Steps Resulting From Digital Reality by Rodney Bartlett

Niels Bohr's Atomic Model In The Light Of The Concept of an Electronic and Holographic Universe Shaped Like A Mobius Loop.

If everything is a union of positive and negative energy, every matter particle and force-carrying particle would be too. And the strings the Large Hadron Collider might detect (being the parts of particles' Mobius loops it could see since those parts would be space/ordinary matter) might come in both positive and negative varieties. In 1928 English physicist Paul Dirac (1902-84) proposed that all negative energy states are already occupied by (then hypothetical) antiparticles (particles of antimatter). Building on this results in proposal of strings and antistrings - mathematics has positive and negative quantities, and computers (whether in hyperspace or not) generate maths, causing reality to be both positive and negative; and unconventional cosmologist Max Tegmark is correct when he says mathematical formulas create reality. So when matter and antimatter meet, the positive and negative quantities form zero and neutralise (destroy) each other; and the positive/negative components of everything must avoid direct contact - this separation can either be in space or in time because all things are able to display both separateness/solidity (isolation in space) as well as the potential to appear anywhere and everywhere (in time as well as space). Pauli's exclusion principle - which was discovered in 1925 and says 2 matter particles cannot have both the same position and the same velocity - does not apply to separation of matter/antimatter since it only applies in an objective, non-unified universe ... though programming in the "cosmic computer" does include it as applicable to the reality we perceive since that appears objective to us; and presents separation and solidity to our physical senses and their extensions, scientific instruments.

Building on Mobius loops and negative energy also explains why electrons don't spiral into the nucleus of the atom when orbiting it like planets around a star would, according to the theories of Newton and Maxwell, cause the electrons to continuously emit electromagnetic radiation and this loss of energy would result in their crashing into the nucleus. As we've noted, fractal geometry tells us that what is outside or inside a Mobius loop is the same as the loop itself. So we can visualise an atom as a Mobius loop (the outside could be the universe and the inside could be a subatomic particle - with those two being One because of unification). We can imagine a 72% flow rate into the "dark matter" part of the atomic Mobius becoming not merely a 23% flow into the ordinary matter but becoming a negative 23% flow (the variation in different directions caused by the twist need not be an increase and decrease of positive energy but may be the radiation of negative and positive energy). That is, energy is of course radiated - into atoms and from those special orbits or stationary states which Danish physicist Niels Bohr (1885-1962) said radiation would not be continuously emitted, and wouldn't contribute to an electron-nucleus collision. But it isn't energy as we know it. There is no exclusively positive radiation emitted - the energy is predominantly "less than nothing" i.e. negative - according to the previous paragraph, mathematics has positive and negative quantities, and computers (whether in hyperspace or not) generate maths. Therefore, Bohr was correct to introduce the quantum into the atom and to "quantise" electron orbits - the "quantum jump" or "quantum leap" in which an electron's transition between orbits or energy levels occurs instantaneously without occupying the space between orbits is also explicable by computers in hyperspace generating mathematics and making electrons disappear from one orbit and instantly reappear in another orbit. Since E=mc2 means energy must contain particles and negative energy must contain antiparticles (e.g. electromagnetic energy is composed of photons), anti-photons are emitted from the electrons which are consequently not radiating energy and do not spiral into the nucleus. In his 1988 book "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking says on p. 68 that "In the case of the force-carrying particles (like the photon), the antiparticles are the same as the particles themselves." Thus, the "photons" which are emitted during the quantum leaps of electrons from higher to lower energy levels could actually be antiphotons. (thanks to "QUANTUM: Einstein, Bohr and the Great Debate About the Nature of Reality" by Manjit Kumar - Icon Books, 2008 for inspiring these thoughts)

Louis de Broglie (1892-1987) is the French physicist who answered "yes" to his question: if light waves can behave like particles, can particles such as electrons behave like waves? He was correct to say standing electron waves exist (the wave occupies every part of its orbit around the nucleus) and Niels Bohr was correct to impose the condition of allowed and forbidden electron orbits. My hypothesis is similar to Albert Einstein taking the wave theory of light and developing the light-quantum (photon) theory. I take standing electron waves and develop particles using negative energy. But the above does not try to invalidate wave-particle duality. It affirms it since it says an electron (or any particle), being a positive energy-negative energy hybrid, can display separateness/solidity/isolation (and appear as a particle) as well as possessing the ability to appear anywhere/anywhen and everywhere/everywhen (display as a wave - perhaps as a standing electron wave that surrounds an atomic nucleus).

If we limit ourselves to an objective, "out there" reality; we'd mistakenly assume an electron occupies every possible spot around the nucleus and there are no forbidden orbits since the electron can be anywhere and everywhere (read about American physicist Richard Feynman's idea that the entire universe might consist of just one electron on pp. 277-279 of "Physics of the Impossible" by Michio Kaku - Penguin Books, 2009). This assumption is inaccurate because Bohr's model of the atom, with its allowed and forbidden electron orbits, accurately predicts spectral phenomena and chemical properties of elements in the periodic table. The accurate interpretation of electrons being anywhere and everywhere is that reality is not limited to our traditional way of looking at things but that we live in an "everything is everywhere and everywhen" universe i.e. in a cosmic-quantum unification.

BREAKING THE SOUNDS OF SILENCE BY TALKING TO MYSELF -

CONTINUING MY GRAVITATIONAL HYPOTHESES BY EXTENDING THEM TO MAGNETISM, A MORE PRECISE ACCOUNT OF PHOTON-GRAVITON INTERACTION, AND EXPLANATION OF THE FAILURE TO DATE OF LIGO ET AL.

Here's a way to visualise gravity causing cosmic expansion while, at the same time, pushing together planets in a star system (combined with this push, their orbiting speeds stabilise the system and produce the solar system we know). Imagine the universe to be an ocean and each star system to be an island. As ocean waves approach an island, part of the wave feels friction with the increasingly shallow sea-bed resulting in wave refraction or bending. This causes part of the wave to travel in the direction of the shore while part continues on parallel to the shoreline. In the same way, as gravitational waves approach a star system, part of the current in the cosmic ocean feels friction with the increasing mass experienced as planets orbit closer to their star. This causes gravitational refraction or bending in which part of the gravity travels in the direction of the star (this is called the negative component and pushes planets together) while the other part continues on (this is called gravitation's positive component and produces universal expansion when it eventually leaves the relevant group of galaxies)*. As the refracted gravitational wave heading for the sun passes a planet, part of it is once again diverted by the increased mass (the more mass, the more gravity is diverted) - this time towards the centre of the planet, giving the impression that objects on that planet are being attracted to the planetary centre. Space would be nothing if it was merely the distances between matter in the universe but can be something, and curved, because it's a product of binary digits from hyperspace. Being curved space, the portion of gravitation that's called dark energy (the portion responsible for universal expansion) would have an amplitude - displacement of a wave equal to half the distance from the top of the wave to the bottom - corresponding to the moving layers of the atmosphere which make the stars seem to twinkle.

In "E=m^1+0 IS E=mc2 FOR THE 21ST CENTURY", I said "...I'd regard gravity as repulsive instead of attractive (its energy would then be positive like matter's, matter and gravitational waves would be unified, and the universe could be more than a vast collection of the countless photons, electrons and other quantum particles within it; it could, as #8 proposes, be a unified whole that has particles and waves built into its union of digital 1's and 0's)". I must confess to being a bit lazy in that sentence - I should have pointed out that gravitation's energy is mostly positive (consider the vast amount of positive gravity in intergalactic space vs. the smaller amount of negative gravity holding together solar systems and galaxies) and matter's energy is mostly positive: the apparent asymmetry of particles (with their positive energy) and antiparticles (with their negative energy) may be due to, as stated in about 4 pages, the need for the "positive/negative components of everything (to) avoid direct contact - this separation can either be in space or in time because all (components in a unification) are able to display both separateness/solidity (isolation in space) as well as the potential to appear anywhere and everywhere (in time as well as space)". If gravity is forever pushing against matter, why don't gravitational-wave detectors pick up the waves literally all the time? In the sensitive LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory), a passing gravitational wave will slightly stretch one arm as it shortens the other - there are two arms which a laser beam travels along and is reflected by a mirror, the arms being 2-4 kilometres long and at a 90 degree angle - but only by a billionth of a billionth of a metre. The refracted gravitational wave, with its negative energy, meets matter with its predominantly positive energy ... and the two tend to cancel (since the meeting of total negativity and total positivity is required for complete cancellation, it remains possible for the incomplete cancellation of gravity and matter to produce some photons, and shrinkage on the order of 10^-18 metre). If we built a detector from antimatter, we'd cause an enormous explosion (unless we isolated it from the ground and air it was located in), but we'd have a far better chance of finding gravity waves.

* Magnetism could operate in a similar way. When two like poles (north and north, or south and south) are placed close together, the lines of force - shown by sprinkling iron filings on a sheet of paper and placing the paper over the magnets - would repel each other because they resemble the unrefracted part of the gravitational wave which contributes to universal expansion. Two unlike poles (north and south) would attract because they resemble the refracted gravitational wave which feels friction - either with "magneton" particles composing magnetic waves, or with the opposing magnet itself, or with the lines of force between the magnets (thanks to mass-energy equivalence and magnetic waves behaving like particles) - and is diverted to a planet's, or another object's, centre. This divergence implies a very small angle of refraction at the planet's rim, followed by many increasingly large angles as interior density grows (see next paragraph) i.e. if we could see the wave, it would appear to curve and end in the planet's centre. So in magnetic attraction, we'd expect the lines of force between two magnets' ends to possess a curvature like that formed by successive angles of refraction (positive - a sphere has positive curvature). In magnetic repulsion, lines of force would curve like an unrefracted wave spreading out in the depths of space (the curvature would be negative or saddle-shaped). Sprinkle some filings on a sheet of paper and place magnets underneath - this is what you'll see (and if preferred, all this can be described in terms of directional flow).

