|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
Time, Hubble, and Higgs
by Robert D. Wilson
Time as an Active Agent in Expansion (11/1/99)
The fact that the
universe is expanding can be proven to any reasonable man or woman by an
overwhelming catalogue of evidence.
That it is also accelerating in that expansion is also supported by a
growing body of recent discoveries.
However, questions and open debate have arisen, according to the
scientific papers I have read, concerning the RATE of this expansion and its CAUSE. In this context I want to consider an
overlooked reality for a possible Cause of at least some of that accelerated
expansion. If my theory holds true, the
concepts can be extrapolated by others to calculate the effectual Rate of
expansion. (I am, after all, a dreamer, not a “mathematician”!)
Let us first review
the basic concepts of Einstein’s space-time universe as it is currently
understood. According to “Asimov’s New Guide to Science”:
Einstein’s
view of the universe so mingles space and time that either concept by itself is
meaningless. The universe is
four-dimensional, with time one of the dimensions (but behaving not quite like
the ordinary spatial dimensions of length, breadth, and height). The four-dimensional fusion is often
referred to as space-time. This notion was first developed by one of
Einstein’s teachers, the Russian-German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, in
1907.
With
time as well as space up to odd tricks in relativity, one aspect of relativity
that still provokes arguments among physicists is Einstein’s notion of the
slowing of clocks. A clock in motion,
he said, keeps time more slowly than a stationary one. In fact, all phenomena that change with time
change more slowly when moving than when at rest, which is the same as saying
that time itself slowed. At ordinary
speeds, the effect is negligible; but at 163,000 miles per second, a clock
would seem (to an observer watching it fly past) to take two seconds to tick
off one second. And at the speed of
light, time would stand still.
[Isaac Asimov: “Asimov’s New Guide to
Science”, pg 390, Basic Books, Inc. 1984]
Woods and Grant add
more spice to the space-time recipe with their observations:
For everyday purposes,
"normal" time keeping, based on the rotation of the earth and the
apparent movements of the sun and stars, is sufficient. But for a whole series
of operations in the field of modern advanced technology, such as certain radio
navigational aids in ships and aeroplanes, it becomes inadequate, leading to
serious errors. It is at these kind of levels that the effects of relativity
begin to make themselves felt. Experiments have shown that atomic clocks run
slower at ground level than at high altitudes, where the gravitational effect
is weaker. Atomic clocks, flown at an altitude of 30,000 feet, gained about
three billionth of a second an hour. This conforms to Einstein’s prediction to
within one percent.
[Alan Woods and Ted Grant “Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern
Science” in a chapter called
Relativity,
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~zac/chapter7.htm
Main Site:
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~zac/maindex.htm]
If we were to
summarize from this the points pertinent to this discussion, we could state
that according to the Theory of Relativity two facts are evident:
·
The greater the mass
of an object, the slower it experiences time.
·
The greater the speed
of an object with mass, the greater its mass becomes and the slower time
progresses.
If we follow this to
its logical conclusion, then time at the dense center of a galaxy or near a
black hole should run very slow and, conversely, time in the vast reaches of
intergalactic space should run faster.
Let us focus on the difference of the timeframes between galactic and
intergalactic space. Has this
difference ever been added to the expansion formula?
Because the Intergalactic
Clock runs faster than our own, we cannot easily explain the time it takes for
light to pass between intergalactic objects, nor can we define the actual age
of the universe in the terms of terra-centric time. The speed of light relative to any point along its path remains
experientially constant at that point (i.e., 186,000 MPS). What changes is the
comparative rate of time it takes one second to occur. Intergalactic seconds—and for that matter,
to a lesser degree, inter-star-system seconds—run faster than their
chronological counterparts experienced in the presence of massive objects.
What does this mean
to our measurement of stellar and galactic distances using the “constant” speed
of light? Since time is affected by mass, then the very rate at which light
moves between galaxies can never be considered a constant. In the same vein of reasoning, to try to
define that rate of accelerating expansion in light of Hubble’s Constant, is
like trying to measure a football field with a Slinky! The springy metal of the child’s toy refuses
to remain constant during the measuring process. If someone told you a football field was 95 Slinkies long, you
could rightfully question their results.
