Younger Than Some of the Stars It Contains
Homepage of Eugene Sittampalam for – The Unification of Physics
Reviewed 18 September 2009
Eugene, I just read the paper you submitted for review...
Brilliant!!! I must say you have hit on something so simple it's stunning. ...
I do agree with you very much on particle breathing as you put it and there is no such thing as empty space in our universe. You have clearly linked all particle behavior to the quantum vacuum, something I have done in my work to explain gravity and I'm sure Bernhard Haisch will find this of great interest. Now we can rid ourselves of folded dimensions in string theory. The extra dimensions are right there in your particle energy exchanges. Beautiful. ... [See the full letter of Robert Roudebush below]
Frequent visitors here may go directly to the latest letters and updates. Please click on:
The ITER Test
Requests for further clarifications, to email@example.com – most welcome!
Links to the rest of the websites are given at bottom of page.
A team of astronomers led by Wendy Freedman of the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, California, published a long-awaited measurement of the universe’s expansion rate, determined from Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observations of pulsating stars in a far-off cluster of galaxies. The result unnerved astronomers. The measured expansion rate was so fast that it implied that the universe has been slowing down for a mere 8 billion years since the big bang. …
The crisis intensified the next year, when Craig Hogan of the University of Washington, Seattle, and Michael Bolte of the Lick Observatory in Santa Cruz, California, published a careful study of the nests of old stars called globular clusters, which reconfirmed earlier age estimates of about 16 billion years. The universe, it seemed, was just half the age of its oldest inhabitants. Something appeared to be drastically wrong with the observations, or with cosmologists’ basic picture of the universe. …
The Universe Shows Its Age, Andrew Watson, RESEARCH NEWS, Science, 13 February 1998; pp 981-983
Last week Wendy Freedman of the Carnegie Observatories and 13 colleagues announced, in the journal Nature, that observations with the refurbished Hubble Space Telescope imply that the universe is 8 billion years young. Since some stars are 16 billion years old, says astronomer George Jacoby of the National Optical Astronomy Observatories in Tucson, Ariz., cosmology is “in a time of crisis.”
Last week’s low estimate is no fluke. Astronomers have battled over the age of the universe ever since Edwin Hubble discovered, in 1929, that the universe is expanding and so must have originated in a big bang. …
Don’t look for a resolution to the age crisis tomorrow. As [Sidney] van den Bergh [of Dominion Astrophysical Observatory in British Columbia] describes the quest, quoting Mark Twain: “The researches of many commentators have already thrown much darkness on this subject, and it is probably that, if they continue, we shall soon know nothing at all about it.”…
The Cosmic Dating Game, Sharon Begley, Newsweek, 7 November 1994; p 55
Says Alexei Filippenko, a University of California, Berkeley, astronomer who was on the team that made the Hubble observations: “This is fantastic stuff … it might lead to a revolution in cosmology.”…
If the age estimate is wildly wrong, then there could be a flaw – possibly a fatal flaw – in the Big Bang theory. …
Oops … Wrong Answer, Michael D. Lemonick & Dick Thompson, Time, 7 November 1994; p 65
You mean, Mother Nature is younger than some of her kids?
And it takes public funding for science today to make such ‘findings’?
And science just did
…and about time, too!
There’s a book out now on it –
And now, the long-awaited...
"THEORY OF EVERYTHING"
In these days of razzle-dazzle and catchy book names with little new substance to show, other than recent science history, it may be hard to put out a genuine piece of work bearing such a title. I myself would tend to be very cynical. I cannot expect others not to be. What I can perhaps only do under the circumstances is make a pledge here to readers that they will at least get their money back, including postage, should they find the book to be anything short of what its title says. No questions asked.
A free copy, too, may be ordered by anyone c/o a school principal or university department head, whose name and postal address may be sent to me by e-mail.
Here, in the meantime…
Welcome to my website for the book.
Even if you do not have much interest in science, you’re still likely to find the book to be of interest. (If gravity affects you, you may be curious to know what it is really and simply. If you’re a taxpayer, you may want a glimpse of where a good part of your tax money is being spent.) On the other hand, science students and teachers especially should find the book an invaluable possession, with free updates and their questions answered with illustrations at this site. And to all readers – your critical comments on the book and on the material here in these web pages would be much appreciated. No matter where in the world you are, you’ll always find me just seconds away from you – on:
But, first, the answer to your likely first question,
“Basically, what has made it all to converge now to a single – and that, too, a purely classical mechanical – theory?”
In a nutshell:
Mass and energy are not only equivalent but the two are fundamentally one and the same.
