I find this to be really amazing, it is a way of looking at the universe that i have never seen before. This way of thinking shows us how things must be, before we actually "discover" those things.
This compound posting contains the former postings, which can act as a table of contents:
1) The Rule Of Common Atoms
2) Why Are There As Many Common Atoms As There Are?
3) The Number Of Planets In A Solar System And Common Atoms
4) Classification Of Galaxies And Common Atoms
5) Visible Colors And Measurables And Common Atoms
6) Common Atoms And The Classification Of Living Things
7) Cosmology And The Forms Of Galaxies
8) Cosmology And The Nature Of Electron Orbitals
9) Sun Dogs And The Structure Of Electron Orbitals
10) Electric Charges, The Inverse Square Law, And Directions In Space
11) Cosmology And The Law Of Equal And Opposite Reactions
12) Information From Particles In Matter
13) The Virtual Universe
14) Everything Is Really The Same Thing
15) Why All Gravitational Spheres In The Universe Must Be Different
16) Patterns And Their Repitition In The Universe
17) The Realm Of The Infinitesimal
18) Negative And Positive Information In The Universe
19) The Information Involved In The Acceleration Of The Expansion Of The Universe
20) The Great Mystery Of Cloud Altitudes
21) Spiral And Anti-Spiral Patterns In The Universe
22) The Information In The Rock Cycle And The Water Cycle.
23) The Information In Radioactivity.
24) The Information In Molecules.
25) The Mysterious Hexagon Of Saturn
26) The Information In States Of Matter
27) The Information In Carbon Atoms
28) Nuclear Processes And Moons
29) Link With Cosmology Theory
30) Electric Charges And Life
31) Iron And The Planetary Orbits
32) Water Percentage And Cloud Cover
33) The Rule Of Eight
34) Electrons And Elevations On Earth
35) The Great Red Spot Of Jupiter
1) THE RULE OF COMMON ATOMS
The similarity between two important scientific classifications, the Periodic Table of the Elements and the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram of star classifications has long been known. I would like to explain my version of the relationship between the two and also add several others; the Hubble Sequence of galaxy form classification, why we see as many fundamental colors as we do and, why all living things fall into the classifications that they do.
I consider that one of the keys to understanding how the universe operates is to consider the amount of information within it. A large-scale structure must reflect the nature of it's building blocks. The reason for this is that there is only a certain amount of information available in the universe. The example that I often reference is that of orbits. Electrons are in orbitals around the nuclei of atoms. We also find orbits in the astronomical bodies that are made up of these atoms, even though this is on a far different scale.
The reason for orbits on both scales, that of electrons in atoms and of planets and moons around stars, is that there is no additional information from which to construct the astronomical objects, other than that within the atoms from which they are formed. It is for this reason that the patterns must be repeated, both in the spherical shapes of both atoms and astronomical bodies and also the orbits at both scales.
Another simple example is houses made of bricks. The easiest shape in which to build a brick house, with the least additional information required, is the same shape as the bricks themselves. The same concept exists in the human world. In the posting on the patterns and complexity blog, www.markmeekpatterns.blogspot.com , "Familiar Patterns And Underlying Connections" how we tend to reuse the same patterns over and over as human civilization progresses.
Atoms are formed as structures of the fundamental electric charges, with an overall net charge which ordinarily balances out to zero. Atoms are thus at a step above the fundamental electric charges, as it is composed of these charges, and in a similar way stars are a step above atoms in that they are structures composed of atoms.
Just as it is the information contained within the rules of fundamental electric charges, and so atoms are a reflection of the nature of the charges at a higher scale, so stars must be a reflection of atoms, but at a higher scale, because stars are structures composed of these atoms and the only information available from which to construct a large-scale structure is that enclosed within it's building blocks.
The operation of a star, crunching smaller atoms together into larger ones by heat and pressure so that the leftover energy in the smaller atoms is released as energy, is necessarily based on the properties of atoms. The only conclusion is that stars must reflect the nature of atoms.
The resemblance between the Periodic Table of the Elements and the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram of star sequence classifications is very clear. In fact, we could say that the two diagrams are essentially mirror images of one another. The star classification plots luminosity against temperature, while the Periodic Table plots the number of outer electrons, which determine chemical behavior, against atomic number, or number of protons in the nucleus.
In fact, it is the classification of atoms that makes the classification of stars possible because stars are made of atoms and there is no information available with which to construct stars other than that within atoms.
Just look at all of the similarities between the natures of atoms and the natures of stars. This is what we should expect because stars must be constructed from the information in the atoms of which they are composed, there is no other information available.
In the Periodic Table of the Elements, atoms are arranged in a sequence according to atomic number which describes their chemical properties in relation to atomic number. In the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram, the main sequence of stars are divided into seven classifications which mirrors the Periodic Table: O,B,A,F.G.K.M. Main Sequence stars refers to those that are in the process of fusing hydrogen into helium, and comprise about 90% of all stars.
It is true that there are many more elements in the Periodic Table, over a hundred, than there are Main Sequence star classifications. But as you can see in the article on www.wikipedia.org , "Abundance of the Chemical Elements", only about seven or so elements are at all common. In comparison with the total amount of matter in the universe, all but a few elements are exceedingly rare.
Just as there are a relatively few red giant stars, outside the Main Sequence classification, so it is the explosions of large stars in a supernova which is the only way that the large atoms of heavy elements can be created. Ordinary nuclear fusion, the crunching of small atoms into larger ones by the tremendous heat and pressure in the centers of stars, only produces atoms up to the mass of iron. The vast majority of classifications of atoms in the Periodic Table are heavier than this are formed only during the brief period when a large star is actually in the process of exploding.
The reason for this is that the formation of these heavier atoms requires an additional input of energy to be transformed into the nuclear binding energy which is necessary to overcome the mutual repulsion of the positively-charged protons in the nucleus. Ordinary fusion of light atoms into heavier ones in stars is known as the S-process, for slow. The formation of heavier atoms due to the additional input of energy of the supernova explosion is known as the R-process, for rapid.
Many of the atoms of heavier elements that are formed by the R-process are less than stable. These atoms may throw off electrons, parts of the nucleus or, energy as electromagnetic radiation in an effort to gain more stability. This is known as radioactivity. There are three types of radioactivity, Alpha, Beta and, Gamma. An Alpha particle is two protons and two neutrons, a portion of the nucleus. Beta particles are electrons. Gamma rays are very short wavelength electromagnetic waves.
This mirrors the explosion of the supernova which created the heavy atoms. A large star reaches a stage in the fusion process where it loses stability, and throws off part of itself to regain stability, or explodes from the center. The instability of the star is first transferred to the heavy atoms that it creates through the R-process, and then gradually discarded from the heavy atoms by radioactivity.
Another way in which the form of stars resembles that of atoms involves my cosmological theory. A negatively-charged electron is drawn toward a positively-charged proton by opposite charge attraction. But it does not go all the way to the proton, instead it stops at a certain distance away and goes into orbit around the proton.
My explanation of the reason for this is that space is composed of a multi-dimensional checkerboard of alternating negative and positive electric charges. The proton pulls the negative charges of space toward itself, while pushing the positive charges away. The electron does the opposite, pulling the positive charges in space toward itself, while pushing the negative charges away. But this upsets the balance of charges in space, where opposite charges are kept close together and like charges are kept away from each other.
Eventually, an equilibrium is reached where the opposite-charge attraction between the proton and the electron is balanced by the like-charge repulsion between the displaced charges of space. It is at that point where the electron goes into orbit around the proton. In exactly the same way, a star is the result of an equilibrium between the inward force of gravity and the outward pressure of the energy released by the nuclear fusion in the center of the star.
Just as there are variable stars, which vary periodically in brightness, so there are variations in atoms of a given element, known as isotopes. Atoms of any given element all have the same number of protons in the nucleus, but do not always have the same number of neutrons. Atoms with the same number of protons, but different numbers of neutrons, are referred to as isotopes.
Our sun is an exception in that it is a single star. Many stars that we can see are in double, or even multiple, star systems. The stars are in a mutual orbit. In the same way, atoms tend to group together to form molecules.
Not all stars fall into the so-called Main Sequence on the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram, about 10% of stars are still classified on the diagram but are outside the line of the Main Sequence. In the same way, there are two series of heavier elements on the Periodic Table which fall outside the usual classification of the periodicity of the arrangement of outer electrons in relation to atomic number, which is the number of protons in the nucleus.
There are small, leftover shells from stars that have finished their normal lifespan, such as white dwarfs and neutron stars (which are not technically stars). In a similar way there is a process of natural nuclear fission, which is a splitting of atoms into smaller ones. This is accomplished by the impact on atoms of cosmic rays, which are actually particles of matter and not radiation. It is believed that rare small atoms, such as lithium and beryllium, are formed in this way.
But stars are different from one another. Even stars of the same classification are not exactly alike. These differences involve information, and that information must have come from somewhere, and the only place that it could have come from is the Big Bang which began the universe as we know it.
These innate differences between stars can actually be traced to the elements produced by the Big Bang, Most of the matter formed atoms of hydrogen, which is still by far the most abundant element in the universe even though stars operate by fusing lighter elements into heavier ones. The Wikipedia article "Big Bang Nucleosynthesis" refers to this as primordial nucleosynthesis, and it also produced significant quantities of a heavier isotope of hydrogen, deuterium which has a neutron in the nucleus as well as the one proton, two isotopes of helium, the next heaviest element, one isotope with one neutron as well as the two protons and another isotope with two neutrons (referred to as helium 3 and helium 4), and some of the next heaviest element, lithium.
