This article was originally created by Joseph in the Member Articles section of the website. The article has been reproduced here with number paragraphs, as the reference material for the Focused Review & Study forum, "On The Development of a Theory of The Universe". The original article can be found here.

They who know of no purer sources of truth, who have traced up its stream no higher, stand, and wisely stand, by the Bible and the Constitution, and drink at it there with reverence and humility; but they who behold where it comes trickling into this lake or that pool, gird up their loins once more, and continue their pilgrimage toward its fountain-head. — Henry David Thoreau
Hello! My name is Joseph.

Introduction

[1] Albert Einstein spent much of his later life searching for a different way to think about the universe. A theory which would, with a single field equation, represent the universe as a seamless, orderly, and constantly expanding field of energy, such that all the various forms of energy in the universe, including electromagnetic waves and matter, could be visualized, understood, and also, at the same time, mathematically modeled as different densities, compounds, or other states of energy constantly interacting with each other and the energy field itself, all according to the dictates of the forces deriving from that energy field.

[2] It stands to reason that this single field equation would be derived from a single, fundamental, and universal law from which all the other laws, principles, and truths about our physical universe have derived ever since. The physicist Richard Feynman referred to this universal law as the “underlying rhythm” of the universe. When creating a symphony, a composer begins with a single melody or rhythm, with the various movements of the symphony as different variations or expressions of that parent rhythm. Here I assume Feynman was comparing the universe to a symphony, with the laws of nature, then, each of them a different and limited expression of the one parent universal law, as the various movements of the universal symphony.

[3] Unable to find such a law, Einstein came to believe it was because we were somehow, in some way, not thinking about the universe properly. Regarding this he wrote “we cannot hope to solve important problems with the same thinking we used to create them”. In other words, once it was determined that the universe began with the big bang, it seems reasonable to conclude that we should be able to go back to the beginning of the big bang and propose a scenario whereby the “big three”—the energy, electromagnetic waves, and matter of which the universe is entirely composed, would begin to naturally interact in such a way that the universe would begin the process of evolution resulting in the state we find it in today. But so far no luck. Thus Einstein's belief that we needed a fundamentally new and different view of the universe.

[4] In the following essay it is my intention to first propose a different way to define the origin and fundamental nature of electromagnetic (EM) waves. This new definition is arrived at by adding two new ideas about the behavior of EM waves to what we already know about them. Next, I'll propose that this new view of EM waves leads naturally to a redefinition of both energy and matter as well as a new scenario for the big bang. It is these new initial conditions, then, which lead directly to a single fundamental law of nature which appears to be driving the universe. The law I think Einstein and Feynman were looking for.

[5] The question which immediately comes to mind, then, is, how do I know this new law, and the theory of the universe which derives from it, are correct?

[6] Please take a quick look at the following list of questions.
With regard to science
  • 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?
  • What properties of energy cause it to always behave the way it does?
  • What caused the big bang?
  • What about the horizon problem?
  • What about the boundary problem?
  • What about the smoothness problem?
  • Where do the four forces come from?
  • What about matter?
  • How did particles of matter first form in the universe?
  • Where did these particles get their surface charge? What is it?
  • Where did they get their inertia/mass? What is it?
  • What is the meaning of E = mc2?
  • Can the mechanics of the quantum particle be explained, including wave-particle duality, the electron cloud, etc.?
  • What about time? What is it and where does it come from?
  • What about space? What is it and where does it come from?
  • Can the mechanics of relativity be explained?
  • Special Relativity?
  • General Relativity?
  • Gravity?
  • What about chaos? Can it be explained?
  • What about entropy?
  • What is it and where did it come from?
  • Why does it always increase except in the formation of living cells?
  • What about the principle of least action? What does it mean?
  • What drove energy and the big bang to its present state?
  • What about string theory? What is the connection between string theory and modern physics?
  • What are the mechanics of life? How did life come to exist here on earth?
  • And, finally, to summarize, IF the universe is indeed an orderly, and therefore understandable and predictable process, then not only the current state of the physical universe's existence must be traceable all the way back to the beginning of the big bang, but all the known laws and principles of science, including (but not limited to):
  • The laws of thermodynamics
  • Newton's laws of motion and law of gravity
  • The laws of electromagnetism
  • The laws of chemistry
  • Darwin's principle of natural selection
  • must be traceable back to a single law or set of laws which drive, control, and otherwise serve as the “conscience” of the universe. What is this law?
[7] This is a list of questions I've compiled over the years which have a direct bearing on the fundamental nature of the universe. There are many others, of course, which could be included here. We all have our favorites. But I think you'll agree that if we were to find a theory of the universe which provides all the answers to these questions, and the answers are of such a nature that, like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, they all interlock to provide a clear and reasonable conceptual and mathematical model of the universe, then that's probably the theory Einstein, Feynman, and every other natural philosopher has been looking for.

