result of interference between the @oppler shifted ingoing and
outgoing wa&es# /he amplitude modulations are expressed by the sine function, in the square brac0eted part
of (9, and tra&el with the source"sin0, since they correspond to the standing wa&e obser&ed in motion#
:hat is interesting is the way in which the energy and momentum of the particle (contained in the
exponential part of (9 ha&e transformed# /hese quantities are gi&en in (11, in terms of the energy and
momentum of the ingoing and outgoing wa&e# Substituting the transformations (J and (7 into (11 gi&es
the energy and momentum of the particle more explicitly# /hese are
(1;
and
(1K
/he transformations for and are found in a similar way by substituting (J and (7 into (1<# /his
gi&es
(1L
and
(15
/he longitudinal quantities ( , corresponding to a head2on obser&ation, are of particular interest#
/hese are
, (1Ja,(1Jb
and
, (17a,(17b
where omission of the subscript indicates that the quantity is longitudinal and where is the unit &ector,
directed along the line of motion of the source"sin0# (rom these the longitudinal phase and group speeds are
obtained, namely
(1=
and
(19
/hus, (1Ja and (1Jb correspond precisely to the relati&istic equations of a particle9s energy and
momentum, respecti&ely# /hese, of course, are normally found from mechanical considerations (where
is defined as the relati&istic 9mass9, , of the particle# Similarly, (1= and (19 describe,
identically, the de .roglie phase and group speeds of a particle9s matter wa&e#
/able 1 summarises both sets of equations, mechanically deri&ed and deri&ed using electromagnetic
counter2going wa&es for comparison# /he similarity between both sets of equations might imply a lin0
between them, but identical agreement strongly suggests an intimate connection that cannot be readily
disregarded# /his must be appreciated in the light of general obser&ations that matter and radiation often
appear together during interactions and that they are capable of con&erting from one form entirely into the
other# ?i&en this, one must seriously consider the notion that matter may be composed of a pair of
electromagnetic wa&es whose beha&iour is as described abo&e#
P'5/,*A!
B%'I/,/N
@!5,6!@ (5$8
8!*-'I,*'A
*$IS,@!5'/,$IS
@!5,6!@ (5$8 !8
*$%I/!52?$,I? :'6!S
5est energy ( (K
Ion2rest energy (
(1Ja
8omentum (
(1Jb
de .roglie group speed
(
(19
de .roglie phase speed
(
(1=
/able 1
+ntroduction - %ounter-&oin& @aves - #ree 6article =bserved at <est - #ree 6article in ;otion - Froup
@ave 9 6hase @ave - 7ncertainty <elations - 8ouble Slit 8iffraction - ,nnihilation 9 ;eson 8ecay -
%onsideration of ,mplitude - %oncludin& <emars - ,ppendix , Beat 6henomena - ,ppendix B Spin
*uantum Eumber - <eferences
D8 The :roup #a"e and Phase #a"e
!quation (9, rewritten here for con&enience, describes both the particle2li0e and the wa&e2li0e attributes of
the particle#
(9
,ts shell (and hence particle structure is represented by the sine function in (9# ,t can be shown that the
shells tra&el with the source"sin0 at the group speed, # /he locus of wa&efronts for each shell can be
mapped by equating the argument of the sine function to ( and finding the magnitude,
, of position &ectors at a gi&en time, # /he subscript 9g9 in is used as a reminder that these wa&efronts
are associated with the group wa&es of the particle# /his yields wa&efronts described by
(;<
/he first term on the right of (;<, equates the motion of the shells to that of the source"sin0, where both
mo&e with the &elocity of the 9particle9# ,n essence, the beha&iour and structure of the shells inextricably
defines the nature and internal structure of the particle itself, each shell corresponding to a region of high
energy density#
/he shape of each shell is described by the second term on the right of (;<# /his term ranges in between
and , as ranges from to , respecti&ely# /his indicates a general contraction along
the line of motion at relati&istic speeds# /he numerator also diminishes rapidly for small &alues, resulting
in an 9indentation9 near the 72axis# (igure ;(a shows longitudinal sections through successi&e shells where,
at relati&istic speeds, both length contraction and indentation are significant# 5otation of each profile about
the 72axis generates the shell9s K2dimensional form which, loosely spea0ing, is similar to that of a red blood
corpuscle or a circular cushion drawn tightly at the centre by a string# 't non2relati&istic speeds ( ,
the second term is independent of , yielding shells which re&ert essentially to spheres#
(a (b
(igure ;
's shown in (a, the core and shells of high energy density become longitudinally contracted and indented
close to the 72axis (hori7ontal line in (ig# ;b at relati&istic speeds# (igure (b is a schematic representation
of the first few inner wa&efronts for both the group and phase wa&es as they would typically appear in the
relati&istic frame at #
/he second term can be used to determine the wa&elength, , associated with the shells for a
gi&en angle, # 't rest, this reduces to the *ompton wa&elength, , corresponding to the wa&elength
of the spherical standing wa&e obser&ed at rest# /his gi&es importance and rele&ance to the *ompton
wa&elength which, hitherto, had meaning only as a mathematical constant when dealing with specific
photon2matter interactions# 8oreo&er, as the shells contract longitudinally at relati&istic speeds, so too does
(longitudinal wa&elength# *onsequently, increases accordingly# /his explains why a
particle is percei&ed to increase its energy ( and momentum ( when obser&ed in
motion+ it arises as a natural consequence of longitudinal length contraction#
/he phase wa&e, described by the exponential function in (9, contributes to the wa&e beha&iour of the
particle (i#e# matter wa&es# .y equating the argument of the exponential function to and finding the
magnitude, , of position &ectors at time , we obtain
(;1
where the subscript 9 9 in ser&es as a reminder that the wa&efronts are associated with the phase wa&e#
/he first term on the right of (;1 expresses the phase speed of the wa&efronts which correlates directly with
the phase speed associated with matter wa&es, namely # /he second term on the right maps the
wa&efronts of the phase wa&e# ,t is clear from this term that a contraction at relati&istic speeds occurs,
similar to the contraction associated with the shells in equation (;<# 'n indentation also de&elops near the
72axis at relati&istic speeds for the same reason that applied to the shells+ reduction of the numerator occurs
at small &alues# -owe&er, for the phase wa&e this becomes less important at larger &alues of as the
denominator in (;1, go&erned by the cosine function, dominates# /his produces a 9flattening9 of the
wa&efronts into planes perpendicular to the 72axis at large &alues of # (igure ;(b shows the first few inner
cur&es generated by both and at , for # /he closed cur&es correspond to longitudinal
sections through successi&e shells of the particle, while the open cur&es describe wa&efronts of the phase
wa&e of the 9particle9#
/he shapes of the wa&efronts in (;1 are particularly interesting at non2relati&istic speeds# ,n this case, (
, equation (;1 reduces to
(;;
5emar0ably, , so that (;; describes planes perpendicular to the direction of the source"sin09s
motion, tra&elling in the same direction as this motion at the speed # /he 9dimple9 effect near the 72axis
becomes negligible at non2relati&istic speeds# /he wa&efronts would therefore correspond to plane wa&es
coming from behind the source"sin0, passing through it and continuing on in the same direction ahead of it
at the phase speed gi&en by (1=# /his is exactly the description associated with the matter wa&e of a
particle# ' schematic diagram of the phase wa&e and group wa&e, at low speeds ( , is shown in
figure K#
(igure K
' schematic diagram of the non2relati&istic 9particle9 in motion source"sin0,
group wa&e (core and shells and phase wa&e (plane wa&e V1<W
!&en at , de&iation from plane wa&es is &ery slight V11W # /his is highly significant, since plane
wa&es are an essential condition in explaining obser&ed particle diffraction, a principle which cannot be
under&alued in this approach# 'lthough there is no question of the importance of matter wa&es as a tool for
describing particle beha&iour, until now such wa&es ha&e been proposed without 9real9 foundation# /heir
origins e&ol&ed historically, more as a necessity to account for obser&ations than to de&elop a formalism
based on first principles# /his has remained a failing in our understanding of them and has, till now, led to
the unpalatable &erdict that matter wa&es are a 9new9 and unusual phenomenon for which no deri&ation
seems possible# /he present approach, howe&er, clearly establishes a foundation for the origin of such
wa&es based on electromagnetic counter2going wa&es# ,t is interesting and rewarding that plane wa&es ha&e
arisen naturally from spherical considerations of a particle, thus accommodating both the wa&e and particle
attributes of matter#
+ntroduction - %ounter-&oin& @aves - #ree 6article =bserved at <est - #ree 6article in ;otion - Froup
@ave 9 6hase @ave - 7ncertainty <elations - 8ouble Slit 8iffraction - ,nnihilation 9 ;eson 8ecay -
%onsideration of ,mplitude - %oncludin& <emars - ,ppendix , Beat 6henomena - ,ppendix B Spin
*uantum Eumber - <eferences
?8 9ncertainty %elations and Onion )=in Layering
/he radial fall2off of the wa&e9s energy density ensures that the particle has no well defined boundary, as
shown in figure 1# /his poses the difficulty of establishing when a particle is completely detected# *learly, a
particle9s detection cannot occur unless its source"sin0 is absorbed+ we ta0e this as the definition of particle
detection#
(rom figure L, the source"sin0 is confined to the region of the central core# /hus, particle absorption
(source"sin0 absorption is assured only with the complete arri&al of the central core# (or this to occur, the
time, , during which the detector is switched on must equal or exceed the time, , it ta0es for the central
core to arri&e at the detector (i#e# # /he longitudinal width of the central core is gi&en by
and is related to and the group speed, , by # %sing these three expressions and ,
we obtain
(;K
(igure L
@etector must be on for a time, 6t, greater than the time,
g
, of total reception of the central core at the
detector (i#e# 6t
K

g
# /he distance of flight, 6', of the central core must exceed the width, l
g
, during
reception of the central core at the detector (i#e# 6'
K
l
g
#
/he distance, , o&er which the particle tra&els while the detector is on must also equal or exceed the core
width, , if absorption is to be assured (i#e# # /hus,
(;L
Pinpointing the source"sin0 might be regarded as certain to within the half2width of the central core, in
which case the right2hand2side of (;K and (;L becomes # ,n either case, both the formalism and
interpretation here are similar to those of the uncertainty relations#
,n accordance with this principle, at rest is 7ero and is undefined, as expected# /here is, howe&er,
one significant difference# 't rest, is , placing an upper limit on equal to the *ompton
wa&elength, # ,n other words, the source"sin0 at rest cannot be located within a region, in absolute terms,
smaller than this &alue# /his is because smaller si7es would not include the entire central core# -eisenberg9s
principle, of course, places no such limit, upper or lower, on # /his may allow the *ompton wa&elength
to ser&e as the standard way of expressing the si7e of all particles at rest# (or the proton, this &alue is 1#K;1
fm#
5esults of p2p scattering at 9<
o
found by '0erlof (19JJ V1;W re&eal, for the proton, a central core of radius
<#KK fm and two outer shells at <#5< fm and <#9; fm from the centre# /he spherical shells predicted by
equation (5 are found by maximising # /hese maxima"minima occur (due to the factor at
, where is an integer# %sing the *ompton wa&elength, 1#K;1 fm, and enumerating for 1, ;
and K yields <#K;9 fm, <#J59 fm and <#=9= fm# 'lthough a number of interpretations for the
scattering results are possible, the correlation between measured &alues and those predicted by equation (5
are surprisingly consistent, especially considering that the amplitude function played no role
in the calculations# 5adial fall2off might explain non2detection of further layers beyond #
!lectron scattering experiments suggest a picture of the electron that is more a0in to a 9fu77y9 point particle
and which does not appear to possess the onion s0in layering typical of the proton# /his is not inconsistent
with a particle of &ery small 9rest mass9 (long *ompton wa&elength, whose energy density distribution is
similar to that of figure 1# ,n this instance, the broad central core and shells of low energy density could
readily account for the poor definition, point2li0e appearance and non2detection of onion s0in layering#
+ntroduction - %ounter-&oin& @aves - #ree 6article =bserved at <est - #ree 6article in ;otion - Froup
@ave 9 6hase @ave - 7ncertainty <elations - 8ouble Slit 8iffraction - ,nnihilation 9 ;eson 8ecay -
%onsideration of ,mplitude - %oncludin& <emars - ,ppendix , Beat 6henomena - ,ppendix B Spin
*uantum Eumber - <eferences
@8 .ouble )lit .iffraction
(igure 5 shows a typical double slit experiment# *onsider a particle passing through one of the slits and
arri&ing somewhere on the screen# Io prediction can be made about its exact position of arri&al# $ne reason
for this is lin0ed to the usual uncertainty in specifying the position and &elocity of indi&idual particles in
large populations# ,t cannot be ascertained where in the emergent beam a particle9s source"sin0 is precisely
located, nor in which direction within the beam it is heading#
Secondly, 9diffraction9 of the beam will occur at the slits# ' particular source"sin0 and its associated wa&e
must lea&e a slit in the same direction if the particle they constitute is to remain undestroyed# /he
source"sin0 and wa&e must therefore be diffracted together on passing the walls of the barrier, and by the
same amount# ,n other words, the 9particle9 itself is diffracted# ,n this sense, it might be cautiously said that
the wa&e 9guides9 the particle# /he result is the distribution of particles o&er a wide area of the screen# Io
0nowledge is a&ailable about where on the screen each particle will arri&e because of the uncertainty in its
position and motion within the beam# /hus, an inherent uncertainty remains in determining particle
positions, the formalism of which is consistent with the usual uncertainty approach of quantum mechanics+
narrowing the slit broadens the spread#
(igure 5
'rri&al at P of a source " sin0 from a slit, say slit 1#
'lthough each particle9s wa&e extends infinitely from its source"sin0, the fall2off ensures that its amplitude
is highly reduced, except at a localised region about its source"sin0# (/his is explained in sections K and J#
/hus, when the source"sin0 arri&es at the screen the amplitude of its wa&e will be low at all points on the
screen except near its source"sin0# ,n other words, only 9at9 that position is it possible to find a high
electromagnetic energy density region on the screen corresponding to the position of the particle# /his
accounts for the obser&ed granular effect (localisation#
,nterference arises as the source"sin09s wa&e arri&es at the same point on the screen from both slits# :e
consider the tra)ectory of a particle passing through slit 1, represented by the ray drawn from slit 1 to an
arbitrary point, P, on the screen (as indicated by the dotted line, /, of figure J# :hile the source"sin0 tra&els
through slit 1, its phase wa&e tra&els through both slit 1 and slit ; as a plane wa&e and emerges from each
slit with circular wa&efronts# /he speed of the source"sin0 is gi&en by (19 while that of its associated phase
wa&e is gi&en by (1=# /he wa&e passing through slit 1 is of interest only along the path, /, the path along
which the source"sin0 tra&els# /he same wa&e passing through slit ; needs to be considered at &arious
positions# (our selected rays, ', ., *, @ are shown in figure J to indicate the spreading of the wa&e as it
lea&es slit ;#
?i&en its distance from its source"sin0, the wa&e at slit ; is highly attenuated# /his is ta0en as a
manifestation of the wa&e beha&iour mentioned in section K, which is repeated here as a general postulateE
the amplitude of the wave at a point depends inversely on its displacement from its source5sin, and is
independent of the path ta,en #y the wave.
/hus, on re2approaching its source"sin0 from slit ;, the wa&e amplitude grows and, at coincidence with its
source"sin0, the wa&e amplitude is again maximum si7e# Similarly, as the part of the phase wa&e from slit 1
o&erta0es its source"sin0 along /, its amplitude pea0s at the source"sin0 then attenuates on passing it 2 )ust
as the amplitude of two pulses on a string increases when they o&erlap# /his 3blipping9 phenomenon is
explained more fully in the next paragraph#
(igure J
@ouble slit arrangement, showing source"sin0 tra)ectory through slit 1
and rays of its corresponding phase wa&e emerging from slit ;#
's a further illustration, rays ' and . both cross the tra)ectory of the source"sin0 at /
'
and /
.
respecti&ely#
't the instant the source"sin0 is at /
',
the wa&e from slit ; at that point, is at its maximum amplitude# 't all
other positions at that time, including /
.
and P, the wa&e is highly attenuated# :hen the source"sin0 has
mo&ed to /
.
, then only at that position is the wa&e from slit ; maximum si7e, and so on# ,n other words, the
wa&e grows to meet its source"sin0, dying away on passing it# /he amplitude of the wa&e along ray @ will
always be highly attenuated because of its increasing displacement away from the tra)ectory of the
source"sin0# /his appears, satisfactorily, to replace the idea of 9collapsing wa&es9, framed in the *openhagen
interpretation# /here is no longer the necessity to bring about instant 9reality9 at the time of a measurement#
,nstead, the wa&e associated with a source"sin0, regardless of its path, is now either collapsing or growing
all the time as its displacement from its source"sin0 changes# !ach part of the wa&e blips as it coincides with
its source"sin0# /his includes the wa&e from both slits simultaneously passing the source"sin0#
5ay * is particularly important because of its coincidence with the position of the source"sin0 on the screen#
/his is shown in figure 7# 't the time the source"sin0 stri0es P, the wa&e from slit 1 and slit ; will ha&e
become full si7e at P and will thus ha&e the same maximum amplitude at that point# /heir instantaneous
amplitudes will differ, howe&er, due to their phase difference, caused by the different distances the wa&es
tra&el from each slit to P# /hus, the situation at P reduces to the standard double slit experiment, in which
the phase difference between the two parts of its phase wa&e is the primary concern# !ach point on the
screen may be treated in this way, the emphasis being that the approach is applied at indi&idual points rather
than continuously across the screen# /he formalism is therefore identical to that of double slit diffraction#
/he phase difference, , is gi&en by the usual expression, namely , where , and are as
labelled in figure 7, and where , is the wa&elength of the phase wa&e ( is defined by (1Jb#
(igure 7
'rri&al at P of source"sin0 from slit 1 and ray * from slit ;#
(or a source"sin0 passing through slit 1, we represent the wa&e from slits 1 and ; at P by and
, respecti&ely ( is the phase difference# /he resultant at P is then , where is a
complex number# ' similar resultant ensues for a source"sin0 passing through slit ;, namely, #
'ggregates of particles, in which boundary or other conditions are considered, may be dealt with by the
inclusion of appropriate weighting factors# (or example, if there is an une&en distribution of particles within
a cross2section of the initial beam, such that n more source"sin0s pass slit ; than pass slit 1, or if the
conditions at slit ;, for whate&er reason, fa&our the passage of n more source"sin0s, then we write
(where # /he instantaneous arri&al of source"sin0s at P from both slits then generalises to the
form , the intensity at P being # /his corresponds to the usual quantum mechanical
formalism#
(ollowing a classical double slit approach, the amplitude of the combined parts of the wa&e at P, for a
source"sin0 passing through either slit 1 or ; at the time , is gi&en by , where corresponds
to the square brac0eted part of (9# 'ssuming, for simplicity, that the slit widths are negligibly small, the
intensity, , is proportional only to the square of the combined amplitude# /hus,
, where is the maximum amplitude of the wa&e (as determined
at its source"sin0# 't , intensity maxima , occur, where is an integer corresponding
to the bright fringe from the central maximum# /his corresponds to the arri&al, at those points, of
source"sin0s with wa&es of intensity four times greater than their intensities prior to interference# ,ntensity
minima occur at , corresponding to the arri&al at those points of source"sin0s whose
intensity is 7ero# ,t might be tempting to interpret this as no source"sin0s arri&ing at a point of minimum
intensity and as four source"sin0s simultaneously arri&ing at a point of maximum intensity# /he difficulty
with this is that, at certain points between a maximum and an ad)acent minimum, there would be fractional
source"sin0s arri&ing at points on the screen# (or example, when , the intensity &alue is
# ,t is meaningless to interpret this as a point where half a source"sin0 arri&es, corresponding to half a
particle# ,t can only be regarded as a point where a source"sin0 of intensity has arri&ed# -owe&er, it is
not difficult to transfer the former interpretation to large numbers of particles# particles, each of intensity
, produce a total intensity at a point equi&alent in all respects to particles each of intensity #
/his matches the quantum mechanical correlation between the 7uantity of particles and the beam intensity#
*ontinuing with this interpretation, the aggregation of particles (energy density on the screen can be
implicitly associated with probability densities# /his is again consistent with quantum mechanical ideas#
*uriously, the quantum mechanical interpretation, raises the philosophical conundrum as to why particles
should congregate in bands of high and low probability density, based on the 9guidance9 of a wa&e whose
tangible existence has ne&er been obser&ed# /he acceptance of matter wa&es as guiding wa&es, gi&en that
they ha&e ne&er been satisfactorily examined for their substance and beha&iour, must constitute a
fundamental wea0ness for the quantum mechanical theory# /his, of course, has led to the *openhagen
assertion that matter wa&es will ne&er succumb to examination because they ha&e no physical reality in
themsel&es# -owe&er, the abo&e findings suggest that an electromagnetic reality may exist, where each
matter wa&e is intimately connected with the beha&iour of an indi&idual particle, while producing obser&ed
statistical results consistent with the diffraction beha&iour of large populations# ,t is satisfying, therefore,
that this description caters for .ohm9s statistical interpretation, while also connecting wa&es to indi&idual
particle beha&iour# /his would align the model closely with the notion of 9hidden2&ariables9#
+ntroduction - %ounter-&oin& @aves - #ree 6article =bserved at <est - #ree 6article in ;otion - Froup
@ave 9 6hase @ave - 7ncertainty <elations - 8ouble Slit 8iffraction - ,nnihilation 9 ;eson 8ecay -
%onsideration of ,mplitude - %oncludin& <emars - ,ppendix , Beat 6henomena - ,ppendix B Spin
*uantum Eumber - <eferences
68 2nnihilation and
o
Meson .ecay
,t would be compelling if the particle, defined by (5 or (9, could be shown to decompose in such a way as
to produce the results typical of annihilation reactions or
o
meson decay, where radiation is the only
product# @uring the total disintegration of a particle, whether by annihilation or decay, one should expect
from the abo&e approach, to obser&e the e&olution of at least two quanta of electromagnetic radiation,
depending on the particle9s state of excitation#
:e describe the
o
meson as obser&ed in its rest frame by equation (K, and assume the two right2hand terms
represent the disengagement of the source"sin0 into two separate and free photons of energy and momentum
gi&en by and respecti&ely# /his is precisely the effect obser&ed in neutral pion decay,

o
U T , where the combined energy of the two particles equals the pion9s rest energy# :e note also that
the source or sin0 of each photon were intimately connected before the decay occurred# /he two particles,
although separate and localised when liberated, retain information that originally united them as the ingoing
and outgoing wa&e of the pion# /he two separate wa&es were once part of a standing wa&e# /heir
independence, therefore, cannot be totally assumed# /his suggests a degree of difference with .ohm9s
hidden varia#les#
'nnihilation, which follows a similar approach to that of meson decay, is complicated by the in&ol&ement
of two particles# *onsider the interaction of a con)ugate pair, and (e#g# e
T
e
2
pair, obser&ed from the
centre2of2mass frame, such that is initially mo&ing in the T7 direction and in the 27 direction# 'ssume
that during the interaction their source"sin0s coincide# 't the moment of coincidence, source"sin0
interchange may be possible# :e represent the system at this instant as follows
(;5
(outgoing wa&e (ingoing wa&e
particle a
T
(outgoing wa&e (ingoing wa&e
particle #
where, as indicated by the subscripts, the upper two terms represent the outgoing and ingoing wa&e of
particle , while the lower two terms are the outgoing and ingoing wa&e of particle # /he symbols ,
, and are defined generally by (J and (7, although for particle , is replaced by # /his
re&erses the direction of the momenta for the ingoing and outgoing wa&e of so as to account for its
re&ersed direction along the 72axis#
:e now combine the outgoing wa&e of with the ingoing wa&e of and the ingoing wa&e of with the
outgoing wa&e of to 9meld9 two 9new particles9, 1 and ;#
(;J
(outgoing wa&e of (ingoing wa&e of
particle 4
T
(outgoing wa&e of (ingoing wa&e of
particle 1

'pplying (L to these newly paired terms and replacing the momenta for particles and with and
respecti&ely (to account for directions of motion, yields
;7
(outgoing wa&e (ingoing wa&e
particle 4
T
(outgoing wa&e (ingoing wa&e
particle 1
where
, (;=a,(;=b
, (;=c,(;=d
and
, (;9a,(;9b
, (;9c,(;9d
%sing definitions (19 and (1= with (;= and (;9 respecti&ely, the group and phase &elocities are found to
be for particle 1 and for particle ;, indicating that not only the wa&es tra&el in mutually opposed
directions at light speed, but the particles themsel&es# /his is consistent with obser&ations of 2pair
production# :e therefore interpret equations (;5 to (;9 as representati&e of this phenomenon, where the
two new particles, 1 and ;, correspond to 7uanta of radiation# ,t should be noted that there is no necessity
for the direction of the emitted radiation to be along the 72axis# ,n the centre2of2mass frame and with the rest
energy of both initial particles the same, the net momentum of the system is 7ero and hence all emission
orientations are equally li0ely#
%sing the transformation equations (J and (7, and noting that each member of a con)ugate pair has the
identical rest mass, , the expressions for (;9 become
(K<a,(K<b
indicating that the energies and momenta transform in a way consistent with that of electromagnetic
@oppler shift# (or a con)ugate pair interacting at non2relati&istic speeds, equations (K< reduce to and
# /he total energy ( and momentum ( of the system is thus and 7ero# /his is
completely in agreement with results of low speed annihilation, in which the combined energy of the two
quanta has a lower threshold equal to the total rest energy of the initial annihilating particles, and that the
quanta share this energy equally between them# /he interchange of source"sin0s in this process suggests
correlation between particles after interaction# /his again supports a 9system wholeness9 interpretation,
where the emitted particles remain connected &ia their non2local wa&es until their flights end#
+ntroduction - %ounter-&oin& @aves - #ree 6article =bserved at <est - #ree 6article in ;otion - Froup
@ave 9 6hase @ave - 7ncertainty <elations - 8ouble Slit 8iffraction - ,nnihilation 9 ;eson 8ecay -
%onsideration of ,mplitude - %oncludin& <emars - ,ppendix , Beat 6henomena - ,ppendix B Spin
*uantum Eumber - <eferences
C8 Tentati"e Consideration of the 2mplitude Function
's has been mentioned earlier, a rigorous analysis of in equations (K and (5 is onerous and
unnecessary for this paper# /he in&estigation has essentially focussed on the undulatory beha&iour of matter#
-owe&er, one might question how the amplitude function affects the structure and shape of the particle# ,t
would seem natural that a free, isolated particle should display no directional preference when obser&ed at
rest+ essentially it should appear to be spherical, where the amplitude function has no dependence on and
# 'lthough the prospect of reducing the function to is tempting, such solutions to the electromagnetic
wa&e equation are disallowed# /heir electromagnetic nature ensures their a7imuthal and meridional
dependence# :hile this has no direct bearing on the soundness of the abo&e in&estigations, it does detract
from the simplicity that one might expect for an unexcited particle9s shape and structure#
't this point three options become a&ailable# /he first is to accept the situation as it is and wor0 with that,
since the outcomes of the present model are not fundamentally affected by the nature of # /hat is the &iew
of the present paper, although it is also open to the notion of exploring simplifications to the particle shape#
Such a simplification is considered in the third approach below#
'nother approach is to disband an electromagnetic wa&e model altogether in fa&our of a 9new9 light2speed
scalar wa&e model, as has been attempted in more recent literature V1KW # /his would circum&ent the need
for and dependence required by the electromagnetic wa&e equation# Such a proposal would need to
explain how matter and radiation maintain their close relationship during interactions at both the chemical
and nuclear le&el, while undergoing changes in the types of wa&e that describe them# ,n particular, it might
be questioned how a con)ugate pair of particles, whose beha&iour is go&erned by the new scalar wa&e,
annihilate purely into photons, whose beha&iour is then suddenly go&erned by the electromagnetic &ector
wa&e# /his &iew would also ta0e us no further away from the dilemma of what the wa&e is 2 whether it has a
physical reality and why it cannot be obser&ed#
/he third approach (and the one fa&oured here is to re&iew situations for which might be permissible
and yet still produce the desired undulations described in (K or (5# ,n such a possibility, the magnetic
induction, , and curl of the electric field, , must both be 7ero, as required through spherical
symmetry, indicating that the electric field has only radial dependence if it is to exist# 8axwell9s equations
would then collapse into the following pair of electrodynamic relations, namely
and (K1a, (K1b
where , , and ha&e their usual meanings# ' way of accommodating this is to &iew the source"sin0
as an electric dipole, where the poles themsel&es occupy the same position 2 that of the source"sin0# /he
scalar and &ector potentials, and , would then be determined, at the ad&anced time for the
sin0 and the retarded time for the source, to produce
where (K;a, (K;b
.y in&o0ing the common relation , the electric fields become
(KK
which ta0es the familiar form associated with point2charge particles and differs only in the radial 9pulsing9 of
the charges# .y substituting into (K1, the charge and current densities are found, respecti&ely, to be
and (KLa, (KLb
/hese equations satisfy charge conser&ation, , and their ratio yields &elocities of #
'dding or adding leads to a representation similar in form to that of equation (K, suggesting a
formalism parallel to that of the present paper# -ere, V W and V W correspond to the outgoing
and ingoing wa&es of scalar V&ectorW potential, while
also simplifying the amplitude function in the way hoped for# ,t can be shown that and satisfy the
homogeneous wa&e equations
(K5
/he electric fields do not satisfy the homogeneous wa&e equation, but they do exhibit an undulatory
beha&iour as shown by substituting (K;b into (KK# /hey cannot be regarded as electromagnetic wa&es in
the normal sense, since they ha&e no magnetic counterpart, and because of their radial dependence only,
their motion is such that they &ibrate longitudinally along the radial line of propagation rather than
trans&erselyV1LW # $n the other hand, it is clear from (K5 that and beha&e as ingoing and outgoing
wa&es tra&elling at # /hus, the approach at this point has merit in that it fundamentally retains the
9electromagnetic9 integrity of a particle while simplifying the particle9s shape and structure to that in&ol&ing
only the &ariable, #
+ntroduction - %ounter-&oin& @aves - #ree 6article =bserved at <est - #ree 6article in ;otion - Froup
@ave 9 6hase @ave - 7ncertainty <elations - 8ouble Slit 8iffraction - ,nnihilation 9 ;eson 8ecay -
%onsideration of ,mplitude - %oncludin& <emars - ,ppendix , Beat 6henomena - ,ppendix B Spin