The heavier an atom is, the greater the input of energy that it took to create it. In my complexity theory, energy is another way of looking at the complexity, or information, within something. These heavier atoms contain more information than the lighter isotope of hydrogen, which was produced in far greater quantities during the Big Bang. As matter later coalesced by gravity to form stars, this additional information contained in the heavier atoms which were dispersed throughout the matter from the Big Bang was the foundation for the variety of the stars today, even among those of the same classification. There must be more information to create this variation in the stars that we see, even among those at the same stage in the fusion process, and there is nowhere else that this additional required information could have come from.
If all stars were originally composed of the same kind of hydrogen atoms, there would be no reason for differences between stars that were in the same stage of the fusion process, which progressively fuses lighter atoms into heavier ones. This is because there would not be enough information available to create differences between the stars.
2) WHY ARE THERE AS MANY COMMON ATOMS AS THERE ARE?
There are six or seven common atoms, but why are there this many and not more or fewer?
Information is involved in the putting together of any structure that is made of matter. A few of the most obvious examples of how information flows through the universe is moons in orbit around planets and planets in orbit around stars in the same way that the electrons in the atoms of which these planets and moons and stars are composed are in orbit around the nucleus. Another example is how the sphere is the default form of matter that is brought together by gravity, such as planets and stars, because the atoms of which they are composed are spherical. A third example is Newton's Law of Equal and Opposite Reactions, which I see as a reflection of the nature of the electric charges of which everything in the universe is composed, the negative and positive charges are equal but opposite.
There are around a hundred or so different kinds of atoms. 92 of these occur naturally, the heaviest of which is uranium. The rest can be made artificially, by fusing lighter atoms together. The best-known artificial element, which does not occur naturally, is plutonium.
But only about six or seven of these elements are at all common, the rest are rare. The six or seven common elements, depending on the definition of "common", are themselves the basis for information flow to higher levels, as we see in the first four chapters of this theory.
But the question that we soon come to is: Why are there six or seven common atoms and the rest are rare? This is a higher information state than the number of all atoms being equal, and so this information must come from somewhere.
The answer is actually simple. It goes back to the beginning of the universe.
Within minutes of the Big Bang, which began the universe as we know it, atoms formed. The vast majority of atoms were hydrogen, about a quarter were the usual isotope of helium, and the rest were much more scarce. Here is a list of the atoms which formed within minutes of the Big Bang. (Source-Wikipedia)
The lightest isotope of hydrogen, having a nucleus of just one proton. This most common isotope of hydrogen, and by far the most common atom in the universe, is sometimes referred to as "protium".
Helium 4, which is the most common form of helium with two protons and two neutrons in the nucleus, hence the number 4.
Deuterium, or hydrogen-2, which has a neutron as well as the one proton in the nucleus.
Helium 3, which has only one neutron in the nucleus instead of the usual two.
Lithium, the next heaviest element after helium with three protons in the nucleus.
Tritium, which is an unstable hydrogen isotope with two neutrons and one proton.
Beryllium 7, which is an unstable isotope of beryllium with 4 protons and only 3 neutrons.
Here is a list of the common atoms in the universe today. The elements after this are much more scarce. Remember that this is for the universe as a whole, not specifically for the earth.
Hydrogen
Helium
Oxygen
Carbon
Neon
Iron
Nitrogen
What do you notice here? There are seven atoms in each list. Even with the stellar fusion process of continuously crunching lighter atoms into heavier ones, the basic information of seven atoms must be maintained because there is no information from anywhere else.
3) THE NUMBER OF PLANETS IN A SOLAR SYSTEM AND COMMON ATOMS
How many planets, which are gravitational spheres based on solid matter that was thrown outward by a supernova explosion, can there be in a solar system?
Matter is thrown outward into space when a large star reaches the end of the fusion process and explodes in a supernova. Some of the matter falls back together by gravity to form a second-generation star. We know that the sun is such a second-generation star because it contains heavy elements, revealed by spectroscopy, that are beyond it's present stage in the fusion process. Much of the rest of the matter eventually falls back together by gravity to form planets which orbit the second-generation star.
But how many planets are possible in such an arrangement? That is where my concept of the flow of information through the universe, from the lowest to the highest levels, comes in. Planets in their own orbits are information, the more planets the more information. For more planets to form, matter must be thrown outward in such a way that it falls back together in a number of groupings, which are the planets, but not all together as one, which is the second-generation star.
Remember that my definition of the complexity of a number is the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a fraction or ratio. The number of gravitational units that the matter from the supernova divides into, each of which forms a planet, represents the denominator. Our Solar System is 1 / 8 because eight gravitational units formed, other than the one which fell back together to form the sun.
This does not count matter that was blasted outward with such force that it continued back into space, and more than it counts the matter which fell back together to form the second-generation star, which in our Solar System is the sun. It counts only the zone of outward force between these two ends. It is about the gravitational divisions that the matter between the two extremes falls into.
The information of the supernova explosion which precedes a solar system, like all information, must be manifested. The explosion has only a limited amount of information in it and that information must have come from somewhere. The information in the matter being thrown outward by the supernova explosion must be greater than the information in the expelled matter that falls back together to form the second-generation star. How much greater is what determines the number of planets in the new solar system that forms.
If information leaves the exploding star to form a solar system, the second-generation star must contain less information than the previous one. We know that the heavier atoms tend to be thrown further away by the explosion so that lighter atoms are closer together and are drawn back together by gravity to form the new star.
But all of this information had to come from somewhere. There is one clear source of information, that is based on the different elements of atoms. My concept of common atoms explains the typical number of planets in a solar system. There are roughly the same number of planets as there are common atoms. Each planet represents one of the common atoms. A large star fuses small atoms into heavier ones, then it explodes and throws the heavy elements out into space, and then starts over. There are a few common atoms, and these provide the information for the number of planets.
Notice that, late in the life of a massive star before it explodes as a supernova, there are "shells" within the star which represent the common atoms that have formed in the star, throughout it's life, by fusion of smaller atoms together. The following illustration has seven shells, but there is actually a little bit more info than seven because each shell, with the heaviest iron at the center, has atoms other than that of the main element in the shell. Another things that adds information, and is why there are more then seven planets in our Solar System, is that silicon is one of the shells that form (rock is basically a compound of silicon and oxygen) but nitrogen is not. Nitrogen is actually one of the seven most common atoms in the universe. This helps to explain why we have 8, rather than 7, planets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_oxygen#/media/File:Evolved_star_fusion_shells.svg
The information of this number of shells within the star is what will be the basis of the formation of the planets. There are not planets made of only one element, all of the elements are likely present in all of the planets which form, but this is where the numerical information comes from to determine the number of planets that will form when the star explodes as a supernova.
Planets involves molecular structures also, and this adds information. This is why there are six or seven common atoms, depending on one's definition, but eight planets. Actually, there are nine gravitational planets of solid matter because Ceres, the largest of the asteroids, has enough mass to form a gravitational sphere. There are vastly more lighter atoms in the star when it falls back together, to form a second-generation star with a solar system, but there are 92 natural elements altogether which formed in the previous star, before it exploded in a supernova, and these are represented by the comets and all of the other debris in the Solar System.
If there is too little matter at a given distance from the site of the supernova, it will not fall back together to form a planet. If there is too much matter, it will all fall back together into the second-generation star. There is a "precision zone" between the two in which planets will form. This precision zone is information.
If there is more information, it will widen the precision zone so that more planets will form. But there cannot be twenty planets in a solar system because the star exploding in a supernova does not contain enough information. It is represented, once again, by the denominator of a fraction. 1 / 8 means more information than 1 / 2, and means that eight planets will form instead of two.
This is yet another example of how information flows through the universe, from the lowest to the highest levels.
4) CLASSIFICATION OF GALAXIES AND COMMON ATOMS
Now let's move up to a larger scale, that of galaxies.
Atoms collect together, by their mutual gravitation, into stars, which then collect into galaxies. But, all the while, there is no new information with which to build on, so that the same information must be reused and the same patterns repeat themselves. There would seem to be a vast amount of potential complexity in the ways in which stars might arrange themselves in space to form galaxies, except that there is no information other than that which was already there.
Look at the article on www.wikipedia.org , "Hubble Sequence". This is the system of classification of forms of galaxies used by Edwin Hubble, for whom the Hubble Space Telescope is named. These galactic forms do not change from one to another, but are generally permanent in nature. There is the classification of small galaxies, and then two branches for spiral galaxies-the S branch for conventional spirals and the SB branch for barred spirals.
What do you notice? There are roughly the same number of basic classifications of the forms of galaxies as there are types of stars and as there are types of common atoms. Once again, there are over a hundred chemical elements in the periodic table but the vast majority, created by crunching together smaller atoms only during the actual explosion of a supernova when additional energy is available, are exceedingly rare.
You may also notice that the arms of spiral galaxies resemble the orbitals of electrons around atoms in form. Just as there are two series of the heaviest atoms in the periodic table, the rare earth elements, so there is two separate series of the largest galaxies, the spirals, in the classification of galactic forms- these are barred and unbarred spiral galaxies. Just as there are other elements, aside from the relative few that are very common, and other types of stars which do not fit into the main sequence, so there are galaxies which are irregular in form and which do not fit neatly into the Hubble Classification.
But this great similarity between the numbers of the basic common types of atoms, of stars, and of galaxies, are what we should expect if there is only a limited amount of information in the universe that was provided by the Big Bang, and which must be reused at all different levels because there is no other source of information.