[8] I think the theory provided here is indeed the right one because with it even I, an old retired electronic engineer, can answer most of these questions.

[9] However, I have only been able to develop a conceptual model of the universe. And a partial one at that. The high points of which I'll be describing to you here. But all the “hard” sciences, of which physics is the flagship, require both a conceptual model and a mathematical model of whatever physical system, process, law, etc., is under investigation.

[10] It is my most earnest hope that by providing here the two new ideas about EM fields, and the purely conceptual model of the universe which derives from these, others more capable than I will, assuming they find some truth to what I say, go on to develop the mathematical models necessary to complete and validate the theory.

Part I. Where we are now in our efforts to understand the universe.

[11] For 2500 years western philosophers have sought as an ultimate goal, as did others even before them, a theory of everything. An all-encompassing pattern, or paradigm, of truth against which the truth of any new concept or idea could be gaged. A major part of this endeavor, then, would be a theory of the physical universe, since, after all, everything, that is, everything we know of so far, is actually part of the universe. However, from the beginning there was a problem. The universe was thought to be of infinite size and age. Hence the name. And how do you get “outside” of such a place, even if only mentally, to gain enough perspective to know whether you have all the truth about it or not? As a result of this impasse, to this day there are philosophers, some calling themselves “relativists” and some “positivists”, who like to argue about whether we can really tell the truth about anything. By “anything” I'm not including here common, everyday truths, but bigger, often more important truths. Like the ones we need to predict and plan the future. The truths, in other words, that give us wisdom.

[12] Recently, however, scholars have had a major breakthrough. About 80 years ago the astronomer Edwin Hubble and others recognized that the red-shifting of light from distant stars meant that the universe was not of infinite size and age after all. That, actually, it appeared to have begun with an enormous explosion some 13 billion years ago, give or take, with the “big three”, energy, electromagnetic waves, and matter, of which the universe is entirely composed, expanding rapidly outward in all directions from the central point of the explosion, eventually resulting, somehow in some way, in the state of the universe as we see it today.

[13] Thus the universe, instead of being a largely static place of infinite size and age, suddenly was seen as an enormous energy conversion process, bounded in both time and space. That being the case, then, how should we begin to develop this desired theory of the universe? Well, of course, we need a clear understanding of what it is we're trying to model here. Toward that end, dictionaries generally tell us that a “process” is “a systematic series of actions directed to some end”, and “a continuous action, operation, or series of changes taking place in a definite manner”. Assuming the universe to be just such an orderly, and therefore understandable and predictable process, then what we're first and foremost looking for is that single, particular, systematic pattern of behavior engaged in by all of the big three which would cause the universe, of its own accord, to evolve to its present state. Right? After all, if this were not the case, if the big three did not somehow act in concert, and each sort of did their own thing independently of each other, and only interacted with each other purely by accident, then those actions taking place in the universe as a result of such behavior would not be predictable at all. Certainly not with any dependable regularity.

[14] But that requisite pattern, or paradigm, of systematic behavior, if indeed one does exist, would necessarily be determined by the initial conditions that existed at the beginning of the big bang. These would include the various inherent properties and characteristic behavior of the big three, the conditions or scenario under which they were brought together to begin the big bang, and so forth.