*uantum Eumber - <eferences
378 Concluding %emar=s
/he following points are made in summaryE
(a /he obser&ation that beats between light2speed wa&es produce the relationship (for a
group speed suggests that matter wa&es, which bear the same relationship, are composed of
electromagnetic counter2going wa&es#
(b @e&eloping this concept, and the formalism that describes it, produces energy and momentum equations
which are identical to those describing matter# /his further supports the original notion that a particle is
composed of a pair of electromagnetic ingoing and outgoing wa&es which, when obser&ed at rest, combine
to form a spherical standing wa&e#
(c Aoci, associated with the group wa&e, map stationary wa&efronts which form concentric spheres about
a source"sin0 when obser&ed at rest# /hey become indented about the 72axis and contract longitudinally,
when obser&ed in motion# /he contraction of the wa&efronts along the line of motion confirms the increase
in the particle9s longitudinal momentum as gi&en by the de .roglie relation, # 8ore interestingly,
loci associated with the phase wa&e map wa&efronts which become planes at non2relati&istic speeds# /he
significance of this finding lies in its direct correspondence with the nature and beha&iour of matter wa&es#
-itherto, matter wa&es ha&e been percei&ed more as a mathematical tool of quantum theory, de&oid of a
satisfactory physical deri&ation# 8oreo&er, their planar nature has been assumed with no foundation other
than that such wa&es wor0#
(d Plausible interpretations of the uncertainty relations and of the double slit experiment are established#
%sing the postulate that the amplitude of the wave at a point depends inversely on its displacement from its
source5sin, and is independent of the path ta,en #y the wave, it is shown that the counter2going wa&es
approach to the double slit experiment for particles will produce the same outcomes as those predicted by
quantum mechanics 2 without the need to rely on 9collapsing wa&es9# /his is a much more tenable notion that
a&oids speculati&e explanations about what happens to the wa&e at the time of measurement#
(e /he con&ersion of matter into radiation during annihilation is demonstrated, showing the conser&ation of
energy and momentum and confirming that the energy of the product particles must exceed the rest energy
of the original particles#
(f /he adoption of an electric dipole model, with ends of the dipole coinciding at the particle9s
source"sin0, simplifies the picture of a particle while retaining the necessary components of the present
paper#
,t is the hope of the authors that the present approach will re0indle questions about the origins of matter
wa&es and will again challenge the notion that such wa&es are mere functional descriptors beyond which a
deeper understanding is not possible# -ere, matter wa&es are interpreted as ha&ing an electromagnetic origin
based on spherical counter2going wa&es# (rom this, the 9quantum measurement problem9 appears to be
soundly resol&ed and the 9quantum interpretation question9 V15W explained# ,t is hoped that the abo&e
arguments are sufficiently cogent and insightful to warrant further consideration of the ideas presented#
+ntroduction - %ounter-&oin& @aves - #ree 6article =bserved at <est - #ree 6article in ;otion - Froup
@ave 9 6hase @ave - 7ncertainty <elations - 8ouble Slit 8iffraction - ,nnihilation 9 ;eson 8ecay -
%onsideration of ,mplitude - %oncludin& <emars - ,ppendix , Beat 6henomena - ,ppendix B Spin
*uantum Eumber - <eferences
2ppendi> 2 5 Beat Phenomena
Aet two harmonic wa&es, and , tra&el unidirectionally and coaxially at the speed , in a non2
dispersi&e medium# ,f the angular frequency and wa&enumber of is and respecti&ely, and of is
and , then
('1
/he wa&es in combination will produce beats whose group speed and phase speed, respecti&ely, is
(';
and
('K
/hus ('L
:hen one wa&e, say , tra&els in the opposite direction we replace with # /he group and phase
speed then become
('5
and
('J
while
('7
still holds#
+ntroduction - %ounter-&oin& @aves - #ree 6article =bserved at <est - #ree 6article in ;otion - Froup
@ave 9 6hase @ave - 7ncertainty <elations - 8ouble Slit 8iffraction - ,nnihilation 9 ;eson 8ecay -
%onsideration of ,mplitude - %oncludin& <emars - ,ppendix , Beat 6henomena - ,ppendix B Spin
*uantum Eumber - <eferences
2ppendi> B 5 )pin Quantum umber
*onsideration of the 72component of spin leads to an interesting outcome in terms of the nature of the
counter2going wa&es# :e designate a magnetic quantum number, and , to the particle9s outgoing and
ingoing wa&e respecti&ely, where and can be <, `1, `;, `K, ### :e now separate, from the amplitude
function of each wa&e, a function with only dependence, to obtain a description of the particle in the
following form
(.1
where are the descriptions of the outgoing and ingoing wa&e with the dependent functions
extracted# 'pplying the trigonometric identity
(.;
yields
(.K
where represents the terms in curly brac0ets of (.; and where
(.L
,f the sum is 7ero, e&en or odd, then (in .L ta0es the &alues of 7ero, integers or half2
integers respecti&ely, gi&ing scope to associate such &alues with 7ero2spin, unit2spin and half2spin particles#
/hese alternati&es arise from the spin combinations of the outgoing and ingoing wa&e# /his is encouraging
since it suggests that, e&en with the cursory consideration here, there is potential within the counter2going
wa&e approach to incorporate the phenomenon of spin#
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
/"olution 5 Biology 5 #a"e :enetics
The #a"e )tructure of Matter +#)M- and #a"e :enetics
+ntroduction - @ave Fenetics' =n the @ave Structure of 8E, 9 <esonant +nteractions of Fenes 9
Anvironment - Top of 6a&e
'ntroduction& #a"e :enetics, :enes, .2, :enetic Modification, /"olution and /cology of
Life
, read an article a few years ago (below where research from 5ussia apparently shows that 05A B :enes
are $esonant (tructures which are subtly interconnected to their !n&ironment by wa&e interactions# i#e#
?enetic material can be manipulated by wa&es with certain resonant frequencies# /his allows manipulation
of genes without physically cutting and replacing the genetic material#
/he article has some errors as they are unaware of the :a&e Structure of 8atter so they ha&e misinterpreted
some of their results (read the article with the spherical standing wa&e structure of matter in mind, you will
see what , mean#
/here does not seem to be much e&idence on the internet to support this research on wa&e genetics,
howe&er, there is also &ery little research on either the :a&e Structure of 8atter, nor the fact that you can
deduce it is the most simple science theory of reality, and then deduce the fundamentals of modern physics
(see lin0s on side of page#
-istory actually shows that most profound disco&eries were in fields that were ignored by most to begin
(and then sa&aged by s0eptics, until the truth of their disco&eries became self e&ident#
$ne important consequence of the :a&e Structure of 8atter " :a&e ?enetics applies to ?enetic
8odification based upon current discrete 9particle9 ideas of matter and its interactions#
,t seems unwise and possibly dangerous to allow genetically modified life (for food R material production
to enter the food chain (e&olution and ecology of Iature gi&en their lac0 of understanding of the subtle
resonant interconnection of life and matter# Put simply, life is much more complex and subtly connected
than they realise, thus they cannot 0now the consequences of changing genetic sequences and their
interconnected resonant structures#
/he :a&e Structure of 8atter " :a&e ?enetics also suggests that we need to be more careful with the wa&e
frequencies we use for communications, and inad&ertently generate with our electricity distribution and use
in &arious electrical machines#
$n the left side of this page you will find lin0s to the main articles which explain and sol&e many of the
problems of modern Physics, Philosophy and 8etaphysics by explaining how all matter interactions are
really wa&e interactions in Space#
-ope you find it interesting and useful#
Sincerely,
?eoff -aselhurst
!mail
+ntroduction - @ave Fenetics' =n the @ave Structure of 8E, 9 <esonant +nteractions of Fenes 9
Anvironment - Top of 6a&e
#a"e :enetics& On the #a"e )tructure of .2 and %esonant
'nteractions of :enes and /n"ironment
/he human @I' is a biological ,nternet and superior in many aspects to the artificial one# /he latest
5ussian scientific research directly or indirectly explains phenomena such as clair&oyance, intuition,
spontaneous and remote acts of healing, self healing, affirmation techniques, unusual light2auras around
people (namely spiritual masters, mind9s influence on weather2patterns and much more# ,n addition, there is
e&idence for a whole new type of medicine in which @I' can be influenced and reprogrammed by words
and frequencies :,/-$%/ cutting out and replacing single genes#
$nly 1<] of our @I' is being used for building proteins# ,t is this subset of @I' that is of interest to
western researchers and is being examined and categori7ed# /he other 9<] are considered P)un0 @I'P# /he
5ussian researchers, howe&er, con&inced that nature was not dumb, )oined linguists and geneticists in a
&enture to explore those 9<] of P)un0 @I'P# /heir results, findings and conclusions are simply
re&olutionary> 'ccording to them, our @I' is not only responsible for the construction of our body, but
also ser&es as data storage and in communication# /he 5ussian linguists found that the genetic code,
especially in the apparently useless 9<], follows the same rules as all our human languages# /o this end
they compared the rules of syntax (the way in which words are put together to form phrases and sentences,
semantics (the study of meaning in language forms and the basic rules of grammar# /hey found that the
al0alines of our @I' follow a regular grammar and do ha&e set rules )ust li0e our languages# So human
languages did not appear coincidentally but are a reflection of our inherent @I'#
/he 5ussian biophysicist and molecular biologist P)otr ?ar)a)e& and his colleagues also explored the
&ibrational beha&iour of the @I'# V(or the sa0e of bre&ity , will gi&e only a summary here# (or further
exploration please refer to the appendix at the end of this article#W /he bottom line wasE 9Ai&ing
chromosomes function )ust li0e solitonic2holographic computers using the endogenous @I' laser
radiation#9
/his means that they managed for example to modulate certain frequency patterns onto a laser ray and with
it influenced the @I' frequency and thus the genetic information itself# Since the basic structure of @I'2
al0aline pairs and of language (as explained earlier are of the same structure, no @I' decoding is
necessary# $ne can simply use words and sentences of the human language> /his, too, was experimentally
pro&en> Ai&ing @I' substance (in li&ing tissue, not in &itro will always react to language2modulated laser
rays and e&en to radio wa&es, if the proper frequencies are being used#
/his finally and scientifically explains why affirmations, autogenous training, hypnosis and the li0e can
ha&e such strong effects on humans and their bodies# ,t is entirely normal and natural for our @I' to react
to language# :hile western researchers cut single genes from the @I' strands and insert them elsewhere,
the 5ussians enthusiastically wor0ed on de&ices that can influence the cellular metabolism through suitable
modulated radio and light frequencies and thus repair genetic defects#
?ar)a)e&9s research group succeeded in pro&ing that with this method chromosomes damaged by x2rays for
example can be repaired# /hey e&en captured information patterns of a particular @I' and transmitted it
onto another, thus reprogramming cells to another genome# So they successfully transformed, for example,
frog embryos to salamander embryos simply by transmitting the @I' information patterns> /his way the
entire information was transmitted without any of the side effects or disharmonies encountered when cutting
out and re2introducing single genes from the @I'# /his represents an unbelie&able, world2transforming
re&olution and sensation> 'll this by simply applying &ibration and language instead of the archaic cutting2
out procedure>
/his experiment points to the immense power of *a,e genetics, which ob&iously has a greater influence on
the formation of organisms than the biochemical processes of al0aline sequences# !soteric and spiritual
teachers ha&e 0nown for ages that our body is programmable by language, words and thought# /his has now
been scientifically pro&en and explained# $f course the frequency has to be correct# 'nd this is why not
e&erybody is equally successful or can do it with always the same strength# /he indi&idual person must
wor0 on the inner processes and maturity in order to establish a conscious communication with the @I'#
/he 5ussian researchers wor0 on a method that is not dependent on these factors but will 'A:'NS wor0,
pro&ided one uses the correct frequency#
.ut the higher de&eloped an indi&idual9s consciousness is, the less need is there for any type of de&ice> $ne
can achie&e these results by oneself, and science will finally stop laughing at such ideas and will confirm
and explain the results#
8odern man 0nows this only on a much more subtle le&el, as PintuitionP# .ut we, too, can regain full use of
it# 'n example from IatureE :hen a queen ant is spatially separated from her colony, building still
continues fer&ently and according to plan# ,f the queen is 0illed, howe&er, all wor0 in the colony stops# Io
ant 0nows what to do# 'pparently the queen sends the Pbuilding plansP also from far away &ia the group
consciousness of her sub)ects# She can be as far away as she wants, as long as she is ali&e#
,n man hyperco--unication is most often encountered when one suddenly gains access to information
that is outside one9s 0nowledge base# Such hypercommunication is then experienced as inspiration or
intuition# /he ,talian composer ?iuseppe /artini for instance dreamt one night that a de&il sat at his bedside
playing the &iolin# /he next morning /artini was able to note down the piece exactly from memory, he
called it the @e&il9s /rill Sonata# (or years, a L;2year old male nurse dreamt of a situation in which he was
hoo0ed up to a 0ind of 0nowledge *@25$8# 6erifiable 0nowledge from all imaginable fields was then
transmitted to him that he was able to recall in the morning# /here was such a flood of information that it
seemed a whole encyclopaedia was transmitted at night# /he ma)ority of facts were outside his personal
0nowledge base and reached technical details about which he 0new absolutely nothing#
(Iote from ?eoff -aselhurst 2 ?#yperco--unication? is caused by ,nterconnection of Spherical Standing
:a&es in Space 2 the 5ussian researchers are unaware of the :a&e Structure of 8atter and thus do not
understand this subtle interconnection of matter in Space#
:hen hyperco--unication occurs, one can obser&e in the @I' as well as in the human being special
phenomena# /he 5ussian scientists irradiated @I' samples with laser light# $n screen a typical wa&e
pattern was formed# :hen they remo&ed the @I' sample, the wa&e pattern did not disappear, it remained#
8any control experiments showed that the pattern still came from the remo&ed sample, whose energy field
apparently remained by itself# /his effect is now called phantom @I' effect#
/he side effect encountered most often in hypercommunication also in human beings are inexplicable
electromagnetic fields in the &icinity of the persons concerned# !lectronic de&ices li0e *@ players and the
li0e can be irritated and cease to function for hours# :hen the electromagnetic field slowly dissipates, the
de&ices function normally again# 8any healers and psychics 0now this effect from their wor0# /he better the
atmosphere and the energy, the more frustrating it is that the recording de&ice stops functioning and
recording exactly at that moment# 'nd repeated switching on and off after the session does not restore
function yet, but next morning all is bac0 to normal# Perhaps this is reassuring to read for many, as it has
nothing to do with them being technically inept, it means they are good at hypercommunication#
,n their boo0 6ernet7te ,ntelligen7 (Ietwor0ed ,ntelligence, ?ra7yna (osar and (ran7 .ludorf explain
these connections precisely and clearly# /he authors also quote sources presuming that in earlier times
humanity had been, )ust li0e the animals, &ery strongly connected to the group consciousness and acted as a
group# /o de&elop and experience indi&iduality we humans howe&er had to forget hypercommunication
almost completely# Iow that we are fairly stable in our indi&idual consciousness, we can create a new form
of group consciousness, namely one, in which we attain access to all information &ia our @I', without
being forced or remotely controlled about what to do with that information# :e now 0now that )ust as on the
internet our @I' can feed its proper data into the networ0, can call up data from the networ0 and can
establish contact with other participants in the networ0# 5emote healing, telepathy or Premote sensingP
about the state of relati&es etc# can thus be explained# Some animals 0now also from afar when their owners
plan to return home# /hat can be freshly interpreted and explained &ia the concepts of group consciousness
and hypercommunication#
'ny collecti&e consciousness cannot be sensibly used o&er any period of time without a distincti&e
indi&iduality# $therwise we would re&ert to a primiti&e herd instinct that is easily manipulated#
-ypercommunication in the new millennium means something quite differentE
5esearchers thin0 that if humans with full indi&iduality would regain group consciousness, they would ha&e
a god2li0e power to create, alter and shape things on !arth> 'I@ humanity is collecti&ely mo&ing toward
such a group consciousness of the new 0ind# (ifty percent of today9s children will be problem children as
soon as the go to school# /he system lumps e&eryone together and demands ad)ustment# .ut the
indi&iduality of today9s children is so strong that that they refuse this ad)ustment and gi&ing up their
idiosyncrasies in the most di&erse ways# 't the same time more and more clair&oyant children are born Vsee
the boo0 *hinas ,ndigo *hildren by Paul @ong or the chapter about ,ndigos in my boo0 Iut7e die
taeglichen :under (8a0e %se of the @aily :ondersW# Something in those children is stri&ing more and
more towards the group consciousness of the new 0ind, and it will no longer be suppressed# 's a rule,
weather for example is rather difficult to influence by a single indi&idual# .ut it may be influenced by a
group consciousness (nothing new to some tribes doing it in their rain dances# :eather is strongly
influenced by !arth resonance frequencies, the so2called Schumann frequencies# .ut those same
fre3uencies are also produced in our brains, and when many people synchronise their thin0ing, or
indi&iduals (spiritual masters, for instance focus their thoughts in a laser2li0e fashion, then it is
scientifically spea0ing not at all surprising if they can thus influence weather#
5esearchers in group consciousness ha&e formulated the theory of /ype , ci&ilisations# ' humanity that
de&eloped a group consciousness of the new 0ind would ha&e neither en&ironmental problems nor scarcity
of energy# (or if it were to use its mental power as a unified ci&ilisation, it would ha&e control of the
energies of its home planet as a natural consequence# 'nd that includes all natural catastrophes>>> '
theoretical /ype ,, ci&ilisation would e&en be able to control all energies of their home galaxy# ,n my boo0
Iut7e die taeglichen :under , ha&e described an example of thisE :hene&er a great many people focus
their attention or consciousness on something similar li0e *hristmas time, football world championship or
the funeral of Aady @iana in !ngland then certain random number generators in computers start to deli&er
ordered numbers instead of the random ones# 'n ordered group consciousness creates order in its whole
surroundings>>>
'll information from the boo0 P6ernet7te ,ntelligen7P &on ?ra7yna (osar und (ran7 .ludorf, ,S.I
K9K<;LK;K7, summari7ed and commented by .aerbel# /he boo0 is unfortunately only a&ailable in ?erman
so far# Nou can reach the authors hereE Vwww#fosar2bludorf#comW V;W+ /ransmitted by 6itae .ergman
Vwww#ry7e#com"&iew#phpFwhoU&itaebW VKW
*eferences
1# httpE""noosphere#princeton#edu"fristwall;#html
;# httpE""www#fosar2bludorf#com
K# httpE""www#ry7e#com"&iew#phpFwhoU&itaeb
The Theory of /"olution
Charles .ar!in
Quotes from Charles .ar!in +367C 5 3664- on /"olution, atural )election, )cience,
;umanity, :od $ %eligion
, ha&e called this principle, by which each slight &ariation, if useful, is preser&ed, by the term Iatural
Selection# (Charles 0ar*in
+&norance more frequently be&ets confidence than does nowled&e' it is those who now little, not those
who now much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.
>Charles 3arwin, +ntroduction to The 8escent of ;an, (0C(?
+ntroduction - %harles 8arwin's Theory of Avolution - 8arwin *uotes on Avolution - Avolution ,rticles -
:ins 5 Avolution - Top of 6a&e
'ntroduction& On the Philosophy $ Metaphysics of Charles .ar!in1s Theory of
/"olution
(or thousands of years many philosophers had argued that life must ha&e been created by a supernatural
being " creator " ?od due to the incredible complexity of Iature (in particular, we humans and our minds#
/hus it is remar0able that *harles @arwin (and others were able to explain our existence by means of
!&olution from Iatural Selection 2 which is &ery ob&ious once understood#
.elow you will find a brief summary of *harles @arwin9s /heory of !&olution and some interesting quotes
from @arwin on !&olution, Iatural Selection, Science, -umanity, ?od and 5eligion#
:hen thin0ing about e&olution, it is important to ta0e a further step and as0, 9:hat is e&ol&ingF9 's this
website explains, there is a simple and ob&ious explanation of what exists and thus how we can understand
the metaphysical foundations of !&olution# See !&olution28etaphysics webpage#
:e hope you en)oy the following quotes and browsing around this website# :e ha&e a wonderful collection
of 0nowledge from many of the greatest minds of human history 2 and most importantly can pro&ide a
simple sensible explanation for most of them>
*heers,
?eoff -aselhurst, Qarene -owie
,lthou&h + am fully convinced of the truth of the views &iven in this volume + by no means expect to
convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stoced with a multitude of facts all viewed, durin& a
lon& course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. But + loo with confidence to the future
to youn& and risin& naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality.
>Charles 3arwin?
+ntroduction - %harles 8arwin's Theory of Avolution - 8arwin *uotes on Avolution - Avolution ,rticles -
:ins 5 Avolution - Top of 6a&e
Charles 0ar*in?s Theory of ',olution
;rief (u--ary
3arwin4s theory of evolution is based on five ey observations and inferences drawn from them. These
observations and inferences have been summari/ed by the &reat biolo&ist Arnst ;ayr as follows'
(? Species have &reat fertility. They mae more offsprin& than can &row to adulthood.
2? 6opulations remain rou&hly the same si/e, with modest fluctuations.
1? #ood resources are limited, but are relatively constant most of the time.
#rom these three observations it may be inferred that in such an environment there will be a stru&&le for
survival amon& individuals.
)? +n sexually reproducin& species, &enerally no two individuals are identical. Lariation is rampant.
3? ;uch of this variation is heritable.
#rom this it may be inferred' +n a world of stable populations where each individual must stru&&le to
survive, those with the -best- characteristics will be more liely to survive, and those desirable traits will be
passed to their offsprin&. These advanta&eous characteristics are inherited by followin& &enerations,
becomin& dominant amon& the population throu&h time. This is natural selection. +t may be further
inferred that natural selection, if carried far enou&h, maes chan&es in a population, eventually leadin& to
new species. These observations have been amply demonstrated in biolo&y, and even fossils demonstrate
the veracity of these observations.
To summarise 8arwin's Theory of AvolutionD
(. Lariation' There is Lariation in Avery 6opulation.
2. %ompetition' =r&anisms %ompete for limited resources.
1. =ffsprin&' =r&anisms produce more =ffsprin& than can survive.
). Fenetics' =r&anisms pass Fenetic traits on to their offsprin&.
3. Eatural Selection' Those or&anisms with the ;ost Beneficial Traits
are more liely to Survive and <eproduce.
8arwin ima&ined it mi&ht be possible that all life is descended from an ori&inal species from ancient times.
8E, evidence supports this idea.
6robably all or&anic bein&s which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial
life form. There is &randeur in this view of life that, whilst this planet has &one cyclin& on accordin& to the
fixed law of &ravity, from so simple a be&innin& endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have
been, and are bein& evolved. >Charles 3arwin, The =ri&in of Species?
!dited from httpE""en#wi0ipedia#org"wi0i"*harlesa@arwin
+ntroduction - %harles 8arwin's Theory of Avolution - 8arwin *uotes on Avolution - Avolution ,rticles -
:ins 5 Avolution - Top of 6a&e
Charles 0ar*in 1uotes
Theory of ',olution, (cience, #u-anity, >no*ledge, :od 2
$eligion
+n scientific investi&ations, it is permitted to invent any hypothesis and, if it explains various lar&e and
independent classes of facts, it rises to the ran of a well-&rounded theory. >Charles 3arwin?
Kow extremely stupid for me not to have thou&ht of thatJ
>Tho!as ,uley4s first reflection after masterin&, in (03., the central idea of 3arwin4s 1rigin of +pecies?
+&norance more frequently be&ets confidence than does nowled&e' it is those who now little, not those
who now much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.
>Charles 3arwin, +ntroduction to The 8escent of ;an, (0C(?
+n the stru&&le for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals because they succeed in
adaptin& themselves best to their environment. >Charles 3arwin?
;an with all his noble qualities, with sympathy which feels for the most debased, with benevolence which
extends not only to other men but to the humblest livin& creature, with his &od-lie intellect which has
penetrated into the movements and constitution of the solar system- with all these exalted powers- ;an still
bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly ori&in. >Charles 3arwin?
Eothin& before had ever made me thorou&hly realise, thou&h + had read various scientific boos, that
science consists in &roupin& facts so that &eneral laws or conclusions may be drawn from them. >Charles
3arwin?
+ have no &reat quicness of apprehension or wit which is so remarable in some clever men, for instance
Kuxley. >Charles 3arwin?
@e will now discuss in a little more detail the Stru&&le for Axistence.
.. The expression often used by ;r. Kerbert Spencer of the Survival of the #ittest is more accurate, and is
sometimes equally convenient. >Charles 3arwin?
.. doin& what little one can to increase the &eneral stoc of nowled&e is as respectable an ob$ect of life, as
one can in any lielihood pursue. >Charles 3arwin?
a scientific man ou&ht to have no wishes, no affections .. a mere heart of stone. >Charles 3arwin?
+ am turned into a sort of machine for observin& facts and &rindin& out conclusions. >Charles 3arwin?
The fact of evolution is the bacbone of biolo&y, and biolo&y is thus in the peculiar position of bein& a
science founded on an improved theory, is it then a science or faithH >Charles 3arwin?
Charles .ar!in on :od ( %eligion
+ cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent Fod would have desi&nedly created parasitic
wasps with the express intention of their feedin& within the livin& bodies of %aterpillars. >Charles 3arwin?
,s for a future life, every man must $ud&e for himself between conflictin& va&ue probabilities. >Charles
3arwin?
Believin& as + do that man in the distant future will be a far more perfect creature than he now is, it is an
intolerable thou&ht that he and all other sentient bein&s are doomed to complete annihilation after such
lon&-continued slow pro&ress. >Charles 3arwin?
@e can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes to be &overned by laws,
but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act. >Charles 3arwin?
, am a strong ad&ocate for free thought on all sub)ects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly that
direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public+ and freedom of
thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men9s minds, which followVsW from the ad&ance of
science# ,t has, therefore, been always my ob)ect to a&oid writing on religion, and , ha&e confined myself to
science# , may, howe&er, ha&e been unduly biased by the pain which it would gi&e some members of my
family, if , aided in any way direct attac0s on religion# (Charles 0ar*in
httpE""www#darwin2literature#com"laquotes#html
@hen + view all bein&s not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few bein&s which
lived lon& before the first bed of the %ambrian system was deposited, they seem to me to become
ennobled. >Charles 3arwin, The =ri&in of Species, quoted from Rohn Stear, Eo ,nswers in Fenesis?
@hat a boo a 8evil's %haplain mi&ht write on the clumsy, wasteful, blunderin& low and horribly cruel
wors of nature. >Charles 3arwin, quoted by <ichard 8awins in , 8evil's %haplain, 244)?
@hen it was first said that the sun stood still and world turned round, the common sense of manind
declared the doctrine falseD but the old sayin& of Lox populi, vox 8ei Othe voice of the people is the voice of
FodP, as every philosopher nows, cannot be trusted in science.
>Charles 3arwin, remindin& his readers that they should always treat -obvious- truths with septicism, in
the context of the apparent absurdity of evolvin& a complex eye throu&h a lon& series of &radual steps, in
the famous passa&e added to later editions of the =ri&in of Species >(0C2, p. (1)?, quoted from Stephen
Ray Fould, The Structure of Avolutionary Theory >2442?, chapter (, -8efinin& and <evisin& the Structure of
Avolutionary Theory,- p. ( >the braceted translation is Fould's?
#alse facts are hi&hly in$urious to the pro&ress of science, for they often endure lon&D but false views, if
supported by some evidence, do little harm, for everyone taes a salutary pleasure in provin& their
falsenessD and when this is done, one path toward errors is closed and the road to truth is often at the
same time opened. >Charles 3arwin, The 8escent of ;an?
, celebrated author and divine has written to me that he has &radually learned to see that it is $ust as noble
a conception of the 8eity to believe that he created a few ori&inal forms capable of self-development into
other and needful forms, as to believe that he required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by
the action of his laws. >Charles 3arwin, =ri&in of Species p. )22?
,bout thirty years a&o there was much tal that &eolo&ists ou&ht only to observe and not theori/eD and +
well remember someone sayin& that at this rate a man mi&ht as well &o into a &ravel-pit and count the
pebbles and describe the colours. Kow odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for
or a&ainst some view if it is to be of any serviceJ
>Charles 3arwin, letter to Kenry #awcett, who had defended 8arwin before the British ,ssociation for the
,dvancement of Science a&ainst a critic who said 8arwin's boo was too theoretical and that he should
have $ust -'put his facts before us and let them rest,- quoted from ;ichael Shermer, -%olorful 6ebbles and
8arwin's 8ictum' Science is an exquisite blend of data and theory,- Scientific ,merican, ;ay, 244(?
Kow so many absurd rules of conduct, as well as so many absurd reli&ious beliefs, have ori&inated, we do
not nowD nor how it is that they have become, in all quarters of the world, so deeply impressed on the
minds of menD but it is worthy of remar that a belief constantly inculcated durin& the early years of life,
while the brain is impressionable, appears to acquire almost the nature of an instinctD and the very essence
of an instinct is that it is followed independently of reason. >Charles 3arwin, 8escent of ;an p. (22?
+ am aware that the assumed instinctive belief in Fod has been used by many persons as an ar&ument for
his existence. The idea of a universal and beneficent %reator does not seem to arise in the mind of man,
until he has been elevated by lon&-continued culture. >Charles 3arwin, 8escent of ;an p. B(2?
+ am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this wor will be denounced by some as hi&hly irreli&iousD but
he who denounces them is bound to show why it is more irreli&ious to explain the ori&in of man as a
distinct species by descent from some lower from, throu&h the laws of variation and natural selection, than
to explain the birth of the individual throu&h the laws of ordinary reproduction. The birth both of the species
and of the individual are equally parts of that &rand sequence of events, which our minds refuse to accept
as the result of blind chance. >Charles 3arwin, 8escent of ;an p. B(1?