We can discover a lot about the universe by such tracing of information. There is only a certain amount of information to go around in the universe, and both smaller and larger scale structures must be formed from this same information, that was introduced into the universe by the Big Bang. This is why a large-scale structure must reflect the nature of it's building blocks, and yet another example of this is the close relationship between the classifications of atoms and those of stars, and then those of galaxies.
Now, let's move on to a very different yet closely related topic.
5) VISIBLE COLORS AND MEASURABLES AND COMMON ATOMS
Here is one of those questions of the ages that does not seem to have a clear answer: Why do we see in as many basic colors as we do?
In order to answer this question, we must remember that color does not really exist in the universe of inanimate reality. Our eyes and brains receive certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation and interpret them as red, or blue, or green. The colors do not actually exist otherwise.
But this does not answer why we see as many colors as we do. It seems to me that there are six fundamental colors: red, orange, yellow, green, blue and, violet. In the acronym given to the colors of white light when broken down into the component colors by a glass prism, the fictional character Roy G. Biv for red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet, it is true that there are seven colors. The apparent space in the rendered colors between blue and violet is referred to as indigo. But I have never heard anyone refer to a color as indigo.
We can discern literally millions of colors, but all can be broken down into these basic few. Rarely do we see "pure" colors. Most of what we see are shades and pastels. White is an equal mix of all colors. Black is the complete absence of color. Gray is a mixture of black and white. Shade is adding black to a color to darken it. Tint is adding white to a color to lighten it.
Do you remember the acronym from biology class, CHNOPS? This is the chemical symbols of the six most important atoms in the structures of our bodies and brains. The acronym represents carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and, sulfur. There are actually about 25 different elements which are very important to living things, but the rest of these are trace elements. It is only the six represented by the acronym which are very common in biological molecules.
Do you notice that, if we relate this back the how the number of common atoms in the universe determines the large-scale structure of the universe, by acting as bits of information, the number of common atoms in biological structures is exactly the same as the number of fundamental colors that we see? The set of common atoms in biological structures is not exactly the same as the common atoms in the universe as a whole, but the principle is the same.
In the universe, the only information available from which to construct large-scale structures is in the atoms of which they are composed. There are only seven or so common atoms and we see this reflected, on the large scale, in the classifications of stars and then in the classifications of galaxies. This is because these seven or so common atoms act as seven bits of information. The only information available to build the universe is in atoms, but there are seven different common atoms.
We can compare it to a builder building a house out of brick, but the only information that he has is in the dimensions of the bricks. He knows no other numbers or units of measurement other than the dimensions of the bricks. The only possible outcome is a house in the same shape as a brick.
Exactly the same principle must apply in biological structures. No matter what biological structures interpret the electromagnetic radiation that we see as colors, the only fundamental information available is in the basic component atoms, just as in the universe as a whole. Amino acids, composed of these few basic atoms, assemble to make a wide variety of proteins and, in doing so, act as bits of information in our reception and perception of color.
This makes even more sense because the sensors of electromagnetic waves would have to be fairly close to the scale of atoms. Regardless of the explanation of why we see in color, it must come down to the information in the basic component atoms just as in the universe as a whole. We can break this down further to the three very most important atoms of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen (Remember that a molecule of water is H2O, two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen). This is why we see three of what we call primary colors: red, blue and, yellow, which are used in televisions and computer monitors to combine into all visible colors.
This indicates that, if our vision was either worse or better, we would still see the same number of basic colors as long as our composition in terms of atoms remained the same. If all 25 atoms that are important to the structures of living things were found in roughly equal numbers, logic tells us that we would then see 25 basic colors because each different atom would act as a bit of information. Notice that the same principle applies to other senses, such as taste and smell. Like color, both come down to several basics. There are five basic tastes and either four or ten different smells, depending on definition.
(Note-One thing that we do not give much thought to is that there are two "forbidden colors", which are within the visible spectrum but which we cannot see due to the way we perceive color. This is not my idea, it has been known for more than thirty years. We use the same set of receptors to see both red and green, but in different ways. This means that we cannot see both red and green from the same point at the same time. If we try to mix red and green, we see a color that looks like mud. but that is only because our eyes are incapable of seeing red-green. The other "forbidden color" is blue-yellow, for the same reason).
THE MEASURABLES
There are 92 elements, or different atoms. But most of these are rare. We have seen how the few common atoms act as points of information that affects how the environment operates. There are two separate "Rules Of Common Atoms", one for the universe of inanimate matter and the other for biology.
You may remember the acronym from biology class, "CHNOPS". This stands for carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and, sulfur. These are by far the most common atoms in biological molecules, and they act as information points. Color does not really exist in the universe of inanimate matter, it is just the way our eyes and brains interpret the different wavelengths of visible light.
But have you ever wondered why there are six basic colors, red, orange, yellow, green, blue and, violet? It is because we are composed of six common atoms, and these act as information points. This applies to all living things, and is the reason that living things are classified into six "kingdoms". This does not mean that the rare "trace" elements are not important but the abundance of these six atoms causes them to act as information points.
Today I would like to add something else to "The Rule Of Common Atoms". There are six basic measurable entities and this is because of the six common atoms, CHNOPS, in the same way as colors and biological kingdoms.
According to the Wikipedia article, SI Base Unit, there are seven basic measurables. These are time, measured in seconds, distance, measured in meters, mass, measured in kilograms, temperature, measured in Celsius or Kelvin, electricity, measured in amperes, amount of substance, measured in moles, and luminous intensity, measured in candelas.
But a mole is simply a number of atoms, actually 6.02 x 10 raised to the 23rd power, of atoms or molecules. This many atoms or molecules of an element or substance will have a mass in grams of it's atomic weight or molecular weight. But that means that the mole is related to the unit of mass, gram or kilogram, and thus is not an entirely separate measurable unit. That leaves us with six basic measurable units, the same number as the common atoms represented by the acronym CHNOPS.
All of the other units that we use to measure, such as meters per second, miles per hour, or newton-meters, are combinations of these fundamental units or their English equivalents.
But what my theory of "The Flow Of Information Through The Universe" points to is that, like the colors, we see these six basic measurables in the universe not really because of what it is but because of what we are. We are more complex than our surrounding universe of inanimate matter and, when we measure anything, we are projecting our complexity onto it and it is reflected back at us, specifically the information brought about by the six common atoms.
The universe is actually only negative and positive electric charges but we have our own scale and perspective when we look at the universe, and this adds information.
My cosmology theory, "The Theory Of Stationary Space", which is separate from this theory about "The Flow Of Information Through The Universe", reveals that time is actually something that is within us and not the inanimate universe around us. Distance is simply the number of electric charges in a straight line in space. Electric charge, in amperage, involves the concentration of like charges in matter. Temperature, the energetic movement of atoms and molecules, is a function of time and distance like any other velocity but we perceive it as heat, rather than the kinetic motion that it is, because of our relative scale perspective.
Luminosity is a function of electric charge since space is, according to my cosmology theory, composed of a multi-dimensional checkerboard of alternating negative and positive electric charges. But, once again, we see it as light, and other electromagnetic radiation, due to our scale perspective. The checkerboard of alternating electric charges ordinarily balances out to zero but we see the waves as electromagnetic because they disturb this underlying balance.
This means that length, electric charge and, mass are all really the same thing. We see it in the different forms that we measure only because we are projecting our complexity on the inanimate universe. The length is the number of charges in a straight line through space. Electric charge is the concentration of like charges, held together by energy, in matter. The mass is actually the energy in matter that holds the like charges together against their mutual repulsion, which we express as the well-known Mass-Energy Equivalence. Weight is simply the effect of gravity on mass.
We can thus see that, once again, we see the universe as we do not only because of what it is but also because of what we are. We see these fundamental six measurable entities because we are projecting our own complexity on the less-complex inanimate universe around us. There are six because of the information of the six common atoms, in the same way as the fundamental colors and the "kingdoms" into which living things are classified.
6) COMMON ATOMS AND THE CLASSIFICATIONS OF ALL LIVING THINGS
Biology is very information intensive, and so we would expect that this principle of necessary information flow from lower to higher scales would be strongly reflected. Intricate biological structures with potential variation must rely on some source of information from which to construct those variations. In biological structures, as in the universe as a whole, all major differences between species, as well as individuals, must ultimately be rooted in the number of different atoms. If all biological structures were made out of only one kind of atom, there could be only one species because there would not be any additional information to make it otherwise. There may be any number of atoms that are involved in biological structures but, as in the universe as a whole, it is the information provided by the most common atoms which predominates because they are so much more common.
I find that the span of the basic forms of living things is reflected in the biology class acronym CHNOPS, for the six most important atoms in biological structures, which are: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and, sulfur. The most important numbers in biological structures are actually 6 and 3. This is because, out of the 25 or so atoms which are really important to life, there is a top tier of the CHNOPS six, which is CHO. This stands for carbon, hydrogen and, oxygen.
Have you ever thought that all humans fall into three main races, white, black and, oriental, because of the information in the top CHO tier of biological atoms. Remember that biological structures are based on the vast number of compounds that can be formed by carbon atoms, and water is made of hydrogen and oxygen or H2O.
These two numbers will dominate the numbers of species and sub-species within different forms of life. Variation is provided by the information in the rest of the 25 important atoms, which are trace elements. There are environmental influences on biological development, which involves the different set of common atoms in inanimate matter, but the splitting into species and sub-species requires an inside base of information.