[15] However, in the interests of finding that pattern of behavior, the big bang concept brings with it a new problem. This has to do with the need to somehow experimentally duplicate the extremely high-energy conditions which must have existed at the beginning of the big bang in order to best determine all these initial conditions. Toward this end physicists have asked for a super-collider which would afford the opportunity to gain valuable information about the beginning of the big bang. But it's an expensive project and government funding, although approved years ago, is not yet forthcoming.

[16] Absent that super-collider, the best theoretical physicists have been able to do is take what they currently know about the big three from the laws of thermodynamics, electromagnetism, Newton's laws of motion, Einstein's famous energy equation E=mc2, and so forth, try to go back in their minds to the beginning of time and hopefully set up a scenario whereby the big three would begin to theoretically interact in such a way that the resulting big bang scenario would reveal the requisite behavioral paradigm.

[17] As a result of this purely intellectual process, then, physicists have proposed first of all that everything in the universe appears to be some form of energy. Further, they've proposed that all the energy in the universe was probably originally in some sort of very hot, very dense plasma state. Then there was, somehow, for some reason, an enormous explosion which blew the energy plasma violently outward in all directions, precipitating the big bang. Also, at the same time, or very shortly afterwards, some of the energy appears to have been somehow converted, probably also by the force of the explosion, into electromagnetic waves, and some of it into the original particles of matter of which all the matter in the universe is presently composed.

[18] Unfortunately, such a scenario has not so far led researchers to that characteristic pattern of behavior which, when applied to the big three at the beginning of the big bang, would drive the universe in an orderly fashion to the state we find it in today.

Part II. Some thoughts on the universe's constant search for equilibrium.

[19] There was a time, however, when researchers thought the Second Law of Thermodynamics might provide that universal pattern of behavior. The second law states that the entropy, or “unavailability” of energy to do work, is constantly increasing. So it was thought that perhaps the energy of the universe, and therefore the subsequent behavior of the big three, was driven by the need to somehow increase its entropy. However, in the middle of the 20th century the physicist Ilya Prigogine determined that in the development of living cells, the entropy of the system actually decreases. Thus, even though animate forms of energy represent but a tiny fraction of the universe's energy, the Second Law of Thermodynamics had to be disqualified as a universal law. At least as it is now stated.

[20] Still, it's important to note that because of this entropy law, and other laws and principles as well, theorists began to explore the idea that the various parts and pieces of the universe, as they moved under the influence of various universal forces from one state to another, always seemed to be moving toward more stable states of equilibrium. The connection here to the Second Law was that the increase in entropy, or unavailability of energy to do work, would occur as a result of the energy's constantly seeking out ever more stable states of equilibrium. The more stable the state of equilibrium, the less available the energy would be to do any work.

[21] Another major reason for this idea of ever-increasing universal equilibrium came from an even earlier discovery. In 1748 the French mathematician Maupertuis proposed the Least Action Principle.
In his 1686 “Principia” Newton defined an “action” as “a change in the motion of an object”. (My italics to note that Newton defined motion as “mass multiplied by velocity”, which we now call momentum.) I'm assuming here that with his Least Action Principle Maupertuis was referring to Newton's “action”. Only here the concept of energy's search for ever more stable states of equilibrium applies to the path “chosen” by the object as it makes its way between the two states Maupertuis had noted that on this journey the object always follows a pathway of temporary incremental changes of state, each one of which is the most stable–or perhaps its best to say “least unstable”–state of equilibrium available to the object at every instant in time.

[22] To summarize, both the Second Law Of Thermodynamics and the Least Action Principle refer to energy's, and thereby the universe's, constant search for equilibrium. The Second Law says that a change of state by some form of energy will always be in a direction which results in a more stable state of equilibrium. The Least Action Principle basically says that while the energy is on the way from the beginning state to the ending state, it will choose that particular path which requires the least effort, or action, resulting in a series of intermediate states, each one the “least unstable” equilibrium state available to the energy.