1) The unrefracted gravitational wave means starlight does in fact twinkle in space. It won't be detectable anytime soon, though. The electric and magnetic fields of atoms in the atmosphere's air currents cause the electromagnetic twinkling observable to the eye, but this is approx. a trillion trillion trillion times greater than the gravitational twinkling in space, and

2) the refracted gravitational wave heading for the sun "captures" the light from distant stars that appear close to the rim of the sun before it's diverted to the centre of our star (string theory predicts that gravity's gravitons interact with light's photons*). Acting as a gravitational attractor, the refracted wave carries the light with it as it bends towards the sun's centre. The light is not carried all the way but breaks free since photons have their own energy and momentum. However, the light is carried far enough to be deflected a tiny amount from its original path. According to Newton's 3rd Law of Motion (to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction), the light will be deflected toward the sun by an equal and opposite amount to the gravity wave's deflection to the solar interior. "Opposite" means the light wave travels away from the sun at approx. 186,282 miles per second and the gravity wave travels into the sun at the same velocity. "Equal" means, since experiments have shown the bending of starlight to be 1.75 seconds of arc (in geometry 60 seconds = 1 minute, 60 minutes = 1 degree, and there are 360 degrees in a circle), the refraction of gravitation from the solar rim is also 1.75 arcseconds (as density increases the deeper the gravity wave goes, the greater its refraction becomes).

* Gravitons and photons interact via mass-energy equivalence (described by E=mc^2). A gravitational wave acts as an attractor and captures light by feeling friction with the mass-energy of the photons. This causes gravitational refraction or bending in which part of the gravity travels in the direction of the centre of each photon in the light (once it reaches the centre, the 3rd Law of Motion accounts for the photons' reaction of being attracted to the gravitons). Compared to the other forces we know; gravity is incredibly weak and the equal but opposite reaction of heavy, macroscopic objects cannot overcome being pushed to a planet's surface and floating off towards the gravity doing the pushing. Photons, when pushed towards the surface, are so tiny and light that they do recoil from the push - saving us from perpetual darkness.

COMBINING NEWTONIAN AND RELATIVISTIC GRAVITY WITH QUANTUM MECHANICS' PROBABILITY WAVES

Here's a way to visualise gravity causing cosmic expansion while, at the same time, pushing together planets in a star system (combined with this push, their orbiting speeds stabilise the system and produce the solar system we know). Imagine the universe to be an ocean and each star system to be an island. As ocean waves approach an island, part of the wave feels friction with the increasingly shallow sea-bed resulting in wave refraction or bending. This causes part of the wave to travel in the direction of the shore while part continues on parallel to the shoreline. In the same way, as gravitational waves approach a star system, part of the current in the cosmic ocean feels friction with the increasing mass experienced as planets orbit closer to their star. This causes gravitational refraction or bending in which part of the gravity travels in the direction of the star (this is called the negative component and pushes planets together) while the other part continues on (this is called gravitation's positive component and produces universal expansion when it eventually leaves the relevant group of galaxies). As the refracted gravitational wave heading for the sun passes a planet, part of it is once again diverted by the increased mass (the more mass, the more gravity is diverted) - this time towards the centre of the planet, giving the impression that objects on that planet are being attracted to the planetary centre. The portion of gravitation that's called dark energy (the portion responsible for universal expansion) would have an amplitude - displacement of a wave equal to half the distance from the top of the wave to the bottom - corresponding to the moving layers of the atmosphere which make the stars seem to twinkle.

Page 180 of "The Grand Design" says "Because gravity is attractive,

gravitational energy is negative." Since there was no gravitation in our

universe prior to the Big Bang (we didn't even have a universe), this

sentence can be combined with the "backward causality" (effects

influencing causes) promoted by Yakir Aharonov, John Cramer and others

to explain that gravity's negative energy gives us no reason to think that

bodies could not appear anywhere and everywhere - as Professors

Hawking and Mlodinow put it "Bodies such as stars or black holes cannot

just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can." Maybe it's only

playing with words, but I'd regard gravity as repulsive instead of attractive

(its energy would then be positive like matter's, matter and gravitational waves would be unified, and the universe could be more than a vast collection of the countless photons, electrons and other quantum particles within it; it could be a unified whole that has particles and waves built into its union of digital 1's and 0's (generated in a 5th-dimensional hyperspace). And the article "Gravitation" by Robert F. Paton in World Book Encyclopedia 1967 agrees that gravity is repulsive -

"Einstein says that bodies do not attract each other at a distance. Objects

that fall to the earth, for example, are not 'pulled' by the earth. The

curvature of space time around the earth forces the objects to take the

direction on toward the earth. The objects are pushed toward the earth by

the gravitational field rather than pulled by the earth."

Repelling gravity would cause the universe to expand - as astronomer Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) confirmed in 1929 - and adding repelling gravity by continual "creation" of matter would cause the universe to expand at an accelerated rate - this acceleration was discovered in 1998 by observations carried out by the High-z Supernova Search Team and the Supernova Cosmology Project, has been confirmed several times and is claimed to be caused by mysterious "dark energy".

I must confess to being a bit lazy in one of that paragraph's sentences - I should have pointed out that gravitation's energy is mostly positive (consider the vast amount of positive gravity in intergalactic space vs. the smaller amount of negative gravity holding together solar systems and galaxies) and matter's energy is mostly positive: the apparent asymmetry of particles (with their positive energy) and antiparticles (with their negative energy) may be due to the need for the positive/negative components of everything to avoid direct contact and consequently not appear to be in the same "place" e.g. we might appear to live in a universe dominated by matter - this separation can either be in space or time (one can't exist without the other, as we know from Relativity) because all (components in a unification) are able to display both separateness/solidity (isolation in space) as well as the potential to appear anywhere and everywhere (in time as well as space). If gravity is forever pushing against matter, why don't gravitational-wave detectors pick up the waves literally all the time? In the sensitive LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory), a passing gravitational wave will slightly stretch one arm as it shortens the other - there are two arms which a laser beam travels along and is reflected by a mirror, the arms being 2-4 kilometres long and at a 90 degree angle - but only by a billionth of a billionth of a metre. In the universe, the refracted gravitational wave, with its negative energy, meets matter with its predominantly positive energy ... and the two tend to cancel (since the meeting of total negativity and total positivity is required for complete cancellation, it remains possible for the incomplete cancellation of gravity and matter to produce some photons, and shrinkage on the order of 10^-18 metre). If we built a detector from antimatter, we'd cause an enormous explosion (unless we isolated it from the ground and air it was located in), but we'd have a far better chance of finding gravity waves.

1) The unrefracted gravitational wave means starlight does in fact twinkle in space. It won't be detectable anytime soon, though. Since the electromagnetic force is 10^36 times the strength of the gravitational force, the electric and magnetic fields of atoms in the atmosphere's air currents cause the electromagnetic twinkling observable to the eye, but this is a trillion trillion trillion times greater than the gravitational twinkling in space, and

2) the refracted gravitational wave heading for the sun "captures" the light from distant stars that appear close to the rim of the sun before it's diverted to the centre of our star (string theory predicts that gravity's gravitons interact with light's photons**). Acting as a gravitational attractor, the refracted wave carries the light with it as it bends towards the sun's centre. The light is not carried all the way but breaks free since photons have their own energy and momentum. However, the light is carried far enough to be deflected a tiny amount from its original path. According to Newton's 3rd Law of Motion (to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction), the light will be deflected toward the sun by an equal and opposite amount to the gravity wave's deflection to the solar interior. "Opposite" means the light wave travels away from the sun at approx. 186,282 miles per second and the gravity wave travels into the sun at the same velocity. "Equal" means, since experiments have shown the bending of starlight to be 1.75 seconds of arc (in geometry 60 seconds = 1 minute, 60 minutes = 1 degree, and there are 360 degrees in a circle), the refraction of gravitation from the solar rim is also 1.75 arcseconds (as density increases the deeper the gravity wave goes, the greater its refraction becomes).

** Gravitons and photons interact via mass-energy equivalence (described by E=mc^2). A gravitational wave acts as an attractor and captures light by feeling friction with the mass-energy of the photons. This causes gravitational refraction or bending in which part of the gravity travels in the direction of the centre of each photon in the light (once it reaches the centre, the 3rd Law of Motion accounts for the photons' reaction of being attracted to the gravitons). Compared to the other forces we know; gravity is incredibly weak and the equal but opposite reaction in heavy, macroscopic objects cannot overcome the heaviness, and cause the objects to float off towards the gravity doing the pushing. Photons, when pushed towards the surface, are so tiny and light that they do recoil from the push - saving we who have our eyes 5 or 6 feet above the surface from perpetual darkness.

What type of wave can a gravitational wave be? There are 2 basic wave motions. Electromagnetic waves, such as light, consist of varying magnetic and electric fields vibrating at right angles to each other and to the direction of motion - they are transverse waves. Sound waves are transmitted by the vibrations of the particles of the medium (such as air) itself, the vibrations being in the direction of wave motion - they are longitudinal or compressional waves. Gravitational waves must share some properties with transverse waves, in order to travel through the vacuum of space (or space-time). Longitudinal sound waves cannot do this - nor can they undergo polarization (a state in which rays of light, or similar radiation, exhibit different properties in different directions - ordinary light vibrates in all directions, but polarized light vibrates in only one direction e.g. when they are passed through a crystal of the mineral tourmaline which transmits rays in which the vibrations are confined to a single plane).