Biological structures are a game of mathematics, namely permutations. There are general similarities between living things, every living thing is nothing like completely different from every other living thing. This is because there are only 6 common atoms, CHNOPS, and three really common atoms, CHO, out of the 25 or so atoms which are important to biological structures. For every living thing to be completely different from every other living thing, no species or sub-species, all atoms that are used in biological structures would have to be equally common. The place that this permutation of atoms shows up is in DNA.
All differences between living things and between members of the same species can only be rooted in the number of different atoms present. These are the "bits' of information which must be used. There are about 25 atoms which are important to biological structures, but these are not enough in number to act as the main bits of information. These trace elements do add to the possible permutations, which we see as the variations.
Take a look at the article "Kingdom (biology)" on www.wikipedia.org . In the subsection of the article "Six Kingdoms", we see that the most recent view is that there are six kingdoms of living things: animals, plants, fungus, chromista, protozoa and, bacteria. What could this division of living things into six kingdoms be but a reflection of this information flow from the six atoms common to life, the CHNOPS?
These six kingdoms can be arranged into three domains, as described in the article,: Bacteria, Archaea and, Eukaryota. What could this division of the six kingdoms into three domains, at the highest level of classification, be but a reflection of the highest tier of common biological atoms, the CHO?
As for the different tiers of organization of living things, the article gives eight major taxonomic ranks from domain down to species. This number is a little bit more than six. But remember that the trace elements out of the 25 or so atoms that are important to living things add to the number of possible permutations and the resulting variation. That is how we end up with the eight major taxonomic ranks of: domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species.
Is this utterly amazing, or what?
A full addressing system will end up with the same number of steps as the basic units of the system, which in this case is 8, for the eight major taxonomic ranks used in biology. This flow from the base of information in biological structures is backed up by a similar flow of information from atoms to large-scale structures in the inanimate universe as a whole. But the 7 or so atoms which are very common in the inanimate universe are not the same set as the CHNOPS of biological structures.
There could have been each form of life in it's own separate category, with none similar to another, or only one category with a near-infinity of sub-categories. Instead, there is almost exactly the same number of fundamental categories, and of steps of progressive sub-categories within those fundamental categories. This information must have come from somewhere.
7) COSMOLOGY AND THE FORMS OF GALAXIES
We cannot really tell how big the universe is, it just keeps going on and on, as far as we can see. I have wondered if how vast the universe actually is might have some more local effect that we can see. My reason for wondering this is that my cosmological theory holds that all of the matter in the universe, although not the space that it inhabits, originated from the same two-dimensional sheet of space that formed by the same kind of opposite-charge induction within the multi-dimensional background space.
The default shape of matter in the universe is the sphere. When there is enough matter in relatively close proximity, that matter is pulled together by mutual gravity to form a sphere such as a star or planet. The reason is simply that a sphere is the geometric form with the lowest energy state. But my observation is that this spherical form of matter only occurs up to a certain point, and this point can be seen in the form of any large galaxy.
Groups of stars, held together by gravity, also tend to form a spherical shape. There are many so-called globular clusters of stars around the outside of our galaxy. Globular clusters, some containing hundreds of thousands of stars, operate as if they were moons around the outsides of many galaxies. Globular clusters are so-called because they take a spherical form due to gravitation, just as do the stars of which they are composed. It seems that this spherical form truly dominates the universe.
But we find that the form of a sphere is only predominant up to a certain point. Globular clusters of stars, and smaller galaxies tend toward the spherical form, but when we move on to larger galaxies that ceases to be the case. Large spiral galaxies, such as our own, have the spherical form in a central bulge, but are like a flat plate outside of that.
I have never seen it explained why this is true. Why would the sphere be the predominant shape of matter in the universe only up to a certain point, and a flat circular form predominate after that?
We can see that the information with which to construct a sphere comes from the atoms within the matter forming the sphere. Atoms, planets, stars, and small galaxies all form spheres because there is only a limited amount of information that was introduced into the universe by the Big Bang, and the same information contained within the atoms of the construction of the sphere is the only information available to construct forms of gravitational masses that are composed of these atoms.
In a similar way, orbits must repeat themselves in that they are seen in the orbitals of electrons within atoms and in the astronomical objects that are composed of these atoms. This is why moons that are composed of atoms orbit planets, and planets orbit stars. There is no other source of information as to how to order things other than that which is contained within the atoms.
We saw in the posting on the cosmology blog, "Electric Charges And Cosmology", how the information to construct the spherical forms of atoms is actually found in the nature of the fundamental electric charges of which the universe is composed. If the primordial matter created in the Big Bang comes back together to form atoms, then that pattern must be repeated as well as atoms come together to form larger-scale structures in the universe.
So we can see where the information to construct the spheres of atoms, of stars that are made of the atoms, of smaller galaxies and the central hubs of larger galaxies, but where does the information to construct the flat form of the rest of the larger galaxy, outside the central hub, come from? And why does the familiar spherical form that matter takes in the universe only occur up to a certain point?
The cosmological theory provides a neat and simple answer to this as yet unanswered question. Let's briefly review the theory, there is a more detailed review in the posting on this blog, "The Universe Made Really Simple".
My cosmological theory has the universe as not-quite-parallel strings of matter aligned mostly in one direction in four-dimensional space, although there could be many more than these four dimensions. The direction in which these strings of matter are primarily aligned is the one that we perceive as time, along which our consciousnesses move at what we perceive as the speed of light. We can only see perpendicular to the bundles of strings of matter comprising our bodies and brains. The original two-dimensional sheet of space, amidst the multi-dimensional background space, disintegrated in one of it's two dimensions as one pair of it's opposite sides came into contact. Due to charge migration, to seek a lower energy state, one side was positive in charge and the other was negative. This brought about the matter-antimatter mutual annihilation that we perceive as the Big Bang. The energy in the disintegrating dimension, from the tension between adjacent opposite electric charges, was released. The remaining dimension then consisted of very long strings of infinitesimal cross-section, that we perceive as the particles of matter today. Some of the energy released by the disintegrating dimension went into "welding" the charges of the remaining dimension together as strings of matter. We perceive these strings as particles because our consciousnesses are moving along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains, at what we perceive as the speed of light, and we can only see at right angles to our strings.
So, the basics of my theory is a two-dimensional sheet of space, which formed amidst the multi-dimensional background space by the same kind of opposite charge induction, disintegrating in one of it's two dimensions as one pair of it's opposite sides came into contact to create the matter-antimatter explosive mutual annihilation that we perceive as the Big Bang, which began the universe, and which scattered the remaining one-dimensional strings of matter out across space to form the universe that we see today. The strings of matter from the original two-dimensional sheet were scattered across four dimensions of the background space.
Let's now have a look back at a geology posting, "The Scale Of Gem Formation", on the geology blog www.markmeekearth.blogspot.com . In this posting, I described my view of why gems which refract light such as diamonds, rubies and, emeralds only occurred up to a certain limited size. It is geological processes which formed these light-refracting gems. The transparency necessary to make the refraction of light possible is the result of atoms in the material being lined up in neat rows, so that light can pass between the atoms. I reasoned that geological processes, driven mainly by the centrifugal force of the rotation of the earth which is related to it's size, can only line up atoms in near-perfect rows so that light can pass between the atoms on a scale that is closer to that of the atoms then it is to that of the earth. In a larger stone, that is closer to the scale of the earth than to it's component atoms, this would not be possible.
This example of light-refracting gem formation is one that we can relate to in the form of galaxies. A sphere is the default gravitational form of matter but there is a certain threshold of matter necessary to form a sphere. We can see this in the Asteroid Belt. Ceres is spherical but the vast majority of asteroids are irregularly shaped. There is the size of the spherization threshold and then there is the size of the original sheet of space which disintegrated in one of it's two dimensions to form strings of matter. There is no new source of information for the galaxy, only that of the spherization ratio and the original flat two-dimensional sheet of space of which all matter ultimately originated. The size of this former sheet is the size of all matter in the universe put together.
Very basically, up to the upper limit of the size scale that is closer to spherization threshold, the spherical form predominates. But beyond that, closer to the scale of all the matter in the universe than to the spherization threshold, the flat form of the outer regions of large galaxies predominates. This is in a similar way to that of the formation of gems which refract light.
Conventional plane-forming dynamics, like that which gives us the orbits of planets in our Solar System in close to the same geometric plane, cannot possibly explain why large galaxies have a roughly spherical bulge in the center, but a flat star pattern or spiral arms outside this. The plane-forming mechanism in our Solar System, by repeated collisions and mutual gravity, would actually be much stronger toward the center, in closer to the sun, because objects in orbit around the sun would orbit much faster there. This is why the most distant objects from the sun in the Solar System, such as Pluto and the comets, have orbital planes that can be very different from that of the planets which are closer to the sun.
Now, let's have a look at another puzzling factor in the forms of galaxies.
About two-third of all spiral galaxies, the large galaxies with the flat spiral form outside of the roughly spherical central hub of the galaxy, are actually of the form known as barred spiral galaxies, with the straight line bar across the center which encompasses the central hub.
Here is an ordinary spiral galaxy, with the flat form of the spiral arms beyond the central hub: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_galaxy#/media/File:M101_hires_STScI-PRC2006-10a.jpg
Here is a barred spiral galaxy, similar in form but with the bar across the center which includes the central hub: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_galaxy#/media/File:HAWK-I_NGC_1300.jpg
In both photos, the individual stars around the outside are relatively nearby stars within our own galaxy.
It makes sense that the forms of galaxies are ultimately determined by the flow of information through the universe from the Big Bang. Astronomical objects, such as stars and planets, are composed of atoms so, since there is no new information from which to construct the astronomical objects on a much larger scale, this same information must be reused. This is why planets and stars, like the atoms of which they are composed, tend to be spherical in form. It is also why the electron orbitals within atoms are replicated in the orbits of moons around planets, and the orbits of planets around stars.