[23] These last five paragraphs can be a little difficult to sort out, but you need to make sure you understand what's going on here. Why? Well, because every time they turn around their laws and equations seem to be telling physicists that the universe's energy is constantly moving toward ever increasing states–ever more stable states–of equilibrium.

[24] However, based on the currently accepted scenario for the big bang as described above, the universe's energy has to be constantly moving away from equilibrium, having been blown out of its original state of equilibrium by the force of the explosion. And it will continue to expand, so most theorists believe, unless the force of gravity can slow the expansion down, stop it, and reverse it. In which case the universe's energy would begin a journey back toward equilibrium, and all the laws of physics would finally agree with what was really happening in the real world.

[25] But there's another reason I'm making a big deal out of this equilibrium idea. You see, I've come up with a different way to define each of the big three. These new definitions, which I think will prove to still be consistent with what we already know about them–indeed they must be–allow us to propose an entirely new scenario for the big bang. A scenario which has the universe's energy not moving away from equilibrium, but toward it from the very beginning, just as current theory seems to suggest. And if this new world view is correct, it'll keep right on doing it.

Part III. What we need to do to finally understand the universe.

[26] So how do we do this? How do we come up with such a different way of defining the big three that we basically turn the universe upside down, so to speak, so that the universe, instead of heading away from equilibrium as the current scenario seems to suggest, is actually moving toward it? Yet still maintain the protocol imposed on us by what we already know about the universe. For that matter, why haven't researchers already thought of this “new” way of thinking about the universe before this?

[27] To borrow from the fine old comedian Maury Amsterdam, who used to talk to himself a lot, “Funny you should ask”.

[28] Actually, if you think about it, there are probably only two main reasons why theoretical physicists, including Einstein, Bohr, Feynman, and all the other truly exceptional minds in the world community of physicists, past and present, would incorrectly interpret the fundamental nature of the big three. The first reason would be that, well, they just messed up. They were somehow badly mistaken in their assumptions about the big three and the scenario for the big bang based on current information. I don't buy this, and I hope neither do you. These people were way too sharp for that.

[29] The second reason, and the one I'm betting is the right reason, is that they have always somehow been missing some crucial knowledge about the big three. Something simple enough to have been missed, but at the same time perfectly consistent with current mathematical laws and equations and so forth, such that, when added to what they already knew, would give the desired results.

[30] So what I'm going to do now, after some 43 years of thinking about the universe, and still counting, is propose what I think are two additional ideas having to do with the fundamental nature of electromagnetic (EM) waves. The first idea provides an alternative way to describe how EM waves propagate through space. The second idea is an attempt to account for why they even bother to propagate through space at all. If it turns out that these are both true, we can then go on to redefine the way we think about electromagnetic waves, then energy, and matter, and the big bang.

Part IV. Two better ideas of how EM waves propagate.

[31] Richard Feynman called electromagnetic waves “unfathomably strange”. As for myself, when I was first studying the theory of electromagnetic waves at Arizona State all I knew was I didn't understand the theory very well. And I had the same problem with the study of electricity and magnetism. When I understand something, there's a complete picture of it in my mind. But there I was, a student in electrical engineering, and I couldn't completely “visualize” the processes they were talking about. The math wasn't particularly difficult, although I'm not the smartest fellow around, and I could relate the math to the drawings used to describe the behavior of EM waves and the other interactions that go on between electricity and magnetism. But I could never get to the point where the math, and the pictures, and all the laws, merged into a complete picture. In retrospect, I guess the picture in my mind represented a pattern or paradigm of truth about the theory I was looking for. With me, if the pattern's not complete, there's no picture. I'm thinking that's probably, to one degree or another, the way it is for most people.

[32] I managed to get by, of course, but I never felt at ease with the theory. So, all right then, here's how we make the leap from the current theory to the total picture.