NASA comes to our aid
by attempting to define the “Constant” in question with their May 25, 1999 NASA news release titled, “Lifting the Veil on
Hubble's Constant”:
In 1929 as
Hubble pursued his studies of distant galaxies, he realized something
extraordinary. Ten years earlier Shapley had noticed that other galaxies appeared
to be flying away from our own Milky Way. Hubble had the insight to realize
that not only were these objects apparently speeding away, but the farther away
they were, the faster they appeared to be moving. Thus the Hubble Constant, Ho,
was born. Ho is a number which relates a galaxy's apparent speed of
recession to its distance from the Milky Way…
Scientists now
know that the recessional velocities that we observe are not actually distant
galaxies flying through space, all away from the Milky Way, but instead we are
actually observing the expansion of the Universe itself (and everything in it).
This expansion would look the same no matter what galaxy we actually inhabited,
and is one of the visible pieces of evidence that points to a "Big Bang"
origin for our Universe.
The Hubble
Constant describes how fast objects appear to be moving away from our galaxy as
a function of distance. If you plot apparent recessional velocity against
distance… the Hubble Constant is simply the slope of a straight line through
the data.
The Hubble
Constant is usually expressed in units of "kilometers per second, per
Megaparsec." One parsec is a unit of distance equal to about 3.2 light
years, and a Megaparsec is a million times this, or about 3.2 million light
years. So what the Hubble Constant says is that for every 3.2 million light
years you look out into space, the objects there appear to be receding from you
at a rate of Ho kilometers per second. If Ho is 100, then
the objects appear to recede at 100 km/second for every 3.2 million light years
you look out into space. If Ho is 50, then you have to look about
6.4 million light years out into space for the same 100 km/second recessional
velocity. [http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast25may99%5F2.htm]
The true nature of
this “absolute” can be seen in the above statement, “The Hubble Constant
describes how fast objects appear to
be moving away from our galaxy as a function of distance.” In this we
would be wise to heed the homespun wisdom of mothers everywhere to their
children: “Don’t judge a book by its cover” and “Appearances can be deceiving.”
Yes, the Hubble
Constant is a true measure of “appearance”, but it does not appear to be a
measure of truth. The rate of expansion is expressed in the formula d/t, where
“d” is distance in Megaparsecs, and “t”
equals time. But, the very yardstick
being used is a Slinky. The speed that
light travels near a gravity well (our perspective) is guaranteed to be
different than the speed it travels in between galaxies. Thus, according to the
principles of relativity, what the rate of expansion “appears” to be and what
it actually is are two completely different things! Why? because time is an inverse function of mass and mass (i.e.
the effect of “gravity”) is an inverse function of the square of the distance.
Actually, the
universe is free to expand in ways that we would be hard-pressed to measure
using terra-centric standards. In a
real sense, even the light coming from distant objects has had its speed
“warped” and its perceived distance traveled altered as it passes through
inter-galactic “quick time”. If we use
the speed light is supposed to travel in a year as our measuring stick for
Intergalactic distances, then, because of the time differential, those distant
objects appear much closer than they actually are.
Now if the rate of
expansion IS constant at all points along a line between two galaxies, then the
comparative rate at which time is experienced (and therefore the expansion
occurs) at the center must be faster than the time the two galaxies are
experiencing at either end.
Let me try to
explain. If we observe that our galaxy,
“M”, and another galaxy, “N” appear to be moving away from each other at “X”
miles per second, that observation can only be an approximation from our
perspective alone. Why? Because, if in the area between galaxies
(say at point “Z”) the rate is also the same “X” miles per second (from the
perspective of “Z”), it might well be that their speeded up rate of time
occurrence could be 1.5 times faster than ours. In other words, for every second that occurred here in galaxy
“M”, one and one half seconds would have transpired at point “Z”. From our viewpoint then – if we could
observe point “Z” from here – the comparative rate of expansion at “Z” would
not be “X”, but rather “X” times 1.5!!!
To plug imaginary number into this, if the rate of expansion at X=1000
miles/second then the rate of expansion at point “Z” (from our perspective)
would actually equal 1500 miles per second.