But + own that + cannot see as plainly as others do, and + should wish to do, evidence of desi&n and
beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. + cannot persuade myself
that a beneficent and omnipotent Fod would have desi&nedly created that a cat should play with mice.
>Charles 3arwin, source unnown?
httpE""www#positi&eatheism#org"hist"quotes"darwin#htm
+ntroduction - %harles 8arwin's Theory of Avolution - 8arwin *uotes on Avolution - Avolution ,rticles -
:ins 5 Avolution - Top of 6a&e
',olution Articles
1uotes fro- ?The 1uestion of 1uestions? by Tho-as # #u)ley,
?',olution by 5atural (election and ;uddhis-? by 0ere<
Free-an
The different branches of science combine to demonstrate that the universe in its entirety can be re&arded
as one &i&antic process, a process of becomin&, of attainin& new levels of existence and or&ani/ation,
which can properly be called a &enesis or an evolution. >Tho!as ,uley?
.. no absolute structural line of demarcation .. can be drawn between the animal world and ourselves.
>Tho!as ,uley, (0B1?
,buse for six or seven years on the part of the public is of not the &reatest consequence when one
happens to be in the ri&ht and stands to one's &uns. >Tho!as ,uley?
;an has wored his way to the headship of the sentient world and has become the dominant animal that
he is, by virtue of his success in the stru&&le for existenceD and, in this stru&&le- as amon& other animals - it
is self-assertion, the unscrupulous sei/in& upon all that can be &rasped, the tenacious holdin& of all that
can be ept, that have mattered. >Tho!as ,uley?
,n the $rigin of Species, @arwin had not, in fact, discussed the bearing of !&olution theory on the human
species, other than to remar0 that 9Aight will be thrown on the origin of man and his history#9 (Free-an
-uxley was the first to construct, on the basis of @arwin9s theory of e&olution by natural selection, a clear
and logical image of biological man, and as such, is clearly the founder of e&olutionary anthropology# ## (or
-uxley, the notion that e&olution can pro&ide a foundation to morals was 9an illusion9# (Free-an
$ichard 0a*<ins
.iscussion of Quotes by /"olutionary )cientist %ichard .a!=ins
$ur brains are separate and independent enough from our genes to rebel against them## we do so in a small
way e&erytime we use contraception# /here is no reason why we should not rebel in a large way too#
($ichard 0a*<ins, /he Selfish ?ene 19=9
Avolution +ntroduction - <ichard 8awins *uotes 'The Selfish Fene' - <ichard 8awins *uotes' 'The Blind
@atchmaer' - Top of 6a&e
'ntroduction to /"olution
/o understand e&olution we must 0now what is e&ol&ing (what is matter, what is reality# /his website is
de&oted to this 0nowledge of reality that founds both @arwin9s theory of e&olution and cultural e&olution#
(urther, until this is 0nown it is impossible for humanity to thin0 and act wisely 2 and to be able to e&ol&e
cultural 0nowledge that enables us to li&e in harmony with Iature (which is now critically important for our
future sur&i&al#
:e ha&e read se&eral boo0s by 5ichard @aw0ins and greatly respect him as an e&olutionary scientist# So we
hope you en)oy the following quotes and e&olutionary wisdom of 9/he Selfish ?ene9 and 9/he .lind
:atchma0er9#
?eoff -aselhurst and Qarene -owie
Avolution +ntroduction - <ichard 8awins *uotes 'The Selfish Fene' - <ichard 8awins *uotes' 'The Blind
@atchmaer' - Top of 6a&e
$ichard 0a*<ins 1uotes= ?The (elfish :ene?
Chapter 6 ! +hy are peopleH
@arwin made it possible for us to gi&e a sensible answer to the curious child whose question heads this
chapter# V9:hy are peopleF9W :e no longer ha&e to resort to superstition when faced with the deep problems+
,s there meaning to lifeF :hat are we forF :hat is 8anF
/he argument of this boo0 is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes#
/his brings me to the first point , want to ma0e about what this boo0 is not# , am not ad&ocating a morality
based on e&olution# , am saying how things ha&e e&ol&ed# , am not saying how we humans morally ought to
beha&e# ### ,f you wish to extract a moral from it, read it as a warning# .e warned that if you wish, as , do, to
build a society in which indi&iduals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can
expect little help from biological nature# Aet us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born
selfish# Aet us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least ha&e a chance
to upset their designs, something that no other species has e&er aspired to do#
, shall argue that the fundamental unit of selection, and therefore of self2interest, is not the species, nor the
group, nor e&en, strictly, the indi&idual# ,t is the gene, the unit of heredity#
Chapter D ! The replicators
:as there to be any end to the gradual impro&ement in the techniques and artifices used by the replicators to
ensure their own continuation in the worldF /here would be plenty of time for their impro&ement# :hat
weird engines of self2preser&ation would the millennia bring forthF (our thousand million years on, what
was to be the fate of the ancient replicatorsF /hey did not die out, for they are the past masters of the
sur&i&al arts# .ut do not loo0 for them floating loose in the sea+ they ga&e up that ca&alier freedom long ago#
Iow they swarm in huge colonies, safe inside gigantic lumbering robots, sealed off from the outside world,
communicating with it by tortuous indirect routes, manipulating it by remote control# /hey are in you and
me+ they created us, body and mind+and their preser&ation is the ultimate rational for our existence# /hey
ha&e come a long way, those replicators# Iow they go by the name of genes,and we are their sur&i&al
machines#
Chapter J ! I--ortal coils
$ur @I' li&es inside our bodies, ,t is not concentrated in a particular part of the body, but is distributed
among the cells# /here are about a thousand million million cells ma0ing up an a&erage human body, and,
with some exceptions which we can ignore, e&ery one of those cells contains a complete copy of that body9s
@I'#
/he e&olutionary importance of the fact that genes control embryonic de&elopment is thisE it means that
genes are at least partly responsible for their own sur&i&al in the future, because their sur&i&al depends on
the efficiency of the bodies in which they li&e and which they helped to build#
/he definition that , want comes from ?# *# :illiams# ' gene is defined as any portion of chromosomal
material that potentially last for enough generations to ser&e as a unit of natural selection#
,ndi&iduals are not stable things, they are fleeting# *hromosomes too are shuffled to obli&ion, li0e hands of
cards soon after they are dealt# .ut the cards themsel&es sur&i&e the shuffling# /he cards are the genes# /he
genes are not destroyed by crossing2o&er, they merely change partners and march on# $f course they march
on# /hat is their business# /hey are the replicators and we are their sur&i&al machines# :hen we ha&e ser&ed
our purpose we are cast aside# .ut genes are deni7ens of geological timeE genes are fore&er#
?enes are competing directly with their alleles for sur&i&al, since their alleles in the gene pool are ri&als for
their slot on the chromosomes of future generations# 'ny gene that beha&es in such a way as to increase its
own sur&i&al chances in the gene pool at the expense of its alleles will, by definition, tautologously, tend to
sur&i&e# /he gene is the basic unit of selfishness#
Io doubt some of your cousins and great2uncles died in childhood, but not a single one of your ancestors
did# 'ncestors )ust don9t die young>
Chapter G ! The gene -achine
Sur&i&al machines began as passi&e receptacles for the genes, pro&iding little more than walls to Protect
them from the chemical warfare of their ri&als and the ra&ages of accidental molecular bombardment# ,n the
early days they 9fed9 on organic molecules freely a&ailable in the soup# /his easy life came to an end when
the organic food in the soup, which had been slowly built up under the energetic influence of centuries of
sunlight, was all used up, ' ma)or branch of sur&i&al machines, now called plants, started to use sunlight
directly themsel&es to build up complex molecules from simple ones, re2enacting at much higher speed the
synthetic processes of the original soup#
/he e&olution of the capacity to simulate seems to ha&e culminated in sub)ecti&e consciousness# :hy this
should ha&e happened is, to me, the most profound mystery facing modern biology# /here is no reason to
suppose that electronic computers are conscious when they simulate, although we ha&e to admit that in the
future they may become so# Perhaps consciousness arises when the brain9s simulation of the world becomes
so complete that it must include a model of itself# ###:hate&er the philosophical problems raised by
consciousness, for the purpose of this story it can be thought of as the culmination of an e&olutionary trend
towards the emancipation of sur&i&al machines as executi&e decision2ta0ers from their ultimate masters, the
genes# Iot only are brains in charge of the day2to2day running of sur&i&al machine affairs, they ha&e also
acquired the ability to predict the future and act accordingly# /hey e&en ha&e the power to rebel against the
dictates of their genes, for instance in refusing to ha&e as many children as they are able to# .ut in this
respect man is a &ery special case, as we shall see#
/he genes are the master programmers, and they are programming for their li&es# /hey are )udged according
to the success of their programs in copying with all the ha7ards that life throws at their sur&i&al machines,
and the )udge is the ruthless )udge of the court of sur&i&al#
:hene&er a system of communication e&ol&es, there is always the danger that some will exploit the system
for their own ends# .rought up as we ha&e been on the 9good of the species9 &iew of e&olution, we naturally
thin0 first of liars and decei&ers as belonging to different speciesE predators, prey, parasites, and so on#
-owe&er, we must expect lies and deceit, and selfish exploitation of communication to arise whene&er the
interests of the genes of different indi&iduals di&erge# /his will include indi&iduals of the same species# 's
we shall see, we must e&en expect that children will decei&e their parents, that husbands will cheat on
wi&es, and that brother will lie to brother#
Chapter 9 ! Aggression= stability and the selfish -achine
/o a sur&i&al machine, another sur&i&al machine (which is not its own child or another close relati&e is part
of its en&ironment, li0e a roc0 or a ri&er or a lump of food# ,t is something that gets in the way, or something
that can be exploited# ,t differs from a roc0 or a ri&er in one important respectE it is inclined to hit bac0# /his
is because it too is a machine that holds its immortal genes in trust for the future, and it too will stop at
nothing to preser&e them# Iatural selection fa&ours genes that control their sur&i&al machines in such a way
that they ma0e the best use of their en&ironment# /his includes ma0ing the best use of other sur&i&al
machines, both of the same and of different species#
/his interpretation of animal aggression as being restrained and formal can be disputed# ,n particular, it is
certainly wrong to condemn poor old -omo Sapiens as the only species to 0ill his own 0ind, the only
inheritor of the mar0 of *ain, and similar melodramatic charges#
,f only e&erybody would agree to be a do&e, e&ery single indi&idual would benefit# .y simple group
selection, any group in which all indi&iduals mutually agree to be do&es would be far more successful than a
ri&al group sitting at the !SS (!&olutionary Stable Strategy ratio#### ?roup selection theory would therefore
predict a tendency to e&ol&e towards an all2do&e conspiracy### .ut the trouble with conspiracies, e&en those
that are to e&erybody9s ad&antage in the long run, is that they are open to abuse# ,t is true that e&erybody
does better in an all2do&e group than he would in an !SS group# .ut unfortunately, in conspiracies of do&es,
a single haw0 does so extremely well that nothing could stop the e&olution of haw0s# /he conspiracy is
therefore bound to be bro0en by treachery from within# 'n !SS is stable, not because it is particularly good
for the indi&iduals participating in it, but simply because it is immune to treachery from within#
.ut there are other ways in which the interests of indi&iduals from different species conflict &ery sharply#
(or instance a lion wants to eat an antelope9s body, but the antelope has &ery different plans for its body#
/his is not normally regarded as competition for a resource, but logically it is hard to see why not# /he
resource in question is meat# /he lion genes 9want9 the meat as food for their sur&i&al machine# /he antelope
genes want the meat as wor0ing muscle and organs for their sur&i&al machine# /hese two uses for the meat
are mutually incompatible, therefore there is conflict of interest#
Chapter @ ! :ene-anship
:hat is the selfish geneF ,t is not )ust one single physical bit of @I'# Sust as in the prime&al soup, it is all
replicas of a particular bit of @I', distributed throughout the world# ,f we allow oursel&es the licence of
tal0ing about genes as if they had conscious aims, always reassuring oursel&es that we could translate our
sloppy language bac0 into respectable terms if we wanted to, we can as0 the question, what is a single
selfish gene trying to doF ,t is trying to get more numerous in the gene pool# .asically it does this by helping
to Program the bodies in which it finds itself to sur&i&e and to reproduce# .ut now we are emphasi7ing that
9it9 is a distributed agency, existing in many different indi&iduals at once# /he 0ey point of this chapter is that
a gene might be able to assist replicas of itself that are sitting in other bodies# ,f so, this would appear as
indi&idual altruism but it would be brought about by gene selfishness# it still seems rather implausible#
're there any plausible ways in which genes might 9recogni7e9 their copies in other indi&iduals#9 F /he
answer is yes# ,t is easy to show that close relati&es220in22ha&e a greater than a&erage chance of sharing
genes# ,t has long been clear that this is why altruism by parents towards their young is so common#
/o sa&e the life of a relati&e who is soon going to die of old age has less of an impact on the gene pool of
the future than to sa&e the life of an equally close relati&e who has the bul0 of his life ahead of him#
###indi&iduals can be thought of as life2insurance underwriters# 'n indi&idual can be expected to in&est or
ris0 a certain proportion of his own assets in the life of another indi&idual# -e ta0es into account his
relatedness to the other indi&idual, and also whether the indi&idual is a 9good ris09 in terms of his life
expectancy compared with the insurer9s own# Strictly we should say 9reproduction expectancy9 rather than
9life expectancy9, or to be e&en more strict, 9general capacity to benefit own genes in the future expectancy9#
'lthough the parent"child relationship is no closer genetically than the brother"sister relationship, its
certainty is greater# ,t is normally possible to be much more certain who your children are than who your
brothers are# 'nd you can be more certain still who you yourself are>
$ne sometimes hears it said that 0in selection is all &ery well as a theory, but there are few examples of its
wor0ing in practice# /his criticism can only be made by someone who does not understand what 0in
selection means# /he truth is that all examples of child protection and parental care, and all associated
bodily organs, mil0 secreting glands, 0angaroo pouches, and so on, are examples of the wor0ing in nature of
the 0in2selection principle# /he critics are of course familiar with the widespread existence of parental care,
but they fail to understand that parental care is no less an example of 0in selection than brother"sister
altruism#
Chapter 8 ! Fa-ily Planning
,t is a simple logical truth that, short of mass emigration into space, with roc0ets ta0ing off at the rate of
se&eral million per second, uncontrolled birth2rates are bound to lead to horribly increased death2rates# ,t is
hard to belie&e that this simple truth is not understood by those leaders who forbid their followers to use
effecti&e contracepti&e methods# /hey express a preference for 9natural9 methods of population limitation,
and a natural method is exactly what they are going to get# ,t is called star&ation#
:ild animals almost ne&er die of old ageE star&ation, disease, or predators catch up with them long before
they become really senile# %ntil recently this was true of man too# 8ost animals die in childhood, many
ne&er get beyond the egg stage#
,ndi&iduals who ha&e too many children are penali7ed, not because the whole population goes extinct, but
simply because fewer of their children sur&i&e#### /here is no need for altruistic restraint in the birth2rate,
because there is no welfare state in nature# 'ny gene for o&erindulgence is promptly punishedE the children
containing that gene star&e####*ontraception is sometimes attac0ed as 9unnatural9# So it is, &ery unnatural#
/he trouble is, so is the welfare state# , thin0 that most of us belie&e the welfare state is highly desirable# .ut
you cannot ha&e an unnatural welfare state, unless you also ha&e unnatural birthcontrol, otherwise the end
result will be misery e&en greater than that which obtains in nature#
Chapter I ! ;attle of the :enerations
, am treating a mother as a machine programmed to do e&erything in its power to propagate copies of the
genes which ride inside it#
Iow loo0 at it from the point of &iew of a particular child# -e is )ust as closely related to each of his
brothers and sisters as his mother is to them# /he relatedness is 1"; in all cases# /herefore he 9wants9 his
mother to in&est some of her resources in his brothers and sisters# ?enetically spea0ing, he is )ust as
altruistically disposed to them as his mother is# .ut again, he is twice as closely related to himself as he is to
any brother or sister, and this will dispose him to want his mother to in&est in him more than in any
particular brother or sister, other things being equal# ### Selfish greed seems to characteri7e much of child
beha&iour#
###.ut they certainly do not lac0 ruthlessness# (or instance, there are honeyguides who, li0e cuc0oos, lay
their eggs in the nests of other species# /he baby honeyguide is equipped with a sharp, hoo0ed bea0# 's
soon as he hatches out, while he is still blind, na0ed, and otherwise helpless, he scythes and slashes his
foster brothers and sisters to deathE dead brothers do not compete for food>
/he sight ofher child smiling, or the sound ofher 0itten purring, is rewarding to a mother, in the same sense
as food in the stomach is rewarding to a rat in a ma7e# .ut once it becomes true that a sweet smile or a loud
purr are rewarding, the child is in a position to use the smile or the purr in order to manipulate the parent,
and gain more than its fair share of parental in&estment#
Chapter 7 ! ;attle of the (e)es
IoteE @escriptions of beha&ior are intended to mean general animal beha&ior# -uman beha&ior may not be
so clear2cut due to cultural influences# See chapters 11 R 1K#
/he strategy of producing equal numbers of sons and daughters is an e&olutionary stable strategy, in the
sense that any gene for departing fiom it ma0es a net loss#
!ach indi&idual wants as many sur&i&ing children as possible# /he less he or she is obliged to in&est in any
one of those children, the more children he or she can ha&e# /he ob&ious way to achie&e this desirable state
of affairs is to induce your sexual partner to in&est more than his or her fair share of resources in each child,
lea&ing you free to ha&e other children with other partners# /his would be a desirable strategy for either sex,
but it is more difficult for the female to achie&e###
$f course in many species the father does wor0 hard and faithfully at loo0ing after the young# .ut e&en so,
we must expect that there will normally be some e&olutionary pressure on males to in&est a little bit less in
each child, and to try to ha&e more children by different wi&es#
.y insisting on a long engagement period, a female weeds out casual suitors, and only finally copulates with
a male who has pro&ed his qualities of fidelity and perse&erance in ad&ance# (eminine coyness is in fact
&ery common among animals, and so are prolonged courtship or engagement periods#
httpE""www#simonyi#ox#ac#u0"daw0ins":orld$f@aw0ins2
archi&e"@aw0ins":or0".oo0s"selfish#shtmlOquotes
Avolution +ntroduction - <ichard 8awins *uotes 'The Selfish Fene' - <ichard 8awins *uotes' 'The Blind
@atchmaer' - Top of 6a&e
$ichard 0a*<ins 1uotes
The ;lind +atch-a<er
+hy the ',idence of ',olution $e,eals a Uni,erse +ithout
0esign, 67I@
/his boo0 is written in the con&iction that our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries,
but that it is a mystery no longer because it is sol&ed# @arwin and :allace sol&ed it, though we Shall
continue to add footnotes to their solution for a while yet, , wrote the boo0 because , was surprised that so
many people seemed not only unaware of the elegant and beautiful solution to this deepest of problems but,
incredibly, in many cases actually unaware that there was a problem in the first place>
!xplaining is a difficult art# Nou can explain something so that your reader understands the words+ and you
can explain something so that the reader feels it in the marrow of his bones# /o do the latter, it sometimes
isn9t enough to lay the e&idence before the reader in a dispassionate way# Nou ha&e to become an ad&ocate
and use the tric0s of the ad&ocate9s trade# /his boo0 is not a dispassionate scientific treatise# $ther boo0s on
@arwinism are, and many of them are excellent and informati&e and should be read in con)unction with this
one# (ar from being dispassionate, it has to be confessed that in parts this boo0 is written with a passion
which, in a professional scientific )ournal, might excite comment# *ertainly it see0s to inform, but it also
see0s to persuade and e&en 2 one can specify aims without presumption 2 to inspire# , want to inspire the
reader with a &ision of our own existence as, on the face of it, a spine2chilling mystery+ and simultaneously
to con&ey the full excitement of the fact that it is a mystery with an elegant solution which is within our
grasp# 8ore, , want to persuade the reader, not )ust that the @arwinian world2&iew happens to be true, but
that it is the only 0nown theory that could, in principle, sol&e the mystery of our existence# /his ma0es it a
doubly satisfying theory# ' good case can be made that @arwinism is true, not )ust on this planet but all o&er
the uni&erse, where&er life may be found#
Chapter 6 ! ')plaining the ,ery I-probable
(!xcerpt from :illiam Paley9s Iatural /heology
every indication of contrivance0 every manifestation of design0 which e)isted in the watch0 e)ists in the
wor,s of nature+ with the difference0 on the side of nature0 of #eing greater or more0 and that in a degree
which e)ceeds all computation.
Paley9s argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of his
day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong# /he analogy between telescope and eye, between watch
and li&ing organism, is false# 'll appearances to the contrary, the only watchma0er in nature is the blind
forces of physics, albeit deployed in a &ery special way# ' true watchma0er has foresightE he designs his
cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind9s eye# Iatural selection,
the blind, unconscious, automatic process which @arwin disco&ered, and which we now 0now is the
explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind# ,t has no
mind and no mind9s eye# ,t does not plan for the future# ,t has no &ision, no foresight, no sight at all# ,f it can
be said to play the role of watchma0er in nature, it is the blind watchma0er#
.ut, howe&er many ways there may be of being ali&e, it is certain that there are &astly more ways of being
dead, or rather not ali&e#
(or those that li0e 92ism9 sorts of names, the aptest name for my approach to understanding how things wor0
is probably 9hierarchical reductionism9# ,f you read trendy intellectual maga7ines, you may ha&e noticed that
9reductionism9 is one of those things, li0e sin, that is only mentioned by people who are against it# /o call
oneself a reductionist will sound, in some circles, a bit li0e admitting to eating babies# .ut, )ust as nobody
actually eats babies, so nobody is really a reductionist in any sense worth being against#
###:e concluded that the beha&iour of a complicated thing should be explained in terms $f interactions
between its component parts, considered as successi&e layers of an orderly hierarchy#
/he physicist9s problem is the problem of ultimate origins and ultimate natural laws# /he biologist9s problem
is the problem of complexity#
Chapter D ! :ood 0esign
Iatural selection is the blind watchma0er, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences,
has no purpose in &iew# Net the li&ing results of natural selection o&erwhelmingly impress us with the
appearance of design as if by a master watchma0er, impress us with the illusion of design and planning# /he
purpose of this boo0 is to resol&e this paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this
chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design# :e shall loo0 at a particular
example and shall conclude that, when it comes to complexity and beauty of design, Paley hardly e&en
began to state the case#
Iowadays theologians aren9t quite so straightforward as Paley# /hey don9t point to complex li&ing
mechanisms and say that they are self2e&idently designed by a creator, )ust li0e a watch# .ut there is a
tendency to point to them and say 9,t is impossible to belie&e9 that such complexity, or such perfection, could
ha&e e&ol&ed by natural selection# :hene&er , read such a remar0, , always feel li0e writing 9Spea0 for
yourself9 in the margin#
###/here are two things wrong with the argument put by 5a&en# (irst, there is the familiar, and , ha&e to say
rather irritating, confusion of natural selection with 9randomness9# 8utation is random+ natural selection is
the &ery opposite of random# Second, it )ust isn9t true that 9each by itself is useless9# ,t isn9t true that the
whole perfect wor0 must ha&e been achie&ed simultaneously# ,t isn9t true that each part is essential for the
success of the whole#
Chapter J ! Accu-ulating s-all change
:e ha&e seen that li&ing things are too improbable and too beautifully 9designed9 to ha&e come into
existence by chance# -ow, then, did they come into existenceF /he answer, @arwin9s answer, is by gradual,
step2 by2step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to ha&e
come into existence by chance# !ach successi&e change in the gradual e&olutionary process was simple
enough, relati&e to its predecessor, to ha&e arisen by chance# .ut the whole sequence of cumulati&e steps
constitutes anything but a chance process, when you consider the complexity of the final end2product
relati&e to the original starting point# /he cumulati&e process is directed by nonrandom sur&i&al# /he
purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate the power of this cumulati&e selection as a fundamentally
nonrandom process#
!&olution has no long2term goal# /here is no long2distance target, no final perfection to ser&e as a criterion
for selection, although human &anity cherishes the absurd notion that our species is the final goal of
e&olution#
,f you don9t 0now anything about computers, )ust remember that they are machines that do exactly what you
tell them but often surprise you in the result#
.iomorph is the name coined by @esmond 8orris for the &aguely animal2li0e shapes in his surrealist
paintings#
,n true natural selection, if a body has what it ta0es to sur&i&e, its genes automatically sur&i&e because they
are inside it# So the genes that sur&i&e tend to be, automatically, those genes that confer on bodies the
qualities that assist them to sur&i&e#
:hen , wrote the program V.iomorphW, , ne&er thought that it would e&ol&e anything more than a &ariety of
tree2li0e shapes# , had hoped for weeping willows, cedars of Aebanon, Aombardy poplars, seaweeds,
perhaps deer antlers# Iothing in my biologist9s intuition, nothing in my ;< years9 experience of
programming computers, and nothing in my wildest dreams, prepared me for what actually emerged on the
screen#
Chapter G ! &a<ing trac<s through ani-al space
's we saw in *hapter ;, many people find it hard to belie&e that something li0e the eye, Paley9s fa&ourite
example, so complex and well designed, with so many interloc0ing wor0ing parts, could ha&e arisen from
small beginnings by a gradual series of step2by2step changes# Aet9s return to the problem in the light of such
new intuitions as the biomorphs may ha&e gi&en us# 'nswer the following two questionsE
1# *ould the human eye ha&e arisen directly from no eye at all, in a single step F
;# *ould the human eye ha&e arisen directly from something slightly different from itself, something that we
may call Y F
/he answer to Buestion 1 is clearly a decisi&e no# /he odds against a 9yes9 answer for questions li0e
Buestion 1 are many billions of times greater than the number of atoms in the uni&erse# ### /he answer to
Buestion ; is equally clearly yes, pro&ided only that the difference between the modern eye and its
immediate predecessor Y is sufficiently small#
:hat use is half a wingF -ow did wings get their startF 8any animals leap from bough to bough, and
sometimes fall to the ground# !specially in a small animal, the whole body surface catches the air and assists
the leap, or brea0s the fall, by acting as a crude aerofoil#
###/here are animals ali&e today that beautifully illustrate e&ery stage in the continuum# /here are frogs that
glide with big webs between their toes, tree2sna0es with flattened bodies that catch the air, li7ards with flaps
along their bodies, and se&eral different 0inds of mammals that glide with membranes stretched between
their limbs, showing us the 0ind of way bats must ha&e got their start# *ontrary to the creationist literature,
not only are animals with 9half a wing9 common, so are animals with a quarter of a wing, three quarters of a
wing, and so on#
/he idea of tiny changes cumulated o&er many steps is an immensely powerful idea, capable of explaining
an enormous range of things that would be otherwise inexplicable#
Sometimes the history of gradual, intermediate stages is clearly written into the shape of modern animals,
e&en ta0ing the form of outright imperfections in the final design# Stephen Say ?ould, in his excellent essay
on /he Panda9s /humb, has made the point that e&olution can be more strongly supported by e&idence of
telling imperfections than by e&idence of perfection#
###the timeseale on which continents ha&e drifted about is the same slow timescale on which animal lineages
ha&e e&ol&ed, and we cannot ignore continental drift if we are to understand the patterns of animal e&olution
on those continents#
'nti2e&olution propaganda is full of alleged examples of complex systems that 9could not possibly9 ha&e
passed through a gradual series of intermediates# /his is often )ust another case of the rather pathetic
9'rgument from Personal ,ncredulity9 that we met in *hapter ;# ,mmediately after the section on the eye, for
example, /he Iec0 of the ?iraffe goes on to discuss the bombardier beetle, which
Psquirts a lethal mixture of hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide into the face of its enemy# /hese two
chemicals, when mixed together, literally explode# So in order to store them inside its body, the .ombardier
.eetle has e&ol&ed a chemical inhibitor to ma0e them harmless# 't the moment the beetle squirts the liquid
out of its tail, an anti2inhibitor is added to ma0e the mixture explosi&e once again# /he chain of e&ents that
could ha&e led to the e&olution of such a complex, coordinated and subtle process is beyond biological
explanation on a simple step2by2step basis# /he slightest alteration in the chemical balance would result
immediately in a race of exploded beetles#P
' biochemist colleague has 0indly pro&ided me with a bottle of hydrogen peroxide, and enough
hydroquinone for 5< bombardier beetles# , am now about to mix the two together# 'ccording to the abo&e,
they will explode in my face# -ere goes###
:ell, ,9m still here# , poured the hydrogen peroxide into the hydroquinone, and absolutely nothing
happened# ,t didn9t e&en get warm# $f course , 0new it wouldn9tE ,9m not that foolhardy> /he statement that
9these two chemicals, when mixed together, literally explode9, is, quite simply, false, although it is regularly
repeated throughout creationist literature# ,f you are curious about the bombardier beetle, by the way, what
actually happens is as follows# ,t is true that it squirts a scaldingly hot mixture of hydrogen peroxide and
hydroquinone at enemies# .ut hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone don9t react &iolently together unless a
catalyst is added# /his is what the bombardier beetle does# 's for the e&olutionary precursors of the system,
both hydrogen peroxide and &arious 0inds of quinones are used for other purposes in body chemistry# /he
bombardier beetle9s ancestors simply pressed into different ser&ice chemicals that already happened to be
around# /hat9s often how e&olution wor0s#
Chapter 9 ! The po*er and the archi,es
,t is raining @I' outside# $n the ban0 of the $xford canal at the bottom of my garden is a large willow
tree, and it is pumping downy seeds into the air# ### /he whole performance, cotton wool, cat0ins, tree and
all, is in aid of one thing and one thing only, the spreading of @I' around the countryside# Iot )ust any
@I', but @I' whose coded characters spell out specific instructions for building willow trees that will
shed a new generation of downy seeds# /hose fluffy spec0s are, literally, spreading instructions for ma0ing
themsel&es# /hey are there because their ancestors succeeded in doing the same# ,t is raining instructions out
there+ it9s raining programs+ it9s raining tree2growing, fluff2spreading, algorithms# /hat is not a metaphor, it
is the plain truth# ,t couldn9t be any plainer if it were raining floppy discs#
,f you want to understand life, don9t thin0 about &ibrant, throbbing gels and oo7es, thin0 about information
technology#
/he particular polymers used by li&ing cells are called polynucleotides# /here are two main families of
polynucleotides in li&ing cells, called @I' and 5I' for short# .oth are chains of small molecules called
nucleotides# .oth @I' and 5I' are heterogeneous chains, with four different 0inds of nucleotides# /his,
of course, is where the opportunity for information storage lies# ,nstead of )ust the two states 1 and <, the
information technology of li&ing cells uses four states, which we may con&entionally represent as ', /, *
and ?# /here is &ery little difference, in principle, between a two2state binary information technology li0e