The forms of large galaxies, when it gets to the point where the structure is closer in scale to the entire universe than to the spherization threshold, take the form of the flat two-dimensional sheet of space from which, in my cosmological theory, all matter in the universe originated, rather than the spherical form of the atoms.
But the question still remains as to why about two-thirds of the spiral galaxies are barred spirals, with the straight line across the center. I find that the cosmological theory has the answer to this question also.
In my theory, matter began with a two-dimensional sheet of space which began forming within the multi-dimensional background space. Both blocks of space formed and grew by the same opposite-charge induction, but the two blocks of space were not contiguous with one another. The two dimensional sheet of space, after charge migration had taken place within it by making one side of the sheet positive and the other negative to seek a lower energy state, was folded relative to the multi-dimensional space because the two blocks of space were not contiguous. This caused the negative and positive sides of the two-dimensional sheet to come into contact, but only one pair of opposite sides. This produced the matter-antimatter mutual annihilation which we perceive as the Big Bang, which began the universe as we know it. The two-dimensional sheet of space disintegrated in one of it's two dimensions, throwing one-dimensional strings out across space, which form the matter of the universe that we have today.
But this means that the Big Bang, the beginning of the universe, actually took place along a line. This line was where the two opposite sides the the two-dimensional sheet of space met as they came into contact.
If the two-dimensional sheet of space itself contributed to the information available in the universe so that it is the form of the large spiral galaxies, outside of the central bulge which is closer in scale to the spherical atoms than to the scale of the entire universe, then wouldn't it be logical that the line along which the Big Bang took place, as one pair of the two opposite sides of the sheet came into contact, should contribute to the information flow of the universe also?
The central bar, consisting of thousands of millions of stars, across barred spiral galaxies fits this idea perfectly. The bar of a barred spiral galaxy is the manifestation of the line along which the Big Bang took place, just as the flat form of the spiral arms of spiral galaxies are the manifestations of the information introduced into the universe by the two-dimensional sheet of space itself.
In fact, a barred spiral galaxy looks just like a model of the two opposite edges of the folded two-dimensional sheet meeting along a line, and then disintegrating in one of it's two dimensions in what we perceive as the Big Bang. I find this to be really amazing.
If the flat form of the spiral arms of spiral galaxies, outside of the roughly spherical central hub which is closer in scale to the atoms of which it is composed than to all of the matter in the universe as a whole, is a reflection of the information introduced into the universe by the original two-dimensional sheet of space, and the central bars of barred spiral galaxies are a reflection of the line along which the Big Bang, in my cosmological theory, took place, this still leaves us with the question of why about one-third of spiral galaxies are not barred.
(Note-It has long been known that our galaxy, sometimes referred to as the Milky Way, is a spiral galaxy. We are in one of the spiral arms, about 30,000 light years from the center. If you go out into the countryside, away from the lights of cities, you can see the dense band of stars across the sky which is looking along the plane of the galaxy. It wasn't until the 1990s that our galaxy was determined to actually be a barred spiral, because the central bar is difficult to discern from our location and, of course, it is impossible for us to see our galaxy from outside).
One possible answer is the presence of heavier atoms which are produced by successive nucleo-synthesis within stars, as lighter atoms are continuously crunched together into heavier ones by the heat and pressure in the centers of stars. The excess energy is released by the star as the radiation that we can see.
But this means that each round of nucleo-synthesis is another step removed from the original conditions and information introduced by the Big Bang. This may cause the galaxy to remember the flat form of the two-dimensional sheet, but to "forget" the line along which the Big Bang took place, so as to not incorporate the information introduced by that line into the form of the galaxy as the bar across the center. The Big Bang, along the line, represented one dimension of the sheet disintegrating, but each successive round of nucleo-synthesis represents a reversal of this with matter coming back together to form successively heavier atoms.
This does not necessarily mean that non-barred spiral galaxies contain a higher proportion of heavier atoms, whether the product of nucleo-synthesis in stars or the primordial nucleo-synthesis of light atoms into heavier following the Big Bang. It could depend on the proportion of heavier atoms present when the galaxy was first forming. But it could be that the formation of spiral galaxies at all are dependent on a supply of heavier atoms because all spiral galaxies are actually latecomers to the universe, after a certain amount of nucleo-synthesis had already taken place, and were not present in the early universe. This makes it seem that a certain amount of "coming back together" of matter, which originated with the two-dimensional sheet, was necessary before the information introduced into the universe by it's forms could be manifested in the forms of galaxies as the flat form of spiral galaxies, and the central bar across the majority of them.
This leads on to a related subject. If electron orbitals in atoms must be manifested on larger scales in the universe, because there is no other information available, what about other parts of the structures of atoms?
According to widely-accepted quark theory, hadrons such as protons and neutrons are each composed of three quarks. An up quark has an electric charge of +2/3, and a down quark has a charge of -1/3. Two up quarks and a down quark form a proton, with an overall charge of +1, while two down quarks and one up quarks form a neutron with an overall charge of zero. There are several varieties of quarks, but if all those besides up and down quarks disappeared tomorrow, probably only physicists would notice. Particles such as electrons are known as leptons, and are not composed of quarks, but the two cannot be entirely different in nature because an electron can be crunched together with a proton to form a neutron.
But notice how the formation of nucleons from quarks revolves around thirds. I have long noticed, and wrote early in my cosmological theory, that a proton is 1,836 times the mass of an electron and this is a number that is divisible several times by three. If the orbitals of electrons around the nucleus in an atom is manifested across the universe as the orbits of astronomical objects, then shouldn't this revolving of the structure of nucleons around three quarks also be reflected in the large scale of the universe?
We could say that the structure of protons and neutrons as three quarks is deeper in the nature of the atom than the orbits of it's electrons are. So maybe we would have to look deeper in the universe to find this structure of thirds manifested.
The orbits of astronomical objects came early in the universe, as soon as atoms condensed. This is reflected in how the first thing we see in atoms is the orbitals of electrons around the nucleus. Spiral galaxies, both barred and non-barred, came much later. Could this be reflected in how the structures of protons and neutrons revolving around an arrangement three quarks is reflected in one third of spiral galaxies being non-barred, and two-thirds being barred? Just as a down quark has a charge of -1/3 and an up quark +2/3?
If the orbitals of electrons in atoms are manifested as the orbits of astronomical bodies, because there is no other information available with which to construct the large-scale universe, then doesn't it make sense that the structures of the protons and neutrons which compose the nucleus revolving around three quarks must also contribute it's information to construction of the large-scale universe?
How else is there to explain why one-third of spiral galaxies are of the non-barred form, and two-thirds are barred? The information to bring this about must have come from somewhere.
8) COSMOLOGY AND THE NATURE OF ELECTRON ORBITALS
We saw in the section "Electric Charges Within Atoms And String Theory" in the posting on the cosmology blog “Atoms And String Theory” how the infinitesimal alternating negative and positive electric charges which comprise space explain why a negatively-charged electron will be drawn by mutual opposite-charge attraction to a positively-charged nucleus, but will stop at a certain distance from the nucleus and go into an orbital there, instead of proceeding all the way to the nucleus.
It is because of these electric charges which comprise space. The electron will draw opposite positive charges of space toward it, and push the like-charged negative charges of space away, toward the nucleus. The nucleus of the atom, meanwhile, is doing just the opposite in drawing the opposite negative charges in while pushing the like positive charges away. This means that, while the electron and nucleus are being drawn together by opposite charge attraction, it also means that a charge imbalance is building as more and more like charges in the space between them are being forced closer together. The approach of the electron to the nucleus halts when these two factors, the electrical attraction between the electron and the nucleus and the charge imbalance in the space between them, reaches an equilibrium.
What I would like to discuss today is how these alternating multidimensional electric charges which comprise space explain not only why electrons go into orbitals a certain distance from the nucleus, but also the distinct characteristics of the electron orbitals themselves. We can understand how atoms operate, but to fully understand why that is the way they operate it is necessary to bring in the cosmology of the universe.
The cosmology theory can be reviewed by reading the posting on this blog, “The Universe Made Really Simple”, without reading the cosmology blog in it’s entirety.
It takes energy to create a charge imbalance, such as the electrical attraction between electron and nucleus. In fact, creating a charge imbalance is what energy always does. The space in the universe is composed of a multi-dimensional checkerboard of infinitesimal alternating negative and positive electric charges. The basic rules of these charges are that opposite charges attract, while like charges repel, but energy always ultimately opposes these basic rules.
Any two atoms that react with one another must do it to correct a charge imbalance at some level, even though the atoms are not initially ions. This is simply because these electric charges ultimately dominate everything that happens in the universe. The universe always seeks the lowest energy level, because energy must be conserved, it can never be created or destroyed but only changed in form. But the highest priority of the universe is that electric charges must always balance out, even though the basic rules of these charges are overcome by energy to some extent.
The energy in charge imbalances that bring about reactions between atoms must have come about during the fusion process, in which lighter atoms are fused into heavier ones by the tremendous heat and pressure in the centers of stars. But the kinetic energy to drive the fusion process, as with all energy, must ultimately have come from the Big Bang which began the universe. Space comes into being by mutual electrical induction to correct charge imbalances. There can be no partial charges, but only equal and opposite negative and positive charges. There actually are net partial charges in quarks, but that is from a mix of negative and positive charges.