Please note that this
is the place where “math-magicians” will have to do the actual calculations of
mass differentials and distances to find the ACTUAL rate of expansion. Remember though, the statement quoted above:
“Atomic clocks, flown at an altitude of 30,000 feet, gained about three
billionth of a second an hour.” [Woods and Grant] If time can be affected to a measurable amount by moving a clock
only 30,000 feet above a source of gravity, then how great would be that effect
if measured in hundreds or thousands of Megaparsecs?
But
one thing is clear, the “appearance” of acceleration would have to occur
because the area between the galaxies would be expanding more rapidly than it
is at either end (i.e., our location).
Time, moving faster in those areas, would force the accelerated
expansion of the universe. Curved,
expanding space-time would be the naturally expected results. Why? The massive galaxies at each end resist the
flow of time and so experience time more slowly than the “vacated” center
point.
One
immediate consequence of the above conclusions would be that the perceived age
would be less than expected. Why? Perhaps it would help if I give a purely
human example of miscalculated time perceptions. Let us suppose that three dedicated secretaries (Ms A, Ms B, and
Ms C) were busily sharing the task of transcribing the same real-time document
from their Boss’s handwritten notes.
All three are typing in different parts of the document. A is typing at the beginning, B in the
middle, and C nearer to the end. Both A
and C type at 60 WPM (Words per Minute). However, B types consistently at 100
WPM. After a while, the Boss comes to
Ms A and asks her, “I need to know two things. First, how far along are you
ladies on my document? Second, how long
has it taken to get this far?” Using
her own skill as a measuring stick Ms A responds, “One Hundred pages have been
typed so far. At 1000 words per page
that means that 100,000 words have been typed.
Since I type at sixty WPM and there are three of us, then we must have
worked on it 9.26 hours.”
It
must be evident that Ms A’s assessment of the time involved is not
correct. Because she assumed that all
three typists were producing at the same rate, (a combined output of 180 WPM)
her calculations were flawed. The
correct answer (with an output of 220 WPM) is 7.58 hours, a difference of 1.68
hours!
The
length of time required to get to their present point was less, because the
output at the center was greater than anticipated. Now if Ms B only typed at sixty WPM – the same rate as A and C –
but somehow experienced time at a rate 1.66 faster then her co-workers, her
comparative output would still be 100 WPM.
Even
so, Hubble can give us a measure of the earthly “appearance” of accelerated
expansion, but it cannot give us the actual rate. A universe that was already expanding would be forced to
accelerate if based on no other fact alone than the distortion of time-mass
differential.
Time and the Speed of Light (11/2/99)
(or “Helping a Relative Move”)
And here I take my
boldest step so far. In this
make-believe universe that I have constructed in the course of my Thought
Experiment, I am growing more and more convinced of one incredible truth. Some will no doubt say this is a leap of
faith into darkness. So be it! The darkness encountered by jumping into the
unknown can be no more frightening than blindly accepting that something is so,
without knowing why!
It is time to meld
what we know about moveable Higgs particles and what Einstein has told us about
the nature of time.
SH0
is not affected by Time, rather it is the CAUSE of Time! It carries Time around with it and
distributes it at a set rate according to the conditions of that location.
How can the speed of
“light” (which is actually the speed of SH0) be constant and relative at the same time? How can an object dramatically increase its
speed, yet still find light approaching it from behind at the same exact rate
as before that acceleration? These
questions boggle the mind unless we accept the premise that the source of Time
is itself in motion relative to our speeding object. In a real sense, matter resists the imposition of time upon
itself. The greater the mass or the
greater the speed of the mass, the greater the corresponding resistance to
time. Again, for this to be true, Time
itself must be moving!
Matter does not flow through spacetime. Spacetime flows through it!!!
Yes, I see and admit
the fallacy in that statement – for matter must be free to move through
space – but I made it to drive home a point.
For too long we have been shackled as prisoners to the immovable wall of
Time, chained to the immovable wall of that fortress with no hope of
parole. For too long we have envisioned
spacetime as a static rubber sheet filled with bowling balls and marbles. Time moves!
You must put the agent of Time in motion to fully comprehend the nature
of spacetime interactions, gravity wells, black holes, and quantum
singularities! No other explanation
fills in all the missing pieces.