In this hypothesis, gravity is diverted to a planet's, or another object's, centre. This divergence implies a very small angle of refraction at the planet's rim, followed by many increasingly large angles as interior composition changes and density grows i.e. if we could see the wave, it would appear to curve and end in the planet's centre. The idea that gravity waves must end in a planet's centre comes from Isaac Newton's work which says gravity depends on the distance between the centres of objects. They could do so because any wave would meet others coming from different directions and if they were out of phase (with one at maximum amplitude in its cycle and the other at minimum amplitude, perhaps as a result of entering the planet's surface at varying altitudes or encountering different materials and densities during their journeys into the planet), they'd undergo destructive interference and cancel each other. Both transverse and longitudinal waves can undergo refraction and give rise to interference phenomena.

Gravity waves might also share some properties with longitudinal waves. This idea comes from seismic (earthquake) waves. If a gravity wave travels to our planet's centre, it must pass through the liquid outer core to the solid inner core. The seismic Secondary or S waves are transverse in nature and vibrate rock from side to side, or up and down, or both - all motions that require the resistance of a solid. S waves cannot traverse liquids and the outer core. However, the seismic Primary or P waves are compressional (longitudinal) and can negotiate both solids and liquids.

So gravitational waves seem to require both transverse properties (to travel through space [space-time] like electromagnetic waves) and compressional properties (to travel through Earth's outer core, like seismic P waves and sound). If we visualize such an oscillation, we'd see in our mind's eye a spring with regions that alternately compress and dilate (the longitudinal or compressional component) with the compressions rising to an amplitude several times higher than the dilated portion then falling to become the dilated portion (this would be the transverse component). Physicists call this a wave packet (or wave train) with no dispersion - a wave packet whose "envelope" (short burst of the wave that travels as a unit and has the large amplitude) changes or oscillates i.e. has dispersion would inevitably be out of phase with other gravity waves met in the planet's centre and would guarantee cancellation as well as confirmation of Isaac Newton's work which says gravity depends on the distance between the centres of objects. Quantum mechanics ascribes a special significance to the wave packet - it is interpreted to be a "probability wave" describing the probability that a particle or particles in a particular state will have a given position and momentum.

Combining Newtonian and Relativistic Gravitation with Quantum Mechanics' Probability Waves

(A New Theory of Gravity and a New Physics)

Yes, I know many people won't regard this as a theory because it does not include mathematics. But if maths was infallible, science wouldn't be in the mess I see today (and many will say "What mess?")

By Rodney Bartlett

This reply to Astronomy's March 2009 issue: Is there something we don't know about gravity? by John D. Anderson theorises that gravity is actually a repulsive force capable of producing both attraction and "dark energy", and that matter is formed by its interaction with electromagnetism in the envelopes of wave packets - so gravitational energy would be unified with electromagnetism as well as matter and the universe could be more than a vast collection of the countless photons, electrons and other quantum particles within it; it could be a unified whole that has particles and waves built into something ... plausibly, its union of digital 1's and 0's. Gravitational waves are also unified with quantum probability waves and, since Einstein said gravity is the warping of space, with space and time (space-time). My article also attempts to specify exactly how gravitons interact with photons.

Here's a way to visualise gravity causing cosmic expansion while, at the same time, pushing together planets in a star system (combined with this push, their orbiting speeds stabilise the system and produce the solar system we know). Imagine the universe to be an ocean and each star system to be an island. As ocean waves approach an island, part of the wave feels friction with the increasingly shallow sea-bed resulting in wave refraction or bending. This causes part of the wave to travel in the direction of the shore while part continues on parallel to the shoreline. In the same way, as gravitational waves approach a star system, part of the current in the cosmic ocean feels friction with the increasing mass experienced as planets orbit closer to their star. This causes gravitational refraction or bending in which part of the gravity travels in the direction of the star (this is called the negative component and pushes planets together) while the other part continues on (this is called gravitation's positive component and produces universal expansion when it eventually leaves the relevant group of galaxies). As the refracted gravitational wave heading for the sun passes a planet, part of it is once again diverted by the increased mass (the more mass, the more gravity is diverted*) - this time towards the centre of the planet, giving the impression that objects on that planet are being attracted to the planetary centre. Space would be nothing if it was merely the distances between matter in the universe but can be something, and curved, if it's a product of binary digits from a 5th-dimensional hyperspace (more about this later).

* Similarly, there is more mass when ocean currents meet land (islands or continents) than when they exist in bodies of water (lakes or oceans). At the beach, we can see large waves but in Lake Superior, tides are only about 2 inches and are completely masked by changes due to wind and atmospheric pressure (an earthquake underneath the lake would produce large waves).

Why do tides follow the moon in its orbit around Earth? It isn't because the moon pulls on the earth but can be explained this way -

When the moon is at first or third quarter, gravitational waves heading towards the sun from the outer solar system push against the earth and keep the ocean's water level from rising too high (illustrated by the neap or lower tides). On the other side of the planet, a neap tide is experienced because of gravity waves from the opposite side of the solar system which were not diverted into the sun. They traveled past it and are able to push against Earth if they're diverted by the planetary mass. When at the full position, some of those gravity waves from the solar system's edge are diverted by the moon's mass into the lunar interior, and this decrease in gravity's push against the earth permits a spring (high) tide. At new moon, some gravity waves approaching Earth's satellite from the opposite side of the solar system would likewise allow a spring tide if they're diverted into the moon. This pushing from the edge of the solar system would cause the Pioneer spacecraft to be closer to Earth than predicted (they're about 7 billion miles away but still within the solar system). It could also cause the astronomical unit (Earth's distance from the sun) to increase since there would be no "pull" on the earth by the sun.

I should point out that gravitation's energy is mostly positive (consider the vast amount of positive gravity in intergalactic space vs. the smaller amount of negative gravity holding together solar systems and galaxies) and matter's energy is mostly positive. If gravity is forever pushing against matter, why don't gravitational-wave detectors pick up the waves literally all the time? In the sensitive LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory); a passing gravitational wave, with its negative energy, meets matter with its predominantly positive energy ... and the two tend to cancel (since the meeting of total negativity and total positivity is required for complete cancellation, it remains possible for the incomplete cancellation of gravity and matter to produce some photons, and shrinkage on the order of 10^-18 metre). The refracted gravitational wave heading for the sun "captures" the light from distant stars that appear close to the rim of the sun before it's diverted to the centre of our star (string theory predicts that gravity's gravitons interact with light's photons**). Acting as a gravitational attractor, the refracted wave carries the light with it as it bends towards the sun's centre. The light is not carried all the way but breaks free since photons have their own energy and momentum. However, the light is carried far enough to be deflected a tiny amount from its original path. According to Newton's 3rd Law of Motion (to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction), the light will be deflected toward the sun by an equal and opposite amount to the gravity wave's deflection to the solar interior. "Opposite" means the light wave travels away from the sun at approx. 186,282 miles per second and the gravity wave travels into the sun at the same velocity. "Equal" means, since experiments have shown the bending of starlight to be 1.75 seconds of arc, the refraction of gravitation from the solar rim is also 1.75 arcseconds (as density increases the deeper the gravity wave goes, the greater its refraction becomes).

** Gravitons and photons interact via mass-energy equivalence (described by E=mc^2). A gravitational wave acts as an attractor and captures light by feeling friction with the mass-energy of the photons. This causes gravitational refraction or bending in which part of the gravity travels in the direction of the centre of each photon in the light (once it reaches the centre, the 3rd Law of Motion accounts for the photons' reaction of being attracted to the gravitons). Compared to the other forces we know; gravity is incredibly weak and the weak "equal but opposite" reaction cannot overcome the heaviness of macroscopic objects which consequently don't float off towards the gravity doing the pushing. Photons, when pushed towards the surface, are so tiny and light that they do recoil from the push - saving we who have eyes 5 or 6 feet above the ground from perpetual darkness.

What type of wave can a gravitational wave be? There are 2 basic wave motions. Electromagnetic waves, such as light, consist of varying magnetic and electric fields vibrating at right angles to each other and to the direction of motion - they are transverse waves. Sound waves are transmitted by the vibrations of the particles of the medium (such as air) itself, the vibrations being in the direction of wave motion - they are longitudinal or compressional waves. Gravitational waves must share some properties with transverse waves, in order to travel through the vacuum of space (or space-time). Longitudinal sound waves cannot do this.

Gravity waves might also share some properties with longitudinal waves. This idea comes from seismic (earthquake) waves. If a gravity wave travels to our planet's centre, it must pass through the liquid outer core to the solid inner core. The seismic Secondary or S waves are transverse in nature and vibrate rock from side to side, or up and down, or both - all motions that require the resistance of a solid. S waves cannot traverse liquids and the outer core. However, the seismic Primary or P waves are compressional (longitudinal) and can negotiate both solids and liquids.

So gravitational waves seem to require both transverse properties (to travel through space [space-time] like electromagnetic waves) and compressional properties (to travel through Earth's outer core, like seismic P waves and sound). If we visualize such an oscillation, we'd see in our mind's eye a spring with regions that alternately compress and dilate (the longitudinal or compressional component) with the compressions rising to an amplitude several times higher than the dilated portion then falling to become the dilated portion (this would be the transverse component). Physicists call this a wave packet (or wave train) with no dispersion. Quantum mechanics ascribes a special significance to the wave packet - it is interpreted to be a "probability wave" describing the probability that a particle or particles in a particular state will have a given position and momentum.

What happens to the gravity waves that are diverted away from the sun and towards a planet but are miles above that planet's surface, though still within its atmosphere? Where the in-phase waves converge and constructively interfere, we can imagine the gravitation acting as an attractor and combining with electromagnetic waves to produce the electron, proton, neutron etc. in the form of the envelope (short burst of the wave that travels as a unit) of a wave packet or probability wave. Building on the above paragraphs dealing with graviton/photon interaction*, this supposes matter acquires all its properties (including mass) by the superimposing of electromagnetic and gravitational waves - being so much more powerful than gravity, electromagnetism would be responsible for virtually all of an object's "heaviness" (and remember, gravity waves don't cancel out until they reach the middle of a planet). This is an explanation of how gravitational energy would be unified with matter (and positive like it) and the universe could be more than a vast collection of the countless photons, electrons and other quantum particles within it; it could be a unified whole that has particles and waves built into its union of digital 1's and 0's.