We term this singular concept – mass-energy. The atom (or molecule) is thus the condensed form of mass-energy (vibrant at sub-c speeds); and electromagnetic radiation the evaporated form (vibrant at escape speed c). The space and time of the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) serve us – in effect – as absolute space and absolute time, respectively. Thus, matter and vacuum alike, our entire observable universe is a voidless and seamless single continuum in vibrant mass-energy featured in an absolute (three-dimensional) space frame in absolute (one-dimensional) time.
The natural vibration of the atom at any given level is the recoil effect of net condensation (inhalation) followed by net evaporation (exhalation) of mass-energy over a cycle at that level. THE ATOM IS THUS A BREATHING ENTITY even in its so-called ground state. And these breathing exchanges at the various atomic levels (and corresponding frequencies) between matter and vacuum form the springboard of quantum mechanics.
Electromagnetic and nuclear forces are thus the consequence of the breathing of the atomic constituents, electrons and nucleons (attracting during influx and repelling over efflux, making Coulomb charges redundant); and harmony in such breathing among subatomic and atomic particles is fundamental to all physical (and chemical) interactions in nature, with the CBR providing the overall confining, or gravitational, effect on atoms. All the now-considered fundamental forces of nature thus become accounted for, with such simple explanations also following readily for all of the other physical phenomena in nature.
Typically, the breathing exchanges occur with net effect around the equator as well as at the poles of the basic proton and electron. Irrespective of the subatomic particle, the equatorial exhalation waxes the spin, from a nonvanishing seminal spin, to ħ = h/2π, over a half cycle (where h is Planck’s constant, a pure wave number); which spin quantum, ħ, then drops back over the inhalation half cycle, to give the particle the statistical and characteristic half-spin, ħ/2, over the cycle – now derivable from first principles.
The equatorial exchanges underlie also the electrical effect, while the polar exchanges are indeed the magnetic flux. Protons and electrons are thus the primary magnetic dipoles, with polar exhalation at the north and inhalation at the south. (And, since breathing in and breathing out are complementary, where one can never occur without the other, the magnetic monopole is a physical nonentity! Sorry, Prof. Steven Weinberg!) Hence, it is spin and spin alone of the proton or electron that remains an absolute constant for the particle under any environment and not any "charge" on the particle.
Not surprisingly, there is one and only one fundamental particle required for physical analysis in this all-embracing theory. Thus, whittled down to the ideal and smallest quantum detectable, it is – the per-cycle quantum of the photon. It is given due recognition and named here the RADIATON (note spelling!). Hence, analytically, radiatons uniquely constitute all that is nature. Thus, for example, the classical mass of a body or energy of a photon would simply be its (dimensionless) radiaton number.
Further, only one new entity is introduced (and many old ones made redundant) in this final concept. It is the COSMIC CORE, the largest mass-energy quantum in observable space. Like atomic nuclei do in a body of matter, Cosmic Cores dot our universe. [Note on “our universe”: With distance from us, the redshift of cosmic bodies would merge with the CBR; thus, beyond a critical distance and (corresponding) time, no objects at all would be discernible; and, being beyond our observation, they also remove themselves outside the scope of our physics and our universe; the cosmological redshift, apart from any Doppler shift, being due simply to intrinsic mass-energy loss of the photon packet by recoil action every time the packet accelerates laterally in asymmetric ambient fields en route while maintaining a constant line speed (c) through the vacuum mass-energy field; photons, non-breathing as they are, never recouping lost mass-energy unlike breathing atoms do (by breathing in more mass-energy than breathing out over a cycle; and vice versa when losing mass-energy).]
Finally, two and only two laws are assumed a priori across the entire realm of physics. They are (corresponding to the first law of thermodynamics) the conservation of mass-energy and (corresponding to the second law of thermodynamics) the conservation of its asymmetry, or handedness, of motion (a nonzero net linear momentum coupled with a nonzero net spin). [Note: The radiaton is the classic perfectly elastic particle where mass and energy are intrinsic (nontransferable) and momentum and momentum alone is transferred in encounters between such indefatigable particles. The radiaton is thus the very embodiment of the first law; and radiatons collectively manifest the second law (wherein may well lie the key to biology and to the mind itself); the second law being is more evident in the perpetual nonzero net linear and spin motions of the basic proton or electron.].
Now, with this framework in perspective, let us take a step back, remove our blinkers, and behold that final model getting only further embellished with our increasing (and verified!) empirical data right here in these pages.
Accounts of rejected Nobel-winning discoveries highlight the conservatism in science. Despite their historical misjudgements, journal editors can help, but above all, visionaries will need sheer persistence.
Coping with peer rejection, Editorial, Nature, 16 October 2003; p 645
Hoping against hope that editors of such revered journals really mean what they write, and words such as the above are not merely to cover shortcomings or complacency in their entrusted positions of great responsibility not only to the scientific community but also to the taxpaying public at large, I heed their advice... trudging down that Lonesome Road.