ours, and a four2state information technology li0e that of the li&ing cell#
@I' is 5$8# ,t can be read millions of times o&er, but only written to once 2 when it is first assembled the
birth of the cell in which it resides#
/he thing that defines a species is that all members ha&e the same addressing system for their @I'#
###,nstead, what we find is that natural selection exerts a bra0ing effect on e&olution# ### /his isn9t really
paradoxical# :hen we thin0 about it carefully, we see that it couldn9t be otherwise# !&olution by natural
selection could not be faster than the mutation rate, for mutation is, ultimately, the only way in which new
&ariation enters the species# 'll that natural selection can do is accept certain new &ariations, and re)ect
others# /he mutation rate is bound to place an upper limit on the rate at which e&olution can proceed# 's a
matter of fact, most of natural selection is concerned with pre&enting e&olutionary change rather than with
dri&ing it# /his doesn9t mean, , hasten to insist, that natural selection is a purely destructi&e process# ,t can
construct too, in ways that *hapter 7 will explain#
:here are these facts leading usF /hey are leading us in the direction of a central truth about life on
!arth, ### /his is that li&ing organisms exist for the benefit of @I' rather than the other way around# /his
won9t be ob&ious yet, but , hope to persuade you of it# /he messages that @I' molecules contain are all but
eternal when seen against the time scale of indi&idual lifetimes# /he lifetimes of @I' messages (gi&e or
ta0e a few mutations are measured in units ranging from millions of years to hundreds of millions of years+
or, in other words, ranging from 1<,<<< indi&idual lifetimes to a trillion indi&idual lifetimes# !ach indi&idual
organism should be seen as a temporary &ehicle, in which @I' messages spend a tiny fraction of their
geological lifetimes#
Chapter @ ! Origins and -iracles
*hance, luc0, coincidence, miracle# $ne of the main topics of this chapter is miracles and what we mean by
them# 8y thesis will be that e&ents that we commonly call miracles are not supernatural, but are part of a
spectrum of more2or2less improbable natural e&ents# ' miracle, in other words, if it occurs at all, is a
tremendous stro0e of luc0# !&ents don9t fall neatly into natural e&ents &ersus miracles#
*umulati&e selection is the 0ey but it had to get started, and we cannot escape the need to postulate a single2
step chance e&ent in the origin of cumulati&e selection itself#
*airns2Smith belie&es that the original life on this planet was based on self2replicating inorganic crystals
such as silicates# ,f this is true, organic replicators, and e&entually @I', must later ha&e ta0en o&er or
usurped the role#
*ultural e&olution is many orders of magnitude faster than @I'2based e&olution, which sets one e&en more
to thin0ing of the idea of 9ta0eo&er9# 'nd if a new 0ind of replicator ta0eo&er is beginning, it is concei&able
that it will ta0e off so far as to lea&e its parent @I' (and its grandparent clay if *airns2Smith is right far
behind# ,f so, we may be sure that computers will be in the &an#
Sust as our eyes can see only that narrow band of electromagnetic frequencies that natural selection
equipped our ancestors to see, so our brains are built to cope with narrow bands of si7es and times#
,t is often pointed out that chemists ha&e failed in their attempts to duplicate the spontaneous origin of life in
the laboratory# /his fact is used as if it constituted e&idence against the theories that those chemists are
trying to test# .ut actually one can argue that we should be worried if it turned out to be &ery easy for
chemists to obtain life spontaneously in the test2tube# /his is because chemists9 experiments last for years
not thousands of millions of years, and because only a handful of chemists, not thousands of millions of
chemists, are engaged in doing these experiments# ,f the spontaneous origin of life turned out to be a
probable enough e&ent to ha&e occurred during the few man2decades in which chemists ha&e done their
experiments, then life should ha&e arisen many times on !arth, and many times on planets within radio
range of !arth#
So we ha&e arri&ed at the following paradox# ,f a theory of the origin of life is sufficiently 9plausible9 to
satisfy our sub)ecti&e )udgement of plausibility, it is then too 9plausible9 to account for the paucity of life in
the uni&erse as we obser&e it# 'ccording to this argument, the theory we are loo0ing for has got to be the
0ind of theory that seems implausible to our limited, !arth2bound, decade2bound imaginations# Seen in this
light, both *airns2Smith9s theory and the prime&al2soup theory seem if anything in danger of erring on the
side of being too plausible> -a&ing said all this , must confess that, because there is so much uncertainty in
the calculations, if a chemist did succeed in creating spontaneous life , would not actually be disconcerted>
Chapter 7 ! Puncturing Punctuationis-
(rom @arwin onwards e&olutionists ha&e reali7ed that, if we arrange all our a&ailable fossils in
chronological order, they do not form a smooth sequence of scarcely perceptible change# ### the trends as
seen in the fossil record are usually )er0y, not smooth# @arwin, and most others following him, ha&e
assumed that this is mainly because the fossil record is imperfect# V;;9W
:hat the 9punctuationists9 did, when they first proposed their theory, was to as0 themsel&esE ?i&en that, li0e
most neo2@arwinians, we accept the orthodox theory that speciation starts with geographical isolation, what
should we expect to see in the fossil recordF V;K9W
/he 9gaps9, far from being annoying imperfections or aw0ward embarrassments, turn out to be what we
should positi&ely expect, if we ta0e seriously our orthodox neo2@arwinian theory of speciation# ### /he point
that !ldredge and ?ould were ma0ing, then, could ha&e been modestly presented as a helpful rescuing of
@arwin and his successors from what had seemed to them an aw0ward difficulty# ,ndeed that is, at least in
part, how it was presented 2 initially# ### !ldredge and ?ould could ha&e made this their main messageE @on9t
worry @arwin, e&en if the fossil record were perfect you shouldn9t expect to see a finely graduated
progression if you only dig in one place, for the simple reason that most of the e&olutionary change too0
place somewhere else# ### .ut no, instead they chose, especially in their later writings in which they were
eagerly followed by )ournalists, to sell their ideas as being radically opposed to @arwin9s and opposed to the
neo2@arwinian synthesis# V;L<2;L1W
/he fact is that, in the fullest and most serious sense, !ldredge and ?ould are really )ust as gradualist as
@arwin or any of his followers# ,t is )ust that they would compress all the gradual change into brief bursts,
rather than ha&ing it go on all the time+ and they emphasise that most of the gradual change goes on in
geographical areas away from the areas where most fossils are dug up#
So it is not really the gradualism of @arwin that the punctuationists opposeE gradualism means that each
generation is only slightly different from the pre&ious generation+ you would ha&e to be a saltationist to
oppose that, and !ldredge and ?ould are not saltationists# 5ather, it turns out to be @arwin9s alleged belief
in the constancy of rates of e&olution that they and other punctuationists ob)ect to# V;L1W
### it is all too easy to confuse gradualism (the belief, held by modern punctuationists as well as @arwin, that
there are no sudden leaps between one generation and the next with 9constant e&olutionary speedism9
(opposed by punctuationists and allegedly, though not actually, held by @arwin# /hey are not the same
thing at all# V;L;2;LKW
,t isn9t true that @arwin belie&ed that e&olution proceeded at a constant rate# -e certainly didn9t belie&e it in
the ludicrously extreme that , satiri7ed Vin a parable that since it too0 the ,sraelistes L< years to get to
Palestine, they were only doing ;L yards a dayW###, and , don9t thin0 he really belie&ed it in any important
sense# V;LK2;LLW
/he theory of punctuated equilibrium is a minor gloss on @arwinism, one which @arwin himself might well
ha&e appro&ed if the issue had been discussed in his day# 's a minor gloss, it does not deser&e a particularly
large measure of publicity# ## the theory has been sold 2 o&ersold by some )ournalists 2 as if it were radically
opposed to the &iews of @arwin and his successors# V;5<W
:hat needs to be said now, loud and clear, is the truthE that the theory of punctuated equilibrium lies firmly
within the neo2@arwinian synthesis# ,t always did# ,t will ta0e time to undo the damage wrought by
o&erblown rhetoric, but it will be undone# /he theory of punctuated equilibrium will come to be seen in
proportion, as an interesting but minor wrin0le on the surface of neo2@arwinian theory# V;51WP
http'55www.simonyi.ox.ac.u5dawins5@orld=f8awins-archive58awins5@or5Boos5blind.shtmlSquotes
Jared .iamond
Quotes by /"olutionary )cientist +Biology, /cology- Jared .iamond
-istory followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples9
en&ironments, not because of biological differences among peoples themsel&es#
(ar more Iati&e 'mericans and other non2!uropean peoples were 0illed by !urasian germs than by
!urasian guns and steel weapons# (Kared 0ia-ond, ?uns, ?erms and Steel, 199=
Kared 0ia-ond ',olution 1uotes
?:uns, :er-s and (teel?
-istory before the emergence of writing around K<<<.* recei&es brief treatment, although it constitutes
99#9] of the fi&e million year history of the human species# ##-umans di&erged from the apes around se&en
million years ago# ##1K <<< years since the end of the last ,ce 'ge# (0ia-ond, ,ntroduction
%ntil the end of the last ,ce 'ge, around 11 <<< .*, all people on all continents were hunter2gatherers#
@ifferent rates of de&elopment on different continents, from 11 <<<.* to 15<<'@, were what led to
technological and political inequalities of 15<<'@# :hile 'boriginal 'ustralians and many Iati&e
'mericans remained hunter2gatherers, most of !urasia and much of the 'mericas and sub2Saharan 'frica
gradually de&eloped agriculture, herding, metallurgy and complex political organisation# Parts of !urasia,
and one area of the 'mericas, independently de&eloped writing as well# -owe&er, each of these new
de&elopments appeared earlier in !urasia than elsewhere# (or instance, the mass production of bron7e tools
which was )ust beginning in the South 'merican 'ndes in the centuries before 15<<'@, was already
established in !urasia o&er L<<< years earlier# /he stone technology of the /asmanians, when first
encountered by !uropean explorers in 1JL;'@, was simpler than that pre&alent in parts of the %pper
Paleolithic !urope tens of thousands of years earlier# (0ia-ond, p1J
/he history of interactions among disparate peoples is what shaped the modern world through conquest,
epidemics and genocide# /hose collisions created re&erberations that ha&e still not died down after many
centuries, and that are acti&ely continuing in some of the world4s most troubled areas# (0ia-ond, p1J
,f we succeed in explaining how some people came to dominate other people, may this not seem to )ustify
the dominationF @oesn4t it seem to say that the outcome was ine&itable, and that it would therefore be futile
to try to change the outcome todayF /his ob)ection rests on a common tendency to confuse an explanation
of causes with a )ustification or acceptance of results# :hat use one ma0es of a historical explanation is a
question separate from the explanation itself# %nderstanding is more often used to try to alter an outcome
than to repeat or perpetuate it# /hat4s why psychologists try to understand the minds of murderers and
rapists, why social historians try to understand genocide, and why physicians try to understand the causes of
disease# /hose in&estigators do not see0 to )ustify murder, rape, genocide and illness# ,nstead, they see0 to
use their understanding of a chain of causes to interrupt the chain#
(0ia-ond, p17
,ntelligent people are li0elier than less intelligent ones to escape those causes of high mortality (murder,
chronic tribal warfare, accidents, problems procuring food## in traditional Iew ?uinean societies# -owe&er,
the differential mortality from epidemic diseases in traditional !uropean societies had little to do with
intelligence, and instead in&ol&ed genetic resistance dependent on details of body chemistry# (or example
people with blood type . or $ ha&e a greater genetic resistance to smallpox than do people with blood
group '# /hat is, natural selection promoting genes for intelligence has probably been far more ruthless in
Iew ?uinea than in more densely populated, politically complex societies, where natural selection for body
chemistry was more potent# (0ia-ond, p;1
-istory followed different courses for different people because of differences among peoples4
en&ironments, not because of biological differences among people themsel&es# (0ia-ond, p#;5
(ar more Iati&e 'mericans and other non2!uropean peoples were 0illed by !urasian germs than by
!urasian guns and steel weapons# (0ia-ond, p;9
/p To The +tarting &ine
$ur closest li&ing relati&es are the three sur&i&ing species of great apeE the gorilla, the common chimpan7ee
and the pygmy chimpan7ee (bonobo# /heir confinement to 'frica, along with abundant fossil e&idence,
indicates that the earliest stages of human e&olution were also played out in 'frica# 'round se&en million
years ago, a population of 'frican apes bro0e up into se&eral populations, of which one e&ol&ed into
modern gorillas, second into the two modern chimps and the third into humans#
(ossils indicate that the e&olutionary line leading to us had achie&ed a substantially upright posture by
around four million years ago, then began to increase in body si7e and in relati&e brain si7e around ;#5
million years ago#
/hese protohumans are generally 0nown as 'ustralopithecus africanus, -omo habilis and -omo erectus,
which apparently e&ol&ed into each other in that sequence# 'lthough -omo erectus, the stage reached
around 1#7 million years ago, was close to us modern humans in body si7e, its brain si7e was still barely half
of ours#
(or the first 5 or J million years, after our origins about 7 million years ago, protohumans remained
confined to 'frica# /he first human ancestor to spread beyond 'frica was -omo erectus, as is attested by
fossils disco&ered on the Southeast 'sian island of Sa&a and con&entionally 0nown as 3Sa&a man4# /he
oldest Sa&a man fossils ha&e usually been assumed to date from about a million years ago# (0ia-ond, p#KJ
.y about half a million years ago, human fossils had di&erged from older -omo erectus s0eletons in their
enlarged, rounder and less angular s0ulls# 'frican and !uropean s0ulls of half a million years ago were
sufficiently similar to s0ulls of us moderns that they are classified in our species, -omo sapiens# -owe&er
these early -omo sapiens still differed from us in s0eletal details, had brains significantly smaller than ours,
and were grossly different from us in their artifacts and beha&iour# 8odern stone tool ma0ing peoples would
ha&e scorned the stone tools of half a million years ago as &ery crude# /he only other significant addition to
our ancestors4 cultural repertoire that can be documented with confidence around that time was the use of
fire# (0ia-ond, p# K72=
'fter half a million years ago, the human populations of 'frica and western !urasia proceeded to di&erge
from each other and from !ast 'sian populations in s0eletal details# /he population of !urope and western
'sia between 1K< <<< and L< <<< years ago is represented by especially many s0eletons, 0nown as
Ieanderthals# @espite being depicted in innumerable cartoons as apeli0e brutes li&ing in ca&es,
Ieanderthals had brains slightly bigger than our own, were the first humans to lea&e behind strong e&idence
for buring their dead and caring for the sic0# /heir stone tools though were still crude and not yet made in
standardised di&erse shapes, each with a clearly recognisable function#
/he few preser&ed 'frican s0eletal fragments contemporary with the Ieanderthals are more similar to our
modern s0eletons than to Ieanderthal s0eletons# !&en fewer preser&ed !ast 'sian s0etal fragments are
0nown, but they appear different again from both 'fricans and Ieanderthals# (0ia-ond, p#K=
-uman history too0 off around 5< <<< years ago# /he earliest definite signs of the ?reat Aeap (orward
come from !ast 'frican sites with standardised stone tools and the first preser&ed )ewelry# Similar
de&elopments soon appear in the Iear !ast and in southeasten !urope, then (some L< <<< years ago in
southwestern !urope, where abundant artifatcs are associated with fully modern s0eletons of people termed
*ro28agnons#
*ro28agnon garbage heaps yield not only stone tools but also tools of bone, whose suitability for shaping
(i#e# fish hoo0s had apparently gone unrecognised by pre&ious humans# /ools were produced in di&erse and
distincti&e shapes so modern that their functions as needles, awls, engra&ing tools and so on are ob&ious to
us# 8ultipiece tools also made their appearance at *ro28agnon sites, such as harpoons, spear2throwers and
e&entually bows and arrows, the precursors of rifles# /hose efficient means of 0illing at a safe distance
permitted the hunting of such dangerous prey as rhinos and elephants, while the in&ention of rope for nets,
lines and snares allowed the addition of fish and birds to our diet# 5emains of houses and sewn clothing
testify to a greatly impro&ed ability to sur&i&e in cold climates#
$f the *ro28agnons4 products that ha&e been preser&ed, the best 0nown are their artwor0sE their
magnificent ca&e paintings, statues and musical instruments, which we still appreciate as art today#
(0ia-ond, p# K9
$b&iously, some momentous change too0 place in our ancestors capabilities between about 1<< <<< and 5<
<<< years ago# /hat ?reat Aeap (orward poses two ma)or unresol&ed questions, regarding its triggering
causes and its geographic location# 's for its cause, , argued in my boo0 /he /hird *himpan7ee for the
perfection of the &oice box and hence the anatomical basis of modern language, on which the exercise of
human creati&ity is so dependent# $thers ha&e suggested instead that a change in brain organisation around
that time, without a change in brain si7e, made modern language possible#
's for the site of the ?reat Aeap (orward, did it ta0e place primarily in one geographic area, in one group of
humans, who were thereby enabled to expand and replace the former human populations of other parts of
the worldF $r did it occur parallel in different regions, in each of which the human populations li&ing there
today would be descendants of the populations li&ing there before the leapF
/he rather modern loo0ing human s0ulls from 'frica around 1<< <<< years ago ha&e been ta0en to support
the former &iew, with the leap occurring specifically in 'frica# $n the other hand, s0ulls of humans li&ing in
*hina and ,ndonesia hundreds of thousands of years ago are considered by some physical anthropologists to
exhibit features still found in modern *hinese and in 'boriginal 'ustralians respecti&ely# ,f true, that
finding would suggest parallel e&olution and multiregional origins of modern humans, rather than origins in
a single garden of eden# /he issue remains unresol&ed# (0ia-ond, p# L<
/he e&idence for a localised origin of modern humans, followed by their spread and then their replacement
of other types of humans elsewhere, seems strongest for !urope# Some L< <<< years ago, into !urope came
the *ro28agnons, with their modern s0eletons, superior weapons and ad&anced cultural traits# :ithin a few
thousand years there were no more Ieanderthals, who had been e&ol&ing as the sole occupants of !urope
for hundreds of thousands of years# (0ia-ond, p# L<
/he ?reat Aeap (orward coincides with the first pro&en ma)or extension of human geographic range since
our ancestors4 colonisation of !urasia# /hat extension consisted of the occupation of 'ustralia and Iew
?uinea, )oined at that time into a single continent# 8any radiocarbon dated sites attest to human presence in
'ustralia"Iew ?uinea between L< <<< and K< <<< years ago# :ithin a short time of that initial peopling,
humans had expanded o&er the whole continent and adapted to its di&erse habitats# (0ia-ond, p# L1
@uring the ,ce 'ges, so much of the oceans waters was loc0ed up in glaciers that worldwide sea le&els
dropped hundreds of feet below their present stand# 's a result, what are now the shallow seas between 'sia
and the ,ndonesian islands of Sumatra, .orneo, Sa&a and .ali became dry land# /he edge of the South east
'sian mainland then lay 7<< miles east of its present location# Ie&erthless, central ,ndonesian islands
between .ali and 'ustralia remained surrounded and separated by deep water channels# /o reach 'ustralia "
Iew ?uinea from the 'sian mainland at that time still required crossing a mimimum of = channels, the
broadest of which was 5< miles wide# 8ost of these channels di&ided islands &isible from each other, but
'ustralia itself was always in&isible from e&en the nearest ,ndonesian islands, /imor and /animbar# /hus
the occupation of 'ustralia " Iew ?uinea is momentus in that it demanded watercraft and pro&ides by far
the earliest e&idence of their use in history# Iot until about K< <<< years later (1K <<< years ago is there
strong e&idence of watercraft anywhere else in the world, from the 8editerranean# (0ia-ond, p#L1
1uantu- Physics
/he :a&e Structure of 8atter (:S8 and Spherical Standing
:a&e ,nteractions explains @iscrete !nergy States of Buantum
/heory " :a&e 8echanics# ' Simple Solution to the Particle "
:a&e @uality of Aight and 8atter, !P5, Ion Aocality R Buantum
!ntanglement#
5ote= /his article was written se&eral years ago# ,t is long (by internet standards and basically explains the
main sub)ects of quantum theory from a :a&e Structure of 8atter foundation (wa&e mechanics# ,f you
prefer shorter summaries )ust browse the quantum physics lin0s on the right side of this page#
/o begin, a few nice quotes on Buantum Physics#
$n the one hand the 3uantu- theory of light cannot be considered satisfactory since it defines the energy
of a light particle (photon by the equation !Uhf containing the frequency f# Iow a purely particle theory
contains nothing that enables us to define a frequency+ for this reason alone, therefore, we are compelled, in
the case of light, to introduce the idea of a particle and that of frequency simultaneously# $n the other hand,
determination of the stable motion of electrons in the atom introduces integers, and up to this point the only
phenomena in&ol&ing integers in physics were those of interference and of nor-al -odes of ,ibration#
/his fact suggested to me the idea that electrons too could not be considered simply as particles, but that
frequency (*a,e properties must be assigned to them also# ("ouis de ;roglie, Iobel Pri7e Speech,
Buantum Physics, 19;9
/he de&elopment during the present century is characteri7ed by two theoretical systems essentially
independent of each otherE the theory of relati,ity and the 3uantu- theory# /he two systems do not
directly contradict each other+ but they seem little adapted to fusion into one unified theory# ### !xperiments
on interference made with particle rays ha&e gi&en brilliant proof that the *a,e character of the
pheno-ena of -otion as assumed by the theory do, really, correspond to the facts# ### de .roglie concei&ed
an electron re&ol&ing about the atomic nucleus as being connected with a hypothetical wa&e train, and made
intelligible to some extent the discrete character of .ohr9s 9permitted9 paths by the stationary (standing)
character of the corresponding *a,es# (Albert 'instein, $n Buantum 8echanics, 19L<
' careful analysis of the process of obser&ation in atomic physics has shown that the subatomic particles
ha&e no meaning as isolated entities, but can only be understood as interconnections between the
preparation of an experiment and the subsequent measurement# Buantum theory thus re&eals a basic oneness
of the uni&erse# ,t shows that we cannot decompose the world into independently existing smallest units# 's
we penetrate into matter, nature does not show us any isolated 3basic building bloc0s4, but rather appears as
a complicated web of relations between the &arious parts of the whole# (Fritjof Capra, /he /ao of Physics,
$n Buantum /heory
+ntro' 6hysics' *uantum Theory 5 ;echanics - 6rinciple =ne' @hat Axists - 6rinciple Two' Eecessary
%onnection - 6lanc 5 *uantum Theory - de Bro&lie 5 *uantum Theory - %ompton @avelen&th -
Schrodin&er @ave Aquations - #orce 5 %har&e - <esonant %ouplin& 5 :i&ht - Keisenber&'s 7ncertainty
6rinciple - Born's 6robability @aves - #eynman's *uantum Alectrodynamics - @olff 5 A6< Axperiment -
6hysics Summary' *uantum Theory 5 ;echanics - Top of 6a&e
Introduction to 1uantu- Physics
1uantu- Theory B +a,e &echanics
(rom 19<< to 19K< there was a re&olution in the foundations of our understanding of light and matter
interactions# ,n 19<< Planc0 showed that light energy must be emitted and absorbed in discrete 9quanta9 to
explain blac0body radiation# /hen in 19<5 !instein showed that the energy of light is determined by its
frequency, where !Uhf# (inally, in the late 19;<s, de .roglie and Schrodinger introduced the concept of
Standing :a&es to explain these discrete frequency and energy states of light and matter (standing wa&es
only exist at discrete frequencies and thus energy states#
So it is clear that :a&es are central to Buantum Physics and our understanding of the structure and discrete
energy states of 8atter (which explains why Buantum /heory is also called Buantum :a&e 8echanics# 's
we shall explain, the problems and absurdities of quantum theory ha&e been caused by the continuing
assumption of the discrete 9particle9 concept for both light and matter, and thus the resulting paradox of the
9Particle " :a&e9 duality#
's we are dealing with a scientific theory, it is necessary to begin by stating the central Principles of the
?&etaphysics of (pace and &otion and the +a,e (tructure of &atter?, which describe how 8atter
exists in Space as a Spherical Standing :a&e and interacts with other 8atter in the Space around it# (rom
this foundation we can then deduce the solutions to many problems currently found in Buantum /heory
caused by this ancient concept that matter exists as 9particles9#
(or example, the ob&ious solution to the paradox of the particle " wa&e duality of matter is to realise that the
:a&e2*enter of the Spherical Standing :a&e causes the obser&ed 9particle9 effects of 8atter (see wa&e
diagram below# Ai0ewise, the discrete 9particle9 properties of Aight (quanta " photons are caused by
Standing :a&e interactions which only occur at discrete frequencies and thus energy states#
, thin0 it is useful to end this quantum physics introduction with two &ery important quotes# (irstly from
!rwin Schrodinger+
:hat we obser&e as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and &ariations in the structure of
space# Particles are )ust schaum0ommen (appearances# /he world is gi&en to me only once, not one
existing and one percei&ed# Sub)ect and ob)ect are only one# /he barrier between them cannot be said to
ha&e bro0en down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist#
(!rwin Schrodinger, on Buantum /heory
.ecause Schrodinger belie&ed in real wa&es, he was ne&er happy with 8ax .orn9s statistical " probability
interpretation of the wa&es that became commonly accepted (and was acti&ely promoted by -eisenberg and
.ohr in Buantum /heory " 8echanics#
Aet me say at the outset, that in this discourse, , am opposing not a few special statements of quantum
mechanics " quantum theory held today (195<s, , am opposing as it were the whole of it, , am opposing its
basic &iews that ha&e been shaped ;5 years ago, when 8ax .orn put forward his probability interpretation,
which was accepted by almost e&erybody# (Schrbdinger !, /he ,nterpretation of Buantum 8echanics# $x
.ow Press, :oodbridge, *I, 1995
, don9t li0e it, and ,9m sorry , e&er had anything to do with it# (!rwin Schrodinger tal0ing about quantum
theory#
'nd , &ery strongly agree with Schrodinger (and greatly respect him when he writes+
/he scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon
other scientists# ((chrodinger
Secondly, @a&id .ohm pro&ides a clear account of how this incorrect 9particle9 conception of matter not
only causes harm to the Sciences, but also to the way we thin0 and li&e, and thus to our &ery society and its
future e&olution#
/he notion that all these fragments is separately existent is e&idently an illusion, and this illusion cannot do
other than lead to endless conflict and confusion# ,ndeed, the attempt to li&e according to the notion that the
fragments are really separate is, in essence, what has led to the growing series of extremely urgent crises
that is confronting us today# /hus, as is now well 0nown, this way of life has brought about pollution,
destruction of the balance of nature, o&er2population, world2wide economic and political disorder and the
creation of an o&erall en&ironment that is neither physically nor mentally healthy for most of the people who
li&e in it# ,ndi&idually there has de&eloped a widespread feeling of helplessness and despair, in the face of
what seems to be an o&erwhelming mass of disparate social forces, going beyond the control and e&en the
comprehension of the human beings who are caught up in it#
(0a,id ;oh-, :holeness and the ,mplicate $rder, 19=<
+ntro' 6hysics' *uantum Theory 5 ;echanics - 6rinciple =ne' @hat Axists - 6rinciple Two' Eecessary
%onnection - 6lanc 5 *uantum Theory - de Bro&lie 5 *uantum Theory - %ompton @avelen&th -
Schrodin&er @ave Aquations - #orce 5 %har&e - <esonant %ouplin& 5 :i&ht - Keisenber&'s 7ncertainty
6rinciple - Born's 6robability @aves - #eynman's *uantum Alectrodynamics - @olff 5 A6< Axperiment -
6hysics Summary' *uantum Theory 5 ;echanics - Top of 6a&e
Principle One 5 On #hat />ists and its Properties
i $ne /hing, Space (,nfinite and !ternal !xists as a :a&e28edium and contains :a&e28otions which
Propagate at the 6elocity of Aight c#
ii 8atter !xists as the Spherical :a&e 8otion of Space (which determines the Si7e of our (inite Spherical
%ni&erse within an ,nfinite Space#
T U /his (&ery rough> diagram shows how the Spherical ,n and $ut :a&es form a
Standing :a&e around the :a&e2*enter 9particle9#
+ntro' 6hysics' *uantum Theory 5 ;echanics - 6rinciple =ne' @hat Axists - 6rinciple Two' Eecessary
%onnection - 6lanc 5 *uantum Theory - de Bro&lie 5 *uantum Theory - %ompton @avelen&th -
Schrodin&er @ave Aquations - #orce 5 %har&e - <esonant %ouplin& 5 :i&ht - Keisenber&'s 7ncertainty
6rinciple - Born's 6robability @aves - #eynman's *uantum Alectrodynamics - @olff 5 A6< Axperiment -
6hysics Summary' *uantum Theory 5 ;echanics - Top of 6a&e
Principle T!o 5 On the ecessary Connections bet!een #hat />ists
i 'ny *hange in 6elocity of the Spherical ,n2:a&es from $ne @irection *hanges where these ,n2:a&es
meet at their respecti&e :a&e2*enter which we see as the 'ccelerated 8otion of the 9Particle9# (/his is the
*ause of 'll (orces, i#e# Iewton9s Aaw of ,nertia (Um#a, see (igE;#1 below
ii /he Spherical ,n2:a&es are formed from the -uygens9 *ombination of $ut2:a&es from 'll other 8atter
in our (inite Spherical %ni&erse# (/his is the *ause of 8ach9s Principle 2 the 8ass (mass2energy density of
space of an ob)ect is determined by all the other matter in the %ni&erse# See (igE;#; below
Fig= D.6 :ra,ity is Caused by the (lo*ing of the In!+a,es. IoteE 6ery approximate wa&e diagram, only
shows ,n2:a&es (does not show $ut2:a&es and the ellipsoidal shape is not accurate# .ut the basic idea of
gra&ity being caused by slower wa&e &elocity in higher mass2energy density space is important# 'n ob&ious
example of this is light cur&ing past the sun#
Fig= D.D #uygens? Theory e)plains ho* our In!+a,es are created by other &atter?s Out!+a,es
So let us now explain and sol&e the many problems and paradoxes of Buantum /heory using the /wo
Principles of the 8etaphysics of Space and 8otion and the Spherical :a&e Structure of 8atter#
@uring the years 19<<219K<, many experiments were done on the interactions of light beams, particle
beams, and metal targets# 'nalysis of these experiments showed that Aight and 8atter had both Particle and
:a&e properties# 's we ha&e said, the solution to this apparent paradox of the Particle":a&e duality is to
simply explain how the discrete 9particle9 properties (quanta are in fact caused by standing :a&e
interactions#
/o do this we must begin by explaining the experimental foundations of Buantum /heory+
1# 8ax Planc09s @isco&ery of the Particle (Buantum Properties of Aight, !Uhf# (19<<
;# de .roglie9s @isco&ery of the :a&e Properties of !lectron ,nteractions, yUh"m&# (19;7
K# /he !qui&alence of !nergy, 8ass and (requency and the *ompton :a&elength N of the !lectron
NUh"mc U ;#LKX1<
21;
m#
+ntro' 6hysics' *uantum Theory 5 ;echanics - 6rinciple =ne' @hat Axists - 6rinciple Two' Eecessary
%onnection - 6lanc 5 *uantum Theory - de Bro&lie 5 *uantum Theory - %ompton @avelen&th -
Schrodin&er @ave Aquations - #orce 5 %har&e - <esonant %ouplin& 5 :i&ht - Keisenber&'s 7ncertainty
6rinciple - Born's 6robability @aves - #eynman's *uantum Alectrodynamics - @olff 5 A6< Axperiment -
6hysics Summary' *uantum Theory 5 ;echanics - Top of 6a&e
383 Quantum Physics Foundations& Ma> Planc=1s .isco"ery of Particle ( Quantum Properties
of Light +3C77-
,n 19<< 8ax Planc0 made a profound disco&ery# -e showed (from purely formal " mathematical
foundations that light must be emitted and absorbed in discrete amounts if it was to correctly describe
obser&ed phenomena (i#e# .lac0body radiation#
Prior to then light had been considered as a continuous electromagnetic wa&e, thus the discrete nature of
light was completely unexpected, as 'lbert !instein explains+
'bout fifteen years ago (1=99 nobody had yet doubted that a correct account of the electrical, optical, and
thermal properties of matter was possible on the basis of ?alileo2Iewtonian mechanics applied to molecular
motion and of 8axwell9s theory of the electromagnetic field# (Albert 'instein, 1915
/hen Planc0 showed that in order to establish a law of heat radiation (,nfra red light wa&es consonant with
experience, it was necessary to employ a method of calculation whose incompatibility with the principles of
classical physics became clearer and clearer# (or with this method of calculation, Planc0 introduced into
physics the quantum hypothesis, which has since recei&ed brilliant confirmation# (Albert 'instein, 191L
,n the year nineteen hundred, in the course of purely theoretical (mathematical in&estigation, 8ax Planc0
made a &ery remar0able disco&eryE the law of radiation of bodies as a function of temperature could not be
deri&ed solely from the Aaws of 8axwellian electrodynamics# /o arri&e at results consistent with the
rele&ant experiments, radiation of a gi&en frequency f had to be treated as though it consisted of energy