* The section on photon-graviton interaction says "The light is not carried all the way but breaks free since photons have their own energy and momentum." Why do electromagnetic and gravitational waves combine here to produce matter and mass? It must be because this paragraph deals with in-phase gravity waves that converge from directly opposite directions and constructively interfere to produce a matter-forming wave packet's envelope i.e. a subatomic particle. When they converge, they act like 2 hands coming together and catching a ball. Actually, photons are absorbed and emitted just as in laser cooling but instead of a laser beam slowing down atoms, the envelope slows (and traps) the photons. Thus, some waves manufacture the particles composing a planet - a vital process in the nebula surrounding our sun nearly 5 billion years ago, as well as in the aftermath of the big bang of nearly 14 billion years ago - while some produce what we call gravitational attraction to the planet's centre. It's unlikely a wave could proceed beyond the centre (and even come out the planet's opposite side) since there are simply so many waves capable of cancelling it.

Why is Earth's orbit the shape of a flattened circle - an ellipse?

As gravitational waves travel from the outer solar system towards the sun (as a starting point, let's say they're coming from the lower right in this picture), they'd push the orbiting Earth (at aphelion, its farthest distance from the sun - 152 million km) to the upper left. But gravity waves are also coming towards the sun from that direction. So Earth's progress to the upper left is stopped and it follows the line of least resistance to waves pushing it from both the lower right and upper left - this corresponds to the path indicated by the arrow pointing left. When it reaches perihelion (its closest approach to the sun - 147 million km), the waves from lower right are pushing it back while waves from the upper left are pushing it forward. Our planet follows the boundary between waves assaulting it from opposite directions and its inertia compels it to follow the arrow pointing right. Upon reaching aphelion again, the tug-of-war (oops, I mean push-of-war) continues and Earth's momentum causes it to go left. We mustn't forget the waves that are coming from the outer solar system perpendicular to the waves already mentioned. They push Earth towards and away from the sun at its perihelion and aphelion points. The balance between these forces reinforces, using the explanation of lower-right and upper-left waves, the planet's tendency to stay in the illustrated orbit. The sun's position in the illustration is exaggerated - it should be closer to the centre of the ellipse since the difference between perihelion and aphelion is only about 3%. The existence of this difference might rely on the planet manifesting to us as a multitude of matter-forming wave-packet envelopes which divert some gravity waves to the interior - thus slightly upsetting the balance of gravity waves from opposing directions at Earth's particular location relative to the sun.

Gravity waves don't cancel out until they reach the middle of a planet, so all the atomic particles between that middle and the highest atmosphere (or surface, in the case of airless planets) would be a product of gravitational/standing/probability waves and would be continuously replenished by those gravity waves. Being the product of binary digits, is it possible for these waves to be programmed to undo the damage caused by (or even to prevent) earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, nuclear accidents, shark and lion attacks, the time (in about 5 billion years) when the sun becomes a red giant that might swallow earth or at least boil away its water and blast most of its atmosphere into space, etc.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pages 50-54 of the book I'm working on (yes, there's life for curiosity and imagination after FQXi) -

When a black hole is rotating; it might also stretch, twist and loop its magnetic field lines. The lines may penetrate into the hole and be lost, but in the case of star formation they'd be drawn out beyond the hole's event horizon (boundary) and compress clouds of dust and gas into new suns (a

supermassive black hole's magnetic field is so strong that it can focus particles into jets ejected far out into space so, provided the star is a safe

distance from the black hole, it should be able to stop the hole's gravity from shredding a star and making its gases spiral inwards). To condense the

paragraphs on zero separation into a few words, the 2 objects which appear

distant from each other could be a sunspot and a black hole. On the subject of sunspots and the sun, the famous 17th-century scientist Sir Isaac

Newton once said the entire universe would instantly feel the loss of the sun's gravity if our star disappeared suddenly - I think modern science

doubts this but zero separation forces me to agree with him. And on the subject of black holes, a massive star truly can collapse and explode as a

supernova while a gravitational singularity (the place all matter falling into the black hole gathers) would be produced from the collapsing core. What if that singularity is disintegrated by the fantastic pressure? It would become "BITS of space-time" (this book's proposed building blocks of all matter and spacetime that are the BInary digiTS - strings of ones and zeros - from which space and time emerge). In this way, nature would protect us from black holes (as Einstein believed it would) and eliminate their assumed and perplexing properties of infinite density, infinite gravity and infinite spacetime curvature.

This also means information is not lost in a black hole and would be another way to resolve the "black hole information paradox" in which scientists Leonard Susskind, John Preskill and Gerard 't Hooft were convinced information is not lost while Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne maintained that it is. The battle was resolved by the 't Hooft/Susskind holographic principle (this principle, along with Juan Maldacena's related AdS/CFT correspondence, says it might be possible for all the information in a black hole to also be encoded on the hole's surface area), as well as by Hawking's change of mind and announcement in 2005 that quantum perturbations could cause information to escape from a black hole and the idea of the multiverse in which it's possible that information entering a black hole is passed from this universe to a parallel universe. My section about time travel - and later parts of "E=m ^ 1+0 is E=mc2 for the 21st century" - explain why I don't like the concept of a multiverse with parallel universes, and that I speak of a megauniverse with subuniverses.

Hawking radiation is Stephen Hawking's 1974 prediction that of pairs of particles produced in space near a black hole, one member of a pair is absorbed by the black hole while the other is radiated. The theory predicts that black holes slowly evaporate into photons and other particles, and it may be explained by the final pages in this book. Gravitons (the predicted, though undiscovered, bosons or force-carrying particles that transmit gravitational force) and negative, refracted gravitational waves from deep space - actually, gravity is unified with space (it is space) since Einstein tells us that gravity is the warping of space - are diverted to the interior of a black hole by its mass. The more mass, the more gravity is diverted - so stellar black holes (black holes are believed to exist on all mass scales but stellar ones result from the collapse of stars which may be 10, 20 or more times as massive as the Sun; and which collapse because they run out of fuel at the end of their lives) would have such powerful gravity that photons (the particles transmitting light and other forms of electromagnetism) are trapped by it. So the black hole cannot be seen and produces a dark "hole" in space.

When gravity is diverted to the centre of each photon, the light particle is so tiny and light that it recoils using Isaac Newton's 3rd Law of Motion (to every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction). The negative, refracted gravitational waves are repulsive in nature and are pushing photons into the black hole's centre (again, see the final pages of this book). Their recoil means the black hole is illuminated within its event horizon or boundary, and is a "white hole". Naturally, the amount of recoil experienced by particles varies since they aren't all exposed equally to the push of gravitons - some photons (or antiphotons, their antimatter counterpart which is identical) are absorbed into the black hole while other photons (and antiphotons) are emitted, joining gravitons - the other particles - and producing Hawking radiation. The 3rd Law of Motion can be described as electrical attraction or repulsion which are the same things as mathematical positive and negative quantities being produced by a Cosmic Computer and either reinforcing or cancelling one another i.e. producing the constructive and destructive interference of waves.

Every photon and graviton has both positive and negative qualities (in other words, is composed of strings and anti-strings). As an example - when a graviton strikes a photon, the negativity in the graviton can either interact with the photon's negative anti-strings and repel it into or away from the black hole or the graviton's negativeness can interact with a photon's positive strings and attract it (either racing past the hole and continuing in space together, or diving into the hole together). If they attract and go into the hole, the negative anti-strings of the new GP boson (graviton-photon composite) may contact the positive strings of a GP particle that entered the other side of the black hole. No doubt many GPs continue experiencing the resulting electrical repulsion with other particles until they reach, or even travel beyond, the event horizon. Being a photon joined to a graviton and travelling out from the black hole's centre to its boundary, not only would the brightness of a white hole be produced but so would anti-gravity. So-called "dark energy" is referred to as antigravity - what better place to find dark (black) energy than in a black (dark) hole?

Particle spin, F=ma and black holes revise gravity, unify gravitation with electromagnetism and matter, and eliminate the two nuclear forces

Say goodbye to the Higgs boson, a theoretical particle supposed to explain how other particles acquire mass. Gravity, together with electricity and magnetism (electromagnetism), is the origin of mass (we're incorrectly accustomed to thinking the reverse - that mass, e.g. of a planet, produces gravity). Gravitation electromagnetism are also the producer of the strong and weak forces of the subatomic world. The strong force binds protons and neutrons to form the atomic nucleus, and also holds quarks together to form protons and neutrons and mesons. It is viewed here as gravitons (the force-carrying particles responsible for gravity) being diverted to the centre of a subatomic particle where they meet gravitons coming from different directions and form a standing wave. This creates the envelope of a wave packet (the wave packet is interpreted as a probability wave in quantum mechanics, describing the probability that a particle will have a given position and momentum) which, like laser cooling where a laser slows atoms, absorbs and captures photons - and the nonstop flow of gravitons and photons renews or refreshes the proton or neutron like computers refresh the images and writing on their screens. The strong force is 10^38 times the strength of gravity because it's the product of the electromagnetic force (10^36 times gravity's strength) and 10^2 gravitons per electromagnetic photon*. This process doesn't occur on incredibly larger planetary scales because the range of the strong force is only 10^ -15 of a metre: possibly due to gravitons being able, on the huge scale of a planet, to produce large gravitational waves which are capable of cancelling each other.

* To keep things simple, let's assume the graviton and photon have the same strength. This may be fantastically unrealistic, but it won't interfere with the truth of the message being conveyed here - and we'll find this simplicity useful soon since it triggers the idea of gravitons and photons transforming into each other. Absurd? We'll see ...