In our century it was Albert Einstein who most explicitly pursued the goal of a final theory... The last thirty years of Einstein’s life were largely devoted to a search for a so-called unified field theory that would unify James Clerk Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism with the general theory of relativity, Einstein’s theory of gravitation. Einstein’s attempt was not successful, and with hindsight we can now see that it was misconceived. Not only did Einstein reject quantum mechanics; the scope of his effort was too narrow. Electromagnetism and gravitation happen to be the only fundamental forces that are evident in everyday life (and the only forces that were known when Einstein was a young man), but there are other kinds of force in nature... Nevertheless Einstein’s struggle is our struggle today. It is the search for a final theory.
Steven Weinberg (Nobel Laureate 1979), Dreams of a Final Theory, Vintage, UK, 1993; p 13
And now, the long-awaited... "Theory of Everything" was published in New York on 1 March 1999.
A personal presentation of this research work was also made at the American Physical Society
meeting in Washington DC on 30 April 2001. For more on the background, please click here
How best to order a copy? Please click here
A friendly yet serious
Challenge to Readers
After nearly nine years and no takers, the book-cover offer,
“UP TO ONE MILLION US DOLLARS! An offer to high-school students and university professors alike just to refute this simple
no-nonsense theory of action and reaction...”
has now been modified to attract the academia in a more convincing and “no-scam” manner:
A sum of US Dollars Twenty-Five Thousand plus all profits from book sales – without ceiling or limit – is hereby offered
to the first person to successfully refute, as fundamentally flawed,
the singular model of the Universe, from the atomic to the cosmic, propounded in my book and web pages.
The US$25,000 is available immediately in cash as upfront payment, on request, to any university physics department head,
who will be kindly required to hold the money in trust and award it personally to the successful contender.
Any refutation, in writing, shall be based on classical mechanics and classical mechanics alone. It shall then be subject to the sole judgment of the department head or any person or group the head may choose to appoint on his/her behalf for the purpose.
For the services, the department head's fee, too, will be honored by me in advance.
NB: In 1995, the renowned physicist, Prof. Howard Georgi of Harvard University was good enough to fully review the first draft of my book for a fee. His criticism proved very constructive but refutation fell short. He had also a second check from me, for $25,000, as an incentive for anyone at the entire physics department at Harvard to show at least one instance where my model would fail. (The simple understanding was that the money would not be a loss for me, but, to the contrary, the person refuting my work would be saving me many times over by stopping me early in my track. And the person had only to satisfy Prof. Georgi alone to collect the money, which may be held as cash in hand by the latter.) Months passed in silence, and when asked if my second check could be returned, Prof. Georgi politely wrote in reply: "I have no intention of cashing the second check, but I had intended to keep it as a memento of this rather unusual experience. I hope you will not object to this." (I did not; in fact, I considered it a subtle compliment, coming from a top theorist and authority in the field of modern physics. Perhaps the great visionary had a gut feeling that one day that slip of paper would be an invaluable collector’s item!)
Dr. Dennis Nordstrom, editor of the prestigious journal, Physical Review D (Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology) of the American Physical Society, too, reviewed my first draft in 1995. Mainly he was instrumental in spurring me on with guidelines to redraft and complete the book. (His reference: SF5602D; Theory of Everything; 24 July 1995.)
The problem that occupied him has stumped physicists from Albert Einstein to Stephen Hawking:
How to join together the profound yet disparate insights of general relativity and quantum theory.
But Sittampalam's doodling, apparently, drew connections that the rest had missed.
“I found myself getting really angry,” one cosmologist said after reading [Sittampalam’s] paper.
“It must have hit some real insecurity.”
– Jennifer Kahn in Discover
Read the article in full in the April 2002 issue of Discover, pages 66 to 71.
You may also access the entire article on: http://www.discover.com/issues/apr-02/features/featnotes/
The world of Disney is synonymous with the world of fantasy. The inimitable creator giants of this never-never land, however, have their other foot firmly on terra firma – the world of reality. Who else could better distinguish the world of make believe from the world of our everyday experience? In other words, who else would be less prone to having the wool pulled over their eyes with abstract arguments enshrined though they be for nearly a century in an orthodox establishment almost medieval in outlook?
Yes, it could be none other than The Walt Disney Company. In a totally unsolicited feature article, these giants have given an impartial exposure to my work on their shoulders – their science magazine, Discover. Understandably, it’s a very disquieting issue for today’s so-called mainstream science with its ongoing multibillion-dollar research programs. Nevertheless, the piece, highly sensitive though it is, has been done with great discretion and professionalism so as not to ruffle too much the feathers and plumes of that yet stately and revered establishment of science (which, darn, in all sincerity, I myself look up to!).