[33] Think of a metal spring. Like a bed spring out of a mattress. If you were to lay the spring out flat on a table so that it curls, say, from left to right (let's call this the X axis), and then position your eyes directly over the spring, looking down on it your eyes will see a perfect two-dimensional sine wave traveling from left to right in the horizontal XZ plane. Next, position your eyes so that they're down close to the table (sit in a chair maybe) and again look at the spring. Once more you'll see a two-dimensional sine wave also traveling from left to right, this time in the vertical XY plane. And one more thing. This sine wave is phase-shifted from the first one by 90 degrees.

[34] What I'm proposing is that EM waves don't propagate side-by-side through space as parallel two-dimensional sine waves, one in the XZ plane and the other in the XY plane, with one always phase-shifted by 90 degrees from the other, at all. I'm thinking maybe they travel in a single continuously spiraling helix instead. In other words, the electric and magnetic waves depicted in the drawings, or seen on an oscilloscope, are, respectively, only vertical and horizontal cross-sections of what is actually a continuously propagating helix.

[35] This would explain why we've never fully understood how EM waves propagate. You cannot fully explain in two dimensions an action which actually takes place in three dimensions.

[36] As further evidence for such an argument, consider that Maxwell's equations call for three mathematical operators, the “gradient”, the “divergence”, and the “curl”, to mathematically model the propagation of EM waves. The need for the first two is intuitively obvious. Where the curl comes in no one's ever been able to adequately explain. I'm thinking a single, three-dimensional helical waveform explains the presence of the curl operator perfectly.

[37] And this is where some of you out there come in. What this idea needs is for some really sharp mathematician to mathematically translate the two independent sine waves into a single helix. On the surface it seems fairly simple. That is, if you know what you're doing. I'm a retired electronic engineer (17 years ago) and it's been 30 years or more since I've done any math like this. Yes, I suppose with some time and effort I could dig it out of the books. But even then, I'd never be sure I was thinking of everything. And there can't be any mistakes here. We've got to have nothing less than the absolute mathematical truth of this matter. The thing is, you see, if we're right here, as simple as the idea is, we're half way to understanding the universe And if we're wrong, well, we need to know that too.

[38] It's also important to point out that the concept of helical EM wave propagation was proposed before I thought of it. For years I have been searching the web for any information of others working on this same idea, but had no luck until just recently, when I thought to Google up information on “electromagnetic waves + double helix”. That led me straightaway to “mypage.uniserve.ca/ghatton/lifespec.html”, where G. Hatton does a solid job of proposing, in a much more descriptive and mathematical way than I just did, that perhaps EM waves propagate in a double-helical pattern. His idea for EM wave propagation may be the right way to go, so you certainly want to check with him. And of course you need to check the web for anyone else who's been working on this problem. But I would urge you, at least in the beginning, not to ignore the idea of the single helix. Right now I'm thinking the theory we're looking for could go either way. You see, the idea of a three-dimensional helical EM traveling wave, when considered in concert with the second new idea I'll be describing next, is much easier to convert, during the high-energy conditions at the beginning of the big bang, into a three-dimensional, spinning and precessing standing wave. Which we call matter. So it's important you resolve this single- or double-helix problem right away. As I'm seeing it, you're this close to understanding the universe from beginning to end, but you've got to get this part right.

[39] As for the second idea, this is the one that essentially reverses the flow of the universe. From one that's moving away from equilibrium to one that's constantly moving toward it. I've searched the web periodically for others who may have been working on the same idea, but nothing so far. But you'll need to check that out too. It's really very simple. I'm proposing that EM waves are inherently elastic.

[40] Let's say the universe isn't composed entirely of energy after all. Instead, let's say it's composed entirely of elastic EM waves. Waves whose electric and magnetic components naturally repel each other, such that, like when you turn on a light bulb, the light waves naturally attempt to spread the light throughout the available space. Certainly, you generate the light waves when you flip the switch, but what causes them to always spread out in all directions at the speed of light? I'm proposing that not only do changes in the electric part of the waveform induce changes in the magnetic component of the waveform, and vice versa, but that this is the way the inherently elastic waveform uses to spread all its energy throughout whatever space is available to it. And I'm pretty sure that if you check with mathematicians, they'll tell you that a helical waveform is the most efficient way to do this. As Hatton points out, the double helix is naturally employed all over the universe, as in DNA, to transfer energy from one substance to another. All of this, by the way, would be in keeping with the Least Action Principle.