The weak force is responsible for the radioactive decay of subatomic particles and initiating hydrogen fusion in stars. This interpretation of it relies on the hypothesis of antigravity in black holes**, and comparing the emission of antigravity to the type of radioactive decay called beta decay (in which a beta particle - an electron or its antimatter counterpart, the positron - is emitted). The weak force is 10^25 times gravity's strength because it's the product of the electromagnetic force combined with 100 billion anti-gravitons of antigravity. That is, it's 10^36 times the strength of gravity divided by 10^11 anti-gravitons. (Again ... to keep things simple, let's assume the graviton, or anti-graviton, and photon have the same strength.)

** A massive star truly can collapse and explode as a supernova while a gravitational singularity (the place all matter falling into the black hole gathers) would be produced from the collapsing core. What if that singularity is disintegrated by the fantastic pressure? It would become "BITS of space-time" (proposed building blocks of all matter and spacetime that are the BInary digiTS - strings of ones and zeros - from which space and time emerge). In this way, nature would protect us from black holes (as Einstein believed it would) and eliminate their assumed and perplexing properties of infinite density, infinite gravity and infinite spacetime curvature. This also means information is not lost in a black hole and would be another way to resolve the "black hole information paradox" in which scientists Leonard Susskind, John Preskill and Gerard 't Hooft were convinced information is not lost while Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne maintained that it is. The battle was resolved by the 't Hooft/Susskind holographic principle (this principle, along with Juan Maldacena's related AdS/CFT correspondence (anti de Sitter/conformal field theory correspondence) says it might be possible for all the information in a black hole to also be encoded on the hole's surface area), as well as by Hawking's change of mind and announcement in 2005 that quantum perturbations could cause information to escape from a black hole and the idea of the multiverse in which it's possible that information entering a black hole is passed from this universe to a parallel universe. Every photon and graviton has both positive and negative qualities (in other words, is composed of strings and anti-strings). As an example - when a graviton strikes a photon, the negativity in the graviton can either interact with the photon's negative anti-strings and repel it into or away from the black hole or the graviton's negativeness can interact with a photon's positive strings and attract it (either racing past the hole and continuing in space together, or diving into the hole together). If they attract and go into the hole, the negative anti-strings of the new GP boson (graviton-photon composite) may contact the positive strings of a GP particle that entered the other side of the black hole. No doubt many GPs continue experiencing the resulting electrical repulsion with other particles until they reach, or even travel beyond, the event horizon. Being a photon joined to a graviton and travelling out from the black hole's centre to its boundary or beyond, not only would the brightness of a "white hole" be produced internally but so would anti-gravity, while Hawking radiation (Stephen Hawking's 1974 prediction that black holes slowly evaporate into photons and other particles) is produced externally.

A GP boson is also another explanation of the electroweak force (unification of electromagnetism and the weak force - for which Abdus Salam, Sheldon Glashow and Steven Weinberg were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1979). And it's a possible means by which photons could travel from the core of the sun. This is an estimated 10,000 to 170,000 year journey which they begin as gamma rays and, after much absorption and re-emission, radiate from the solar surface as lower-energy infrared (heat) rays, visible light waves and ultraviolet rays. They might travel in tandem with a graviton - giving credence to Einstein's belief that gravitation and electromagnetism are related (gravitons and photons joining in wave packets to create matter supports his belief, too). Gravitons and photons traveling in tandem from the sun's core is a partial concession to the popular idea of gravity emerging from within bodies. The heat from radioactive elements inside a planet or moon might also cause infrared photons to team up with gravitons and radiate outward. But this is just a minor, secondary cause of gravity - the principal source is the push exerted by gravitational waves deep in space and making the universe expand. This push can also explain planetary orbits around the sun as well as the moon's effect on tides, however. ^

^ Here's a way to visualise gravity causing cosmic expansion while, at the same time, pushing together planets in a star system (combined with this push, their orbiting speeds stabilise the system and produce the solar system we know). Imagine the universe to be an ocean and each star system to be an island. As ocean waves approach an island, part of the wave feels friction with the increasingly shallow sea-bed resulting in wave refraction or bending. This causes part of the wave to travel in the direction of the shore while part continues on parallel to the shoreline. In the same way, as gravitational waves approach a star system, part of the current in the cosmic ocean feels friction with the increasing mass experienced as planets orbit closer to their star. This causes gravitational refraction or bending in which part of the gravity travels in the direction of the star (this is called the negative component and pushes planets together) while the other part continues on (this is called gravitation's positive component and produces universal expansion when it eventually leaves the relevant group of galaxies). As the refracted gravitational wave heading for the sun passes a planet, part of it is once again diverted by the increased mass (the more mass, the more gravity is diverted; though the International Space Station weighs around 400 tons, it has tiny mass compared to any planet and produces so-called weightlessness while black holes - ranging from about 3 solar masses for the smallest stellar variety to billions of solar masses for supermassive black holes in galaxy centres - have so much mass and diverted gravity that light pushed into them may be unable to escape). This time gravity is diverted towards the centre of the planet, giving the impression that objects on that planet are being attracted to the planetary centre. Space would be nothing if it was merely the distances between matter in the universe but can be something, and curved, if it's a product of binary digits generated in the same place as the Big Bang. Carl Sagan (who was an American astronomer, astrophysicist, cosmologist and author) said there is no centre to the universe where the Big Bang could have taken place and initiated expansion. Therefore, the Big Bang (and 1's and 0's) would exist outside space and time in what we might call 5th dimensional hyperspace.

What is the role of gluons (the strong force's carriers) and the W, W- and Z^0 particles (the weak force's carriers)? All four particles have been discovered - but what do they do if the strong and weak nuclear forces don't exist? They could simply be products of graviton-photon interaction: the strong nuclear force could be gravity "added to" electromagnetism while the weak nuclear force could be gravity "subtracted from" electromagnetism (identical to antigravity and electromagnetism being added). We can say all particles are the product of gravitational/standing/probability waves or, to put it another way, their properties - such as mass, charge and spin - are determined by different combinations of the flow of binary digits (1's and 0's) around a loop. Heterotic string theory agrees that the properties of particles result from clockwise, anticlockwise and standing (the combination of these two) waves or currents in a closed loop. I'm suggesting the flow/current consists of binary digits because the nonstop flow of gravitons and photons renews or refreshes particles like computers refresh the images and writing on their screens. Look at the illustration below of a loop (in this case, a Mobius strip). The bottom of it looks like part of a circle while the top has a twist. This particular orientation can be referred to here as "spin 1" - it only looks the same if it's turned round a complete revolution of 360 degrees. A photon has spin 1 and when it interacts with a graviton (which has spin 2 and looks the same if turned round 180 degrees or half a revolution), the particles' orientations can either be the same with both having the twisted part of the Mobius on top, or dissimilar with one having the twist on top while the other has the twist on the bottom.

Mobius loop

If oriented the same way, they undergo constructive interference and reinforce to produce a massive W, W- or Z^0 that must be turned 360 degrees to look identical i.e. it has spin 1. Slight imperfections in the way the Mobius loops fit together determine the precise nature of the binary-digit currents and therefore of exact mass or charge. If oriented dissimilarly, they undergo destructive interference and partly cancel (there's little or no twist now - both top and bottom of the new Mobius resemble parts of a circle) to create a massless, chargeless gluon that is identical if turned 360 degrees and similarly possesses spin 1. Quarks combine into protons, mesons and neutrons but are never found in isolation and cannot be observed directly. Should gravitons on Earth always be combined with photons, they'd likewise be incapable of unambiguous detection. Photons may be detectable on Earth because of similarities between this and the neutrino theory of light. The neutrino theory of light was proposed in 1932 by Louis de Broglie and suggests the photon is a composite particle composed of a neutrino-antineutrino pair. It's based on the idea that emission of a photon corresponds to creation of a particle-antiparticle pair and absorption of the photon to the pair's annihilation. Neutrinos are subatomic particles sometimes called "ghost particles" since they hardly ever interact with matter. My "graviton theory of light" proposes that photons are absorbed when captured in wave packets by gravitons and emitted when graviton-photon pairs come into existence (in black holes; resulting from heat generated by radioactivity in planets; in the sun's core).

** Why is Earth's orbit the shape of a flattened circle - an ellipse?

As gravitational waves travel from the outer solar system towards the sun (as a starting point, let's say they're coming from the lower right in this picture), they'd push the orbiting Earth (at aphelion, its farthest distance from the sun - 152 million km) to the upper left. But gravity waves are also coming towards the sun from that direction. So Earth's progress to the upper left is stopped and it follows the line of least resistance to waves pushing it from both the lower right and upper left - this corresponds to the path indicated by the arrow pointing left. When it reaches perihelion (its closest approach to the sun - 147 million km), the waves from lower right are pushing it back while waves from the upper left are pushing it forward. Our planet follows the boundary between waves assaulting it from opposite directions and follows the arrow pointing right. Upon reaching aphelion again, the push from opposing directions continues and Earth's momentum causes it to go left. We mustn't forget the waves that are coming from the outer solar system perpendicular to the waves already mentioned. They push Earth towards and away from the sun at both its perihelion and aphelion points. The balance between these forces reinforces, using the explanation of lower-right and upper-left waves, the planet's tendency to stay in the illustrated orbit. The sun's position in the illustration is exaggerated - it should be closer to the centre of the ellipse since the difference between perihelion and aphelion is only about 3%. The existence of this difference might rely on the planet manifesting to us as a multitude of matter-forming wave-packet envelopes which divert some gravity waves to the interior - thus slightly upsetting the balance of gravity waves from opposing directions at Earth's particular location relative to the sun.

Gravity waves don't cancel out until they reach the middle of a planet, so all the particles between that middle and the highest atmosphere (or surface, in the case of airless planets) would be a product of gravitational/standing/probability waves and would be continuously refreshed by those gravity waves. This refreshing must also include photons (particles of light). Space is predominantly positive - think of gravity waves, which are nothing more than the warping of space, with their relatively small refracted and negative portion causing "attractive" gravity within galaxies plus their relatively enormous unrefracted and repelling portion causing cosmic "antigravity" between galaxy clusters, and universal expansion. It's like matter which is also predominantly positive (think of particles of matter versus particles of antimatter). We can add this to the process of gravity waves refreshing photons to see that there's an extremely deep unity in nature, and to further conclude that we live in a cosmic-quantum unification. A unification implies that we can say gravitons and photons transform into each other.

