Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

 all posts
 member posts highlighted
 member posts only

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

Rodney Bartlett: on 7/10/13 at 6:36am UTC, wrote Many thanks to you, Zeeya - and for your email, Jonathan. I had a look at...

Zeeya Merali: on 7/8/13 at 16:39pm UTC, wrote Thanks to Rodney Bartlett for his feedback (over on another thread) on my...

Anonymous: on 4/23/13 at 9:09am UTC, wrote This is a discussion of the FQXi Podcast from April 22, 2013

October 27, 2021

CATEGORY: FQXi Podcast [back]
TOPIC: FQXi April 22, 2013 Podcast [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

The FQXi Editors wrote on Apr. 23, 2013 @ 09:09 GMT
This is a discussion of the FQXi Podcast from April 22, 2013

Bookmark and Share
post approved
FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali replied on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 16:39 GMT
Thanks to Rodney Bartlett for his feedback (over on another thread) on my recent Discover article about dark energy. (It was while interviewing Brian Schmidt that I made the recording that's used in this podcast.)

I'm cutting and pasting Rodney's comments here because they fit the topic of the podcast:

From Rodney Bartlett:

Reply to "Confronting the Dark" by Zeeya Merali (Discover magazine - May 2013)

...There’s an interesting sentence on p.46 of that article - “The universe first slowed down as the inward pull of matter dominated over the relatively mild outward push of dark energy.” This can be explained by lines in my vixra submission listed in the paragraph below. “Some gravitational waves from outside the solar system pass by and some are diverted towards the sun (just as some of the ocean waves passing an island are diverted to the shore by being refracted by the island’s mass).” The “inward pull of matter” is merely what seems to happen. Actually, the gravity waves give planets pushes and “Planets nearer the Sun orbit faster than those farther out because an outer planet concentrates gravity waves in itself – the increasing density with depth corresponds to increasing concentration (of wave packets) and magnification (of gravitational waves).” As Einstein stated, gravity waves are merely the curves of space-time existing in, and between, the galaxies (as distinct from the flatness of space in the universe as a whole). Cosmic expansion is accelerating because of the increased production of space-time by binary digits, Mobius loops and figure-8 Klein bottles (see the paragraphs below concerning string theory and subuniverses). This “relatively mild outward push of dark energy” is dominated by its (gravity’s) apparent inward pull because of the concentration (of wave packets) and magnification (of gravitational waves). Now to the article I sent to Discover (which doesn’t include the PS about the frequency of gravitational waves) -

Dark energy can easily be explained as a composite of Newton’s and Einstein’s ideas on gravitation. This amalgamation of their (mathematical) thoughts explains – in layman’s language that doesn't require mathematics - gravity as a push by gravitational waves that explains dark energy, dark matter, Kepler’s laws of planetary motion, tides, orbits, and apples falling on a 17th-century scientist’s head: see "CHALLENGE – Explain To The Layman How Gravity Accounts For Dark Matter and Dark Energy Without Using Any Mathematics”, a section within It supports Einstein’s idea of gravitational-electromagnetic interaction forming mass^, saying gravity is weaker at higher altitudes because it is concentrated in more and more "wave packets" (where it interacts with EM) at lower heights and below a planet’s surface - where it corresponds to higher density, magnification of gravity’s effects, and slowing down of time because motion of the particles is less in greater densities (particle motion increases at lower density, allowing the universe’s highest speed - the velocity of light - in the vacuum of space). The simplest and briefest way to explain dark energy is to use this explanation of why planets orbit in the Sun's ecliptic plane -

It begins with this sentence - "the more mass a body possesses, the more gravitation is diverted to play a part in that body’s formation". Agreeing with Einstein's theory that gravitation is a push created by the hills and valleys of curved space, gravitational waves are a repelling force (this aspect of gravity is normally referred to as Dark Energy) refracted towards the Sun's centre. The waves ultimately originate far out in deep space where they push galaxy clusters apart. As they pass the solar system's outer boundary, some waves are refracted by the Sun's mass like ocean waves passing an island (some are refracted towards the island and cause waves on its beaches).

Having given the planets pushes which keep them in their orbits and prevent them flying off into space, the waves arrive at the Sun where they interact with electromagnetism to form the masses of subatomic particles see PS (mass being produced by G-EM interaction was proposed by Einstein in a 1919 paper to the Prussian Academy of Sciences - “Do Gravitational Fields Play An Essential Part In The Structure Of The Elementary Particles Of Matter?”). They also form the strong and weak nuclear forces associated with those particles (nuclear forces are a by-product of G-EM interaction). The rotating Sun bulges at its equator and therefore has a larger equatorial than polar diameter, and more mass at its equator*. This means more gravitation has been diverted to that region. Planets are also made from G and EM interacting, and must consequently lie in the path gravity waves took from the outer solar system to the solar equator (more gravitation was diverted here - so if planets are created by G and EM, it follows that they'd be created where the gravitational "current" is greatest). For simplicity, we say the Sun's gravitation is strongest at its equator and planets are compelled to orbit in the ecliptic plane.