[41] If you think about it, the elasticity of EM waves leads to very clear and simple explanations of a number of truths about EM waves. For instance, the frequency of a wave is a measure of its potential energy or work. The amplitude of a wave refers to the rate at which the energy can be transferred or the work done. The frequency, then, pertains to the wave current, the amplitude to the voltage.

[42] With this in mind, visualize an EM wave which, because it's elastic, has been afforded the opportunity to naturally spread itself out throughout space so its frequency and amplitude are at zero. Then assume some action occurs which compresses the wave into a much smaller volume. Since the wave is inherently elastic, remember, work will have to be done to compress it. We equate work with energy. This work/energy will be transferred to the wave and will show up as increasing frequency and magnitude of the wave.

[43] So what am I saying here? Simply that we've known for a long time about the theoretical and mathematical relationships between the frequency and voltage components of an EM wave, and work, and power, and so forth. We can design and develop systems with this theory. But we've never understood the physical mechanisms underlying the theory. But if it turns out the wave is inherently elastic, as is proposed here, then we can now fully explain the actual physical construction and behavior of EM waves. Wave energy did not come from the aforementioned explosion. Instead it was “loaded” into the universe's EM waves when they were first compressed into a smaller volume. Suddenly releasing these pent-up waves would result in their springing outward in all directions. This action, then, would explain the big bang.

Part V. Combining the two new ideas.

[44] What I'm going to do is very quickly suggest two new scenarios to account for the beginning of the big bang employing three-dimensional elastic EM waves. Neither of these may be the right scenario. That's up to you to determine. But maybe these will get you started.

[45] 1. Let's assume that before the big bang began, space was not an empty place at all. Let's say that it was filled with elastic EM waves which had been allowed to spread themselves throughout whatever space there was until they had achieved a state of absolutely stable equilibrium. Then let's say that some sort of action occurred which resulted in their being gathered up and compressed into a much smaller volume. In which case, because of their inherent elasticity, remember, they would be loaded with enormous quantities of wave energy, resulting in a state of extremely high temperature and pressure.

[46] As you can see, here we've first assumed the existence of elastic EM waves, and then developed a scenario which accounts for the existence of energy in the universe, instead of the other way around, which is the way it is now.

[47] So all that needs to be done now is to release the tightly compressed EM waves which will automatically precipitate the big bang. But wait a minute. How do we get particles of matter out of this configuration?

[48] Remember, the EM waves are not just inherently elastic, but now they propagate helically in three dimensions instead of sinusoidally in two dimensions. So let's say that instantly upon being released, some of these waves, which are under enormous pressure, can't help but slam into each other on their way back to equilibrium. Further, let's assume some of these collisions occur between two waves of precisely the same frequency and amplitude, but traveling in opposite directions. In such a case two three-dimensional, standing waves ought to appear. The EM wave of which each is composed is still propagating at the speed of light, but now, instead of traveling freely through space, they each spin and precess in a spherical pattern. We call these three-dimensional, spherical standing waves particles of matter.

[49] Thus, you see, by assuming EM waves are elastic, and that they propagate helically as well, which, if you think about, fits well with what we know about them already, we've been able to construct a scenario which accounts in a fairly straightforward fashion for the existence of the universe's energy and matter as well.