This isn't unprecedented since neutrinos, having mass, can change (oscillate) between the type produced by nuclear fusion in the sun's core and two types that weren't caught by detectors on Earth after radiation from the sun (this meant only a third to a half of the sun's predicted neutrino output was detected prior to 2002 when the new understanding of neutrino physics was introduced). The particles called neutral B mesons can also spontaneously oscillate between their matter and antimatter states since they have mass. Particle types are fixed if the particles are massless, so gravitons and photons shouldn't oscillate from one to the other. So photons must have mass. It couldn't be otherwise because Einstein proposed, and experiments confirm, that photons have momentum (the quantity of motion of a moving body). And momentum is defined in physics as the product of the mass and velocity of an object (p=mv). More needs to be stated, though - at speeds that are a significant percent of the velocity of light, the approximation that momentum is a product of rest mass and velocity is not accurate. At the high speeds dealt with by Special Relativity, determining momentum must consider the mass and change in velocity (acceleration).

Artist's depiction of Cosmos 1 project testing a solar sail whose blades are made of mylar, with proposed spacecraft (white dot) in centre. The 2005 launch didn't succeed, thanks to a rocket failure preventing it from reaching orbit.

We must turn to Newton's 2nd Law of Motion which tells us what happens when a force is applied to a moving body - the 2nd Law states Force equals mass times acceleration (F=ma). Let's use the example of solar sails, a form of spacecraft propulsion that uses the pressure of light from a star or laser to reflect off enormous ultra-thin "sails", and push them to speeds of 100,000 miles per hour in just under 3 years - absorbing surfaces only produce half the acceleration, and the solar wind (streams of electrons and protons from the Sun) increase the spacecraft's velocity much less than the photons. It wouldn't be unnatural to interpret F=ma as the FORCE exerted on the sail by the light depending on the MASS of the sail and causing ACCELERATION of the sail. American professor of physics Walter Lewin said, in a video I saw on Wikipedia (the free Internet encyclopedia), "The 2nd Law is perhaps the most important law in all of physics" and "Can the 2nd Law be proven? No." So I feel justified in slightly altering the words interpreting it to "the force exerted on the sail depends on the mass of the photons multiplied by their acceleration" - experiments say the mass of a single photon is less than 10^ -18 eV (a 100 watt lightbulb burning for 1 hour equals 2.2 x 10^24 eV) yet acceleration is tremendous since photons in the sun's dense core are lucky to travel a millimeter in a second but they travel through the vacuum of space at nearly 300,000 kilometres per second. A photon with mass means the so-called speed of light, c (for celeritas, a Latin word translated as "swiftness" or "speed"), wouldn't actually be the speed at which light moves but would be a constant of nature that is the maximum velocity any object could theoretically attain in space-time (gravitational waves, being space-time, would still travel at c). Massless gravitons could transform on those occasions when they're in physical union with photons (forming what I've referred to as GP bosons) - they could perform computer-like refreshment of photons by becoming them in a "quantum leap" that employs the 1's and 0's creating all energy and matter, which is another way of describing what was previously referred to as "Slight imperfections in the way the Mobius loops fit together determin(ing) the precise nature of the binary-digit currents and therefore of exact mass or charge".

Gravity waves don't cancel out until they reach the middle of a planet, so all the particles between that middle and the highest atmosphere (or surface, in the case of airless planets) would be a product of gravitational/standing/probability waves and would be continuously refreshed by those gravity waves. Being the product of binary digits, it'd seem possible for these waves to, in the distant future, be programmed to undo the damage caused by (or even to prevent) earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, nuclear accidents, shark and lion attacks, disease and death, the time (in about 5 billion years) when the sun becomes a red giant that might swallow earth or at least boil away its water and blast most of its atmosphere into space, etc.

Followup to the sentence above - "the more mass, the more gravity is diverted"

Similarly, there is more mass when ocean currents meet land (islands or continents) than when they exist in bodies of water (lakes or oceans). At the beach, we can see large waves but in Lake Superior, tides are only about 2 inches and are completely masked by changes due to wind and atmospheric pressure. Why do tides follow the moon in its orbit around Earth? It isn't because the moon pulls on the earth but can be explained this way - When the moon is at first or third quarter, gravitational waves heading towards the sun from the outer solar system push against the earth and keep the ocean's water level from rising too high (illustrated by the neap or lower tides). On the other side of the planet, a neap tide is experienced because of gravity waves from the opposite side of the solar system which were not diverted into the sun. They traveled past it and are able to push against Earth if they're diverted by the planetary mass. When at the full position, some of those gravity waves from the solar system's edge are diverted by the moon's mass into the lunar interior, and this decrease in gravity's push against the earth permits a spring (high) tide. The Bay of Fundy, on southeast Canada's Atlantic coast, has the highest tides in the world (reaching about 50 feet or 15 metres) but this is due to the unique shape of the bay, strong winds, low atmospheric pressure ... not any pull by the sun and moon. At new moon, some gravity waves approaching Earth's satellite from the opposite side of the solar system would likewise allow a spring tide if they're diverted into the moon. This pushing from the edge of the solar system would cause the Pioneer spacecraft to be closer to Earth than predicted (they're about 7 billion miles away but still within the solar system). Being responsible for Earth's orbit and the planet's momentum, gravity's push could also cause the moon's distance from the earth, or the astronomical unit (Earth's distance from the sun) to increase since there would be no "pull" on the moon by the earth, or on the earth by the sun. Experiments have shown that the Moon is moving away from Earth at a rate of 38 mm (1.5 inches) per year, and that the astronomical unit is growing by an estimated 5 to 7 cm (2 to 2.8 inches) per year.

If Galileo was with us today, he'd agree that logic is capable of revealing things experiment and observation cannot. "Dialogue on the Principal Systems of the World" video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbxH0xHA_T8

"SPECULATING ON SELECTED SENTENCES FROM STEPHEN HAWKING'S BOOKS IN THE LIGHT OF POSSIBLE UNIFICATION"

Abstract -

Professor Hawking's sentences appear first, in bold and underlined italics, together with their page number and the book they're from - either "a Brief History of Time" (published by Bantam Press, 1988) or the book he co-authored with Leonard Mlodinow, "The Grand Design" (Bantam Press, 2010). These sentences are then followed by my speculations.

"If a complete unified theory was discovered, it would only be a matter of time before it was digested and simplified ... and taught in schools, at least in outline. We should then all be able to have some understanding of the laws that govern the universe and are responsible for our existence."

("A Brief History of Time" - page 168)

My "... understanding of the laws that govern the universe and are responsible for our existence" hypothesizes that gravity is actually a repulsive force capable of producing both attraction and "dark energy", and that matter (along with the nuclear forces) is formed by gravity's interaction with electromagnetism in wave packets -- so gravitational energy would be unified with electromagnetism as well as matter and quantum probability waves (and, since Einstein said gravity is the warping of space, with space and time: space-time). The universe could therefore be more than a vast collection of the countless photons, electrons and other quantum particles within it; it could be a unified whole that has particles and waves built into something ... plausibly, its union of digital 1's and 0's; enabling reality to function like a computer-generated touchable hologram and to be both analog and digital in nature. My article also attempts to specify exactly how gravitons interact with photons.

Keywords - cosmology, quantum physics, gravity, electromagnetism, unification

"... we now have a candidate for the ultimate theory of everything, if indeed one exists, called M-theory." ("The Grand Design", page 8)

M-theory is very complicated, though it certainly possesses a powerful mathematical structure. Is it possible that the ultimate theory of everything is not complex M-theory but can be simplified and described with base-2 mathematics i.e. the binary digits of 1 and 0? To paraphrase John Dobson's book "The Moon Is New", suppose a star we are viewing is at a distance of 100 light years (this can be represented as +100). Since we see nothing as it presently is but as it was when the light left it, we are seeing the star as it was 100 years ago (represented as the opposite of space i.e. as -100). The space-time distance between us and the star is therefore 100 + (-100) i.e. 100-100 i.e. 0 and there is actually zero separation between us and the star's gravity, heat etc. Leaving "The Moon Is New", zero separation and unification are actually possible if we live in a universe that has an electronic foundation. The cosmos would then be comparable to a computer screen. The screen could be divided in two, with one half showing a view that matches zero separation and physics' dream of a universe unified on cosmic and quantum (subatomic) scales ie there would be no separation between us and the star. The other half of the screen would show the picture which our observations and measurements confirm ie we and our planet orbit a star called the sun.

Page 118 of "The Grand Design" says "M-theory (that theory which string theorists now consider fundamental) has solutions that allow for many different internal spaces (the curling up of extra dimensions into tiny, invisible spaces), perhaps as many as 10^500, which means it allows for 10^500 different universes, each with its own laws."