As SH0 passes through and affects matter, a shadow effect is
created by the effort. Part of that
shadow is a uni-directional slowing of relative Time. This is carried by the Higgs boson and is passed to any other
matter that it meets within that shadow.
But, back to the question, “How can the speed of light be constant and
relative at the same time?”
We know that the
speed of light [C] is constant – in a relativistic sort of way. Since, in this Thought Experiment, Photons
are said to be hitchhikers on SH0, then as S slows to accommodate mass, so does the local rate at which C
can move. Because all mass is
generated/controlled/ experienced by the passage of S, then from the perspective of that mass, C is traveling at
the “constant” rate at which S is locally imposing its influence. We call that rate “Time”.
As an object
accelerates through S, which is also moving
through it, more resistance is created in the direction of its line of
motion. Mass increases and Time slows
for that object because the incoming Higgs particles are snatching at that
matter faster and faster according to that acceleration. Resistance increases. The more SH0 that are run into, the more chronological resistance is
experienced by our moving object, i.e., time slows down in a rate directly
proportional to the rate that the impacting S is itself slowed.
The Higgs bosons
approaching our moving object from the rear are under no such chronological
restraints. They are not being resisted
and the fact that the SH0 approaching them from
the opposite direction are moving slower in space and time has no affect on
them. The bosons moving in the same direction as our object, as agents of time
themselves, are free to move at a faster, unimpeded rate of time. That is to say, they do not move at a faster
rate of speed, but move at the same speed at a faster rate of time. At this faster rate of time the chasing
Higgs bosons are able to “catch up” to the speeding object. What this means to the object is that C, the
speed of light, remains constant no matter what the object’s relative speed!
Gravity and the Sympathetic Higgs (11/6/99)
If someone is said to
be sympathetic, we all recognize that the sympathizer must be so attuned to the
emotional or physical state of another that he or she is affected by changes in
that state. I have proposed before that
“The Force” (S) not only
affects the matter it passes through, but is itself affected by that contact.
In a real sense we could conclude from this that S is “sympathetic” to its environment, changing according to
the state of that environment. I have
also proposed that the force we call Gravity is actually a measurable
side-effect of that sympathetic reaction.
As S passes through matter
it is somehow weakened in the process.
Now that we have also
concluded that moving Higgs particles are the active agents of the S Force, it becomes necessary to demonstrate the exact nature
of that Higgs sympathy. At this point
in my thinking, I see two distinct possibilities. The cumulative effect of matter/mass/energy on the moving Higgs
is either one of size/receptability reduction or a function of time. Whatever the actual cause, it must be tested
against what I call “the Law of Diminishing Returns” or, as we have referred to
it before, the Law of the Inverse Distance Squared [“LIDS”]. This means that however the Higgs is affected
in its journey through matter, it must be able to recover from that effect
according to that measurable scale.
SIZE
How does repeated
impacts against the bosons of matter/mass affect a single Higgs particle as it
lances its way through a planet (or any other object)? If the end “shadowing” effect is found in a
cumulative handicap which reduces the particle’s ability to influence matter,
then one or two possibilities are at work.
Either the strength of that particle’s receptors (“hooks and eyes”) has
been diminished or its overall size/shape has been altered. Basically, what this means is that the size
of the particle’s REACH has been reduced.
It influences less matter and because of this ineffectiveness a “gravity
shadow” is created.
If the hook and eye
receptors on the Higgs become stressed or fatigued by use, this does not change
the speed of the Higgs boson, only its ability to snag or influence other
bosons. LIDS would then be a measure of
the recovery rate of that lost strength.
Again, if the size of
the forward aspect or “footprint” of the particle were reduced, its radius of
influence (but not its speed) would obviously also be reduced. A small kite is able to “snag” less air than
a big one. I do not see an actual
reduction in the overall size of the particle (this would pose problems with a
LIDS recovery), rather a distortion or elongation of the boson along the axis
of its motion. Pulling a partially inflated balloon through water would
elongate the elastic balloon, effectively reducing the resistance offered by
its leading edge. If this is the case,
LIDS is the rate at which the traveling boson returns to its original
shape. Another
possibility would be a combination of both of these concepts where the boson
gets compressed due to stress, to maintain its speed and energy output.