atoms (photons of the indi&idual energy hf, where h is Planc09s uni&ersal constant# @uring the years
following, it was shown that light was e&erywhere produced and absorbed in such energy quanta# ,n
particular, Iiels .ohr was able to largely understand the structure of the atom, on the assumption that the
atoms can only ha&e discrete energy &alues, and that the discontinuous transitions between them are
connected with the emission or absorption of energy quantum# /his threw some light on the fact that in their
gaseous state elements and their compounds radiate and absorb only light of certain sharply defined
frequencies# (Albert 'instein, 19L<
!&en the ?ree0s had already concei&ed the atomistic nature of matter and the concept was raised to a high
degree of probability by the scientists of the nineteenth century# .ut it was Planc09s law of radiation that
yielded the first exact determination 2 independent of other assumptions 2 of the absolute magnitudes of
atoms# 8ore than that, he showed con&incingly that in addition to the atomistic structure of matter there is a
0ind of atomistic structure to energy, go&erned by the uni&ersal constant h, which was introduced by Planc0#
/his disco&ery became the basis of all twentieth2century research in physics and has almost entirely
conditioned its de&elopment e&er since# :ithout this disco&ery it would not ha&e been possible to establish
a wor0able theory of molecules and atoms and the energy processes that go&ern their transformations#
8oreo&er, it has shattered the whole framewor0 of classical mechanics and electrodynamics and set science
a fresh tas<= that of finding a ne* conceptual basis for all physics# @espite remar0able partial gains, the
problem is still far from a satisfactory solution# (Albert 'instein, 195<
'lbert !instein (19<5 used Planc09s relationship to explain the results of the photoelectric effect which
showed that the energy ' of e)ected electrons was dependent upon the frequency f of incident light as
described in the equation 'Fhf# ,t is ironic that in 19;1 'lbert !instein was awarded the Iobel Pri7e for this
disco&ery, though he ne&er belie&ed in particles and ac0nowledged that he did not 0now the cause of the
discrete energy transfers (photons which were contradictory to his continuous field theory of matter>
,n 195L 'lbert !instein wrote to his friend 8ichael .esso expressing his frustration+
'll these fifty years of conscious brooding ha&e brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 9:hat
are light quantaF9 Iowadays e&ery /om, @ic0 and -arry thin0s he 0nows it, but he is mista0en# (Albert
'instein, 195L
8ost importantly, 'lbert !instein also suspected that 8atter could not be described by a continuous
spherical force field+
, consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i#e#, on continuous structures#
,n that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gra&itation theory included, Vand ofW the rest of
modern physics# (Albert 'instein, 195L
'lbert !instein9s suspicions were well )ustified, for he had spent a lifetime trying (and failing to create a
unified field theory of matter that explained both Buantum /heory " Aight and 5elati&ity " ?ra&ity#
,n fact 8atter, as a Spherical Standing :a&e which causes the 9(ield9 effect, interacts with other matter in
discrete standing wa&e patterns, not with continuous force fields as he had imagined, thus his tas0 was
ultimately impossible, as he sadly came to realise towards the end of his life#
-owe&er, his wor0 on the photoelectric effect confirmed that light energy was only emitted and absorbed by
electrons in discrete amounts or quanta# /his quanta of light energy soon became 0nown as the 9photon9 (i#e#
discrete li0e a particle and led to the paradox that light beha&ed both as a continuous e2m wa&e (8axwell,
'lbert !instein as well as a discrete particle"photon (Planc0, 'lbert !instein# So we see that 'lbert
!instein was partly responsible for the disco&ery of the particle"photon concept of light, though he
completely re)ected the notion of discrete particles# -e writes+
Since the theory of general relati&ity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field,
the concept of particles or -aterial points cannot play a funda-ental part, nor can the concept of
motion# (Albert 'instein
'lbert !instein is correct that there are no discrete particles, and that the particle can only appear as a
limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high# .ut it is the
high :a&e2'mplitude of the :a&e2*enter of a Spherical Standing :a&e in Space (not of a continuous
spherical force field that causes the particle effect# /hus of three concepts, particles, force fields, and
-otion, it finally turns out that 8otion, as the spherical wa&e motion of space, is the correct concept, as it
then explains both particles and fields# ((or further explanation see 'rticle on 5elati&ity
,t is most important to realise though that 'lbert !instein was correct in imagining matter as being spatially
extended, as he explains+
, wished to show that space time is not necessarily something to which one can ascribe to a separate
existence, independently of the actual ob)ects of physical reality# Physical objects are not in space, but
these objects are spatially e)tended# ,n this way the concept empty space loses its meaning# (Albert
'instein
,t is certainly true that the particle and its forces " fields are &ery useful mathematical concepts,
unfortunately, they also cause many problems and paradoxes because they are approximations to reality and
do not physically exist#
:e can now finally sol&e these problems by understanding the reason for these discrete energy states, which
are due to the fact that standing wa&es only exist at discrete frequencies, li0e notes on the string of a guitar,
thus while the Spherical Standing :a&e Structure of 8atter predicts that energy exchanges will be discrete,
as obser&ed, the continuous e2m wa&e does not anticipate this#
/hus the Spherical Standing :a&e Structure of 8atter explains 8ax Planc09s (19<< disco&ery that there
are only certain allowed discrete energy states for electrons in molecules and atoms, and further, that light is
only e&er emitted and absorbed by electrons in discrete or 9quantum9 amounts, as the electrons mo&e from
one stable standing wa&e pattern to another# (/his is explained in more detail in section 1#L
+ntro' 6hysics' *uantum Theory 5 ;echanics - 6rinciple =ne' @hat Axists - 6rinciple Two' Eecessary
%onnection - 6lanc 5 *uantum Theory - de Bro&lie 5 *uantum Theory - %ompton @avelen&th -
Schrodin&er @ave Aquations - #orce 5 %har&e - <esonant %ouplin& 5 :i&ht - Keisenber&'s 7ncertainty
6rinciple - Born's 6robability @aves - #eynman's *uantum Alectrodynamics - @olff 5 A6< Axperiment -
6hysics Summary' *uantum Theory 5 ;echanics - Top of 6a&e
384 Quantum Theory ( Mechanics& de Broglie1s .isco"ery of the #a"e Properties of /lectrons
+3C4@-
/he next step was ta0en by de .roglie# -e as0ed himself how the discrete states could be understood by the
aid of current concepts, and hit on a parallel with stationary (standing) *a,es, as for instance in the case of
proper frequencies of organ pipes and strings in acoustics# (Albert 'instein, 195L
,t is with some frustration that , now read these quotes, as it is ob&ious in hindsight as to their errors, and
how simply they can now be sol&ed> de .roglie9s realisation that standing wa&es exist at discrete
frequencies and thus energies is ob&iously true and important, yet he continued with the error of the particle
concept and thus imagined particles mo&ing in a wa&eli0e manner> Ionetheless, as he was close to the truth
he had considerable success with his theory, and these predicted wa&e properties of matter were shortly
thereafter confirmed from experiments (@a&isson and ?ermer, 19;7 on the scattering of electrons through
crystals (which act as diffraction slits# 's 'lbert !instein confirms+
!xperiments on interference made with particle rays ha&e gi&en brilliant proof that the *a,e character of
the phenomena of -otion as assumed by the theory does, really, correspond to the facts# (Albert 'instein,
195L
So by 19;7 the wa&e properties of matter had been predicted theoretically by de .roglie, and then
confirmed by experiment# .ut unfortunately these scientists continued to belie&e in the existence of discrete
particles, and thus they misinterpreted this most important disco&ery of the standing wa&e properties of
matter#
38483 de Broglie1s 'nterpretation of the )tanding #a"es as the #a"e5Li=e Motion of a Particle
in Orbit +3C4@-
,n 191K, Iiels .ohr had de&eloped a simple (though only partly correct model for the hydrogen atom that
assumed+ ($ur further comments in brac0ets
i /hat the electron particle mo&es in circular orbits about the proton particle# (/his is nearly correct, they
are not 9orbits9 but complex Standing :a&e patterns
ii $nly certain orbits are stable# (/his is nearly correct, only certain Standing :a&e patterns are resonantly
stable
iii Aight is emitted and absorbed by the atom when the electron 9)umps9 from one allowed orbital state to a
another# (/his is nearly correct, the electrons mo&e from one stable Standing :a&e pattern to another# /his
is 0nown as 95esonant *oupling9 and is explained in Section 1#L#
/his early atomic model had some limited success because it was ob&iously created to explain the discrete
energy states of light emitted and absorbed by bound electrons in atoms or molecules, as disco&ered by
Planc0 in 19<<#
de .roglie was aware of .ohr9s model for the atom and he cle&erly found a way of explaining why only
certain orbits were 9allowed9 for the electron# 's 'lbert !instein explains+
de .roglie concei&ed an electron re&ol&ing about the atomic nucleus as being connected with a hypothetical
wa&e train, and made intelligible to some extent the discrete character of .ohr9s 9permitted9 paths by the
stationary (standing character of the corresponding wa&es# (Albert 'instein, 19L<
Fig= 6.D.6 The allo*ed discrete orbits of the electron as i-agined by de ;roglie.
de .roglie assumed that because light had both particle and wa&e properties, that this may also be true for
matter# /hus he was not actually loo0ing for the wa&e structure of matter# ,nstead, as matter was already
assumed to be a particle, he was loo0ing for wa&e properties of matter to complement the 0nown particle
properties# 's a consequence of this particle"wa&e duality, de .roglie imagined the standing wa&es to be
related to discrete wa&elengths and standing wa&es for certain orbits of the electron particle about the
proton# (5ather than considering the actual standing wa&e structure of the electron itself#
(rom de .roglie9s perspecti&e, and from modern physics at that time, this solution had a certain charm# ,t
maintained the particle 2 wa&e duality for .$/- light and matter, and at the same time explained why only
certain orbits of the electron (which relate to whole numbers of standing wa&es were allowed, which fitted
beautifully with Iiels .ohr model of the atom# de .roglie further explains his reasoning for the
particle"wa&e duality of matter in his 19;9 Iobel Pri7e acceptance speech+
$n the one hand the quantum theory of light cannot be considered satisfactory since it defines the energy of
a light particle (photon by the equation !Uhf containing the frequency f# Iow a purely particle theory
contains nothing that enables us to define a frequency+ for this reason alone, therefore, we are compelled, in
the case of light, to introduce the idea of a particle and that of frequency simultaneously#
$n the other hand, determination of the stable motion of electrons in the atom introduces integers, and up to
this point the only phenomena in&ol&ing integers in physics were those of interference and of normal modes
of &ibration# /his fact suggested to me the idea that electrons too could not be considered simply as
particles, but that frequency (wa&e properties must be assigned to them also# (de ;roglie, 19;9
/he solution to their problems was first found by :olff (19=J# -e disco&ered two things (both of which
deser&e a Iobel pri7e in their own right+
(irstly, from reading (eynman9s Ph@ thesis (see reference, (eynman and :heeler, 19L5 he was aware of
(eynman9s conception of charged particles which 9somehow9 generated Spherical !lectromagnetic ,n and
$ut :a&es ((eynman called them ad&anced and retarded wa&es, but :olff realised that there are no
solutions for spherical &ector electromagnetic wa&es (which are mathematical wa&es which require both a
quantity of force and a direction of force, i#e# &ector# :olff had the foresight to try using real wa&es, which
are Scalar (defined by their :a&e2'mplitude only#
'nd this then led to a series of remar0able disco&eries#
-e realised that spherical ,n and $ut2:a&es remo&ed the need for a separate particle, as the :a&e2*enter of
the Spherical :a&es created the particle effect#
-e then disco&ered that when one spherical standing wa&e was mo&ing relati&e to another the @oppler shifts
ga&e rise to .$/- the de ;roglie +a,elength 'I@ the &ass increase of Albert 'instein?s $elati,ity#
(i#e# :olff demonstrated that when two charged particles (:a&e2*enters of two SS:s are mo&ing relati&e
to one another they gi&es rise to beats of interference (caused by the @oppler shifting of the ,n and $ut
:a&es due to relati&e 8otion which were identified in experiments as the de .roglie wa&elength yUh"m&,
and also ga&e rise to the frequency increases and thus energy"mass increases (as !Uhf Umc
;
of Special
5elati&ity#
/hus in the one equation he had deduced, with mathematical certainty, the two obser&ed phenomena due to
relati&e motion, which respecti&ely found central parts of both Buantum /heory and 'lbert !instein9s
Special 5elati&ity# (/hus for the first time uniting these two theories from one common theoretical
foundation>
/his then led to his further wor0 on resonant coupling which finally sol&ed the pu77le of the 9photon9 and
explained why light energy is only e&er emitted and absorbed in discrete amounts# (See Section 1#L
%nfortunately for modern physics, and ultimately for human 0nowledge, this ob&ious solution was ne&er
considered by de .roglie, 'lbert !instein, .ohr, Schrodinger, -eisenberg, @irac, .orn, (eynman, etc# etc#
/hus the now ob&ious solution of realising that matter was a Spherical Standing :a&e that causes the point
particle effect at the :a&e2*enter remained un0nown and ignored, and instead, the confusing and
paradoxical concept of the particle " wa&e duality was retained#
+ntro' 6hysics' *uantum Theory 5 ;echanics - 6rinciple =ne' @hat Axists - 6rinciple Two' Eecessary
%onnection - 6lanc 5 *uantum Theory - de Bro&lie 5 *uantum Theory - %ompton @avelen&th -
Schrodin&er @ave Aquations - #orce 5 %har&e - <esonant %ouplin& 5 :i&ht - Keisenber&'s 7ncertainty
6rinciple - Born's 6robability @aves - #eynman's *uantum Alectrodynamics - @olff 5 A6< Axperiment -
6hysics Summary' *uantum Theory 5 ;echanics - Top of 6a&e
38E Quantum Theory& The Compton #a"elength 48FEG37
534
m of the /lectron HIh(mc +3C4E-
's stated, in hindsight there were many clues as to the :a&e Structure of the !lectron# 'nother ob&ious
clue being that the electron itself has a 9*ompton9 wa&elength (named after 'merican experimental physicist
-olly *ompton who disco&ered this from experiments with electron beams# .ut unfortunately they had
come to accept the particle " wa&e duality of matter and simply continued to assume that somehow this
paradoxical conception of matter was true, and thus beyond human comprehension# (So they stopped
loo0ing for an ob&ious solution>
So let us briefly explain the *ompton :a&elength# !xperiments show that !nergy is directly related to both
(requency and 8ass (this is true since we now realise that they are 'AA caused by :a&e28otion# 's we
0now from experiment the energy ! and mass m of the electron, and the &elocity of light c, we can calculate
the *ompton :a&elength N of the !lectron as follows+ !UhfUmc
;
and fUc"N, thus hc"NU mc
;
resulting in
NUh"mc which for the !lectron U ;#LKX1<
21;
m#
Fig= D.J The Co-pton +a,elength () of the 'lectron 2 :hile this wa&elength is related to the
actual :a&elength of the Spherical Standing :a&e, it is more complex than this# 's the Spherical ,n2:a&e
flows in towards the :a&e2*enter, both its :a&e2'mplitude and mass2energy density of space increase,
thus the &elocity and wa&elength will also change# (/hus there is still a substantial amount of mathematical
analysis required on how the :a&elength of the !lectron changes with distance from the :a&e2*enter#
+ntro' 6hysics' *uantum Theory 5 ;echanics - 6rinciple =ne' @hat Axists - 6rinciple Two' Eecessary
%onnection - 6lanc 5 *uantum Theory - de Bro&lie 5 *uantum Theory - %ompton @avelen&th -
Schrodin&er @ave Aquations - #orce 5 %har&e - <esonant %ouplin& 5 :i&ht - Keisenber&'s 7ncertainty
6rinciple - Born's 6robability @aves - #eynman's *uantum Alectrodynamics - @olff 5 A6< Axperiment -
6hysics Summary' *uantum Theory 5 ;echanics - Top of 6a&e
38F Quantum #a"e Mechanics& The )chrodinger #a"e /Auations ( )tanding #a"e
'nteractions +3C46-
Buantum theory was thus essentially founded on the experimental obser&ations of frequency and
wa&elength for both light and matter# /hese empirical facts are ob&iously consistent with the Spherical
Standing :a&e structure of matter#
1# Planc09s disco&ery that energy is related to frequency in the equation !Uhf
;# /he !qui&alence of !nergy, (requency and 8ass !UhfUmc
;
, which deduces the *ompton :a&elength
NUh"mc
K# /he de .roglie wa&elength yUh"m&
,t was !rwin Schrodinger who disco&ered that when frequency f and de .roglie wa&elength y were
substituted into general wa&e equations it becomes possible to express energy ' and momentum m& (from
the abo&e equations as wa&e functions 2 thus a confined particle (e#g# an electron in an atom"molecule with
0nown energy and momentum functions could be described with a certain wa&e function#
(rom this it was further found that only certain frequency wa&e functions, li0e frequencies on musical
strings, were allowed to exist# /hese allowed functions and their frequencies depended on the confining
structure (atom or molecule that the electron was bound to (analogous to how strings are bound to a &iolin,
and only then can they resonate at certain frequencies#
Significantly, these allowed frequencies corresponded to the obser&ed discrete frequencies of light emitted
and absorbed by electrons bound in atoms"molecules# /his further confirmed the standing wa&e properties
of matter, and thus that only certain standing wa&e frequencies could exist which corresponded to certain
energy states# /he agreement of obser&ed frequencies and Schrodinger9s :a&e !quations further established
the fundamental importance of Buantum /heory and thus the :a&e properties of both light and matter# 's
'lbert !instein explains+
-ow can one assign a discrete succession of energy &alues ! to a system specified in the sense of classical
mechanics (the energy function is a gi&en function of the co2ordinates x and the corresponding momenta
m&F Planc09s constant h relates the frequency f U!"h to the energy &alues !# ,t is therefore sufficient to
assign to the system a succession of discrete frequency f &alues# /his reminds us of the fact that in acoustics
a series of discrete frequency &alues is coordinated to a linear partial differential equation (for gi&en
boundary conditions namely the sinusoidal periodic solutions# ,n corresponding manner, Schrodinger set
himself the tas0 of coordinating a partial differential equation for a scalar *a,e function to the gi&en energy
function ! (x, m&, where the position x and time t are independent &ariables# (Albert 'instein, 19KJ
'nd here we ha&e a final piece of the pu77le in a sense, for it was Schrodinger who disco&ered that the
standing *a,es are scalar *a,es rather than &ector electromagnetic wa&es# /his is a most important
difference# !lectromagnetic wa&es are &ector wa&es 2 at each point in Space the wa&e equations yield a
&ector quantity which describes both a direction and an amplitude (si7e of force of the wa&e, and this
relates to the original construction of the e2m field by (araday which described both a force and a direction
of how this force acted on other matter#
Spherical :a&e 8otions of Space are Scalar wa&es 2 at each point in Space the wa&e equations yield a
single quantity which simply describes the wa&e amplitude (there is no directional component# (or
example, sound wa&es are scalar wa&es where the wa&e amplitude describes the 8otion (or compression of
the wa&e medium (air# Ai0ewise Space is a nearly rigid :a&e28edium which propagates :a&e28otions#
:ith de ;roglie?s introduction of the concept of standing *a,es to explain the discrete energy states of
atoms and molecules, and the introduction of scalar *a,es by (chrodinger, they had intuiti&ely grasped
important truths of nature as 'lbert !instein confirms+
!xperiments on interference made with particle rays ha&e gi&en brilliant proof that the wa&e character of the
phenomena of motion as assumed by the theory does, really, correspond to the facts#
/he de .roglie2Schrodinger method, which has in a certain sense the character of a field theory, does indeed
deduce the existence of only discrete states, in surprising agreement with empirical facts# ,t does so on the
basis of differential equations applying a 0ind of resonance argument# (Albert 'instein, 19;7
So let us now explain in more detail this phenomena of Aight energy being emitted and absorbed in discrete
amounts (photons due to 5esonant Standing :a&e interactions# (irstly, we must understand Principle /wo
and realise that the &elocity of wa&e 8otions in Space is not constant, and in fact depends upon both the
:a&e2'mplitude and the mass2energy density of space (square of :a&e2'mplitude# /hese are simply the
properties of Space as a :a&e2medium#
+ntro' 6hysics' *uantum Theory 5 ;echanics - 6rinciple =ne' @hat Axists - 6rinciple Two' Eecessary
%onnection - 6lanc 5 *uantum Theory - de Bro&lie 5 *uantum Theory - %ompton @avelen&th -
Schrodin&er @ave Aquations - #orce 5 %har&e - <esonant %ouplin& 5 :i&ht - Keisenber&'s 7ncertainty
6rinciple - Born's 6robability @aves - #eynman's *uantum Alectrodynamics - @olff 5 A6< Axperiment -
6hysics Summary' *uantum Theory 5 ;echanics - Top of 6a&e
38F83 Quantum Physics& On the Forces of Charge and Light
,t is the nature of Principles that they are stated rather than deduced# /hus we must state the Properties of
Space, as Principles, and then demonstrate that logical deductions from these Principles do in fact
correspond to obser&ation# :hat we ha&e found is that if Space beha&es in the following way, then it gi&es
rise to deductions which correspond to obser&ation and experiment#
/he :a&e 6elocity (&elocity of light c &aries with both the :a&e2'mplitude and the mass2energy density
of space (the square of the :a&e2'mplitude#
i /he greater the :a&e2'mplitude the greater the :a&e26elocity#
ii /he greater the mass2energy density of space the slower the :a&e26elocity#
:e do not 0now why Space, as a :a&e28edium, beha&es this way, other than to say that these are simply
the properties of Space# :hat we do disco&er though, is that from these foundations we get a simple
explanation of both *harge"Aight and 8ass"?ra&ity#
's gra&ity is explained in the article on 5elati&ity, the general idea is only briefly summarised here# :hen
,n2:a&es tra&el in through other 8atter " :a&e28otions of Space, they slightly slow down due to the
increased mass2energy density of space, and this causes the :a&e2*enters to naturally mo&e together, which
we obser&e as ?ra&itational attraction# 's mass2energy density of space is always positi&e (squares are
always positi&e, this always causes a slowing of the ,n2:a&es, thus explaining why gra&ity is always
attracti&e#
$n the other hand, :a&e2'mplitude is both positi&e and negati&e, thus interacting :a&e2'mplitudes can
either increase or decrease (i#e# combine or cancel out, causing either an increase or decrease in the &elocity
of the ,n2:a&es, and a consequent mo&ing together, or mo&ing apart of the :a&e2*enters#
,t is this property of Space that causes *harge " !lectromagnetic (ields and in a slightly more complex
manner, Aight#
/hus when we place two electrons near one another in Space, then the :a&e2'mplitude of Space between
them increases because the :a&es are in phase and the :a&e2'mplitudes combine and increase, thus the
:a&e26elocity increases (opposite to gra&ity9s slowing of ,n2:a&es and this causes the :a&e2*enters to
mo&e apart# /his explains the electrical repulsion of li0e charges#
*on&ersely, if we place an electron and a positron (anti2matter being the opposite phase :a&e28otion to
8atter, thus a positron is the opposite phase to an electron then the :a&e2'mplitude between the two
:a&e2*enters tends to cancel out and become smaller, thus the :a&e26elocity between the two :a&e2
*enters decreases (li0e gra&ity and thus causes the :a&e2*enters to mo&e together#
,n fact this also explains the electron " positron (matter " antimatter annihilation, as the :a&e2*enters will
e&entually o&erlap one2another and the :a&e2'mplitudes will completely cancel out (due to their equal and
opposite phase and thus disappear#
/his explains *harge, but does not explain Aight, which is slightly more complex, though it is still caused
by the same fundamental properties of Space#
+ntro' 6hysics' *uantum Theory 5 ;echanics - 6rinciple =ne' @hat Axists - 6rinciple Two' Eecessary
%onnection - 6lanc 5 *uantum Theory - de Bro&lie 5 *uantum Theory - %ompton @avelen&th -
Schrodin&er @ave Aquations - #orce 5 %har&e - <esonant %ouplin& 5 :i&ht - Keisenber&'s 7ncertainty
6rinciple - Born's 6robability @aves - #eynman's *uantum Alectrodynamics - @olff 5 A6< Axperiment -
6hysics Summary' *uantum Theory 5 ;echanics - Top of 6a&e
38F84 Quantum Physics& On %esonant Coupling as the Cause of Light
:hat we must further realise is that Aight is only emitted and absorbed by electrons bound in atoms or
molecules, and these electrons ha&e some complex repeating Standing :a&e28otion about the nucleus#
/hus the electrons beha&e as 9oscillating resonators9 and it is common 0nowledge to electrical engineers and
physicists that two interconnected resonators can undergo resonant coupling, where one resonator decreases
in frequency and the other one increases a corresponding amount#
/hus two bound resonating electrons (oscillators exchange energy much li0e classical coupled oscillators,
such as electric circuits or )oined pendulums# /he coupling pro&ided by the non2linear centers of the
resonances (high :a&e2'mplitude :a&e2*enters where the :a&e26elocities change causes them to
change &elocity, frequency, and wa&elength, due to the interaction (modulation of each other9s wa&es#
Since significant coupling can only occur between two oscillators which possess the same resonant
elements, the frequency (energy changes are equal and opposite# /his we obser&e as the law of
conser&ation of energy#
:hen opposite changes of frequency (energy ta0es place between two resonances, energy seems to be
transported from the center of one resonance to another# :e obser&e a loss of energy where frequency
decreases and added energy where it increases# /he exchange appears to tra&el with the speed of the ,I
wa&es of the recei&ing resonance which is c, the &elocity of light# :hen large numbers of changes occur
together, so we can sample part of it, we see a beam of light# :hen single exchanges occur we see photons
as discrete energy exchanges# /he transitory modulated wa&es tra&eling between two resonances (as the
!lectrons":a&e2*enters mo&e from one standing wa&e pattern to another create the illusion of the photon#
'n exchange may require 1<
=
to 1<
15
cycles to complete, depending on the degree of coupling and species of
resonance#
(or example, if one oscillator were an electron, its frequency mc
;
"h is about 1<
;K
hert7, and if the transition
time were 1<
2=
seconds, the frequency change requires about 1<
15
cycles to complete# Such a large number of
cycles implies, in engineering slang, a large B &alue, which indicates great precision of the equal and
opposite changes in oscillator frequency, and the conser&ation of energy
Fig= 6.G.D "ight is Caused by the $esonant Coupling of t*o bound +a,e!Centers of (pherical
(tanding +a,es ('lectrons) *ith oscillating *a,e functions# /his diagram is only an approximation, but
it gi&es you some idea of the 9secondary9 wa&elength (the 9electromagnetic9 wa&elength of light caused by
the interactions of the ,n and $ut2:a&es of the two !lectrons":a&e2*enters#
/hus we realise that these different standing :a&e patterns cause a cyclical oscillation in the Shape of the ,n
and $ut2:a&es which describes a wa&e function that is ultimately the cause of the 9electromagnetic9
wa&elength and frequency of light# 's only certain discrete 9orbits9 (standing wa&e functions exist for the
:a&e2*enter of the Spherical Standing :a&e, then it can only exchange frequencies in discrete le&els
which correspond to discrete energy exchanges of light 9photons9# i#e# !Uhf where only discrete frequencies
(f area resonantly stable and thus 9allowed9# (/here are no separate light 9particles " photons9 or collapsing
wa&e functions, both being mathematical existents only>
8ost importantly, these standing wa&e interactions and resonant coupling are the reason for Schrodinger9s
Standing :a&e !quations and their ob&ious success at explaining the allowed energy states for electrons in
atoms, and thus the discrete photon effect of light as these electrons mo&e from one resonant standing wa&e
pattern (quantum state to another#
+ntro' 6hysics' *uantum Theory 5 ;echanics - 6rinciple =ne' @hat Axists - 6rinciple Two' Eecessary
%onnection - 6lanc 5 *uantum Theory - de Bro&lie 5 *uantum Theory - %ompton @avelen&th -
Schrodin&er @ave Aquations - #orce 5 %har&e - <esonant %ouplin& 5 :i&ht - Keisenber&'s 7ncertainty
6rinciple - Born's 6robability @aves - #eynman's *uantum Alectrodynamics - @olff 5 A6< Axperiment -
6hysics Summary' *uantum Theory 5 ;echanics - Top of 6a&e
38D83 Quantum Theory& ;eisenberg1s 9ncertainty Principle
$n *hance and Probability in a Iecessarily ,nterconnected finite spherical %ni&erse within a Ion2
@etermined ,nfinite Space
't the same time that the wa&e properties of matter were disco&ered, two further disco&eries were made that
also profoundly influenced (and confused the future e&olution of modern physics#
(irstly, :erner -eisenberg de&eloped the uncertainty principle which tells us that we (the obser&er can
ne&er exactly 0now both the position and momentum of a particle# 's e&ery obser&ation requires an energy
exchange (photon to create the obser&ed 9data9, some energy (wa&e state of the obser&ed ob)ect has to be
altered# /hus the obser&ation has a discrete effect on what we measure# i#e# :e change the experiment by
obser&ing it> (' large part of their problem though was to continue to assume the existence of discrete
particles and thus to try to exactly locate both their position and motion, which is impossible as there is no
discrete particle>
(urther, because both the obser&ed position and momentum of the particle can ne&er be exactly 0nown,
theorists were left trying to determine the probability of where, for example, the 9particle9 would be
obser&ed#
+ntro' 6hysics' *uantum Theory 5 ;echanics - 6rinciple =ne' @hat Axists - 6rinciple Two' Eecessary
%onnection - 6lanc 5 *uantum Theory - de Bro&lie 5 *uantum Theory - %ompton @avelen&th -
Schrodin&er @ave Aquations - #orce 5 %har&e - <esonant %ouplin& 5 :i&ht - Keisenber&'s 7ncertainty
6rinciple - Born's 6robability @aves - #eynman's *uantum Alectrodynamics - @olff 5 A6< Axperiment -
6hysics Summary' *uantum Theory 5 ;echanics - Top of 6a&e
38D84 Quantum Mechanics& Born1s 1Probability #a"es1 'nterpretation of QT +3C46-
.orn (19;= was the first to disco&er (by chance and with no theoretical foundation that the square of the
quantum wa&e equations (which is actually the mass2energy density of space could be used to predict the
probability of where the particle would be found# Since it was impossible for both the wa&es and the
particles to be real entities, it became customary to regard the wa&es as unreal probability wa&es and to
maintain the belief in the 9real9 particle# %nfortunately (profoundly this maintained the belief in the
particle"wa&e duality, in a new form where the 9quantum9 scalar standing wa&es had become 9probability
wa&es9 for the 9real9 particle#
'lbert !instein unfortunately agreed with this probability wa&e interpretation, as he belie&ed in continuous
force fields (not in wa&es or particles thus to him it was sensible that the wa&es were not real, and were
mere descriptions of probabilities# -e writes+
$n the basis of quantum theory there was obtained a surprisingly good representation of an immense &ariety
of facts which otherwise appeared entirely incomprehensible# .ut on one point, curiously enough, there was
failureE it pro&ed impossible to associate with these (chrodinger *a,es definite -otions of the mass points
2 and that, after all, had been the original purpose of the whole construction# /he difficulty appeared
insurmountable until it was o&ercome by .orn in a way as simple as it was unexpected# /he de .roglie2
Schrodinger wa&e fields were not to be interpreted as a mathematical description of how an e&ent actually
ta0es place in time and space, though, of course, they ha&e reference to such an e&ent# 5ather they are a
-athe-atical description of what we can actually 0now about the system# /hey ser&e only to ma0e
statistical statements and predictions of the results of all measurements which we can carry out upon the
system# (Albert 'instein, 19L<
,t seems to be clear, therefore, that .orn9s statistical interpretation of quantum theory is the only possible
one# /he wa&e function does not in any way describe a state which could be that of a single system+ it
relates rather to many systems, to an ?ense-ble of syste-s? in the sense of statistical -echanics# (Albert
'instein, 19KJ
'lbert !instein is correct in one sense, mista0en in another# ,t is true that matter is intimately interconnected
to all the other matter in the uni&erse by the Spherical ,n and $ut2:a&es, something quantum theory
disco&ered but ne&er correctly understood#
/his has become 0nown as quantum entanglement and relates to the famous experiment posed by 'lbert
!instein, Podols0y, and 5osen (!P5 (see Section 1#7 for an explanation of this experiment and when later
technology allowed its experimental testing, it confirmed quantum theory9s entanglement# 'lbert !instein
assumed this interconnectedness was due to the spherical spatially extended field structure of matter,
instead, it is due to the interaction of the spherical spatially extended Standing :a&es of matter with other
matter9s :a&e2*enters distant in Space# !xplaining this Standing :a&e interaction of matter with other
matter in the Space around it (action2at2a2distance is largely the purpose of this 'rticle and is one of the