* Although the Sun is nearly the roundest object ever measured, recent results from the Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI) onboard the Solar Dynamics Observatory satellite indicate that if the Sun were shrunk to a ball one metre in diameter, its equatorial diameter would be 17 millionths of a metre larger than the diameter through its North-South pole, which is its rotation axis. ("Sun's Almost Perfectly Round Shape Baffles Scientists" -

m and J. R. Kuhn, R. Bush, M. Emilio, I. F. Scholl. The Precise Solar Shape and Its Variability. Science, 2012)

^ When gravitons and photons transfer energy to each other, E=mc^2 (“Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?” by Albert Einstein - "Annalen der Physik" - November 21, 1905) says the relation of mass to energy means they’re transferring mass, too. Another way to view their interaction is – the product of gravity interacting with electromagnetism is what we call “mass”; the gravitons and photons therefore give mass to each other. Experiments conducted by the Particle Data Group (“Review of Particle Physics” - Physics Letters B, Volume 667, Issues 1–5, 11 September 2008, Pages 1–6) say the mass of a single photon is no more than 10^-18 eV/c^2.

”Mass of the graviton” by Alfred S. Goldhaber and Michael Martin Nieto - Phys. Rev. D 9, 1119–1121 (1974) - says “…although it is not known if the graviton exists, one can still say that its rest mass is less than 2 × 10-62 g. It’s important to note that this paragraph is referring to either subluminal or rest mass of the photon. In other articles e.g. “Equation Describing the Universe” (, I refer to photons as massless. This is their state at the speed of light (the same applies to gravitons for electromagnetic and gravitational waves are both parts of, and disturbances in, the fabric of space-time) –

“It’s impossible to point to the 4th dimension of time, so this cannot be physical. Since the union of space-time is well established in modern science, we can assume the 4th dimension is actually measurement of the motions of the particles occurring in the 3 dimensions of length, width, and height. The basic standard of time in the universe is the measurement of the motions of photons - specifically, of the speed of light. This is comparable to the 1960’s adoption on Earth of the measurement of time as the vibration rate of cesium atoms. Suppose that at lightspeed, time = 0 (it is stopped). Below 300,000 km/sec, in accord with Relativity, acceleration or gravitation causes time dilation (slowing of time as the speed of light is approached). If time’s 0, space is also 0 because space and time coexist as space-time whose warping (gravity) is necessarily 0 too. Spacetime/gravity form matter/mass, so the latter pair can’t exist at lightspeed and photons are massless.” This leads to a photon (such as from the Sun) experiencing the whole universe – including Bose-Einstein condensates, gravitons, and other photons - in its existence. There is no space, no time, no gravity – only one photon which occupies no physical space because it’s a mathematical construction.

Dark energy cannot push the universe past its breaking point for this reason -

Bob Berman’s article "Infinite Universe" (“Astronomy” – Nov. 2012) says, “The evidence keeps flooding in. It now truly appears that the universe is infinite” and “Many separate areas of investigation – like baryon acoustic oscillations (sound waves propagating through the denser early universe), the way type 1a supernovae compare with redshift, the Hubble constant, studies of cosmic large-scale structure, and the flat topology of space – all point the same way.”

Support for the article – After examining recent measurements by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, NASA declared "We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent" – “WMAP’s Universe”:;

and according to "The Early Universe and the Cosmic Microwave Background: Theory and Observations" by Norma G. Sànchez, Yuri N. Parijskij [published by Springer, 31/12/2003], the shape of the Universe found to best fit observational data is the infinite flat model).

The evidence indicates that the universe is physically infinite. Evidence also indicates the universe is expanding (Hubble, Edwin, "A Relation between Distance and Radial Velocity among Extra-Galactic Nebulae" [1929] Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp. 168-173). How can the infinite expand? We could simply say it obviously doesn't; and cling to the old concept of a finite space without an edge (like the surface of a sphere). But this would be an incomplete explanation. It makes sense that the infinite universe is static and that it consists of an infinite number of expanding "subuniverses"#. As one of these expands, it collides with its neighbours and their galaxies enter its space. This idea reminds us of the idea that inflation (the universe’s initial, extremely rapid, growth spurt) may have created multiple universes, as well as collision of universes in the Steinhardt-Turok model (see “Cosmic evolution in a cyclic universe” by Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok - Phys. Rev. D 65, 126003 [2002] [20 pages]).

Also see ”Will our universe collide with a neighboring one?” – another article by Zeeya Merali – Discover, October 2009. It speaks of the “axis of evil”, an unexpected alignment of cold and hot (denser and less dense) spots in the cosmic microwave background; one of the possible explanations of this being collision with another universe (other proposals are that the universe’s inflation wasn’t perfectly symmetrical, and that the entire universe is rotating). Whereas inflation suggests separation between universes and formation of a "multiverse", the idea of expanding subuniverses suggests unification of the subuniverses as inseparable parts of the greater universe.