Gravity, under either
of these scenarios, would result because the “rising” subterranean Higgs bosons
would be smaller or weaker than their descending counterparts. Moving molecules of the conglomerate we call
“air”, completely surround the sails of a boat, but the boat is driven forward
because the strength of air motion is stronger in one direction than the
other. Gravity also results from an
imbalance of external pressures; whether the above mentioned size and strength
effects are the exact causes of that “shadow”, remains to be seen.
TIME
“Matter does not move
through spacetime, spacetime moves through it.” Though this statement is not totally accurate and matter does have motion relative to spacetime,
I used it before to make the point that the cause of time was not static, but
in motion. What are the implications of
this concerning mass and gravity?
It
has been well documented that the speed of light is reduced as it passes
through a glass block. According to the
conclusions of this Thought Experiment, photons actually ride on Higgs
particles. If the Higgs is the agent of
time, then it could be concluded that, not only does light slow down in the
block, but time does as well! From our
perspective, outside of the block’s timeframe, time remains constant and is not
affected by any disturbance in the flow of time inside the block. Yet, if we use the speed of light as a
reference as to how fast time is flowing, then it has to be moving slower
inside the block.
Are only the
photon-carrying Higgs bosons affected and not the “free” Higgs passing through
the block? I don’t think so. It should be easy to prove one way or the
other. Someone stick an atomic clock
inside a huge block of glass and see if it runs slower to the same degree that
a beam of light transversing the block has its speed diminished. Until that is accomplished, I will continue
with my unsubstantiated speculations.
Let’s say that time
is slowed inside the block. What does
this imply?
Quite simply, it
implies both that the agent of time is moving and that time slows as its agent
passes though (ALL, not just translucent) matter/mass. Would this possibility have side effects on
a grander scale. You’d better believe
it! If this IS true, Gravity would
become a function or byproduct of time.
Let me explain.
Let us take the earth
beneath our feet as an example once again. SH0 passing from the opposite side of the planet to the point
where we are standing, would travel first through the earth’s crust on the
other side, then through the outer and inner mantels, the core, the outer and
inner mantels once more, and finally through the crust again, all at the speed
of S. But, because mass affects time, the speed of S would change according to the density of the layer it
negotiated (and affected). As the speed
of S changed so would the
timeframe of the moving SH0 particle also
change. And conversely, it would
negatively impact the timeframe of the matter it touched along the way.
The affects of “time
deprivation” would be cumulative so that the SH0 boson passing
upward from the planet’s surface would have a slower timeframe than a SH0 hitting us from above (or from the left, right, front, or
back for that matter). Our personal
timeframe then becomes the product of the average of all timeframes influencing
us from all directions. As such, it
would be slightly different than the timeframe of the earth beneath us. It is also true that the further we rise
above the average surface of the earth, the more “un-deprived” time can reach
us (because we would have been raised above the influence of our effective
horizon). That is why an atomic clock
runs faster on a mountaintop or in a plane than on the surface of the earth!
Back to Gravity. Time-deprived, mass affected, SH0 bosons travel slower than their unaffected counterparts,
even when occupying (passing through) the same space from different
directions. They do not affect each
other. They do, however, affect (the
bosons of) any mass/energy that they touch.
They impose a new cumulative average timeframe and they impose a
gravitational differential. What do I
mean? Let me take an illustration from
football practice. We have all seen
players in training, pushing against tackling sleds. On the sled stands the coach, weighing just as much as the player
he is instructing. The coach yells,
“Drive! Drive! Drive!” and the player starts pumping his legs and pushing
against the sled. The sled moves, even
though the combined sled and coach might well weigh more than the pusher. Why?
because (among other things) the speed of the player with his driving
legs is faster than the speed of the coach on the sled.
Gravitational Time
Differential works the same way.
Because the timeframe of the two opposing Higgs bosons is different, the
faster SH0 is able to overcome some of the influence of its
“chronologically challenged” slower counterpart. Also, because the downward falling bosons are moving at a faster
rate of time, more of them would strike the same location within any given time
period. They would “gang up” on any
mass being driven by the “slower,” rising SH0 particles.