great powers of the 8etaphysics of Space and 8otion and the Spherical :a&e Structure of 8atter#
Ionetheless, 'lbert !instein was &ery close to the truth# -e realised that because matter is spherically
spatially extended we must gi&e up the idea of complete locali7ation and 0nowledge of the 9particle9 in a
theoretical model# (or the particle is nothing but the :a&e2*enter of a Spherical Standing :a&e, and thus
can ne&er be isolated as an entity in itself, but is dependent on its interactions with all the other 8atter in the
%ni&erse# 'nd it is this lac0 of 0nowledge of the system as a whole that is the ultimate cause of the
uncertainty and resultant probability inherent in Buantum /heory#
/hus the last and most successful creation of theoretical physics, namely quantum mechanics (B8, differs
fundamentally from both Iewton9s mechanics, and 8axwell9s e2m field# (or the quantities which figure in
B89s laws ma0e no claim to describe physical reality itself, but only probabilities of the occurrence of a
physical reality that we ha&e in &iew# ('lbert !instein, 19K1
, cannot but confess that , attach only a transitory importance to this interpretation# , still belie&e in the
possibility of a model of reality 2 that is to say, of a theory which represents things themsel&es and not
merely the probability of their occurrence# $n the other hand, it seems to me certain that we must gi&e up
the idea of complete locali7ation of the particle in a theoretical model# /his seems to me the permanent
upshot of -eisenberg9s principle of uncertainty# (Albert 'instein, 19KL
'lbert !instein belie&ed that 5eality could be represented by spherical force fields, that reality was not
founded on chance (as .ohr and -eisenberg argued but on necessary connections between things (thus his
comment 9?od does not play dice9># -e was largely correct, 8atter is necessarily connected due to the
Spherical Standing :a&e Structure of 8atter, but due to lac0 of 0nowledge of the system as a whole (the
%ni&erse, and the fact that it is impossible to determine an ,nfinite system (of which our finite spherical
uni&erse is a part 2 see 'rticle on *osmology, then this gi&es rise to the chance and uncertainty found in
Buantum /heory#
+ntro' 6hysics' *uantum Theory 5 ;echanics - 6rinciple =ne' @hat Axists - 6rinciple Two' Eecessary
%onnection - 6lanc 5 *uantum Theory - de Bro&lie 5 *uantum Theory - %ompton @avelen&th -
Schrodin&er @ave Aquations - #orce 5 %har&e - <esonant %ouplin& 5 :i&ht - Keisenber&'s 7ncertainty
6rinciple - Born's 6robability @aves - #eynman's *uantum Alectrodynamics - @olff 5 A6< Axperiment -
6hysics Summary' *uantum Theory 5 ;echanics - Top of 6a&e
38? Quantum Physics& 2 Brief 2nalysis of Feynman1s Quantum /lectrodynamics +Q/., 3CFD-
B!@ is founded on the assumption that charged 9particles9 somehow generate spherical electromagnetic
(&ector ,n and $ut :a&es (a dynamic &ersion of Aorent79s /heory of the !lectron, as (eynman uses
spherical electromagnetic :a&es, rather than static force fields# ,t is important to realise though, that li0e
most post2modern physicists, 5ichard (eynman was a Aogical Positi&ist# /hus he did not belie&e in the
existence of either particles or wa&es, he simply used this conceptual language as a way of representing how
matter beha&es in a logical way# 's he says+
## some things that satisfy the rules of algebra can be interesting to mathematicians e&en though they don9t
always represent a real situation# (Feyn-an
/his explains why he had such success and such failure at the same time, as he had the correct spherical
wa&e structure of 8atter, but he continued with two further errors, the existence of the particle, and the use
of &ector 9electromagnetic9 wa&es (mathematical wa&es of force, rather than using the correct scalar
9quantum9 wa&es# ,t is this error of (eynman9s that ultimately led :olff to ma0e his remar0able disco&eries
of the :S8#
/he problem for B!@ is twofold+
(irstly, there is the Problem of 95enormalisation9 2 (eynman must assume finite dimensions for the particle,
else the spherical electromagnetic wa&es would reach infinite fields strengths when the radius of the
spherical electromagnetic wa&es tends to 7ero# /here must be some non27ero cut2off that is arbitrarily
introduced by ha&ing a 9particle9 of a certain finite si7e# !ffecti&ely, (eynman gets infinities in his equations,
and then he subtract infinity from infinity and puts in the correct empirical answer (which is not good
mathematics, but it does then wor0 extraordinarily well>
Secondly, it is a mathematical fact that there are no &ector wa&e solutions of the 8axwell !quations (which
found electromagnetic fields in spherical co2ordinates>
/hese are profound problems that ha&e caused contradiction and paradox within Buantum /heory to the
present day, and ha&e led to the self fulfilling belief that we can ne&er correctly describe and understand
5eality#
### the more you see how strangely Iature beha&es, the harder it is to ma0e a model that explains how e&en
the simplest phenomena actually wor0# So theoretical physics has gi&en up on that# (Feyn-an
,n fact Iature beha&es in a &ery sensible and logical way (which explains why mathematical physics exists
as a sub)ect and can describe so many phenomena, and also explains how we 9humans9 ha&e been able to
e&ol&e a logical aspect to our minds># /hat it is not Iature which is strange, but our incorrect conceptions
of Iature> 8ost importantly, the simple sensible solutions to these problems can be easily understood once
we 0now the correct :a&e Structure of 8atter#
38?83 The )olution to the Problem of 1%enormalisation18
5ichard (eynman9s Ph@ thesis (with S# '# :heeler, 19L5 used Spherical ,I ('d&anced and $%/
(5etarded e2m wa&es to in&estigate this spherical e2m field effect around the electron and how accelerated
electrons could emit light (e2m radiation to be absorbed by other electrons at2a2distant in space#
$ne &exing problem of this e2m field theory was that it led to infinitely high fields (singularities at the
center of the point particle electron# /his was a&oided with a mathematical process called renormalisation
whereby infinity was subtracted from infinity and the correct experimental result was substituted into the
equation# ,t was @irac who pointed out that this is not good mathematics 2 and (eynman was well aware of
this>
,n 19K7 Paul @irac wrote+
, must say that , am &ery dissatisfied with the situation, because this so called good theory does in&ol&e
neglecting infinities which appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way# /his is )ust not
sensible mathematics# Sensible mathematics in&ol&es neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small 2
not neglecting it )ust because it is infinitely great and you do not want it> (0irac, 19K7
5ichard (eynman was ob&iously also aware of this problem, and had this to say about renormalisation#
.ut no matter how cle&er the word, it is what , call a dippy process> -a&ing to resort to such hocus pocus
has pre&ented us from pro&ing that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self consistent#
### , suspect that renormalisation is not mathematically legitimate# (Feyn-an, 19=5
'lbert !instein was also aware of this problem as he explains in his critique of Aorent79s electromagnetic
field theory for electrons (as it is still the same fundamental problem of the particle " electromagnetic field
duality#
/he inadequacy of this point of &iew manifested itself in the necessity of assuming finite dimensions for the
particles in order to pre&ent the electromagnetic field existing at their surfaces from becoming infinitely
large# (Albert 'instein, 19KJ
(eynman9s Spherical ,I $%/ wa&e theory is largely correct (and of course explains his success but his
error of using &ector e2m wa&es resulted in infinities at the point particle as the radius tended to 7ero, and
this led to the errors of renormalisation# ,n reality, 8atter, as a structure of scalar spherical quantum wa&es,
has a finite wa&e amplitude at the :a&e2*enter (as obser&ed and thus eliminates the infinities and the
problems of renormalisation found in (eynman9s Buantum !lectrodynamics (B!@#(See the :or0 of :olff
at Buantum8atter#com for a complete explanation#
38?84 The )olution to the Problem of there being O Bector #a"e )olutions of Ma>!ell1s
/Auations in )pherical Co5ordinates
Sames 8axwell (1=7J used the experimental (empirical results of (araday, *oulomb, etc# to de&elop four
equations, now famous, whose solutions described an electromagnetic (e2m wa&e which correctly deduced
the &elocity of light c# 8axwell was correct that light is a wa&e tra&eling with &elocity c 2 but it is a wa&e
de&eloped from the interaction of the ,I and $%/ wa&es of two spherical standing wa&es whose :a&e2
*enters are bound in resonant standing wa&e patterns# (/hus it is the interaction of four wa&es which
probably explains why there are four 8axwell !quations#
/he 8axwell9s !quations (8#!#, which describe the formation of electric fields ! by a charge distribution q
and changing magnetic fields -, as well as the formation of the - field by a changing ! and electric currents
i, cannot describe a spherical electromagnetic wa&e> ,t is a mathematical fact that there are no wa&e
solutions of the 8#!#s in spherical co2ordinates> $nly the scalar 9quantum9 wa&e equation has spherical wa&e
solutions# Similarly, there are no imaginable 8#!# solutions for a 9photon particle9# ,t is clear that the 8#!#s
are not fundamental and the photon is only a mathematical construction#
/he failure of the 8#!# in spherical co2ordinates can be imagined by saying, Nou cannot comb the hair on a
tennis ball# /his means that if you attempt to comb down an ! field (the hair representing the electric &ector
e&erywhere flat onto a tennis ball (a spherical surface, you must create a 9cowlic09 somewhere on the ball
which frustrates your attempt to comb it#
/he questions arise, :hy did theorists continue to fa&our the e2m field, the photon, and 8#!# for 7< years in
spite of the well20nown flagrant failure of the mathematical description to agree with obser&ationF :hy
were alternati&e descriptions of nature not soughtF :e suspect the answer is because it wor0ed once the
errors were remo&ed with a bit of 9hocus pocus9 mathematics and the aid of empirical data#
%nfortunately, this logical positi&ist &iew to retain the point particle and &ector force fields has been the root
cause of the many paradoxes and mysteries surrounding quantum theory# /he resulting confusion has been
increasingly exploited in the popular press# ,nstead of searching for the simple beha&iour of nature, the
physics community found that 9wa&e2particle duality9 was an exciting launching pad for more complex
proposals that found support from go&ernment funding agencies# /he search for truth was put into limbo
and wa&e2particle duality reigned#
$nce we understand though, that the particle theory of matter is a mathematical (logical positi&ist
description of nature, then it becomes less confusing# !ssentially the particle is a mathematical construction
to describe energy exchange# ,t says nothing about the energy exchange mechanism and thus ma0es no
comment about how the particle exists, how it mo&es through Space, what the Space around the particle is
made of, and how matter particles 9emit9 and 9absorb9 photon particles with other matter particles distant in
Space#
Aet us then consider one fundamentally important argument of (eynman9s that light must be a particle#
(or many years after Iewton, partial reflection by two surfaces was happily explained by a theory of
wa&es,X but when experiments were made with &ery wea0 light hitting photomultipliers, the wa&e theory
collapsedE as the light got dimmer and dimmer, the photomultipliers 0ept ma0ing full si7ed clic0s 2 there
were )ust fewer of them# "ight beha,es as particles#
X /his idea made use of the fact that wa&es can combine or cancel out, and the calculations based on this
model matched the results of Iewton9s experiments, as well as those done for hundreds of years afterwards#
.ut when experiments were de&eloped that were sensiti&e enough to detect a single photon, the wa&e theory
predicted that the clic0s of a photomultiplier would get softer and softer, whereas they stayed at full strength
2 they )ust occurred less and less often# Io reasonable model could explain this fact#
/his state of confusion was called the wa&e 2 particle duality of light# (Feyn-an, 19=5
(eynman though is incorrect in two ways+
(irstly, he is ma0ing un)ustified assumptions beyond what is obser&ed# ,t is true that light energy is emitted
and absorbed in discrete amounts between two electrons# .ut we @$ I$/ $.S!56! any 9Particles9 2 we
only obser&e discrete energy exchanges>
Secondly, the solution is to reali7e that the Spherical Standing :a&e Structure of 8atter actually demands
that all energy exchanges for light be of discrete amounts because this is what occurs for 95esonant
*oupling9, and for standing :a&e interactions in general#
,t is also interesting to see how simply (eynman summari7es B!@+
So now, , present to you the three basic actions, from which all the phenomena of light and electrons arise#
2'ction O1E ' photon goes from place to place#
2'ction O;E 'n electron goes from place to place#
2'ction OKE 'n electron emits or absorbs a photon#
/his can now be simplified to two actions with the :S8+
'ction O1E 'n !lectron, as the :a&e2*enter of a Spherical Standing :a&e, goes from place to place in
Space (as determined by the spherical ,n2:a&es#
'ction O;E 'n !lectron resonantly couples with another !lectron (emits or absorbs a photon
$nce we realise that there are no separate electron or photon particles, thus we remo&e the problem as to
how an electron particle can interact with a separate photon particle> /hus this solution is actually more
consistent (and simpler than (eynman9s B!@, particularly when we consider (eynman9s further explanation
of a positron being an electron which goes bac0wards in /ime#
/he bac0wards2mo&ing electron when &iewed with time mo&ing forwards appears the same as an ordinary
electron, except that it is attracted to normal electrons 2 we say it has a positi&e charge# (or this reason it9s
called a positron# /he positron is a sister particle to the electron, and is an example of an anti2particle# ##/his
phenomena is general# !&ery particle in Iature has an amplitude to mo&e bac0wards in time, and therefore
has an anti2particle# (Feyn-an, 19=5
's :olff explains this is simply a mathematical truth caused by the fact that a negati&e time in the wa&e
equations changes the phase of the standing wa&es to be equal and opposite, which corresponds to
antimatter# ('ntimatter does no mo&e 9bac0wards in time9>
(urther, notice what (eynman says about photons, which are treated as particles in B!@, and thus by
(eynman9s logic there should also be anti2photons, whereas the :S8 is clear on this point 2 there are anti2
electrons (positrons which are opposite phase Spherical Standing :a&es, but there are no separate photon
particles, thus no anti2photons>
'nd what about photonsF Photons loo0 exactly the same in all respects when they tra&el bac0wards in time,
so they are their own anti2particles# Nou see how cle&er we are at ma0ing an exception part of the rule>
(Feyn-an, 19=5
:hile it may be cle&er, it is not good philosophy, and it has led to a &ery confused and absurd modern
physics# Surely it is time for physicists to start considering the fundamental theoretical problems of the
existing theories and to appreciate that the 8etaphysics of Space and 8otion and the Spherical :a&e
Structure of 8atter is a simple, sensible, and ob&ious way to sol&e these problems>
(inally, let us explain how we can experimentally confirm the Spherical :a&e Structure of 8atter (which
would ob&iously be &ery con&incing to the s0eptics>
+ntro' 6hysics' *uantum Theory 5 ;echanics - 6rinciple =ne' @hat Axists - 6rinciple Two' Eecessary
%onnection - 6lanc 5 *uantum Theory - de Bro&lie 5 *uantum Theory - %ompton @avelen&th -
Schrodin&er @ave Aquations - #orce 5 %har&e - <esonant %ouplin& 5 :i&ht - Keisenber&'s 7ncertainty
6rinciple - Born's 6robability @aves - #eynman's *uantum Alectrodynamics - @olff 5 A6< Axperiment -
6hysics Summary' *uantum Theory 5 ;echanics - Top of 6a&e
38@ Quantum Theory& #olff1s />planation of the /instein, Podols=y, %osen +/P%-
/>periment $ Further Predictions
9/he %ltimate Paradox 2 .ell9s /heorem9 by 8ilo :olff, !xploring the Physics of the %n0nown %ni&erse,
199L
,n l9K5, 'lbert !instein, Podols0y, and 5osen (!P5 put forward a gedan0en (thought experiment whose
outcome they thought was certain to show that there existed natural phenomena that quantum theory could
not account for# /he experiment was based on the concept that two e&ents cannot influence each other if the
distance between them is greater than the distance light could tra&el in the time a&ailable# ,n other words,
only local e&ents inside the light sphere can influence one another#
/heir experimental concept was later used by Sohn .ell (19JL to frame a theorem which showed that either
the statistical predictions of quantum theory or the Principle of Aocal !&ents is incorrect# ,t did not say
which one was false but only that both cannot be true, although it was clear that 'lbert !instein expected
/he Principle to be affirmed#
:hen later experiments (*lauser R (reedman 197;+ 'spect, @alibard, and 5oger, 19=;+ and others
confirmed that quantum theory was correct, the conclusion was startling# /he Principle of Aocal !&ents
failed, forcing us to recogni7e that the world is not the way it appears# :hat then is the real nature of our
worldF
/he important impact of .ell9s /heorem and the experiments is that they clearly thrust, a formerly only
philosophical dilemma of quantum theory, into the real world# /hey show that post2modern physics9 ideas
about the world are somehow profoundly deficient# Io one understood these results and only scant scientific
attention has been paid to them#
Figure 6.8.6 ')peri-ent to test ;ell?s theore- Polari7ed photons are emitted at the center, pass through
the ad)ustable polari7ation filters on the left and right, and enter detectors on each side# *oincidences
(simultaneous detection are recorded and plotted as a function of the angular difference between the two
settings of the polari7ation filters#
The /ssence of Bell1s Theorem
-is theorem relates to the results of an experiment li0e the one shown in (igure 1#7#1 (see abo&eE ' source
of two paired photons, obtained from the simultaneous decay of two excited atomic states, is at the center#
't opposite sides, are located two detectors of polari7ed photons# /he polari7ation filters of each detector
can be set parallel to each other, or at some other angle, freely chosen# ,t is 0nown that polari7ations of
paired photons are always parallel to each other, but random with respect to their surroundings# So, if the
detector filters are set parallel, both photons will be detected simultaneously# ,f the filters are at right angles,
the two photons will ne&er be detected together# /he detection pattern for settings at intermediate angles is
the sub)ect of the theorem#
.ell (and 'lbert !instein, Podols0y, and 5osen assumed that the photons arri&ing at each detector could
ha&e no 0nowledge of the setting of the other detector# /his is because they assumed that such information
would ha&e to tra&el faster than the speed of light 2 prohibited by 'lbert !instein9s Special 5elati&ity# /heir
assumption reflects the Principle of Aocal *auses, that is, only e&ents local to each detector can affect its
beha&iour#
.ased on this assumption, .ell deduced that the relationship between the angular difference between
detector settings and the detected coincidences of photon pairs was linear, li0e line A in (igure 1#7#;# -is
deduction comes from the symmetry and independence of the two detectors, as followsE ' setting difference
of Y, at one detector has the same effect as a difference Y, at the other detector# -ence if both are mo&ed Y,
the total angular difference is ;Y and the total effect is twice as much, which is a linear relationship#
Figure 6.8.D The result of an e)peri-ent to test ;ell?s theore- @ata points 5 of the experiments are
shown with blac0 dots# /hey agree with the line B8, predicted by the quantum mechanics, and do not agree
with the line A, predicted by 'lbert !instein9s concept of causality#
/his was a big surprise, because the failure of causality suggests that the communication is ta0ing place at
speeds greater than the &elocity of light#
/he cur&ed line is the calculation obtained from standard quantum theory#
.ell, 'lbert !instein, Podols0y, and 5osen, or anyone who does not belie&e in superluminal speeds, would
expect to find line A#
,n fact, the experiments yielded points 5, which agreed with line B8# /he predictions of quantum theory
had destroyed the assumptions of 'lbert !instein, Podols0y and 5osen>
/he results of these experiments were so disbelie&ed that they were repeated by other persons, using
different photon sources, as well as particles with paired spins# /he most recent experiment by 'spect,
@alibard, and 5oger, used acousto2optical switches at a frequency of 5<8-7 which shifted the settings of
the polari7ers during the flight of the photons, to completely eliminate any possibility of local effects of one
detector on the other# Ie&ertheless, they reported that the !P5 assumption was &iolated by fi&e standard
de&iations, whereas quantum theory was &erified within experimental error (about ;]#
.o on5local 'nfluences />ist0
.ell9s /heorem and the experimental results imply that parts of the uni&erse are connected in an intimate
way (i#e# not ob&ious to us and these connections are fundamental (quantum theory is fundamental# -ow
can we understand themF /he problem has been analysed in depth (:heeler R Mure0 19=K, d9!spagnat
19=K, -erbert 19=5, Stapp 19=;, .ohm R -iley 19=L, Pagels 19=;, and others without resolution# /hose
authors tend to agree on the following description of the non2local connectionsE
1# /hey lin0 e&ents at separate locations without 0nown fields or matter#
;# /hey do not diminish with distance+ a million miles is the same as an inch#
K# /hey appear to act with speed greater than light#
*learly, within the framewor0 of science, this is a perplexing phenomenon# ,n some mysterious quantum
way, communication does appear to ta0e place faster than light between the two detectors of the apparatus#
/hese results showed that our understanding of the physical world is profoundly deficient#
/>plaining the /P%5Bell 1'nstant1 Communication
/he Spherical :a&e Structure of 8atter, particularly the beha&iour of the ,n and $ut :a&es, is able to
resol&e this pu77le so that the appearance of instant communication is understood and yet neither 'lbert
!instein nor B8 need be wrong# ,n order to show this, it is necessary to carefully loo0 at the detailed
process of exchanging energy between two atoms, by the action of the ,I"$%/ wa&es of both atoms#
5emember that for resonant coupling it is necessary for the ,n and $ut :a&es of both electrons to interact
with one another# /he passage of both ,n2:a&es through both :a&e2*enters precedes the actual frequency
shifts of the source and detector# ' means to detect this first passage e&ent is not a capability of the usual
photo2detector apparatus and remains totally unnoticed# .ut the ,n2:a&es are symmetrical counterparts of
the $ut2:a&es and carry the information of their polari7ation state between parts of the experimental
apparatus before the $ut2:a&es cause a departing photon e&ent# /he ,I2wa&es tra&el with the speed of light
so there is no &iolation of relati&ity#
't this point you may be inclined to disbelie&e the reality of the ,n2:a&e# .ut there is other e&idence for it#
5emember, it explains the de .roglie wa&elength and thereby B8# ,t is necessary to explain the relati&istic
mass increase of a mo&ing ob)ect or the symmetry in its direction of motion# ,t is responsible for the finite
force of the S5 electron at its center# 're all of these merely coincidenceF !specially, it is the combination
of ,n and $ut :a&es which explains these laws, not )ust the ,n2:a&es# ,f you belie&e in one you are forced
to belie&e in the other#
(Iote added by -aselhurst 2 ,n fact without ,n2:a&es there can be no $ut2:a&es, as the $ut2:a&es are
simply the ,n2:a&es after they ha&e propagated ,n and $ut through the :a&e2*enter# /hus effecti&ely
:olff is saying that the electrons in the experiment are already interconnected with one another, and hence
are already 9aware9 of one another9s resonant state and polari7ation, before the paired photons are emitted# ,t
is this subtle interconnection of 8atter that explains the apparent conflict of the !P5 experiment#
Can Proof of the 'n5#a"es be Found0
For so-eone to really belie,e a ne* theory, an e)peri-ent to sho* the e)istence of ne* pheno-ena
not pre,iously <no*n is -ost persuasi,e# /o pro&e the existence of the ,n2:a&es (and thus the pre2
existing interconnection of the electrons with the rest of the apparatus would be )ust such a critical
experiment# /his can li0ely be accomplished with an apparatus of the type used by 'spect, @alibard, and
5ogers (19=; except that instead of ma0ing a random filter setting during a photon9s passage time, the
filter setting should occur during the ti-e period preceding photon departure# /he purpose is to
frustrate communication by the ,n2:a&es# 's the ,n2:a&es are necessary to the energy exchange process,
then the result of the experiment would be a linear relation between the angular difference of the two filters#
/his would be the result originally expected by 'lbert !instein for the !P5 experiment#
(!nd of Section from 8ilo :olff#
/he :a&e Structure of 8atter is a profound new way of loo0ing at how 8atter exists and interacts with
other matter in Space# :olff has explained a &ery simple change to a &ery famous experiment that currently
causes Buantum /heory, and -uman intellectual 0nowledge in general, profound problems and paradoxes#
/hus it seems to us absolutely essential that this experiment be re2done as suggested abo&e# :e sincerely
hope that this wor0 on the 8etaphysics of Space and 8otion and the Spherical :a&e Structure of 8atter
will ultimately lead to this new 9Paradigm9 being ta0en seriously, and that this experiment will be performed
sooner rather than later>
+ntro' 6hysics' *uantum Theory 5 ;echanics - 6rinciple =ne' @hat Axists - 6rinciple Two' Eecessary
%onnection - 6lanc 5 *uantum Theory - de Bro&lie 5 *uantum Theory - %ompton @avelen&th -
Schrodin&er @ave Aquations - #orce 5 %har&e - <esonant %ouplin& 5 :i&ht - Keisenber&'s 7ncertainty
6rinciple - Born's 6robability @aves - #eynman's *uantum Alectrodynamics - @olff 5 A6< Axperiment -
6hysics Summary' *uantum Theory 5 ;echanics - Top of 6a&e
(u--ary
Buantum /heory (19<<219K< disco&ered four main things+
a .oth matter and light sometimes beha&e as particles and sometimes beha&e as wa&es# (Planc0, de
.roglie
b Schrodinger9s Standing :a&e equations can be used to describe the allowed discrete energy states for
electrons (:a&e2*enters in atoms or molecules#
c ,t is impossible to 0now both the location and momentum of a particle and this inherent uncertainty can
be calculated using the square of the :a&e equation to determine the probability of where the particle will
be found# (-eisenberg, .orn
d 8atter seems to be subtly interconnected with other matter in the %ni&erse# (!P5 !xperiment
:ith the 8etaphysics of Space and 8otion and the :a&e Structure of 8atter we can now sensibly explain
these phenomena+
a /he solution of the particle"wa&e duality of matter is ob&ious 2 8atter is a Spherical Standing :a&e
which creates a 9particle effect9 at the :a&e2*enter9# /he solution to the particle"wa&e duality of light is
more complex (though it is still ob&ious once 0nown and is a consequence of the standing wa&e structure of
matter and that only discrete standing wa&e interactions can occur during 95esonant *oupling9 of two bound
electrons#
b Schrodinger9s :a&e equations confirm this discrete standing wa&e interaction, that only certain discrete
standing wa&e frequencies between matter are resonantly stable which causes frequency (and thus energy
exchanges to be in discrete 9quanta9 which can be mathematically explained as 9particle"photon9 interactions#
c .ecause Spherical Standing :a&es are the si7e of the %ni&erse, their ,n2:a&es are interacting with all
the other matter in the %ni&erse# 's we exist as complex arrangements of :a&e2*enters here on earth, we
do not ha&e immediate 0nowledge of how these ,n2:a&es are interacting with this other matter in the
uni&erse, and must simply wait until the ,n2:a&es arri&e at the :a&e2*enter where we obser&e these
changes in motion and position of the :a&e2*enter# /his lac0 of 0nowledge causes the uncertainty as to
how a :a&e2*enter will mo&e about o&er time and thus qualitati&ely explains why probability based upon
wa&e equations can describe this uncertainty#
d /he 'lbert !instein, Podols0y, 5osen (!P5 experiment performed by 'spect in 197; famously and
contro&ersially confirmed the apparent instant interconnection of particles and contradicted 'lbert !instein9s
5elati&ity which requires that all matter to matter interactions be limited by the &elocity of light# 'lbert
!instein is in fact correct, the error of the experiment was to assume matter was a particle rather than the
:a&e2*enter of a Spherical Standing :a&e# $nce this is understood then it explains how matter is subtly
interconnected with other matter in the Space around it (by the ,n and $ut2:a&es and leads to a minor
change in the experiment which will confirm the 8etaphysics of Space and 8otion and the Spherical :a&e
Structure of 8atter as a sensible and ob&ious solution to the problems and paradoxes of not only Buantum
/heory, but also of 'lbert !instein9s 5elati&ity and *osmology#
/han0 you for reading our wor0# Please feel free to write to us if you wish to discuss any of this article, or if
you are able to help in getting this experiment performed#
?eoff -aselhurst, 8ilo :olff
Philosophy of /ducation
/ducational Philosophy ( Teaching Philosophy
Truth 5 *eality as the Foundations for Critical Thin)ing6 *eason and
.ducation
7uotes on Teaching 0hilosophy of .ducation fro! Fa!ous
0hilosophers
$l"ert .instein6 8ean 8acques *ousseau6 Michel de Montaigne6 0lato6
$ristotle 5 Confucius
,t is the mar0 of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it# ('ristotle
Since philosophy is the art which teaches us how to li&e, and since children need to learn it as much as we
do at other ages, why do we not instruct them in itF ## .ut in truth , 0now nothing about the philosophy of
education except thisE that the greatest and the most important difficulty 0nown to human learning seems to
lie in that area which treats how to bring up children and how to educate them#
(de &ontaigne, $n teaching Philosophy of !ducation
Plants are shaped by culti&ation and men by education# ## :e are born wea0, we need strength+ we are born
totally unpro&ided, we need aid+ we are born stupid, we need )udgment# !&erything we do not ha&e at our
birth and which we need when we are grown is gi&en us by education#
(Kean Kac3ues $ousseau, !mile, $n Philosophy of !ducation
/his crippling of indi&iduals , consider the worst e&il of capitalism# $ur whole educational system suffers
from this e&il# 'n exaggerated competiti&e attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship
acquisiti&e success as a preparation for his future career# , am con&inced there is only one way to eliminate
these gra&e e&ils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by a educational
system which would be oriented toward social goals# ,n such an economy, the means of production are
owned by society itself and are utilised in a planned fashion# ' planned economy, which ad)usts production
to the needs of the community, would distribute the wor0 to be done among all those able to wor0 and
would guarantee a li&elihood to e&ery man, woman and child# /he education of the indi&idual, in addition to
promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to de&elop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow2
men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society# (Albert 'instein, 19L9, $n
!ducation
+ntroduction - ,lbert Ainstein 5 6hilosophy of Aducation - 6lato 5 Aducation - Rean Racques <ousseau 5
Aducation - de ;ontai&ne 5 6hilosophy of Aducation - Aducational *uotes by #amous 6hilosophers - :ins
Aducational 6hilosophy - Top of 6a&e
Introduction
(Philosophy of 'ducation B 'ducational Philosophy B Teaching
Philosophy)
8y dear childrenE , re)oice to see you before me today, happy youth of a sunny and fortunate land# .ear in
mind that the wonderful things that you learn in your schools are the wor0 of many generations, produced
by enthusiastic effort and infinite labour in e&ery country of the world# 'll this is put into your hands as
your inheritance in order that you may recei&e it, honour it, and add to it, and one day faithfully hand it on
to your children# /hus do we mortals achie&e immortality in the permanent things which we create in
common# ,f you always 0eep that in mind you will find meaning in life and wor0 and acquire the right
attitude towards other nations and ages# (Albert 'instein tal0ing to a group of school children# 19KL
/his page on !ducational Philosophy has some lo&ely intelligent philosopher9s quotes on both the
importance of education, and what is a good education#
's a philosopher it is clear to me that teaching people how to thin0 correctly and to use language carefully
(to wor0 out the truth for themsel&es is a pretty good start for education (i#e# by teaching philosophy to
students from a young age# -owe&er, , realise that this is an unfashionable &iew in our postmodern times of
9no absolute truths9 2 where all 0nowledge is incomplete, e&ol&ing, and relati&e to some cultural construction
2 thus teaching philosophy is seen as some abstract and largely useless exercise# ,f you browse around this
website you will quic0ly realise that , do not support this current paradigm, which , see as being &ery
destructi&e in both its affects on the indi&idual and our collecti&e society#
/here are clearly many problems with our current education " teaching system, an e&olutionary philosophy
of education has important contributions to ma0e to impro&ing things# .elow you will find a short
introduction and then an excellent collection of education quotes from many of the greatest minds in human
history# 'nd as 'ristotle so astutely obser&ed+
P'll who ha&e meditated on the art of go&erning man0ind ha&e been con&inced that the fate of empires
depends on the education of youth#P (Aristotle
?eoff -aselhurst, !mail
Philosopher of Science, 8etaphysics, /heoretical Physics#
PS 2 , am currently re2writing all the main philosophy " physics pages# (or these education pages , hope to
write a short treatise on how we can impro&e our educational system, founded on one simple principle#
All things in the uni,erse are interconnected and e,ol,ing (the dyna-ic unity of reality).
