[WillieB]

Joseph,

I finally got the new version of my paper onto my site which is referenced at a new thread “Keep it Simple.” My web master must have been in hibernation. What follows are my best shots at responding to the questions contained in your original post. These answers are formulated using the concepts put forward at www.theincrementaluniverse.com.

I must say that I was surprised that your questions did not include a request for an explanation of one of the most mysterious of the physical phenomena – quantum entanglement. This phenomenon is absolutely necessary in order to permit The Incremental Universe to function.

Your questions are in red.

-What about energy in the form of electromagnetic waves?

-What is it and where does it come from?
-How does it propagate through space?
-Why does it travel at the speed of light?

EM consists of alternating pulses of polarized increments. The increments forming the waves and/or the photons spin/flow vectors tend to be polarized in varying intensities so that they uniformly vary from the parallel to the average vector of the increments through space and the direction of travel of the Awave.@ The propulsion of the wave through space is provided by the same mechanism that propels a single unassociated increment - through the momentum of the orbital velocities of the paired bundles. As the wave is composed of increments it travels at their velocity which is con their Ahelical path@ but averages to c on their average straight line vector.

-What caused the Big Bang?

This is a toughie. There is a very interesting thread, “Universal Evolution,” posted on this site in which a lot of people go through a lot of educated speculation as to this very question. We too could speculate all day and still not come up with the correct answer. Just for fun let’s create a few scenarios and lightly analyze them. Remember that these answers are derived from the principles of The Incremental Universe.


(1) If it was an explosion, what type of explosion was it? The presently most popular scenario seems to satisfy the large majority of our respected scientific community but it does still have a few problems, not the least of which are the horizon, boundary, and smoothness problems which we will talk a little bit about later. This scenario needs no further analysis as it is being analyzed to death on almost a daily basis.

(2) In the initial edition of my paper I was in the mode that a huge gathering of increments became unstable causing a massive breakdown of the pb=s orbits and releasing sixty eight quadjillion pb=s to fly off carrying all of their kinetic energy with them. I have somewhat cooled on that possibility primarily because any gathering of bare increments would be subject to polarization and no evidence of this is now present, or at least, it is not discernable.

(3) Was it a ABig Crunch@ which brought all of matter particles together so as to mutually destroy the then existing increments? I can’t believe that any semblance of smoothness would result from this scenario. Plus, this is contraindicated by the increasing rate of universal expansion.

(4)Was it an ultra-massive black hole that grew too large to prevent its own destruction?This conjecture or scenario is almost identical to that of number 1 and it also resembles number 2. However, neither this one nor numbers 1, 2, or 3 serves to explain the still increasing ZPE.

(5) Perhaps another scheme would be equally logical. What if an impetus was exerted in previously infinite and empty space that caused the creation of something out of nothing? And what if this creation occurred within a relatively small (but not infinitely small) volume with the charge bundles emanating from a virtually perfect sphere? This impetus could have created exactly equal and opposite bundles of charge (our ub=s) and together with our unknown force (the uk force or field) could have endowed these bundles with a sufficient velocity to create mutual orbits and our increments. But is it logical to presume that the charge bundles are still being issued from this small area? I think not.

(6) And now, the final conjecture and the one that I like the best. Space is infinite. Charge bundles have eternally and to this day still are being uniformly created out of nothing into two equal and opposite somethings. The uk force endows them with sufficient velocity so that, once paired up, they can establish the orbits forming the increment. The uk force is also the driving force involved in universal expansion. It seems that this scenario would satisfy the horizon and boundary problems, explain the increasing ZPE and the expansion of the visible universe. The small anomalies in uniformity of the microwave background radiation could be the results of the presence and motion of matter as these charge bundle pairs are being created. The temperature of space is not the result of cooling down from the big bang but the result of the mutual annihilation of unlike increments of like spin

My thinking on this subject had not progressed to the point to adequately cover this subject in my original paper. And, of course, each and every one of the above conjectures would leave many unanswered questions: How and why did the galaxies and galaxy clusters form? Why are the galaxies predominantly in a spiral shape?

I suppose further speculation could produce other scenarios. Remember that I am trying to answer your questions from the viewpoint of the Incremental Universe. I will call a halt at this point and hope that others will join us to speculate further. Maybe we could actually agree on an answer.

-What about the horizon problem?




This problem is perceived in that all portions of the observable universe appears to be virtually identical in appearance and characteristics but the extremes of the observable volume have not had sufficient time to communicate with one another to coordinate the appearance or characteristics. At present this is tentatively answered through the presumption of the inflationary period. I don=t feel that scenario 2 or 4 would solve this problem in that the gathering of increments would, in all probability, carry with it the requirement that some degree of polarization exist within the gathering and result in an expanding universe somewhat like the streams of energy that we see streaming away from the sites of supernovas. It doesn’t seem likely that scenario 2 would produce even a semblance of the smoothness that is presently observed.

-What about the boundary problem?