Any
matter/mass/energy caught between the two opposing forces would become the
“chain” in a cosmic tractor-pull. The
end results? The mass is driven by the
faster bosons with a force proportional to the difference of the two Higgs
timeframes as calculated by their effect on the masses of the two physical
object (i.e., the earth and you). Any
High School science student should recognize in the above statement the basis
for Newton’s Law of Gravity. The only
thing left out of the equation is LIDS, the Law of the Inverse Distance
Squared.
[Note: in the above
tractor example, the concept of being captured is not quite true. As expressed before, the effect of SH0 on matter is not the result – or battle – of one lone boson
against another. It is the result of
multiple charging armies facing each other in persistent continual combat. The winners are the ones with the fastest
horses!]
LIDS and TIME
And so we come to the
rule that I said would make or break a SH0-Gravity
theory. How does the concept of
Gravitational Time Differential handle the Law of the Inverse Distance Squared?
Beautifully! Time repairs itself according to that
prescribed schedule! Actually, our
chronologically challenged Higgs bosons are able to start regaining their speed
as soon as they break free from the mass that they had influenced. The further they travel (unimpeded by
outside influence) the more speed they are able to regain. The effect of Diminishment on time is itself
diminished by the inverse square of the distance traveled from the source of
that reduction. I know that sounds like
double-talk, but all it means is that time recovers its speed at a set
rate. It also means that a traveling SH0 boson proportionally sheds the influence of any of its
hitch-hiking companions at the same rate.
Photons lose luminosity, magnetic fields lose strength, and gravity is
reduced.
It is important to
note at this point that we are dealing with relativistic times. We are not, when discussing Higgs time
speeds, talking about anything that could be easily quantified. Any observer is by necessity functioning
from a cumulative average timeframe of ALL the Higgs bosons affecting him or
her. That is not the same as the
perspective that any single SH0 particle
is experiencing at the same moment.
From the observer’s point of view those invisible Higgs particles and
their passengers could be traveling either faster or slower than the observer’s
speed of light without ever violating the speed of light at all. Those particles are carrying their own
timeframe around with them and within that frame are traveling exactly at the
speed of light. No wonder the
Uncertainty Principle rules over quantum physics!
As a result of the
above observations, it should also be true that the speed of light coming
toward our planet should be slightly faster than any light shining away from
it. Though, because of the difference
in observable timeframes, I am not sure we could detect it. Remember that any light approaching us is
also subject to the Gravitational Time Differential of its source. One
experiment that might work involves the huge glass block we incorporated
before. This time without the clock inside. [I know that in trying to equate
the process of a
SH0 boson carrying a photon and a “naked” SH0 under the influence of gravity that I might be trying to
compare the speed of a runner carrying a man on his back with the speed of one
who is not, but if all four forces are to be combined, I hope this doesn’t
matter.]
A Time Differential Experiment :
(A) Shine a beam
of light through the glass block and measure the time it takes to reach the
opposite surface (X).
(B) Send an
identical beam of light through the block toward a distant target (Y) and measure the total time that
takes to reach that target.
(C) Subtract (A) from (B).
(D) Place the
light source even with the far side of the glass block –
at a point where the distance to (Y)
will be equal to the distance between (X)
and (Y). Measure the time it take
for this beam of light to travel that same distance.
Now, compare (C) and (D). We should find that (D)
is slightly smaller. In other words,
the light that didn’t have to travel through the block will be faster than the
light that did, even over an equal non-block distance in the air. Why?
because the light (photons + SH0) that passed through the block first, reach the air-borne
portion of their journey with a slower SH0 timeframe than
the “virgin” light that had no block.
What now can we conclude as a result of this study?
·
That time itself
plays a part in the acceleration of the universe’s expansion.
·
That time moves.
·
That spacetime is not
a static background on which the universe floats, rather it is imposed upon
matter by moving Higgs bosons.
·
That the speed of
light can be both relative and constant only because moving SH0 particles are the agents of time.
·
That gravity is a
side effect of a mass-driven Time Differential.
·
That our universe is
a place vastly different than we imagined and, Dorothy, you’re not in Kansas
any more.