Remember my doctrine that all large-scale structures in the universe must reflect the nature of their building blocks. Orbits are an obvious example of how large-scale orbits of moons and planets around stars must reflect the building blocks of electrons orbitals around the atoms of which the moons, planets and, stars are composed. What about the waves that convey energy? Waves in water and sound in air follow exactly the same form as electromagnetic waves in space, with peaks and troughs and wavelengths. This is because the wave pattern is the only information available about the conveyance of energy, it is just that electromagnetic waves are disturbances in the fundamental electric charges of which space is composed, and water waves and sound are disturbances in the mass of atoms. Brick houses are another simple example in that the easiest shape to construct a brick house is the same as that of the bricks of which it is composed. I got this idea from brick houses nearby that are almost exactly in the same shape as the component bricks . A sphere is the default shape of matter in the universe because of the information in spherical atoms, it is the only information available.
The Big Bang was the explosion which began the universe as we know it, and the energy of the explosion scattered matter across the universe. But part of the energy of the explosion went into changing the products of the explosion, by overcoming the basic rules of attraction and repulsion of the basic electric charges and fusing a concentration of like electric charges into matter. The product of the explosion of the Big Bang is, of course, the matter of the universe.
This shows again how a structure must reflect the nature of it’s building blocks because in same way, some of the energy released in a supernova goes into fusing atoms heavier than iron and nickel in a way congruent to the Big Bang fusing electric charges into matter. This is the only way that these heavier elements are created from lighter atoms being fused together, and is why iron and nickel and lighter elements are exponentially more common than the heavier elements. Remember always my principle that the large scale structure must reflect the nature of it's building blocks.
If the orbits of planets and moons around stars are a reflection of atomic orbitals in the atoms around the nucleus of which they are composed, doesn’t it make sense that the orbitals in atoms must also be a reflection of their building blocks, which are the primary electrical charges of space? If both space and matter is composed of electric charges, then this must somehow be reflected in the nature of atoms.
There are rules governing electrons in atomic orbitals. Electrons orbit the nucleus within well-defined shells. There are a certain number of electrons in each shell. The chemical behavior of an atom is determined entirely by the arrangement of electrons in the outermost orbital shell of the atom. At most, there are eight electrons in the outermost shell. If more than eight electrons fill into the outer shell, the atom will start a new shell. There is a maximum of 32 electrons in any orbital shell of any atom. The number of electrons in each shell of an atom of a given element is known as the electron configuration.
Electrons orbit the nucleus in pairs, with opposite spin. There are four quantum address numbers that define the orbit of each electron. These quantum numbers are like an address system, no two electrons in orbit around a nucleus can have exactly the same four quantum numbers
In the posting “Chemistry And Cosmology”, on the cosmology blog, we saw how the four spatial dimensions of my cosmology theory offers a neat explanation for the maximum of eight electrons in the outermost orbital. There is no “back pressure” of electrons in higher orbitals, to force in and hold more electrons, in the outermost orbital. This means that there must be another factor bringing about the ironclad rule that there can be a maximum of eight electrons in the outermost orbital shell. Since electrons orbit in pairs, it thus fits perfectly that since space in my cosmological theory has four dimensions that this is what determines that there can be a maximum of eight outermost electrons. This does not mean that there could not be more than four dimensions of space, just that the matter of which our universe is composed is scattered over only four of them.
Atoms can join together to form molecules by way of the outermost electron orbital shell. Just as with the arrangement of electrons in the orbital shells, there are rules of the bonds which form between atoms by way of electrons. If an atom has from one to three electrons in the outermost shell, out of the maximum of eight, it will tend to lose those to the other atom. If an atom has six or seven outer electrons, it will gain more electrons when bonding with another atom. But if the atom has four or five outer electrons, it will tend to share those with the other atom.
The bonds that are thus formed are known as ionic and covalent bonds. When an atom loses one or more electrons to another atom, it leaves the atom that lost the electrons with a net positive charge and the atom that gained the electrons with a net negative charge. Since opposite charges attract, this binds the two atoms together. Since atoms with net charges due to unequal numbers of protons and electrons are known as ions, this is called an ionic bond. The other type of molecular bond between atoms is when atoms share electrons, when the atom has four or five outer electrons, and is known as a covalent bond. Ionic bonds are more brittle, the molecules in living things tend to be based on covalent bonds.
The curious fact, that requires special explanation, is that electron shells like to be either full, empty or, half full. This can be seen in the electron configurations of atoms, in comparison with the maximum number of electrons that each orbital shell could hold. The matter of our universe, being thrown out across four dimensions of space, one of which we perceive as time, neatly explains not only why there is a maximum of eight electrons in the outermost orbital shells of all atoms, but also the so-called “octet rule” of why the molecules formed from atoms combining together form in such a way as to have eight electrons on the outside of the molecule.
It seems to me that this must be a reflection of the fact that there is no such thing as partial electric charges. A larger-scale structure must reflect it’s component building blocks and so the fact that electron orbitals like to be either full, empty or, half full is a reflection of the fundamental charges of space charges not perfectly balancing out, and a seeking after that balance.
There is energy in the molecular bonds between atoms. When we burn fuel or digest food, this energy in the molecular bonds is released. But where does the energy in a molecular bond come from? We know that energy can never be created or destroyed, but only changed in form.
The energy must be the result of the same charge imbalance that brought the atoms together to form the molecule in the first place. Remember the priorities of the universe, the universe “tries” to conserve energy, by seeking the lowest energy state, but it’s most important priority is charge balance. The universe will bring into being all the energy that is necessary to try to achieve charge balance.
Molecules include diatomic atoms, such as the oxygen and nitrogen in the air. We have seen in the posting “New Thinking About Comets And Water”, on the physics and astronomy blog, that the molecules of water were put together from atoms of oxygen and hydrogen by the energy of a nova, in the previous star which exploded to scatter it’s component matter across space to form the sun, a second-generation star, and planets. This shows, again, how everything must show a reflection of it’s component building blocks or origin, because this is among the matter which was fused together from electric charges in space by the energy of the Big Bang, and this follows the same pattern.
My thinking is that the energy in molecular bonds is from the fact that energy always somehow opposes the basic rules of attraction of opposite charges and repulsion of like charges. Molecular bonds form between atoms to relieve a charge imbalance, even though both atoms originally had a net charge of zero and neither atom was an ion.
Given that any large-scale structure must reflect the nature of it’s component “building blocks”, the formation of molecules from atoms even though neither was an ion and, the curious fact that electron shells in atoms “like” to be either full, half-full or, empty is a reflection of the fact that there is no such thing as partial electric charges in space, other than quarks which have never been detected on their own. There is only a negative charge of 1 and a positive charge of 1.
That is why the fabric of space, the alternating negative and positive electric charges in multiple dimensions, originally formed by mutual induction. The one charge to begin with had to induce an opposite charge next to it to relieve the charge imbalance, which then had to induce another of the original charge next to it, and so on in multiple dimensions. There can be no partial charges, other than quarks which in my theory are composed of a mixture of charges, and this is reflected in the larger scale of atoms in that there is pressure on electron orbital shells to be either full, half-full or, empty. This “pressure” to be full, half-full or, empty can only be from electric charges because there is no other force at that scale.
9) SUN DOGS AND THE STRUCTURES OF ELECTRON ORBITALS
If you wonder what on earth sun dogs and the structures of electron orbitals have to do with each other, read on. This is more about how there is only a limited amount of information in the universe, because the Big Bang was a relatively simple event, and this same information must be used to construct every structure of matter in the universe, from atoms on up, simply because there is no other information from which to build.
We can see that the information with which to construct a sphere comes from the atoms within the matter forming the sphere. Atoms, planets, stars, and small galaxies all form spheres because there is only a limited amount of information that was introduced into the universe by the Big Bang, and the same information contained within the atoms of the construction of the sphere is the only information available to construct forms of gravitational masses that are composed of these atoms. We see spheres forming because that is the lowest energy state, but remember that this means it is also the state of least information because energy and information is really the same thing.
In a similar way, orbits must repeat themselves in that they are seen in the orbitals of electrons within atoms and in the astronomical objects that are composed of these atoms. This is why moons that are composed of atoms orbit planets, and planets orbit stars. There is no other source of information as to how to order things other than that which is contained within the atoms. An orbit is a kind of way of storing and manifesting energy, there is energy between the electron and the nucleus and also between the noon and the planet or the planet and the star, but at either scale the orbit takes the same form because that is the only information available. There is no more information available at the scale of astronomical objects than there is at the scale of atoms.
A sun dog is similar in nature to a rainbow. Light in a rainbow enters a water droplet, reflects twice off the inside surfaces of the drop, and then exits the drop back in the original direction from which it came. The reason that rainbows are not seen in ordinary clouds is that the water droplets of which they are composed are not large enough, relative to the wavelengths of light. It is only when larger drops, which may fall as rain, are present that a rainbow can form, hence the name.
The differences between a rainbow and as sun dog are that, first, a rainbow acts as a mirror, in that it reflects light back in the direction from which it came, while a sun dog acts more like a lens in that it refracts light so that it continues in the same direction, but at an angle. Second, while rainbows are formed by water droplets in the air, sun dogs are formed by ice crystals much higher in the atmosphere and are often associated with the sun shining through high cirro-stratus clouds.
Light is refracted twice by the ice crystals involved in a sun dog, once upon entering and once upon leaving. Each of these two times, light passing through the ice crystal is refracted 11.25 degrees. This is why a sun dog always appears at 22.5 degrees from the sun.
But why do ice crystals high in the atmosphere inevitably have the geometric shape necessary to refract light 22.5 degrees?