[50] Of course, to turn such philosophical brain-storming into physics, someone's going to have to come up with a whole new sub-set of mathematical theory. One capable of modeling all of the various scenarios resulting from this new definition of particles as spinning and precessing standing waves. For example, when these standing-wave particles first form, it seems reasonable to assume that the work done to “roll them up” into standing waves would show up as their external electric field, which would be positive or negative, depending on which way they're spinning. But to account for why the electric field remains in place, a closer, mathematical investigation of the system must demonstrate that the external charge plus the internal spinning and precessing wave somehow form a state of extremely stable equilibrium. After all, we know particles are extremely stable. To model this will require considerable new insight into the EM fields generated by the spinning, precessing wave, and so forth. Also, consider that spinning systems are inherently inertial systems. Since this new theory proposes that particles are actually spinning, precessing EM waves, a more detailed study of the fields developed by these spinning, precessing waves might very well lead to an explanation of the origin and nature of an object's inertia, and its measure, which we call mass. And this is just the beginning.

[51] But let me just brainstorm a little more here. Newton used to say that it's as if there's a single clock sitting somewhere outside the universe that somehow keeps time for everything in it. And no one's ever been able to do any better than that as far as defining what time is and where it comes from.

[52] If you think about it, we use the precession of the cesium atom to generate a very accurate period for the atomic clock. Right? Well, according to this theory the standing wave particle spins and precesses, doesn't it? And isn't all the matter in the world composed of these particles? You bet it is. In other words, Newton's clock doesn't exist outside the world. It's inside every particle. All the matter in the world is composed of these particle clocks. And they are all synchronized by the speed of light, which, remember, is a constant. Right?

[53] Further, if you think about it, if these standing wave particles are indeed the source of all time for our material universe, i.e., all the matter in the universe, then it turns out there are two dimensions of time, not just one. There's the dimension of time which clocks the speed of light, and the dimension of time, derived from the precession of each particle, which clocks the passage of time for the entire particle.

[54] I know, I know. If the speed of light time drives the particle time, then they keep the same time. Right? Well, yes and no. As long as the particle isn't moving, then yes, they keep the same time. But if the particle is moving, it will take longer for the particle to complete a full precession. Remember, the speed of light is a constant. If the particle is moving, in any direction, you'd have to vectorally add the external velocity of the particle with the internal velocity of the spinning, precessing wave for the internal EM wave to keep up. But the internal EM wave is already propagating at the speed of light, and can't go any faster than that. So it'll take longer for the particle to complete its entire precession, thus slowing the particle time.

[55] Thus, you see, according to this theory, the universe is composed of two types of EM waves. Three-dimensional, helically propagating traveling waves and three-dimensional, helically spinning and precessing standing waves. Further, there are two dimensions of time at work in the universe. The never-changing dimension of time that clocks the speed of light c, and each particle's own dimension of time, which, if the particle is not moving, is the same as the one that clocks the speed of light. But if the particle is moving, its clock must slow down. And the faster the particle moves, the slower its clock ticks. In other words, there's one dimension of time for traveling waves, and one dimension for standing waves.

[56] Actually, if you think about it, using these two dimensions of time we've just described here the actual physical processes responsible for Special Relativity. I'll let you validate this with the math, which already exists.

[57] These two dimensions of time will allow us to finally understand other processes as well. One in particular, and certainly one of the most important, had to do with the famous argument between Einstein and Bohr regarding the meaning of the “electron cloud” in the hydrogen atom. What really confounds the issue here is that not only does the electron cloud indicate that the particle is actually a wave, but that instead of spinning and precessing at the speed of light around the nucleus, which would require some very small but still finite period of time to elapse, the wave appears to be everywhere at once. No one has been able to figure out how this could happen. Bohr said it meant that the behavior of the electron was fundamentally indeterminate. Einstein held that we just didn't have enough information yet to make the electron behavior fully determinate. As Einstein put it, God does not play dice with the universe.

[58] Remember, this new theory proposes our universal time is clocked by each complete precession of each particle. In this case an electron. That being the case, then, like the second hand on a pendulum clock, which clicks forward once every second, “our” time, by that I mean the dimension of time which clocks our universe, unlike the dimension of time which clocks the speed of light, is quantized. By that I mean in the world of matter, the electron time (in this case) does not advance until each full precession of the electron standing wave is completed. That being the case, then even though the speed at which the internal standing wave spins and precesses is clocked by a continuous dimension of time, all the positions that the electron standing wave occupies during a full precession must all be evident at the same time because we can only see things using our own quantized dimension of time.