/he central thesis is that education should be founded on truth and reality, and in particular how this relates
to the interconnection of &ind (cultural 0nowledge and truth, &atter (biological 0nowledge and how our
bodies are interconnected with other matter around us and (pace (our en&ironment, society# /hese three
things are clearly interconnected (in physical reality, so you could call this an e&olutionary " ecological
approach to education, founded on a metaphysics of Space " wa&e structure of matter#
On Teaching, /ducational Philosophy, #hat is a good education8
/o begin, it is useful to briefly summarise my upbringing as this further explains my interest in education#
, belie&e , learnt more in 1L months of tra&eling through !urope in a &an when , was ten years old, than in
any other year at school# (, was most impressed by the ?othic *athedrals of !urope, and the old ruined
castles# , was a rebellious but generally 0ind student# , failed first Near %ni&ersity Physics, largely due to
non2attendance of lectures# , ha&e a .achelor of !ducation (ma)ored in Physics, *hemistry and
8athematics# , taught Science for L years# .oth my parents were teachers"lecturers# Probably the most
important reason for ta0ing education seriously though comes from my lo&e of philosophy, which clearly
realises that !ducation is the most important factor in the e&olution of both the indi&idual and society#
, thin0 there are some good things happening with the new $utcomes based curriculum that is currently
being implemented in the :est 'ustralian state schools 1 , was in&ol&ed with this at Iyindamurra (amily
School# :hat this means is that rather than prescribing a curriculum based upon certain content that must be
studied, instead we prescribe the outcomes that we want# (e#g# ' child can add up numbers in their head, or
appreciate the importance of Iature and the interconnected ecology of life# Iow the way to teach these
s0ills is open# Nou could go down the beach and count seashells by the seashore if you wanted#
'nd this is how , bring up my children 1 e&ery day , use daily things around us to educate them to all sorts
of different 0nowledge# (or example, we recently built a giant swing 2 and children can learn a lot by
building and playing on swings (pendulums and pendulum cloc0s are interesting phenomena, a &ery great
philosopher *hristiaan -uygens first studied pendulums at the time of Iewton and Aeibni7 in the late
1J<<s## /hey ha&e to be creati&e 1 how do you get a rope o&er a branch ten meters off the groundF 1 how
do you build a tower using materials in the bush around you, such that you ha&e a platform to )ump onto
your swing from (using gra&ity to push you>F
, should add that an outcomes based system also has numerous problems, as it is difficult to ensure a
uniform quality of education# /he real solution is to consider both the curriculum used, and the outcomes
you hope to achie&e 2 combined with intelligent use of the internet so that the best curriculums that show
empirically that they wor0 (produce desired outcomes can be shared " adapted by teachers from all o&er the
world (we do not need to 0eep re2in&enting the wheel#
, certainly do not belie&e in )ust sitting in a classroom 1 which is unnatural, unhealthy, and should be
limited# ,t is ob&ious we did not e&ol&e to learn by sitting in classrooms, in segregated age groups 2 but to be
acti&e, out and about doing things, tal0ing, watching and learning from other people and other ob)ects
around us# (/his is what , would call an e&olutionary approach to teaching " philosophy of education 2 and
getting 0ids more acti&e at school would also greatly help to combat the obesity epidemic of the western
world#
, particularly agree with 'instein, that education (and teaching students philosophy from a young age has
two central functions relating to the indi&idual and their society#
i /o educate the indi&idual as a free indi&idual 1 /o understand and use critical thin0ing s0ills for
determining the /ruth for themsel&es#
ii /o educate the indi&idual as a part of Society 1 6irtually all our 0nowledge, our clothes, our food is
produced by others in our society, thus we owe Society and ha&e a responsibility to contribute bac0 to
Society (that e&eryone must gi&e as well as ta0e# /his is ultimately why , began to study Physics and
Philosophy, and why , ha&e now read most of the great philosophers, because , belie&e that Iature is being
destroyed on this planet, and that the truth is that this is &ery foolish and dangerous to humanity# /hat we
e&ol&ed from Iature, thus we depend upon Iature for sur&i&al# /his is not )ust the ob&ious concern of
global warming and climate change, but the &ery food we eat, the air we breath, the water we need, all these
things are produced by Iature and are being fore&er changed# $f concern is the ob&ious fact that there are
limits to our e&olution as to how far we can change our en&ironment before it starts to ad&ersely affect us
(we are well past that point now , thin0#
, also strongly agree with !instein that education should be fun rather than forced 1 that force and
punishment play no part in a good education# /hus , detest the attitude of punishing children for not doing
their homewor0>
, thin0 a lot of education problems could be sol&ed by gi&ing e&eryone 1<< great boo0s to read and discuss
with their children 2 from philosophers li0e Plato, 'ristotle, de 8ontaigne, Aeibni7, Spino7a, -ume,
/olstoy, !instein C etc# /here are many great minds through human history, and , largely agree with
Iiet7sche that education is often corrupted by educators 1 that we should see0 the source of great
0nowledge, not the corrupted interpretations of it from lesser minds# (5ead the original wor0s>
, further agree with (riedrich Iiet7sche thatE
/here is nothing more necessary than truth, and in comparison with it e&erything else has only secondary
&alue#
/his absolute will to truthE what is itF ,s it the will to not allow oursel&es to be decei&edF ,s it the will not to
decei&eF
$ne does not want to be decei&ed, under the supposition that it is in)urious, dangerous, or fatal to be
decei&ed# (5iet4sche, 1=9<
/he fundamental principle of education is to understand the truth for oneself# /he fundamental principle of
philosophy is to realise that all truth comes from reality# /hus educational philosophy must be founded on
the truth of what exists# 5ecent disco&eries of the properties of Space and the :a&e Structure of 8atter
shows that we can understand reality in a simple and sensible way#
?eoff -aselhurst
+ntroduction - ,lbert Ainstein 5 6hilosophy of Aducation - 6lato 5 Aducation - Rean Racques <ousseau 5
Aducation - de ;ontai&ne 5 6hilosophy of Aducation - Aducational *uotes by #amous 6hilosophers - :ins
Aducational 6hilosophy - Top of 6a&e
2lbert /instein on *no!ledge $ Philosophy of /ducation
/he only thing that interferes with my learning is my education# ('lbert !instein
Qnowledge of the history and e&olution of our ideas is absolutely &ital for wise understanding# ,t is also
important to read the original source (not a later interpretation which often leads to misrepresentation and
error and that these original quotes should gi&e confidence to the truth of what we say# 's Albert 'instein
astutely remar0s+
Somebody who only reads newspapers and at best boo0s of contemporary authors loo0s to me li0e an
extremely near2sighted person who scorns eyeglasses# -e is completely dependent on the pre)udices and
fashions of his times, since he ne&er gets to see or hear anything else# 'nd what a person thin0s on his own
without being stimulated by the thoughts and experiences of other people is e&en in the best case rather
paltry and monotonous#
/here are only a few enlightened people with a lucid mind and style and with good taste within a century#
:hat has been preser&ed of their wor0 belongs among the most precious possessions of man0ind# :e owe it
to a few writers of antiquity (Plato, 'ristotle, etc# that the people in the 8iddle 'ges could slowly extricate
themsel&es from the superstitions and ignorance that had dar0ened life for more than half a millennium#
Iothing is more needed to o&ercome the modernist9s snobbishness# ('instein, 195L
's Philosophers, Scientists and !ducators we ha&e a responsibility to maintain great 0nowledge from the
past, for as 'instein beautifully writes+
### 0nowledge must continually be renewed by ceaseless effort, if it is not to be lost# ,t resembles a statue of
marble which stands in the desert and is continually threatened with burial by the shifting sand# /he hands
of ser&ice must e&er be at wor0, in order that the marble continue to lastingly shine in the sun# /o these
ser&ing hands mine shall also belong# ('instein, $n !ducation, 195<
:hen, after se&eral hours reading, , came to myself again, , as0ed myself what it was that had so fascinated
me# /he answer is simple# /he results were not presented as ready2made, but scientific curiosity was first
aroused by presenting contrasting possibilities of concei&ing matter# $nly then the attempt was made to
clarify the issue by thorough argument# /he intellectual honesty of the author ma0es us share the inner
struggle in his mind# ,t is this which is the mar0 of the born teacher# Qnowledge exists in two forms 2
lifeless, stored in boo0s, and ali&e, in the consciousness of men# /he second form of existence is after all the
essential one+ the first, indispensable as it may be, occupies only an inferior position# ('instein, 195L
8y dear childrenE , re)oice to see you before me today, happy youth of a sunny and fortunate land# .ear in
mind that the wonderful things that you learn in your schools are the wor0 of many generations, produced
by enthusiastic effort and infinite labour in e&ery country of the world# 'll this is put into your hands as
your inheritance in order that you may recei&e it, honour it, and add to it, and one day faithfully hand it on
to your children# /hus do we mortals achie&e immortality in the permanent things which we create in
common# ,f you always 0eep that in mind you will find meaning in life and wor0 and acquire the right
attitude towards other nations and ages# (Albert 'instein tal0ing to a group of school children# 19KL
, belie&e, indeed, that o&eremphasis on the purely intellectual attitude, often directed solely to the practical
and factual, in our education, has led directly to the impairment of ethical &alues# , am not thin0ing so much
of the dangers with which technical progress has directly confronted man0ind, as of the stifling of mutual
human considerations by a 9matter2of2fact9 habit of thought which has come to lie li0e a 0illing frost upon
human relations# :ithout 9ethical culture9 there is no sal&ation for humanity# ('instein, 195K
2lbert /instein On 2cademic Freedom
Iumerous are the academic chairs, but rare are wise and noble teachers# Iumerous and large are the lecture
halls, but far from numerous the young people who genuinely thirst for truth and )ustice# Iumerous are the
wares that nature produces by the do7en, but her choice products are few#
:e all 0now that, so why complainF :as it not always thus and will it not always thus remainF *ertainly,
and one must ta0e what nature gi&es as one finds it# .ut there is also such a thing as a spirit of the times, an
attitude of mind characteristic of a particular generation, which is passed on from indi&idual to indi&idual
and gi&es its distincti&e mar0 to a society# !ach of us has to his little bit toward transforming this spirit of
the times# ('instein, 195L
2lbert /instein On Freedom of Thought
/he de&elopment of science and of the creati&e acti&ities of the spirit in general requires still another 0ind of
freedom, which may be characterised as inward freedom# ,t is this freedom of spirit which consists in the
independence of thought from the restrictions of authoritarian and social pre)udices as well as from
unphilosophical routini7ing and habit in general# /his inward freedom is an infrequent gift of nature and a
worthy ob)ecti&e for the indi&idual#
##schools may fa&or such freedom by encouraging independent thought# $nly if outward and inner freedom
are constantly and consciously pursued is there a possibility of spiritual de&elopment and perfection and
thus of impro&ing man9s outward and inner life# ('instein, 195L
2lbert /instein on Philosophy of /ducation in )chools
/he school has always been the most important means of transferring the wealth of tradition from one
generation to the next# /his applies today in an e&en higher degree than in former times, for through modern
de&elopment of the economic life, the family as bearer of tradition and education has been wea0ened# /he
continuance and health of human society is therefore in a still higher degree dependent on the school than
formerly#
Sometimes one sees in the school simply the instrument for transferring a certain maximum quantity of
0nowledge to the growing generation# .ut that is not right# Qnowledge is dead+ the school howe&er, ser&es
the li&ing# ,t should de&elop in the young indi&iduals those qualities and capabilities which are of &alue for
the welfare of the commonwealth# .ut that does not mean that indi&iduality should be destroyed and the
indi&idual become a mere tool of the community, li0e a bee or an ant# (or a community of standardised
indi&iduals without personal originality and personal aims would be a poor community without possibilities
for de&elopment# $n the contrary, the aim must be the training of independently acting and thin0ing
indi&iduals, who, howe&er, see in the ser&ice of the community their highest life problem#
/o me the worst thing seems to be for a school principally to wor0 with methods of fear, force and artificial
authority# Such treatment destroys the sound sentiments, the sincerity, and the self2confidence of the pupil#
,t produces the submissi&e sub)ect# it is no wonder that such schools are the rule in ?ermany and 5ussia#
##the desire for the appro&al of one9s fellow2man certainly is one of the most important binding powers of
society# ,n this complex of feelings, constructi&e and destructi&e forces lie closely together# @esire for
appro&al and recognition is a healthy moti&e+ but the desire to be ac0nowledged as better, stronger, or more
intelligent than a fellow being or scholar easily leads to an excessi&ely egoistic psychological ad)ustment,
which may become in)urious for the indi&idual and for the community# /herefore the school and the teacher
must guard against employing the easy method of creating indi&idual ambition, in order to induce the pupils
to diligent wor0# ('instein
,t is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction ha&e not yet entirely
strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry+ for this delicate little planet, aside from stimulation, stands mainly in
need of freedom+ without this it goes to wrec0 and ruin without fail# ,t is a gra&e mista0e to thin0 that the
en)oyment of seeing and searching can be prompted by means of coercion and a sense of duty# $n the
contrary, , belie&e that it would be possible to rob e&en a healthy beast of prey of its &oraciousness, if it
were possible, with the aid of a whip, to force the beast to de&our continuously, e&en when not hungry,
especially if the food handed out under such coercion were to be selected accordingly# (Albert 'instein on
!ducation
+ntroduction - ,lbert Ainstein 5 6hilosophy of Aducation - 6lato 5 Aducation - Rean Racques <ousseau 5
Aducation - de ;ontai&ne 5 6hilosophy of Aducation - Aducational *uotes by #amous 6hilosophers - :ins
Aducational 6hilosophy - Top of 6a&e
Plato, 1uotations on 'ducation
##for the ob)ect of education is to teach us to lo&e beauty# (Plato
9'nd once we ha&e gi&en our community a good start,9 , pointed out, 9 the process will be cumulati&e# .y
maintaining a sound system of education you produce citi7ens of good character, and citi7ens of sound
character, with the ad&antage of a good education, produce in turn children better than themsel&es and better
able to produce still better children in their turn, as can be seen with animals#9(Plato
9### ,t is in education that bad discipline can most easily creep in unobser&ed,9 he replied#
9Nes,9 , agreed, 9 because people don9t treat it seriously there, and thin0 no harm can come of it#9
9,t only does harm,9 he said, 9because it ma0es itself at home and gradually undermines morals and manners+
from them it in&ades business dealings generally, and then spreads into the laws and constitution without
any restraint, until it has made complete ha&oc of pri&ate and public life#9
9'nd when men who aren9t fit to be educated get an education they don9t deser&e, are not the thoughts and
opinions they produce fairly called sophistry, without a legitimate idea or any trace of true wisdom among
themF9
9*ertainly9#
9/he first thing our artist must do,9 , replied, 9 2 and it9s not easy 2 is to ta0e human society and human habits
and wipe them clean out, to gi&e himself a clean can&as# (or our philosophic artist differs from all others in
being unwilling to start wor0 on an indi&idual or a city, or draw out laws, until he is gi&en, or has made
himself, a clean can&as#9
9.ecause a free man ought not to learn anything under duress# *ompulsory physical exercise does no harm
to the body, but compulsory learning ne&er stic0s to the mind#9
9/rue9
9/hen don9t use compulsion,9 , said to him, 9 but let your children9s lessons ta0e the form of play# Nou will
learn more about their natural abilities that way#9 (Plato
+ntroduction - ,lbert Ainstein 5 6hilosophy of Aducation - 6lato 5 Aducation - Rean Racques <ousseau 5
Aducation - de ;ontai&ne 5 6hilosophy of Aducation - Aducational *uotes by #amous 6hilosophers - :ins
Aducational 6hilosophy - Top of 6a&e
Jean JacAues %ousseau, On the Philosophy of /ducation
Plants are shaped by culti&ation and men by education# ## :e are born wea0, we need strength+ we are born
totally unpro&ided, we need aid+ we are born stupid, we need )udgement# !&erything we do not ha&e at our
birth and which we need when we are grown is gi&en us by education# (Kean Kac3ues $ousseau, !mile
, will say little of the importance of a good education+ nor will , stop to pro&e that the current one is bad#
*ountless others ha&e done so before me, and , do not li0e to fill a boo0 with things e&erybody 0nows# ,
will note that for the longest time there has been nothing but a cry against the established practice without
anyone ta0ing it upon himself to propose a better one# /he literature and the learning of our age tend much
more to destruction than to edification# (Kean Kac3ues $ousseau, !mile
+ntroduction - ,lbert Ainstein 5 6hilosophy of Aducation - 6lato 5 Aducation - Rean Racques <ousseau 5
Aducation - de ;ontai&ne 5 6hilosophy of Aducation - Aducational *uotes by #amous 6hilosophers - :ins
Aducational 6hilosophy - Top of 6a&e
&ichel de &ontaigne, Philosophy 1uotes on 'ducation
, would li0e to suggest that our minds are swamped by too much study and by too much matter )ust as plants
are swamped by too much water or lamps by too much oil+ that our minds, held fast and encumbered by so
many di&erse preoccupations, may well lose the means of struggling free, remaining bowed and bent under
the load+ except that it is quite otherwiseE the more our souls are filled, the more they expand+ examples
drawn from far2off times show, on the contrary, that great soldiers ad statesmen were also great scholars#
(de &ontaigne
, thin0 it better to say that the e&il arises from their tac0ling the sciences in the wrong manner and that, from
the way we ha&e been taught, it is no wonder that neither master nor pupils become more able, e&en though
they do 0now more# ,n truth the care and fees of our parents aim only at furnishing our heads with
0nowledgeE nobody tal0s about )udgement or &irtue# :hen someone passes by, try exclaiming, 3$h, what a
learned man>4 /hen, when another does, 3$h, what a good man>4 $ur people will not fail to turn their ga7e
respectfully towards the first# /here ought to be a third man crying, 3$h, what bloc0heads>9 (de &ontaigne
:e readily inquire, 3@oes he 0now ?ree0 or AatinF4 3*an he write poetry and proseF4 .ut what matters
most is what we put lastE 3-as he become better and wiserF4 :e ought to find out not who understands most
but who understands best# :e wor0 merely to fill the memory, lea&ing the understanding and the sense of
right and wrong empty# Sust as birds sometimes go in search of grain, carrying it in their bea0s without
tasting it to stuff it down the bea0s of their young, so too do our schoolmasters go foraging for learning in
their boo0s and merely lodge it on the tip of their lips, only to spew it out and scatter it on the wind# (de
&ontaigne
/heir pupils and their little charges are not nourished and fed by what they learnE the learning is passed from
hand to hand with only one end in &iewE to show it off, to put into our accounts to entertain others with it, as
though it were merely counters, useful for totting up and producing statements, but ha&ing no other use or
currency# 3'pud alios loqui didicerunt, non ipsi secum4 V/hey ha&e learned how to tal0 with others, not with
themsel&esW (de &ontaigne
:hene&er , as0 a certain acquaintance of mine to tell me what he 0nows about anything, he wants to show
me a boo0E he would not &enture to tell me that he has scabs on his arse without studying his lexicon to find
out the meaning of scab and arse#
'll we do is to loo0 after the opinions and learning of othersE we ought to ma0e them our own# :e closely
resemble a man who, needing a fire, goes next door to get a light, finds a great big bla7e there and stays to
warm himself, forgetting to ta0e a brand bac0 home# :hat use is it to us to ha&e a belly full of meat if we do
not digest it, if we do not transmute it into oursel&es, if it does not ma0e us grow in si7e and strengthF (de
&ontaigne
,f our souls do not mo&e with a better motion and if we do not ha&e a healthier )udgement, then , would )ust
as soon that our pupil should spend his time playing tennisE at least his body would become more agile# .ut
)ust loo0 at him after he has spent some fifteen or sixteen years studyingE nothing could be more unsuited
for employment# /he only impro&ement you can see is that his Aatin and ?ree0 ha&e made him more
conceited and more arrogant than when he left home# -e ought to ha&e brought bac0 a fuller soulE he brings
bac0 a swollen one+ instead of ma0ing it weightier he has merely blown wind into it# (de &ontaigne
'nd , loathe people who find it harder to put up with a gown as0ew than with a soul as0ew and who )udge a
man by his bow, his bearing and his boots# (de &ontaigne
Aearning is a good medicineE but no medicine is powerful enough to preser&e itself from taint and
corruption independently of defects in the )ar that it is 0ept in# $ne man sees clearly but does not see
straightE consequently he sees what is good but fails to follow it+ he sees 0nowledge and does not use it# (de
&ontaigne
## since it was true that study, e&en when done properly, can only teach us what wisdom, right conduct and
determination consist in, they wanted to put their children directly in touch with actual cases, teaching them
not by hearsay but by acti&ely assaying them, &igorously molding and forming them not merely by word
and precept but chiefly by deeds and examples, so that wisdom should not be something which the soul
0nows but the soul4s &ery essence and temperament, not something acquired but a natural property# (de
&ontaigne
.ut in truth , 0now nothing about education except thisE that the greatest and the most important difficulty
0nown to human learning seems to lie in that area which treats how to bring up children and how to educate
them# (de &ontaigne
Socrates and then 'rchesilaus used to ma0e their pupils spea0 first+ they spo0e afterwards# 3$best
plerumque iss discere &olunt authoritas eorum qui docent#4 V(or those who want to learn, the obstacle can
often be the authority of those who teachW (de &ontaigne
/hose who follow our (rench practice and underta0e to act as schoolmaster for se&eral minds di&erse in
0ind and capacity, using the same teaching and the same degree of guidance for them all, not surprisingly
can scarcely find in a whole tribe of children more than one or two who bear fruit from their education#
Aet the tutor not merely require a &erbal account of what the boy has been taught but the meaning and
substance of itE let him )udge how the boy has profited from it not from the e&idence of his memory but
from that of his life# Aet him ta0e what the boy has )ust learned and ma0e him show him do7ens of different
aspects of it and then apply it to )ust as many different sub)ects, in order to find out whether he has really
grasped it and made it part of himself, )udging the boy4s progress by what Plato taught about education#
Spewing food up exactly as you ha&e swallows it is e&idence of a failure to digest and assimilate it+ the
stomach has not done its )ob if, during concoction, it fails to change the substance and the form of what it is
gi&en# (de &ontaigne
/he profit we possess after study is to ha&e become better and wiser# (de &ontaigne
Ior is it enough to toughen up his soul+ you must also toughen up his muscles# (de &ontaigne
/each him a certain refinement in sorting out and selecting his arguments, with an affection for rele&ance
and so for bre&ity# 'bo&e all let him be taught to throw down his arms and surrender to truth as soon as he
percei&es it, whether the truth is born at his ri&al4s doing or within himself from some change in his ideas#
(de &ontaigne
's for our pupils tal0, let his &irtue and his sense of right and wrong shine through it and ha&e no guide but
reason# 8a0e him understand that confessing an error which he disco&ers in his own argument e&en when
he alone has noticed it is an act of )ustice and integrity, which are the main qualities he pursues+
stubbornness and rancour are &ulgar qualities, &isible in common souls whereas to thin0 again, to change
one4s mind and to gi&e up a bad case on the heat of the argument are rare qualities showing strength and
wisdom# (de &ontaigne
,n his commerce with men , mean him to include2 and that principally2 those who li&e only in the memory
of boo0s# .y means of history he will frequent those great souls of former years# ,f you want it to be so,
history can be a waste of time+ it can also be, if you want it to be so, a study bearing fruit beyond price# (de
&ontaigne
/he first lessons with which we should irrigate his mind should be those which teach him to 0now himself,
and to 0now how to die C and to li&e# (de &ontaigne
Since philosophy is the art which teaches us how to li&e, and since children need to learn it as much as we
do at other ages, why do we not instruct them in itF (de &ontaigne
'ny time and any place can be used to studyE his room, a garden, is table, his bed+ when alone or in
company+ morning and e&ening# -is chief study will be Philosophy, that (ormer of good )udgement and
character who is pri&ileged to be concerned with e&erything#
(de &ontaigne
(or among other things he had been counseled to bring me to lo&e 0nowledge and duty by my own choice,
without forcing my will, and to educate my soul entirely through gentleness and freedom# (de &ontaigne
Aearning must not only lodge with usE we must marry her# (de &ontaigne
+ntroduction - ,lbert Ainstein 5 6hilosophy of Aducation - 6lato 5 Aducation - Rean Racques <ousseau 5
Aducation - de ;ontai&ne 5 6hilosophy of Aducation - Aducational *uotes by #amous 6hilosophers - :ins
Aducational 6hilosophy - Top of 6a&e
'ducational 1uotes by Fa-ous Philosophers
7uotations fro! Confucius6 $ristotle6 .uripides6 +eneca6 Cicero6 ,orace6
2illia! 8a!es6 Friedrich -iet'sche6 +ig!und Freud6 8ohn Fowles6
%eorge (ernard +haw
Study the past if you would define the future#
, am not one who was born in the possession of 0nowledge+ , am one who is fond of antiquity, and earnest
in see0ing it there#
Aearning without thought is labor lost+ thought without learning is perilous# (Confucius, 'nalects
/hose who educate children well are more to be honored than parents, for these ga&e only life, those the art
of li&ing well# (Aristotle, ,n !ducation
/he educated differ from the uneducated as much as the li&ing from the dead# (Aristotle, ,n !ducation
'll who ha&e meditated on the art of go&erning man0ind ha&e been con&inced that the fate of empires
depends on the education of youth# (Aristotle
Aearned we may be with another man4s learningE we can only be wise with wisdom of our ownE
V, hate a sage who is not wise for himselfW ('uripides
:hat use is 0nowledge if there is no understandingF ((tobaeus
3non &itae sed scholae discimus4# V:e are taught for the schoolroom not for lifeW ((eneca
Iow we are not merely to stic0 0nowledge on to the soulE we must incorporate it into her+ the soul should
not be sprin0led with 0nowledge but steeped in it# ((eneca