In my theory of water as being formed of strings of molecules, held together by hydrogen bonding because water molecules are polar in that one side is more positive and the other more negative, as we saw in "Water Made Really Simple" on the meteorology and biology blog, small enough drops or crystals of water are subject to the rules of electrical charges. As we saw in that posting this is, in fact, why snowflakes form. This can explain where the inevitable 22.5 degrees refraction of a sun dog comes from.
Water which freezes into one of the ice crystals must build outward from some condensation nuclei, such as a particle of dust. The strings of water extending outward from the center at the condensation nuclei must have some certain space between then for electrical reasons, like charges repel. This works exactly the same as with the mutually-repulsive negatively-charged electrons within atoms, with strings of water molecules radiating outward like spokes from the condensation nuclei and then other strings filling in the space between them further from the condensation nuclei.
Remember that these ice crystals high in the atmosphere, which form cirrus clouds, are small enough so that electrical forces determine their shape, as we saw in the section of "Water Made Really Simple" "The Electric Snowflake And Icicle Hypothesis". As with the formation of snowflakes, these electrical forces caused by the polarity of water molecules are only a factor at distances close enough for the electrical structure of the entire crystal to have an effect. The difference between these ice crystals and snowflakes is that, in crystals, strings of water molecules are frozen in place as soon as the crystal forms.
Let's now proceed to what seems to be a completely different topic, the structures of atoms. We know that the maximum number of electrons in any shell in any atom is 32. Electrons like to operate in pairs, each with a spin the opposite of the other, so that is a maximum of 16 electron pairs. Electron repulse one another, because all have the same negative charge, and this is the maximum number that can be "squeezed in" to any orbital.
Isn't this a coincidence? If we divide a complete circle, 360 degrees, by 16, we get 22.5 degrees. if we divide it by 32, we get 11.25 degrees. Double 11.25 is 22.5.
How could this be coincidental that the angles created by the maximum number of electrons in any electron orbital shell corresponds exactly to the angles of refraction of the ice crystals of cirrostratus clouds high in the troposphere? What else would define that these ice crystals must always be at the geometric shape that would refract light exactly 22.5 degrees?
It appears to me that this is another example of how there is only a limited amount of information in the universe, from which to build structures of matter, and this same information must be reused at every different scale simply because there is no new information available. Both electron orbitals and the ice crystals which produce sun dogs involve the electrical repulsion of electrons forced close together around a circle, and this is that produces copies of the same information.
10) ELECTRIC CHARGES, THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW, AND DIRECTIONS IN SPACE
Let's have a look at my concept of how the well-known Inverse Square Law is rooted in the information provided by the fundamental electric charges of which the universe is composed. There are two of these charges-negative and positive.
It has been known for centuries that the propagation into space of forces like light and gravity operate by what is known as the Inverse Square Law. This means that the intensity of the light or gravity decreases by the square of the distance as we move further away from the source. Put simply, if something is twice as far away it will appear as only one-quarter of the former apparent size or brightness, or it's gravity will be only one-quarter. This is because square means multiplied by itself, and 2 x 2 = 4. If the object were three times as far away, it would be one-ninth.
It has also long been known that there are two electric charges in the universe, negative and positive, that are opposite and equal. In my cosmology theory, the entire universe is composed of these electric charges. Where there is the usual alternating pattern of negative and positive charges, because opposite charges attract while like charges repel, we have empty space. Where there is a concentration of like charges, held together by energy against the mutual repulsion of like charges, we have matter and the extra energy required is what gives us the well-known Mass-Energy Equivalence.
What I want to point out today is the relationship between the two. My observation is that the reason for the Inverse Square Law in our universe is that it is composed of the two electric charges.
An electromagnetic wave gets weaker as it moves out into space because it's energy is spread over more of the electric charges of space. But energy is really the same thing as information, we cannot apply energy to something without also adding information to it, and we cannot add information to something without applying energy to it.
The rate at which the intensity of the wave will fade, as it moves out into space, is thus proportional to the amount of information (which is also energy) that it must match in the electric charges composing space. The negative and positive electric charges means that there are two possibilities for each charge in space. If there were three possibilities for each electric charge in space, instead of the two of negative and positive, we would have the "Inverse Cube Law" because there would be more probability for each charge in space. Light or gravity would diminish more rapidly, at the cube instead of the square, of the distance.
If there were three electric charges in the universe, rather than two, it would mean that there would be more information that would have to be included. If we looked at an object that was then moved a certain distance away, it would have to diminish in size and brightness proportionally more than in a universe with only two electric charges because there would be proportionally more information at that distance which would have to be added into the field of vision, which is of a fixed size.
No matter what and how many different electric charges the universe might have been made of, the inverse law regarding the relative strength of an electromagnetic wave at a distance will have, as it's exponent, the minimum number of dimensions necessary to convey the information of how the electric charges interact. This is equal to the number of different electric charges.
If there were three equal charges that had to form a regular pattern in space, there would have to be an "Inverse Cube Law". It would take more energy to create an electromagnetic wave, and the strength of the wave would fall off faster with distance. Gravity would also be stronger, but would fall off faster with distance.
Suppose that the universe was somehow composed of only one electric charge, instead of our two. Theoretically, if a wave could be sent out into space, it would never diminish because there would be no information at all in the electric charges that the wave was crossing. This is because all information must be in the permutations of electric charges, and there would be no meaningful permutations because there would only be one kind of electric charge.
The Inverse Square Law that we have in our universe with two electric charges has nothing to do with the number of spatial dimensions. But for a wave to diminish with distance, there must be at least the number of dimensions as there are electric charges of which space is composed. If there were to be more electric charges in space than there are dimensions involved, a wave would not diminish with distance. (This is the principle behind a laser). An illustration of a wave not diminishing if the number of dimensions is less then the number of electric charges is a line of dominoes, with each falling one knocking over the one in front of it. As long as the dominoes are correctly lined up, the energy of the wave never diminishes.
A wave on the water, which is in two-dimensions, and an electromagnetic wave, which is in three dimensions, will both diminish with distance at the same rate. But this is not true of the line of dominoes, which is one-dimensional. This shows that there must be at least an equal number of dimensions to the two electric charges of which the universe is composed for a wave to diminish according to the inverse law, but that the same inverse law will apply when there are more dimensions than this.
The reason for this is that for the diminishing in intensity with distance, according to the inverse law, the wave or force must occupy enough dimensions to illustrate how the electric charges interact with one another. In our universe, with two electric charges, that requires two dimensions. there is a checkerboard of negative and positive charges, with each charges surrounded by four opposite charges, because opposite charges attract while like charges repel.
With two electric charges and two dimensions of space, the same Inverse Square Law applies regardless of how many more dimensions there might be. A wave propagating outward from a one-dimensional line in two-dimensional space, or from a two-dimensional sheet in three-dimensional space, will not diminish with distance because there will be no spreading with distance, but a wave from a one-dimensional antenna line or a point in three-dimensional space will diminish with distance, according to the Inverse Square Law.
THE NUMBER OF DIRECTIONS FROM A POINT IN SPACE
From any given point in space, there are two opposite directions in each dimension. This can only be because there are two electric charges composing that space, so that there must be one direction for each charge. If there were three equal charges in space that had to be arranged to make up space, there would have to be three directions in each dimension from a given point, even though it is difficult for us to imagine this. The applicable Inverse Law exponent will also be the number of directions in space, from a given point along the same dimension.
Because there are two electric charges, which alternate to form each dimension of space, there must be two separate "information routes" in a dimension, which we see as two opposite directions along a straight line from any given point on the line. It is because light, emanating from one point, must go along two "information routes", or directions, in each dimension of space, diminishes in brightness and objects diminish in apparent size, according to the Inverse Square Law.
Suppose that there is a point in space between two of the electric charges comprising space. Since space consists of alternating negative and positive charges, because opposite charges attract, there would be a negative charge on one side of the point and a positive charge on the other side. This means that there would be two different "information sets" in that dimension from that point. One one side, the information set would start with a negative charge, and would be - + - + - +... On the other side, the information set would start with a positive charge, and would be + - + - + -... Because two electric charges means that there has to be two different "information sets" in a given dimension from any given point in space, that means that there must be two opposite directions in space in the given dimension from the point.
If there were three electric charges in the universe, there would have to be a third such "information set" and thus a third direction from any given point in the same dimension. Light and gravity would diminish by the Inverse Cube Law, rather than our Inverse Square Law, because it would have to "divide" itself along this third information set or route also.
There is a formula for the number of directions that we can go from any given point in space, separated from one another by a right angle. Possible Directions = Number Of Electric Charges Composing Space x Number Of Dimensions Of Space. This means that, in our three dimensional space, there are six directions from a given point in space, separated by right angles. We might express these six directions as: up, down, left, right, backwards and, forwards.
Thus we see how day and night, for one example, ultimately result from the fact that the universe is composed of two electric charges. If light, from a given source, is coming from one direction, then there must be another opposite direction that it is not coming from. If we lived in a universe with three electric charges in space, we could expect that day and night would be more complex.
If the universe was composed of only one electric charge, any waves or movement or movement of energy really would not make any sense. For something to move, by application of energy, it must involve a change of information, because information is energy, or else it makes no sense. There could thus be no movement, no information and, no energy in a one-charge universe. There could be no application of outside energy to anything. It would make no sense to move anything from one place to another because with only one electric charge, there could be no permutations of electric charge to store the information which is energy.
If anything has the energy to move from any point, there must be more than one possible direction in which it can move because movement must necessarily involve more information than there is in empty space. For that to be possible, space must be composed of more than one electric charge.