Suppose there is only one universe with one set of physical laws (a megacosmos that might have an infinite number of local universes, each of which begins with its own Big Bang). 10^500 would therefore not refer to space and the number of universes but to time (Einstein showed that space and time can never exist independently of each other) and the number of "frames" existing in the cosmos. We can visualise the binary digits as generating information on how things change from one presently undetectably tiny fraction of a second to the next (we call this time, and it's comparable to the frames in a movie). On page 27 of Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot" (Headline Book Publishing, 1995), it is written "There is, in fact, no center to the expansion, no point of origin of the Big Bang, at least not in ordinary three-dimensional space." This truth surely means Big Bangs (or, for the purpose of this article, the generation of binary digits) must occur in a 5th-dimensional hyperspace (time is usually interpreted to be the 4th dimension). Let's go back to space and time never existing independently of each other. This must mean 10^500 not only describes time and the number of frames in the universe but must also refer to space after all (though not in the sense of 10^500 parallel universes existing). The article "Universe" by Charles Anthony Federer, Jr. in World Book Encyclopedia, 1967 says "Einstein's theory of relativity implies that the superuniverse (what I called megacosmos in the previous paragraph) has a definite size." The superuniverse may therefore not actually be infinite but may e.g. have a radius, diameter, circumference or volume of 10^500 kilometres, miles, light years, parsecs or the cubes of these measurements. If the universe is so enormously large, space would seem perfectly flat - just as an acre on the surface of large, roughly spherical Earth is flatter than an acre on a spherical asteroid only 10 miles in diameter. The WMAP space probe (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, launched in 2001) has confirmed that space is flat. We are presently unable to detect the closed, positive curvature of space associated with the number 10^500 and can describe the flat universe that can be detected with the Mobius loop, which is one of the two-dimensional spaces described by Euclidean mathematics which is assumed to describe a flat universe. Since separation is zero, the universe must be unified with each of its constituent subatomic particles and those particles must be similarly roughly spherical, composed of space-time-hyperspace, and must also follow the rules of fractal geometry to be made of Mobius loops (see later parts of this article). The Mobius strip is capable of describing the overall nature of the universe because assembling, in correct fashion, enough pieces of flat universe which it sketches results in a spherical cosmos.

As p. 118 of the "Grand Design" states, "To get an idea how many that is, think about this: If some being could analyse (each instant of time in the whole universe) in just one millisecond and had started working on it at the big bang (13.7 billion years ago), at present that being would have studied just 10^20 of them."

What's outside the superuniverse? I don't think there's anything at all: it would be a true nothingness, or N-space. Just a vacancy for space-time-hyperspace to expand into as binary digits generate and replicate. For all practical purposes, 10^500 would equal infinity and the strange thing is - infinity will keep increasing during the eons as bits (BInary digiTS) do their thing. This is somewhat like the subset of all integers (1, 2, 3, etc.) extending to infinity yet that infinity being smaller than the infinite subset of all decimals.

"And who created him?" (the universe's/unified theory's potential creator) - "A Brief History of Time" - page 174

I'm a fan of the TV series "The Story of Science" (presented by Michael Mosley) and was impressed by the reference in the episode entitled "What is the Secret of Life?" to theoretical physics and biology working together. In 2011, we could combine physics' dream of unifying everything (forces & matter, the whole universe & all time) with today's emerging synthetic biology to create a new understanding of evolution. Evolution would become the modifier, not the originator, of species. To describe origins, I combine this modifier with future science's cosmic-quantum unification and deal with topics like God, synthetic biology and time travel.

Where did we come from? Evolution? God? Or revolution (religious evolution)? On p. 3 it was stated that zero separation and unification are actually possible if we live in a universe that has an electronic foundation. "Physics of the Impossible" by scientist Michio Kaku says -"... the inverse-square law (of famous English scientist Isaac Newton) says that the force between two particles is infinite if the distance of separation goes to zero". Space-time's being a unification whose separation can be reduced to zero also suggests the existence of an infinitely powerful, and infinitely intelligent (since those particles could be brain particles), God. But this also means He/She must form a unification* with humans and be Co-Creator with them. So the answer to "where did we come from" is not exclusively evolution or God but a synthesis I call Revolution.

* (Our brains and minds are part of this unification too, which suggests the possibility that extrasensory perception and telekinetic independence from technology might be possible, despite modern science's objections which appear to be based on non-unification.)

If humanity is Co-Creator of himself/herself, how can we achieve this destiny without 1) synthetic biology, and 2) time travel? Synthetic biology - things such as engineering many genes to work together, artificial DNA, creation of totally new amino acids and proteins and artificial life, and cloning animals - is presently revolutionising our labs. My brief explanation of the coexistence of all times, and of the related topic of time travel (time travel is fantasy to many biologists, but serious stuff to physicists) - It might be helpful to visualise time as the playing of a CD or video tape. The entire disc or tape obviously exists all the time. But our physical senses can only perceive a tiny part of the sound and the sights at any fraction of a second - and we're puzzled by all space and time existing at once. I believe space and time are infinite, so it might be more accurate to visualise time as that HUGE number (10^500) - in this case, of CDs or tapes - which string theory's M-theory proposes (how can travel into both the future and past not be possible if ALL time always exists?) CDs themselves could be said to correspond to our spatial and temporal environment along with our bodies and brains. The laser which reads the data on the disc (encoded in a spiral track as a series of tiny indentations called pits) would, in this analogy, correspond to consciousness. The brain's location on the track at any specified instant would be part of the same section illuminated by the laser light of consciousness (this suggests consciousness is permanently linked to, or produced by, the brain - and if retrocausality or backward causality is incorporated, that the brain is produced by consciousness [via synthetic biology]). In a cosmic-quantum unification where all parts of a disc, and all discs, form a unity; it must be possible for consciousness to read data from anywhere on a disc and to shift its interest from one of the 10^500 discs to any other (suggesting consciousness is not limited to sensory perception). I doubt either past or future can be changed since 1's and 0's in a unity would continuously feed back on all other binary digits, keeping our pasts and our destinies unalterable to any significant extent (like a digital thermostat regulating a hot water system and keeping the temperature fairly constant).

Page 180 of "The Grand Design" says "Because gravity is attractive, gravitational energy is negative."

I'd regard gravity as repulsive instead of attractive. Repelling gravity would cause the universe to expand - as astronomer Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) confirmed in 1929 - and adding repelling gravity by continual "creation" (actually, recycling) of matter via the small amount from a preceding universe which is used to initiate expansion of its successor would cause it to expand at an accelerated rate. Page 361 of "Coming of Age in the Milky Way" by Timothy Ferris (The Bodley Head, 1988) tells us the cosmologist Alan Guth once suggested - "You might even be able to start a new universe using energy equivalent to just a few pounds of matter. Provided you could find some way to compress it to a density of about 10^75 (10 exponent 75) grams per cubic centimeter, and provided you could trigger the thing ..." This accelerating expansion of the universe was discovered in 1998 by observations carried out by the High-z Supernova Search Team and the Supernova Cosmology Project, has been confirmed several times and is claimed to be caused by mysterious "dark energy". Space is expanding at an accelerating rate - and since Einstein showed us that space and time cannot exist independently of each other, time must also be moving faster and faster.

Here's a way to visualise gravity causing cosmic expansion while, at the same time, pushing together planets in a star system (combined with this push, their orbiting speeds stabilise the system and produce the solar system we know). Imagine the universe to be an ocean and each star system to be an island. As ocean waves approach an island, part of the wave feels friction with the increasingly shallow sea-bed resulting in wave refraction or bending. This causes part of the wave to travel in the direction of the shore while part continues on parallel to the shoreline. In the same way, as gravitational waves approach a star system, part of the current in the cosmic ocean feels friction with the increasing mass experienced as planets orbit closer to their star. This causes gravitational refraction or bending in which part of the gravity travels in the direction of the star (this is called the negative component and pushes planets together) while the other part continues on (this is called gravitation's positive component and produces universal expansion when it eventually leaves the relevant group of galaxies). As the refracted gravitational wave heading for the sun passes a planet, part of it is once again diverted by the increased mass (the more mass, the more gravity is diverted* - though the International Space Station weighs around 400 tons, it has tiny mass compared to any planet and produces so-called weightlessness while black holes - ranging from about 3 solar masses for the smallest stellar variety to billions of solar masses for supermassive black holes in galaxy centres - have so much mass and diverted gravity that light pushed into them may be unable to escape). This time gravity is diverted towards the centre of the planet, giving the impression that objects on that planet are being attracted to the planetary centre. Space would be nothing if it was merely the distances between matter in the universe but can be something, and curved, if it's a product of binary digits from a 5th-dimensional hyperspace. Being curved space, the portion of gravitation that's called dark energy (the portion responsible for universal expansion) would have an amplitude - displacement of a wave equal to half the distance from the top of the wave to the bottom - corresponding to the moving layers of the atmosphere which make the stars seem to twinkle.

* Similarly, there is more mass when ocean currents meet land (islands or continents) than when they exist in bodies of water (lakes or oceans) i.e. land has a greater density than an equivalent volume of water. At the beach, we can see large waves but in Lake Superior, tides are only about 2 inches and are completely masked by changes due to wind and atmospheric pressure (an earthquake underneath the lake would produce large waves). Why do tides follow the moon in its orbit around Earth? It isn't because the moon pulls on the earth but can be explained this way - When the moon is at first or third quarter, gravitational waves heading towards the sun from the outer solar system push against the earth and keep the ocean's water level from rising too high (illustrated by neap or lower tides). On the other side of the planet, a neap tide is experienced because of gravity waves from the opposite side of the solar system which were not diverted into the sun. They traveled past it and are able to push against Earth if they're diverted by the planetary mass. When at the full position, some of those gravity waves from the solar system's edge are diverted by the moon's mass into the lunar interior, and this decrease in gravity's push against the earth permits a spring (high) tide. The Bay of Fundy, on southeast Canada's Atlantic coast, has the highest tides in the world (reaching about 50 feet or 15 metres) but this is due to the unique shape of the bay, strong winds, low atmospheric pressure ... not any pull by the sun and moon. At new moon, some gravity waves approaching Earth's satellite from the opposite side of the solar system would likewise allow a spring tide if they're diverted into the moon. This pushing from the edge of the solar system would cause the Pioneer spacecraft to be closer to Earth than predicted (they're about 7 billion miles away but still within the solar system). Being responsible for Earth's orbit and the planet's momentum, gravity's push could also cause the moon's distance from the earth, or the astronomical unit (Earth's distance from the sun) to increase since there would be no "pull" on the moon by the earth, or on the earth by the sun. Experiments have shown that the Moon is moving away from Earth at a rate of 38 mm (1.5 inches) per year, and that the astronomical unit is growing by an estimated 5 to 7 cm (2 to 2.8 inches) per year.