# The strings of physics' string theory are the binary digits of 1 and 0 used in computers and electronics. The digits are constantly switching between their representations of the "on" and "off" states. This switching is usually referred to as a flow or current. Currents in the two 2-dimensional programs called Mobius loops** are connected into a four-dimensional figure-8 Klein bottle by the infinitely-long irrational and transcendental numbers. Such an infinite connection translates - via bosons being ultimately composed of 1's and 0's depicting pi, e, √2 etc.; and fermions being given mass by bosons interacting in matter particles' "wave packets" – into an infinite number of 8-Kleins. Each Klein 1) is one of the universe's subuniverses (our own is 13.8 billion years old), 2) is made flexible through its binary digits which seamlessly, or almost seamlessly, join it to surrounding subuniverses and eliminate its central hole, and 3) possesses warped time and space because its foundation is the programmed curves in its mathematical Mobius loops. The universe functions according to the rules of fractal geometry. So the Mobius does not exist only at the cosmic level. It also manifests at the quantum scale, giving us photons and protons etc. Space and time are no longer separate in modern science, but are an indivisible space-time. So if space and the universe are infinite, how can time not be eternal? The past and the future must both extend forever (the idea of time being finite arises from confusion of our subuniverse with the one infinite universe). BITS (BInary digiTS) only suggest existence of the divine if time is linear. Although a non-supernatural God is proposed via the inverse-square law’s infinite aspect^^ coupled with eternal quantum entanglement, Einstein taught us that time is warped. Warped time is nonlinear, making it at least possible that the BITS composing space-time and all particles originate from the computer science of humans.

** Let’s borrow a few ideas from string theory’s ideas of everything being ultimately composed of tiny, one-dimensional strings that vibrate as clockwise, standing, and counterclockwise currents in a four-dimensional looped superstring. We can visualize tiny, one dimensional binary digits of 1 and 0 (base 2 mathematics) forming currents in a Mobius loop – or in 2 Mobius loops, clockwise currents in one loop combining with counterclockwise currents in the other to form a standing current. The 2 loops’ currents are connected into the four-dimensional looped superstring of a four-dimensional Klein bottle possessing looped or nonlinear space-time.

^^ The inverse-square law states that the force between two particles becomes infinite if the distance of separation between them goes to zero. Remembering that gravitation (associated with particles) partly depends on the distance between their centres, the distance of separation only goes to zero when those centres occupy the same space-time coordinates (not merely when the particles’ or objects’ sides are touching i.e. infinity equals the total elimination of distance##). The infinite cosmos could possess this absence of distance in space and time, via the electronic mechanism of binary digits.

## Infinity does not equal nothing - total elimination of distance, or space, produces nothing in a physical sense and reverts to theoretical physicist Lee Smolin’s imagining of strings as “not made of anything at all” (p.35 of Dr. Sten Odenwald’s article “What String Theory Tells Us About the Universe”: Astronomy – April 2013). It also reverts the universe to the mathematical blueprint from which physical being is constructed (this agrees with cosmologist Max Tegmark’s hypothesis that mathematical formulas create reality,

ally-made-of-math#.UZsHDaIwebs and So, infinity = something, agreeing with Dr. Sten Odenwald’s statement on p.32 of his article, that “The basic idea is that every particle of matter … and every particle that transmits a force … is actually a small one-dimensional loop of something.”

PS The difference between gravity’s strength and electromagnetism’s strength is 10^36. gravity is the weaker partner despite having the higher frequency because nearly all its energy goes into the “organized energy” forming a particle, which then re-emits some of that energy at reduced electromagnetic frequencies, including those of gamma radiation. (Just as visible light can be absorbed and re-emitted at lower infrared frequencies which have the same speed, gravitational waves can be absorbed then re-emitted at lower electromagnetic frequencies - including those of the microwave background - which have the same speed.) The EM contribution to a particle’s formation is the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction of 1% of gravity’s because EM is waves in space-time (not something separate from the warping of space-time that is gravity). In other words - EM plays a secondary, subordinate role to gravity which, being united with EM and the nuclear forces, is the ultimate physical source of all repelling and attracting (from the attractive strong nuclear force to the repulsive dark energy). People are accustomed to thinking matter and energy are converted into each other only under unusual circumstances like radioactivity, nuclear explosions and in the Large Hadron Collider. But the conversions are happening all the time in every particle of every atom and every beam of energy. (E=mc^2 would probably describe the conversion from gravitational energy to the "coherent, organized energy" that is matter).

Bookmark and Share

Rodney Bartlett wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 06:36 GMT
Many thanks to you, Zeeya - and for your email, Jonathan.

I had a look at what I'd written, and I should have said a bit more about a sentence in the first paragraph - "Cosmic expansion is accelerating because of the increased production of space-time by binary digits, Mobius loops and figure-8 Klein bottles ..."

How the Law of Conservation works

The binary digits of 1 and 0...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.