'nd if 0nowledge does not change her and ma0e her imperfect state better then it is preferable )ust to lea&e
it alone# Qnowledge is a dangerous sword+ in a wea0 hand which does not 0now how to wield it it gets in its
master4s way and wounds him, 3ut fuerit melius non didicisse4 Vso that it would ha&e been better not to ha&e
studied at allW (de &ontaigne quoting Cicero
She (philosophy is equally helpful to the rich and poorE neglect her, and she equally harms the young and
old# (#orace
3's a man who 0nows how to ma0e his education into a rule of life not a means of showing off+ who can
control himself and obey his own principles#4 /he true mirror of our discourse is the course of our li&es# (de
&ontaigne quoting Cicero
/-! /!'*-!5 'S ' I!*!SS'5N !6,A# Aet us ha&e as few people as possible between the producti&e
minds and the hungry and recipient minds> /he middlemen almost unconsciously adulterate the food which
they supply# ,t is because of teachers that so little is learned, and that so badly# (5iet4sche, 1==<
:hat a distressing contrast there is between the radiant intelligence of the child and the feeble mentality of
the a&erage adult# ((ig-und Freud
/o teach how to li&e without certainty, and yet without being paralysed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief
thing that philosophy, in our age, can do for those who study it# (;ertrand $ussell, /he -istory of :estern
Philosophy
/o begin with our 0nowledge grows in spots# ##:hat you first gain, ### is probably a small amount of new
information, a few new definitions, or distinctions, or points of &iew# .ut while these special ideas are being
added, the rest of your 0nowledge stands still, and only gradually will you line up your pre&ious opinions
with the no&elties , am trying to instill, and to modify to some slight degree their mass# ##Nour mind in such
processes is strained, and sometimes painfully so, between its older beliefs and the no&elties which
experience brings along# (+illia- Ka-es, Pragmatism
*hess permits freedom of permutations within a framewor0 of set rules and prescribed mo&ements# .ecause
a chess player cannot mo&e absolutely as he li0es, either in terms of the rules or in terms of the exigencies of
the particular game, has he no freedom of mo&eF /he separate games of chess , play with existence has
different rules from your and e&ery other game+ the only similarity is that each of our games always has
rules# /he gifts, inherited and acquired, that are special to me are the rules of the game+ and the situation ,
am in at any gi&en moment is the situation of the game# 8y freedom is the choice of action and the power of
enactment , ha&e within the rules and situation of the game# (Fo*les, 19JL# /he 'ristos
$ur present educational systems are all paramilitary# /heir aim is to produce ser&ants or soldiers who obey
without question and who accepts their training as the best possible training# /hose who are most successful
in the state are those who ha&e the most interest in prolonging the state as it is+ they are also those who ha&e
the most say in the educational system, and in particular by ensuring that the educational product they want
is the most highly rewarded# (Fo*les, 19JL# /he 'ristos
!&ery serious student of the sub)ect 0nows that the stability of a ci&ilisation depends finally on the wisdom
with which it distributes its wealth and allots its burdens of labour, and on the &eracity of the instruction it
pro&ides for its children# :e do not distribute the wealth at allE we throw it into the streets to be scrambled
for by the strongest and the greediest who will stoop to such scrambling, after handing the lion4s share to the
professional robbers politely called owners# :e cram our children with lies, and punish anyone who tries to
enlighten them# $ur remedies for the consequences of our folly are tariffs, inflation, wars, &i&isections and
inoculations 1 &engeance, &iolences, blac0 magic# (:eorge ;ernard (ha*
Cosmology
#hat is the Most )imple Cosmology $ .oes it #or=0 ;o! our Finite
)pherical 1Obser"able 9ni"erse1 />ists !ithin 'nfinite /ternal )pace
/he supreme tas0 of the physicist is to arri&e at those uni&ersal elementary laws from which the cosmos can
be built up by pure deduction# /here is no logical path to these laws+ only intuition, resting on sympathetic
understanding of experience, can reach them# (Albert 'instein, 191=
Introduction
/he purpose of this *osmology page is to explain how the :a&e Structure of 8atter (:S8 in infinite
eternal space is consistent with current astronomical obser&ations# Nou will need a basic understanding of
the (:S8 before you read it (see lin0s on left side of page# 'nd try and 0eep in mind that you are not
reading some abstract mathematical explanation 2 :S8 cosmology describes how you exist in this space of
the uni&erse and interact with e&erything around you#
38 Our Finite )pherical 9ni"erse is all that />ists8
+#hich led to the Big Bang Theory for the Creation of the 9ni"erse-8
/o briefly summarise, if the uni&erse is finite (and all there is then there are only three options#
1# /he uni&erse is static 2 then it needs an antigra&ity component to stop it collapsing (!instein9s
cosmological constant#
;# /he uni&erse is contracting (there is no e&idence for this#
K# /he uni&erse is expanding (the redshift with distance supports this if it is caused by @oppler shifting due
to receding motion 2 this is the path *osmology went down#
.ut this has numerous problems+ e#g# what caused the big bang, what is it expanding into, what is outside
the boundary of the finite uni&erseF
48 Our Finite )pherical 1Obser"able 9ni"erse1 e>ists as part of 'nfinite /ternal )pace8
/he most simple explanation is that only one thing exists, space, thus it is
necessarily infinite and eternal# (rom this most simple foundation we can
then deduce that matter must be formed from wa&es in Space, where the
electron is a spherical standing wa&e# /he wa&e center forms the 9particle9
effect, the spherical in and out wa&es explain how matter is in continual two
way communication with other matter (wa&es in the space around it# /he
:a&e @iagrams page is useful for picturing this#
/he ob&ious question then arisesE P:here do the in wa&es come from that form our matterFP
/he answer is simple, from the out wa&es of other matter around us in space (which is a direct consequence
of -uygens9 Principle# (rom this we can deduce that e&ery wa&e center 9particle9 is at the center of its
obser&able uni&erse within infinite space#
8ost importantly, when you deduce this you find that each wa&e center only recei&es wa&es from a finite
amount of other matter 2 thus the energy of matter is finite# See the !quation of the *osmos# /his also
means that the si7e of matter is finite 2 matter is the si7e of its finite spherical obser&able uni&erse within
infinite space#
/his explains why when we loo0 around us in space we see that we are surrounded by other matter (planets,
stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters, etc# and that we seem to be at the center of our obser&able uni&erse# /he
:S8 cosmology deduces that this is true where&er you are in infinite space#
I$/!E /o a&oid confusion , use the terms o#serva#le universe or Hu##le !phere rather than uni&erse# $ur
obser&able uni&erse exists as a finite spherical region of infinite eternal space# :e can only see and interact
with other matter within our obser&able uni&erse#
So we see that there were actually two paths to explore 2 cosmologists went down the 9.ig .ang9 path of the
uni&erse being all that exists and ignored the other more simple explanation founded on a finite obser&able
uni&erse within infinite Space (though this only wor0s if you understand the :a&e Structure of 8atter in
Space#
(rom these two cosmology theories we can then show that a cosmology founded on the :a&e Structure of
8atter (:S8 in ,nfinite !ternal Space is the most simple, that it matches obser&ations correctly, and
explains and sol&es many problems currently caused by the .ig .ang creation theory of *osmology#
This .iffers from the Big Bang Theory in T!o #ays
:S8 cosmology describes an infinite eternal perpetual system# /here is no beginning or end to space and
its wa&e motions that form matter#
:hile the obser&able uni&erse is finite in both theories, in the .ig .ang theory the uni&erse is all there is,
whereas in :S8 cosmology the obser&able uni&erse (-ubble sphere is )ust a finite spherical region of
infinite eternal space#
+hat does the +a,e (tructure of &atter (+(&) Cos-ology
')plainH
38 %edshift !ith .istance
,t is a remar0able coincidence that there are actually two ways that you get a redshift with distance# $nly the
big bang explanation was considered which is the most complicated explanation, the most simple
explanation was ne&er considered because it depends upon the recently disco&ered wa&e structure of matter
in space#
(ig#1 2 ,n .ig .ang cosmology, the uni&erse is all that exists, thus to
pre&ent it gra&itationally collapsing an expanding uni&erse was
proposed# /he disco&ery of the redshift with distance seemed to confirm
this, where the redshift is assumed to be a @oppler effect of receding
motion due to an expanding uni&erse#
/he problems with the .ig .ang theory are ob&ious>
:hat is a 9.ig .ang9 and how does it create Space, /ime, 8atter and
8otionF
:hat is outside the expanding uni&erseF

(ig#; 2 ,n :S8 *osmology, the obser&able uni&erse is )ust a finite
spherical region of infinite eternal space# :e can only see and interact
with other matter in this region# /hus there is no need for an expanding
uni&erse, as other matter around our obser&able uni&erse pre&ents it
from collapsing# /his is the equi&alent of !instein9s *osmological "
'ntigra&ity constant, but it is )ust normal gra&ity of matter outside our
obser&able uni&erse within infinite space#
So why the redshift with distanceF
.ecause as we loo0 at matter farther away from us, we find that we
share less o&erlap of a common finite spherical obser&able uni&erse
(-ubble sphere# 'nd this means that there is less energy exchange,
which equates to a redshift with distance#
See /he *osmological 5edshift !xplained by the ,ntersection of -ubble Spheres
/his article shows that each wa&e center 9particle9 is the center of its finite spherical obser&able uni&erse
(-ubble Sphere within infinite Space# 's two wa&e center 9particles9 mo&e apart there is less o&erlap of
common -ubble spheres " obser&able uni&erses, thus less wa&e interactions with increasing distance, thus
less energy exchange which then pro&ides a simple sensible explanation of the redshift with distance#
48 ;o! our Finite )pherical 9ni"erse />ists !ithin 'nfinite /ternal )pace
*an we &isuali7e a three2dimensional uni&erse which is finite yet unboundedF (!instein, 19;1
,n fact it is possible for a finite spherical %ni&erse to form within an infinite Space# %nfortunately for
!instein, he incorrectly imagined a 9cur&ed space9 such that if you tra&eled far enough you would return to
your starting point (a &ery abstract and confusing concept#
/he solution is far more simple, and is found instead from -uygens9 Principle# /hree hundred years ago
*hristiaan -uygens, a @utch mathematician, found that if a surface containing many separate wa&e sources
was examined at a distance, the combined separate wa&es of the sources appeared as a single wa&e front
with the shape of the surface# /his wa&e front is termed a 9-uygens *ombination9 of the separate wa&es#
/hus the out wa&es of all the other matter around us within our -ubble sphere must necessarily form our
spherical in wa&es# /his unites finite matter with infinite space due to this sharing of wa&es#
This shows how other matter's spherical out waves form our
matter's in waves >Kuy&ens' 6rinciple?. #our important
pointsJ
i? +n reality there are about (4
04
other wave center 'particles'
whose spherical out waves form into our spherical in waves.
ii? They are obviously not all the same distance away, but
distributed throu&hout the space of our finite spherical
observable 7niverse >Kubble Sphere? within infinite eternal
Space.
iii? These other wave center 'particles' around us are also
formed from the matter waves around them, and this
process extends to infinity.
iv? The dia&ram is misleadin& in showin& the waves startin&.
+n reality the waves are continually flowin& out from other
matter around us. i.e. The system is perpetual, the in and
out waves are always bein& shared between electron wave
centers wherever you are in infinite space.
So this is a very simplistic dia&ram of what is really &oin& on.
Alectrons are very lar&e complex wave structures of the
observable universe >this is true for humans tooJ?.
/hus the mass " wa&e energy density of matter is finite because it is determined by a finite amount of other
matter# See the !quation of the *osmos#
/his is &ery important as it unites our finite temporal world of matter within in infinite eternal space# /his is
one of the great deductions from 8ilo9s :olff9s pioneering wor0 on the :a&e Structure of 8atter#
E8 /instein1s :eneral %elati"ity and Cosmology
:e see that this finite spherical uni&erse agrees with !instein9s logic on the structure of the uni&erse as
deduced from general relati&ity# -is quote is bro0en up into three parts+
i Suppose we draw lines or stretch strings in all directions from a point, and mar0 off each of these the
distance r with a measuring rod# 'll the free end2points of these lengths lie on a spherical surface# :ith
increasing &alues of r, (the spherical surface increases from 7ero up to a maximum &alue which is
determined by the 9radius of the uni&erse9#
ii .ut for still further increasing &alues of r, the area gradually diminishes to 7ero#
iii 't first, the straight lines which radiate from the starting point di&erge farther and farther from one
another, but later they approach each other, and finally they run together again at a 9counter2point9 to the
starting point# %nder such conditions they ha&e tra&ersed the whole spherical space (of our finite spherical
uni&erse# ('lbert !instein, 191J
,t is important to reali7e that !instein does not explain what happens at the 9radius of the uni&erse9 that
causes an expanding spherical surface to begin to contract (because he did not 0now># /he solution is now
sol&ed using -uygens9 principle as we ha&e pre&iously described# /hus+
i @escribes the out wa&es from the wa&e center, these carry on going out and become the in wa&es of
distant matter#
ii @escribes the in wa&es 2 but rather than still going out these wa&es are coming bac0 in and ha&e been
formed by the out wa&es of all the other matter in our finite spherical %ni&erse#
iii /hus the point and the counter2point are united as the wa&e center of Spherical Standing :a&es the si7e
of the %ni&erse#
/he 95adius of the %ni&erse9 is the sphere where the in wa&es (from distant matter9s out wa&es contribute to
our spherical in wa&es, and this determines both the si7e of matter, and thus the si7e of our obser&able
uni&erse within infinite space#
F8 Mach1s Principle
/his also deduces 8ach9s principle which states that the mass of a body is determined by all other matter in
the obser&able uni&erse# /hus we can now understand why the following quote from !instein, based on the
ideas of !rnst 8ach, is true (and important#
, must not fail to mention that a theoretical argument can be adduced in fa&or of the hypothesis of a finite
uni&erse# /he general theory of relati&ity teaches that the inertial mass of a gi&en body is greater as there are
more ponderable masses in proximity to it+ thus it seems &ery natural to reduce the total inertia (mass of a
body to interactions between it and the other bodies in the uni&erse, as indeed, e&er since Iewton9s time,
gra&ity has been completely reduced to interaction between bodies# /he results of calculation also indicate
that the uni&erse would necessarily be spherical# (Albert 'instein, 195L
D8 The Cosmic Micro!a"e Bac=ground %adiation +CMB%-
/he *osmic 8icrowa&e .ac0ground 5adiation (*8.5 is sensibly explained due to radiation from cold
matter in interstellar space# Since we only measure one source of *8.5 this means that there cannot ha&e
been a 9.ig .ang9 otherwise we would obser&e two sources of cosmic bac0ground radiation#
/he expression Pthe temperature of spaceP is the title of chapter 1K of Sir 'rthur !ddington4s famous 19;J
wor0, !ddington calculated the minimum temperature any body in space would cool to, gi&en that it is
immersed in the radiation of distant starlight# :ith no ad)ustable parameters, he obtained KcQ (later refined
to ;#=cQ , essentially the same as the obser&ed, so2called 9bac0ground9 temperature# ' similar calculation,
although with less certain accuracy, applies to the limiting temperature of intergalactic space because of the
radiation of galaxy light# So the intergalactic matter is li0e a 9fog9 and would therefore pro&ide a simpler
explanation for the microwa&e radiation, including its blac0body2shaped spectrum# (6an (landern
?8 Formation of Light and ;ea"y /lements
,t is claimed that the .ig .ang theory is necessary to explain the formation of different elements in the
uni&erse# -owe&er, more recent studies show that these elements are formed from the energy of stars
exploding (superno&a#
### in 1957, after years of steady wor0 2 aided by ad&ances in nuclear physics and stellar obser&ations 2
8argaret and ?regory .urbridge, :illiam (owler and -oyle published a comprehensi&e and detailed
theory showing how stellar systems could produce all the 0nown elements in proportions &ery close to those
obser&ed to exist# ,n addition, the theory accounted for the growing e&idence that the elementary
composition &aries from star to star, something that would not be possible if the elements were produced by
the .ig .ang# /he new theory was rapidly accepted as substantially correct# (!ric Aerner
@8 Quantised %edshift !ith .istance puts us at the Center of the 9ni"erse
'stronomers ha&e confirmed that galaxy redshifts are quantised# /hus according to -ubble9s law, where
redshifts are proportional to the distances, galaxies must be grouped into spherical shells concentric around
our 8il0y :ay galaxy# /he shells being around a million light years apart with us at the center# /he odds
for the !arth ha&ing such a unique position in the uni&erse by accident are less than one in a trillion# 's
-alton 'rp writes+
/he fact that measured &alues of redshift do not &ary continuously but come in steps 2 certain preferred
&alues 2 is so unexpected that con&entional astronomy has ne&er been able to accept it, in spite of the
o&erwhelming obser&ational e&idence# /heir problem is simply that if redshifts measure radial components
of &elocities, then galaxy &elocities can be pointed at any angle to us, hence their redshifts must be
continuously distributed# (or supposed recession &elocities of quasars, to measure equal steps in all
directions in the s0y means we are at the center of a series of explosions# /his is an anti2*opernican
embarrassment# So a simple glance at the e&idence discussed in this *hapter shows that extragalactic
astronomy and .ig .ang theory is swept away#
,n addition it appears increasingly useful to &iew particle masses to be communicated by wa&e li0e carriers
in a 8achian uni&erse# /herefore the possibility of beat frequencies, harmonics, interference and e&olution
through resonant states is opened up# ### 8y attitude toward this result is that in a 8achian uni&erse there
must be some signal carrier for inertial mass coming from distant galaxies# ('rp, 199=
/he wa&e structure of matter deduces this perfectly# !ach wa&e center 9particle9 is at the center of its
obser&able uni&erse within infinite space# 'nd the quantised redshift is a property of wa&es, )ust as the
quantum properties of light are explained with wa&es#
68 #hy our Finite )pherical 9ni"erse does not Become 1'mpo"erished1
!instein explains a further problem with the concept of the 9island9 uni&erse as required by Iewton9s Aaw+
'ccording to the theory of Iewton the stellar uni&erse ought to be a finite island in an infinite ocean of
space# /his conception in itself is not &ery satisfactory# ,t is still less satisfactory because it leads to the
result that the light emitted by the stars and also indi&idual stars of the stellar system are perpetually passing
out into an infinite space, ne&er to return, and without e&er again coming into interaction with other ob)ects
of nature# Such a finite material uni&erse would be destined to become gradually but systematically
impo&erished# (!instein, 195L
/his problem is also sol&ed by reali7ing that matter is distributed uniformly (on the &ery large scale
throughout infinite Space# -owe&er, only a finite spherical region of this other matter contributes to our in
wa&es and thus our finite mass# /his means that there are as many wa&es flowing into our finite spherical
uni&erse as there are flowing out# /his perpetual finite spherical uni&erse within infinite space would not
become impo&erished o&er time, exactly as !instein (and sensible logic required#
C8 Olbers1 Parado> )ol"ed
$lbers pointed out that if the number of stars were infinite, we should obser&e the entire s0y with the light
intensity of the surface of a star li0e the Sun# $b&iously we do not obser&e this> 's Aerner explains+
Iewton was undecided on whether his laws of gra&itation preclude an infinite collection of matter# -e
thought that only a di&inely precise positioning of all the stars could pre&ent such an infinite collection of
matter from collapsing into a series of heaps# 8uch later, in 1=K;, the astronomer -einrich $lbers pointed
out that an infinite uni&erse seemed to imply a paradox# ,f there were an infinite number of stars, if one went
far enough in any direction from earth, one would hit a star# /his implied that the s0y should be uniformly
bright, as bright as the surface of the sun, which it ob&iously is not#P (Aerner, 1991
/he solution to this paradox is the same as for the other problems discussed abo&e# -uygens9 sharing of
wa&es (which explains our finite mass within an infinite space also explains why we only 9see9 the finite
number of wa&e centers (of matter in distant stars within our finite spherical uni&erse# /hus the number of
obser&able stars and the resultant brightness of the night s0y are finite rather than infinite#
:e should further add that the 9di&ine9 positioning of matter in infinite space needed to pre&ent 9matter from
collapsing into a series of heaps9 is simply due to the fact that matter is a wa&e structure that depends upon
the out wa&es of other matter around it# /his limits how the wa&e centers can be distributed within an
infinite space#
378 The )econd La! of Thermodynamics only applies to Closed )ystems
/he reason why our uni&erse remains ordered (can e&ol&e complexity is because it is part of an infinite
perpetual system of wa&es within infinite space# /he second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed
systems (not infinite systems, as Aerner clearly explains+
.olt7mann propounded a new concept with profound cosmological implications# /he uni&erse as a whole,
must, li0e any closed system tend toward an equilibrious state of entropyE it will be completely
homogeneous, the same temperature e&erywhere, the stars will cool, their life2gi&ing energy flow will cease#
/he uni&erse will suffer a 9heat death9# 'ny closed system must thus go from an ordered to a less ordered
state 2 the opposite of progress#
/he tendency toward equilibrium is supposed to hold only in 9closed systems9 and because the earth is
heated by the sun, it is not a closed system# /he uni&erse we obser&e is simply not decaying+ the
generali7ation of 9the law of increasing disorder9 to the entire cosmos is unsupported by obser&ation#
(Aerner, 1991
338 On the Past, Present and Future and the One #ay .irection of Time
/he solution is to understand that time (and matter are really due to the wa&e motion of space, which is
directional# /ime is )ust a human construct to measure this rate of change " motion 2 there is )ust the eternal
now of &ibrating space#
Aerner explains this important problem of why /ime must be directional, contrary to the laws of modern
particle physics+
/his is one of the deepest paradoxes of con&entional physics today# 'ccording to all the laws of physics
there should be no distinction between past and future, no direction to time# Since the second law says that
entropy necessarily increases with time, and thus the past and future differ, the second law, too, is
contradicted#
,n relati&ity theory, for example, time is simply the fourth dimension 2 there is no more difference between
past and future than between left and right# /here is no flow of timeE all the equations would loo0 the same
if time were re&ersed# Iewton9s laws and the laws of quantum mechanics also are what physicists call 9time
re&ersible9+ they define no unique direction for time# ,f one were to ma0e a mo&ie of two billiard balls
colliding, for example, it would loo0 )ust as credible if it were run in re&erse#
.ut in the real world, there is a difference# ,f it is two raw eggs that collide and brea0 in the mo&ie, it would
loo0 absurd in re&erse# /he two eggs would assemble themsel&es out of a puddle and roll off# ,n the real
world babies are born, ne&er unborn, they grow up, ne&er down, and eggs are scrambled, ne&er
unscrambled# /hese processes are all irre&ersibleE time mo&es forward, toward growth or decay#
-ence the fundamental questionE ,f the laws of the uni&erse ha&e no direction in time, why does the real
worldF
/he con&entional answer to this question is, strangely, the .ig .ang# /he .ig .ang started the uni&erse off
in a highly orderly and regular state 2 a 9perfect9 state of &ery low entropy# Since the uni&erse must run down
through states of increasing disorder, closer to equilibrium (the state in which there is no flow of energy,
the direction of time is defined#
/hus, if there was no .ig .ang why does time mo&e forwardF
/he importance of the answers extends far beyond their role at the center of a consistent cosmology# /hey
stri0e at the heart of some of the greatest mysteries faced by science, philosophy and religion 2 the questions
of the nature of human consciousness, the relation of mind and body, and free will# /he distinction between
past, present, and future is basic to our experience of consciousness 2 we are conscious in the now, we
remember the past, but we cannot 0now the future# ,t also is central to our idea of free will, for it implies
that our actions in the present affect the future, that the past is fixed but the future can be changed# -ow can
these ideas be reconciled with a concept of physical laws in which past, present and future all exist equally
and cannot be distinguishedF
/he real world is continually coming into existence, created by an infinitely complex web of instabilities
and interactions# 's Prigogine puts it, 9/ime is creation# /he future is )ust not there#9
/ime9s irre&ersibility is based on the continuity of space, on its infinite di&isibility# (Aerner, 1991
$nce we reali7e that it is not time but the wa&e motion of continuous space which is fundamental, then it
becomes ob&ious why time is directional# ,t ta0es time for in wa&es to flow into their wa&e centers, thus the
in wa&es are the future, the wa&e center is the present, and the out2wa&es are the past# /his is important for
it explains why time is directional because the wa&e motion of space is directional# /hus we no longer need
the .ig .ang theory or the second law of thermodynamics to explain the flow of time#
/his also means that space itself does not experience time# $nly matter, as the wa&e motion of space,
experiences time# /hus space must be eternal#
348 On Freedom& Our 9ni"erse is ecessarily Connected but not .eterministic
,t is &ery important to appreciate the difference between a necessarily connected uni&erse (as explained by
the :a&e Structure of 8atter and a deterministic uni&erse which requires 0nowledge of the 9initial
conditions9 from which things, being necessarily connected, can then be determined#
'gain the solution is ob&ious, for we li&e in a finite and necessarily connected uni&erse, but because it is
within infinite space, and continually has wa&es flowing into it from infinity, they can ne&er be pre2
determined# /his explains the uncertainty of Buantum /heory and that we can ne&er 0now where each
successi&e in wa&e will meet at its wa&e center, thus we can ne&er 0now both the future motion
(momentum and position of the 9particle9# /his then deduces -eisenberg9s %ncertainty Principle#
/his limited freedom and limited determinism within infinite space is explained in more detail in the (ree
:ill 6s# @eterminism page#
3E8 Blac= holes ( #orm ;oles .o ot />ist
.lac0 holes and worm holes are mathematical constructs 2 infinite energy densities do not exist 2 time tra&