"The Grand Design" informs us on page 125, "It is important to realize that the expansion of space does not affect the size of material objects such as galaxies, stars, apples, atoms or other objects held together by some sort of force." Pages 125-126 further state - "This is important because we can detect expansion only if our measuring instruments have fixed sizes. If everything were free to expand, then we, our yardsticks, our laboratories, and so on would all expand proportionately and we would not notice any difference."

Matter (along with the nuclear forces) may, as suggested at the beginning of this article, be formed by gravity's interaction with electromagnetism in wave packets (a wave packet is a short "burst" or "envelope" of wave action that travels as a unit, and is interpreted by quantum mechanics as a probability wave describing the probability that a particle will have a given position and momentum). Einstein said gravity is the warping of space - therefore, space itself would be a crucial ingredient in the formation of matter (as would time). If time is passing more rapidly, the hands of watches and clocks would move more rapidly. This increasingly rapid movement should be, if not noticeable to human perception, at least detectable by sophisticated scientific instruments.

The key word on page 126 of "The Grand Design" is "proportionately" since our watches and clocks must be expanding if space (gravity) is a crucial ingredient in the formation of matter. However, the expansion would not be detectable if electromagnetism is the other vital ingredient. How does adding electromagnetism reduce matter's expansion? Electromagnetism is 10^36 times as strong as gravitation. If it's converted to anti-electromagnetism (antiphotons), gravity (10^0 or 1) + anti-electromagnetism (10^-36) = reduction of expansion by 10^36. This means the expansion of, say, a timepiece would be a trillion trillion trillion times less than the expansion of an equal volume of space between two clusters of galaxies (in an equal period). This is many, many billions of times beyond the capabilities of today's best measuring instruments and, for all practical purposes, the timepiece is fixed in size. How do the force-carrying particles called photons become antiphotons?

(In the case of the force-carrying particles, the antiparticles are the same as the particles themselves.) - p. 68 of "A Brief History of Time" (the following was also inspired by the illustrations and descriptions of particle spin on pp. 66-67 of that book)

An antiphoton would be formed by the fitting together of a force-carrying, spin-2 antigraviton with a spin-1 photon (force-carrying particles called gravitons - predicted to exist but not yet detected - which are diverted towards the sun or into matter are said to be negative, unlike the vast bulk of intergalactic gravity which is positive). And negative gravitons are antigravitons (in 1928 English physicist Paul Dirac proposed that all negative energy states are already occupied by [then hypothetical] antiparticles). Look at the illustration below of a loop (in this case, a Mobius strip). The bottom of it looks like part of a circle while the top has a twist. This particular orientation can be referred to here as "spin 1" - it only looks the same if it's turned round a complete revolution of 360 degrees, like the Ace of Spades card pictured in "A Brief History of Time" (science is mystified by quantum spin which has mathematical similarities to familiar spin but it does not mean that particles actually rotate like little tops). A photon has spin 1 and when it interacts with a graviton or antigraviton (which has spin 2 and looks the same if turned round 180 degrees or half a revolution, like the double-headed Queen of Spades in "A Brief History of Time"), the particles' orientations are the same. (A spin 2 particle would have a twist at the top, like a spin 1, either if it's rotated 180 degrees or if it's not rotated at all).

If oriented the same way, the waves undergo constructive interference and reinforce to produce a massive W+, W- or Z^0 that must be turned 360 degrees to look identical i.e. it has spin 1. Slight imperfections in the way the Mobius loops fit together determine the precise nature of the binary-digit currents and therefore of exact mass or charge. If oriented dissimilarly, they undergo destructive interference and partly cancel (there's little or no twist now - both top and bottom of the new Mobius resemble parts of a circle) to create a massless, chargeless gluon that is identical if turned 360 degrees and similarly possesses spin 1. Quarks combine into protons, mesons and neutrons but are never found in isolation and cannot be observed directly. Should gravitons on Earth always be combined with photons, they'd likewise be incapable of unambiguous detection. (In this explanation, the strong and weak nuclear forces have no existence independently of gravitation and electromagnetism. They could simply be products of graviton-photon interaction: the strong nuclear force - which is 10^38 times gravity's strength - could be gravity "added to" electromagnetism while the weak nuclear force - 10^25 times gravity's strength - could be gravity "subtracted from" electromagnetism (identical to the antigravitons of antigravity being added to electromagnetism). The 2nd example assumes combining with 100 billion antigravitons while the 1st assumes the presence of 100 gravitons per electromagnetic photon, and I believe these "assumptions" are justifiable by photon-graviton oscillation or transmutation ... but there's no room for that discussion here).

"Black Holes Ain't So Black" (heading for Chapter 7, "A Brief History of Time")

A massive star truly can collapse and explode as a supernova while a gravitational singularity (the place all matter falling into the black hole gathers) would be produced from the collapsing core. What if that singularity is disintegrated by the fantastic pressure? It would become "BITS of space-time" (proposed building blocks of all matter and spacetime that are the BInary digiTS - strings of ones and zeros - from which space and time emerge). In this way, nature would protect us from black holes (as Einstein believed it would) and eliminate their assumed and perplexing properties of infinite density, infinite gravity and infinite spacetime curvature. This also means information is not lost in a black hole and would be another way to resolve the "black hole information paradox" in which scientists Leonard Susskind, John Preskill and Gerard 't Hooft were convinced information is not lost while Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne maintained that it is. The battle was resolved by the

't Hooft/Susskind holographic principle (this principle, along with Juan Maldacena's related AdS/CFT correspondence [anti de Sitter/conformal field theory correspondence] says it might be possible for all the information in a black hole to also be encoded on the hole's surface area), as well as by Hawking's change of mind and announcement in 2005 that quantum perturbations could cause information to escape from a black hole, and the idea of the multiverse in which it's possible that information entering a black hole is passed from this universe to a parallel universe. Every photon and graviton has both positive and negative qualities (in other words, is composed of strings and anti-strings). As an example - when a graviton strikes a photon, the negativity in the graviton can either interact with the photon's negative anti-strings and repel it into or away from the black hole or the graviton's negativeness can interact with a photon's positive strings and attract it (either racing past the hole and continuing in space together, or diving into the hole together). If they attract and go into the hole, the negative anti-strings of the new GP boson (graviton-photon composite) may contact the positive strings of a GP particle that entered the other side of the black hole. No doubt many GPs continue experiencing the resulting electrical repulsion with other particles until they reach (a few could even travel beyond) the event horizon. Being a photon joined to a graviton and travelling out from the black hole's centre to its boundary or beyond, not only would the brightness of a "white hole" be produced internally but so would anti-gravity, while Hawking radiation (Stephen Hawking's 1974 prediction that black holes slowly evaporate into photons and other particles) is produced externally.

Additional References

(other sources which gave rise to the ideas in this article) -

"DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY CONTENT?" By A. Einstein - 1905, in "Annalen der Physik"

"Paradoxes" by Zeno of Elea, Greek philosopher, lived 490?-430 B.C."

A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy Of Godel And Einstein" by Palle Yourgrau - Basic Books, 2004

Miguel Alcubierre's May 1994 paper "The Warp Drive: Hyper-fast travel within general relativity" (which appeared in the science journal Classical and Quantum Gravity)

"Never mind the Higgs boson" by http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/09/10/2361062.htm - 2009

"Mystery of the Ages" by Herbert W. Armstrong - Worldwide Church of God, 1985

"Raymond Kurzweil" - Wikipedia, 2009

"A History of Western Philosophy" by Bertrand Russell - Simon and Schuster, 1945

"Second Life" - virtual world developed by Linden Lab that launched on June 23, 2003

"The Physics of Immortality" by Frank Tipler - Doubleday, 1994

"The Physics of Christianity" by Frank Tipler - Doubleday, 2007

"Did the Universe Just Happen?" by Robert Wright - The Atlantic Monthly, April 1988

"The Bible" - King James Version -1956 edition

"Vedanta and Tantrism Philosophies of Hinduism (the religion originating in 1st millennium India)"

"Star Trek" - 5 series/11 movies - CBS/Paramount TV -1966 to ?

http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Design-StephenHawking/dp/0553805371/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1294896491&sr=1-1

"The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, Bantam Press 2010, page 102

"Mind Children: The Future of Robot and Human Intelligence" by Hans Moravec, Harvard University Press 1990

"The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology" by Ray Kurzweil, Viking Adult, 2005

"Cosmos" by Carl Sagan: - published by Macdonald & Co. 1981, Futura 1983

"A Brief History of Time: From The Big Bang To Black Holes" by Stephen Hawking, Bantam Press 1988, pp. 67, 187

"The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, Bantam Press 2010, page 126

cosmologists Paul J. Steinhardt and Neil Turok -"The Day Before Genesis" (Discover magazine, April 2008), p. 56

"Raymond Kurzweil" Wikipedia contributors. Raymond

Kurzweil. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. April 25, 2010, 18:43 UTC.

Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raymond_Kurzweil&oldid=358250213.

Accessed January 13, 2011

Gerardus 't Hooft and Leonard Susskind (and Charles Thorn) Wikipedia contributors. Holographic principle. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. January 8, 2011, 15:49 UTC. Available at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holographic_principle&oldid=406691997. Accessed January 13, 2011

Regarding the holographic principle, read about Craig Hogan (Affiliate Professor, Department of Physics, University of Washington, USA) and the GEO600 gravitational-wave detector in "New Evidence of a Holographic Universe?" at http://www.khouse.org/articles/2009/839/

(excerpted from New Scientist, January 15, 2009)

The cosmology of John Dobson, put forth in his 2008 book "The Moon Is New - Time Comes In With A Minus Sign" (Berbeo Publishing).