This term is new to me. Is it similar or identical to the horizon problem? I went to Wikipedia and the explanations ranged from separation of oil and water to mathematical exercises and to some transverse aspects to EM waves. Well, your spiral configuration of EM waves offers a perfect explanation of the existence of these aspects of EM, if indeed it is a problem or the problem.

-What about the smoothness problem?

Scenario 5 above seems the most likely to provide an answer to this problem.

-Where do the four forces come from?

a) Magnetic, electric, and electromagnetic field forces are covered in excruciating detail in The Incremental Universe. (See Part C)
b) Gravity is a result of distortion of the velocity of the increments by the presence of matter. (See Part A, Item 6)
c) The Strong Force is the binding energy between those portions of unlike charge bundles of the increments in contact with one another (the gluons) in the various configurations forming the hadrons. (See part A, Item 5)
d) The weak force is the disruptive character of contacts between free increments and the increments forming matter.(see Part D, Item 12)

I can=t blame you for not mentioning the fifth force - the unknown (uk) force. (See part A, Item 2)

-What about matter?

Part A, Item 5 is the best I can do at the present time. I would hope that I can eventually flesh out this concept a wee bit.

-How did particles of matter first form in the universe?
Again, Part A, Item 5 is my best shot.

-Where did these particles get their surface charge? What is it?

The presence and distribution of charge in matter is self evident in the paper and, of course, the charge itself is provided by an unbalanced presence of identically charged increments.




-Where did they get their inertia/mass? What is it?

After initially reading the entire paper refer specifically to Part A, Item 7 and Part D Item 3

-What is the meaning of E = mc?

Of course the formula means what it says. For my interpretation see Part D, Item 5.

-Can the mechanics of the quantum particle be explained, including wave particle duality, the electron cloud, etc?

Of course my paper did not address quantum mechanics directly or in any detail at all but I feel that one can, from the impact of the paper, deduce how and why the concept does conform to its basic requirements. Wave/particle duality is lightly covered in Part D, Item 3.

-What about time? What is it and where does it come from?

See lengthy discussion in Part B, Item 3.

-What about space? What is and where does it come from?

This question is another toughie. The Incremental Universe presumes that space itself is an infinite void which, at least within the observable universe, is saturated with our charge bundles and increments and that these provide all of the observed characteristics of and in empty space. If anyone else can improve on this presumption, be my guest!

-Can the mechanics of relativity be explained?
-Special relativity?
-General relativity?
-Gravity?

I feel that the basic results of Special Relativity are adequately explained. Although general relativity was not specifically addressed I feel that that the concept as a whole establishes a basis that can easily encompass these conditions. Gravity is specifically and, I believe, adequately covered.

-What about chaos? Can it be explained?

Chaos is a very very complicated subject and, on the face of it, I find it difficult to imagine how its properties can contribute to the conception of a TOE. Basically it demonstrates how it could be possible that a very small perturbation (the flitting of a butterfly=s wing in Peoria) could effect or determine the occurrence of a major occurrence (the strength or location of a typhoon somewhere in Asia). And, of course, a relative minor event in any one part of the universe could precipitate an answering event in a remote location. Gravity and electromagnetic energy travel unimpeded from one spot to another. This is not to mention what I have called the uk force. Who knows the full extent of this influence? But to actually explain chaos is beyond my ken.

-What about entropy?
-What is it and where does it come from?
-What does it always increase except in the formation of living cells?

Entropy, of course, is the transformation of any system from a high energy state to a lower energy state. The mundane is obvious; the cooling of a hot iron, the transfer of potential energy to kinetic energy and the disbursal of the kinetic energy into movement of the molecules of the atmosphere or the deforming of the wood of the fence when the baseball strikes it, etc, etc. If you consider the free field of increments described in the paper they form the perfect carrier of energy from one location to another. It transfers the heat from the hot iron to the surrounding atmosphere for instance. And the baseball, in its flight, has formed its own point of stasis in the free field but is pulled downward by gravity to disburse its energy into the fence.

Why a living cell actually experiences an increase in concentration of energy as it grows and/or splits into two cells is a function of an extremely complex gathering of increments and the atoms and molecules that they eventually form and their interactions are beyond the scope of my knowledge or ability to form an explanation for.

-What drove energy and the big bang to its present state?

Boy! You do know how to ask complex questions! It goes without saying that The Incremental Universe envisions the answer to this revolves around the attractions and repulsions between the charge bundles, the characteristics of their orbits, their mutual polarizations of spin/flow vectors, and the bonding between unlike charge bundles resulting in complicated relationships eventually forming material particles. And, of course, refer to our previous discussion of “The Big Bang.”

-What are the mechanics of life? How did life come to exist here on Earth?

I am not even going to touch that question.

Your summary is far reaching. I truly hope that at least some of these questions are solved during my lifetime. Even though they are all interesting questions I feel that the mechanics of a TOE may clarify many of them but that they are not germane to its actual development.

I would, and I am sure that you would, welcome any input that could improve upon (or even disprove) any of the above.

I do hope that you will join in an effort to improve the concepts of The Incremental Universe.

Sincerely,

Bill Britton (WillieB)