Comments on the Discover article, too, are most welcome here from readers. They may also be sent to the editors at: firstname.lastname@example.org. Three typical e-mail comments from readers of the article are reproduced below with their kind permission.
27 March 2002
I thought your derivation of Einstein's classic formula E=mc^2 was both amazing and beautiful! What was even more amazing was that I was able to follow the derivation from your first principles to the conclusion (I think).
In your papers, there was one criticism of your derivation in that a critic suggested that you had picked your first principles of a photon to fit the already known formula conclusion. My reaction to this criticism in arriving at E=mc^2 is, "Even more remarkable". In my opinion, knowing the first principles of a photon is probably more important than knowing that energy and mass are related and using the known formula to arrive at first principles is, in my opinion, ingenious.
The critic misses the point that selecting some very easy to understand first principles of a photon allowed a very simple derivation of a classic formula and thus leading one to believe that the first principles selected must be correct. Einstein would have embraced you, in my opinion, as he was always looking for the simplest solution to a problem with the belief that the simplest solution was probably the correct one.
Dan L. Curtis
1956 N. Ardmore Ave.
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
A scientist himself, Dan states in a subsequent e-mail, dated 11 April 2002: "My main claim to fame is a famous astronomer grandfather, Dr. Heber D. Curtis, who was one of the first to recognize that our spiral galaxy was not unique but only one of many (see The Great Debate)."
28 March 2002
I just read the paper you submitted for review in Dec. 2001. Brilliant!!! I must say you have hit on something so simple it's stunning. It is good news that the physics community has not responded yet because you have them freaked out. It will take a long time to find flaws in your work by academia. They will ignore you for a while, but sooner or later a great deal of work will be done on this and you will be overwhelmed with responses.
I have been studying gravity for over 20 yrs. and have found no one has a clue. So I started working on the mechanics of gravity myself and concluded that gravitons and gravity waves radiating outward from mass to be nonsense. LIGO will be a big waste of money unless the info obtained from it can be studied with an open mind.
I do agree with you very much on particle breathing as you put it and there is no such thing as empty space in our universe. You have clearly linked all particle behavior to the quantum vacuum, something I have done in my work to explain gravity and I'm sure Bernhard Haisch will find this of great interest. Now we can rid ourselves of folded dimensions in string theory. The extra dimensions are right there in your particle energy exchanges. Beautiful. You deserve the Nobel Prize in physics!
25 May 2002
Thank you for signing my two copies of your book. I think they will be classic for many years to come.
I have started reading your book slowly because I am in the midst of moving my factories and am very busy. I know why you dare to issue the challenge of USD1 M. By starting from classical physics and deriving equations from them, there is no way you can go wrong. The only way one could challenge you is on the assumptions you make but if you can succeed in deriving equations and factors that are well established and used in everyday science, then your ASSUMPTIONS cannot be challenged either. This was the way with Newtonian physics and it is with your theory. What is outstanding is that you can derive the gravitational constant whereas Newton just introduced it to fit his theories.
I would like to commend you on your extraordinary sense of logic in working out the theory. It is not easy in science to take established scientific knowledge and find something original out of it. Most of us just accept what is written in textbooks and swear by them. This very original and analytical thinking is remarkable. You have succeeded in putting classical physics back on its pedestal.
[The two paragraphs that followed next have been edited out at the writer’s request.]
In the meantime, best of luck and please keep me posted on all your publications. Even though I am a chemist, I still keep my interest in Science because I do not believe in these demarcations of knowledge.
Dr Tan Chee Hong
The above feature, Notes from a Parallel Universe, was indeed a well-written piece for Discover.
Not surprisingly, it won the author, Jennifer Kahn, a place in history – it was one of 25 chosen for the prestigious anthology,
The Best American Science Writing 2003
by Oliver Sacks;
the publishers, Harper Collins; and their note in the book's website:
As this series firmly attests, science writing has achieved a central place in our culture, and one can posit that the reason why has to do with the special thrill of discovery that a cogent piece of science writing can elicit. As Dr. Sacks writes of Stephen Jay Gould -- to whose memory this year's anthology is dedicated -- an article of his "was never predictable, never dry, could not be imitated or mistaken for anybody else's." The same can be said of all of the writing contained in contributions to this diverse collection
"that can be enjoyed by laymen, scientists, and writers alike" (Nature).
A parting thought...
We may think we know a lot today; but the strange truth is:
the more we learn, the more we also become aware of the enormity of our ignorance.
True learning is thus a humbling experience; it causes us to be meek, in the noblest sense of the word;
and makes us that much better beings for a that much better world.
Little wonder, of such evolution of man, was said by that Great Guru transcending space and time:
And the meek shall inherit the earth.