[59] Without knowing about these two dimensions of time, and that “our” universal time is quantized, we can only assume that our universal time is the result of a continuous action, in which case the only way left to us to interpret the electron cloud is to say we're looking at an instantaneous set of probabilities, all occurring at the same time.

[60] So how do we get around this in everyday life? It's simple, really. Even though the dimension of time we use is quantized, each quantum of time is so short that it seems to pass continuously for all actions. That is, until we get down to observing the individual electron wave phenomenon. To observe and/or otherwise account for the spinning and precessing electron wave with respect to time, we need to use the continuous time which clocks c.

[61] One more thought on this subject. In a lighter vein, remember Einstein's remark about God not playing dice with the universe? Well, in keeping with Einstein's vernacular, you could say that God does play dice with the universe. It's just that God's dice are loaded.

[62] 2. Oh, by the way. Remember I was going to suggest another possible scenario for the beginning of the big bang using elastic, helical EM waves? Well, just assume the big bang begins when somebody turns on a really big light bulb. In which case everything else I just said about the first scenario still holds.

Part VI. The Universal Law

[63] Dictionaries define the human conscience as “the complex of ethical and moral principles that controls or inhibits the actions or thoughts of an individual”. If you think about it, in seeking out the single, characteristic, pattern or paradigm of behavior that drives the universe, we are in effect trying to find what might be called the “mechanical conscience” of the universe. I mention this here because later, when human behavior enters into this process, again assuming this theory is generally valid, we will find there is a direct connection between this mechanical conscience of the universe and the human conscience.

[64] So what is this conscience of the universe, stated as a universal law?

[65] As for myself, I would leave the precise statement of this law to those best able to state it properly. Until that happens it seems reasonable enough to state it as follows:

[66] “The Wave Energy of the Universe is Constantly Seeking Ever More Stable States of Equilibrium.”

VII. Summary.

[67] If the theory of the physical universe proposed here is true, or nearly so, then it would appear that researchers have been very close to figuring out the universe for some time now. All they needed to do was add two new ideas to what they already know about EM waves. (1) That they propagate helically in three dimensions instead of sinusoidally in two dimensions. And (2) That they are inherently elastic. This leads to a redefinition of the big three and the big bang, which in turn leads straight to the universal pattern of behavior that drives the universe.

VIII. Some final comments.

[68] If it turns out that the Equilibrium Law as stated above holds, at least in general, then I think you'll come to realize, as I have, that while the universe's traveling wave energy and standing wave energy are both constantly searching for equilibrium, the standing wave energy's search, which requires it to first somehow shed its surface charge, which leads sequentially to the formation of atoms, stars, solar systems, and, eventually, at least here on earth, the appearance of living cells, and their eventual evolution into us, is the far more complex of the two processes.

[69] Certainly, that such a simple law could lead to such a complex and important conclusion is itself a major surprise. But even more surprising, to me anyway, was my eventual realization that not only did we evolve from this process, but that, if you think about it, from day one of the big bang the universe was always going to produce human beings. By that I mean beings like us with–and this is most important of all–brains exactly like ours. Beings that would one day stand up, look around, and begin to ask “who are we, where did we come from, and why are we here?”.

[70] And this discovery leads to another question: If the universe was destined to produce human beings, could it have been designed to do so?

[71] I think we'll find out very soon now that Albert Einstein was right about our needing to think about the universe differently in order to understand it. He was also deeply religious. Friends said of him that he would often rather talk of religion than science. Of the two he used to say that “science without religion is lame, while religion without science is blind”. Perhaps he was right about that too.

[72] Remember, even if what I've said so far turns out to be basically correct, there is an enormous amount of work to be done here to fully develop this theory. I doubt I've given you 10% of the conceptual model and none at all of the mathematical model. Still, it is the only one around, as far as I know of, which attempts to explain the physical universe from beginning to end.

[73] So what do you think?