This proves, as described in my cosmology theory, that space is composed of alternating negative and positive electric charges, and also that space and distance and information and energy are really the same thing.
Remember, once again, that all around you every day are simple thing that no one has yet pointed out.
11) COSMOLOGY AND THE LAW OF EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTIONS
Has anyone ever thought that Newton's Law of Equal and Opposite Reactions must have cosmological implications? I find it to mean that the universe, as a whole, must be symmetrical.
The reason that the universe must be symmetrical is simple. Information flows through the universe, from the lowest to the highest levels. The lowest level is, of course, the negative and positive electric charges which comprise everything in the universe. Since we know that these two electric charges must always balance out, we can safely conclude that the universe as a whole must be symmetrical because it's structure can only be based on the information in the two electric charges.
My cosmology theory is that this Law of Equal and Opposite Reactions conserves the center line of the matter that was thrown out across the universe in the Big Bang. The universe, as a whole, has to be symmetrical because there is no information to make it otherwise. The Law of Equal and Opposite Reactions maintains that symmetry.
The Law of Equal and Opposite Reactions simply states that when a mass is moved in one direction, an equivalent mass must also be moved in the opposite direction. An ideal example of this is the thrust of a jet or rocket engine, that propels the jet or rocket forward.
Let's briefly review the theory, there is a more detailed review in the posting on this blog, "The Universe Made Really Simple".
My cosmological theory has the universe as not-quite-parallel strings of matter aligned mostly in one direction in four-dimensional space, although there could be many more than these four dimensions. The direction in which these strings of matter are primarily aligned is the one that we perceive as time, along which our consciousnesses move at what we perceive as the speed of light. We can only see perpendicular to the bundles of strings of matter comprising our bodies and brains. The original two-dimensional sheet of space, amidst the multi-dimensional background space, disintegrated in one of it's two dimensions as one pair of it's opposite sides came into contact. Due to charge migration, to seek a lower energy state, one side was positive in charge and the other was negative. This brought about the matter-antimatter mutual annihilation that we perceive as the Big Bang. The energy in the disintegrating dimension, from the tension between adjacent opposite electric charges, was released. The remaining dimension then consisted of very long strings of infinitesimal cross-section, that we perceive as the particles of matter today. Some of the energy released by the disintegrating dimension went into "welding" the charges of the remaining dimension together as strings of matter. We perceive these strings as particles because our consciousnesses are moving along the bundles of strings composing our bodies and brains, at what we perceive as the speed of light, and we can only see at right angles to our strings.
So, the basics of my theory is a two-dimensional sheet of space, which formed amidst the multi-dimensional background space by the same kind of opposite charge induction, disintegrating in one of it's two dimensions as one pair of it's opposite sides came into contact to create the matter-antimatter explosive mutual annihilation that we perceive as the Big Bang, which began the universe, and which scattered the remaining one-dimensional strings of matter out across space to form the universe that we see today. The strings of matter from the original two-dimensional sheet were scattered across four dimensions of the background space.
For the generally-accepted Big Bang theory to be true, the universe must have begun from one point. My theory is that of a two-dimensional sheet of space, forming from mutual electric charge induction, within but not contiguous to, the multiple dimensional background space. Many people believe that the universe expanded from a singularity. In any case, the Big Bang means a beginning of the universe from a point.
But this means that the lack of further information must bring about a symmetrical universe. If there was the further information, and thus force, that would be required to make the universe assymetrical that would also have to be balanced, according to the Law of equal and Opposite Reactions, so that the universe would end up being symmetrical. If the matter in the universe was somehow assymetrical, there would have to have been an equal and opposite reaction to whatever force made it assymetrical, so that it would end up being symmetrical. There is no way to get around an inevitably symmetrical universe, since it is based on the information in the fundamental electric charges.
But the matter in the universe, on any scale that we can see, is anything but symmetrical. The pull of gravity makes the local universe assymetrical, but not the universe as a whole.
Remember that, in my cosmology theory, gravity is based on some of the energy radiated from the Big Bang being re-absorbed by strings of matter. This overcomes the electrical repulsion of like charges to concentrate those like charges into what we perceive as matter. If the two electric charges, negative and positive, are equal then the rules that govern those charges, that opposite charges attract while like charges repel, must also be equal. If radiant energy that is re-absorbed overcomes the repulsion between like charges, to create matter, then that must leave a net attractive force associated with matter, and this is what we perceive as gravity.
(Note-As for this concept of some of the energy released during the Big Bang being re-absorbed by the strings of matter which remain, remember how the orbitals of electrons, which are really strings in four dimensions, would appear to be just like waves if we could view the orbitals in their four-dimensional space, and we know that electromagnetic radiation radiates in waves).
But the operation of the universe must ultimately be based on the electric charges of which it is composed. The Equal and Opposite Reaction Principle is based on the flow of information from the fundamental electric charges of which the universe is composed. Where there is one electric charge, there must also be the opposite electric charge. Just as the electric charges must be symmetrical, the universe must be symmetrical.
There must be a balance of electric charges, at least on the whole, but the application of energy can concentrate like charges to create matter on the local scale. It follows that symmetry of matter and energy in the universe works the same way. There must be symmetry as a whole but energy, by way of gravity, can change that on a local scale.
However, this means that not only must electric charge be symmetrical across the universe, concentration of charge must also be symmetrical. Because there is, once again, no other information to make it otherwise. The information that makes the universe symmetrical is rooted in the symmetry of the electric charges of which the universe is composed, positive and negative electric charges always balance out.
In mathematical terms, we could think of the universe in terms of permutations. Arrangements of matter are simply permutations of the electric charges of which everything in the universe is composed. On any local scale, we see only one permutation being manifested out of many possibly permutations. In the electric charges comprising empty space there is only one permutation, that of alternating negative and positive charges. But the application of energy, concentrating like charges to bring about matter, creates more permutations, only one of which can be manifested in any given locality. But if every possible local permutation were manifested, somewhere in the universe, that would make the universe symmetrical, as it must be because there is no information to make it otherwise.
This Law of Equal and Opposite Reactions leads back to the original two-dimensional sheet of space in my cosmological theory. This sheet disintegrated in one of two of it's dimensions. The dimension that disintegrated released the energy that we perceive in the Big Bang. The dimension that remains comprises the strings of matter that form the universe as we know it.
But yet this original two-dimensional sheet of space is still being maintained. When a string of matter is detached from the sheet in one direction, an equal string must be detached from the sheet in the opposite direction. The energy released from the disintegrating dimension brings about distance across space, but yet the original two-dimensional sheet must still be maintained. The effects on the disintegrating original two-dimensional sheet must have been equal from all directions, because there was no information that would be required to make it otherwise. This is what results in the Law of Equal and Opposite Reactions.
All of this shows how even something non-electrical, such as the Law of Equal and Opposite Reactions, is ultimately based on the electric charges of which the universe is composed. Their symmetry, the inevitable balance between positive and negative charges, must be reflected in the symmetry of the universe as a whole.
12) INFORMATION FROM PARTICLES IN MATTER
As we have seen previously, we can discern so much about the universe by how information must flow through it, from the lowest to highest scales. The only information from which higher-scale structures are to be constructed on must be that in the lower scales. This idea of explaining the universe by how information must flow through it, from lowest to highest scales, started as part of my cosmology theory, but is now growing into a separate theory which does not necessarily have to be grouped with the cosmology theory.
Information. like the energy which is really the same thing, cannot be created out of nothing, and cannot vanish into nothing. Remember that energy and information are really the same thing because we cannot add information to something without applying energy to it, and we cannot apply energy to something without adding information to it.
One of the most obvious ways in which the information in lower scales of the universe shows up in the higher scales, which are composed of the lower scales, is that of matter and antimatter. The two are the same thing, except that the electric charges are reversed and, in another example of the flow of information from the lower to the higher scales, that is a reflection of the universe being made of the two electric charges of negative and positive which have two possible permutations.
Three other examples that I often refer to of this flow of information through the universe are spheres, orbits and, bricks. Matter which coalesces by gravity, such as stars and planets, inevitably takes on a spherical form, and this is a reflection of the spherical forms of the atoms of which these spheres are composed. Conventional physics explains it as a sphere being the shape with the lowest energy state. In a similar way, moons orbit planets, which orbit stars because of the information in the electron orbitals of the atoms of which they are composed. The shape that a brick house can be built in, with the least additional information, is the shape of the bricks themselves.
We saw how the information in the number of the few common atoms shapes the entire universe by contributing the information of this number to all structures that are composed of atoms. In all inanimate matter, there are seven common elements, out of a total of 92 natural elements plus those that can be artificially synthesized but do not occur in nature. The best-known artificial element, which can be made by getting uranium to absorb neutrons, which break down into protons, is plutonium.
In the atoms within biological forms, the acronym CHNOPS is used by biology students to represent the six common atoms of living things, while there about 25 additionally important trace elements. CHNOPS stands for carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and, sulfur. As explained, the number six appears often in the realm of biology, such as in the number of fundamental colors that we see and the total number of classifications of living things, and this is based on the information of these six common atoms with the rest being trace elements.
But why are there 92 naturally-occurring elements but, in the universe of inanimate matter, only seven are common? Most elements are exceedingly rare. The conventional explanations are the short range of the nuclear force, which holds atomic nuclei together against the mutually repulsion of the like-charged protons, the S and R process of nucleosynthesis which create the atoms by crunching smaller ones by gravity into larger ones and, the binding energy curve.
Iron and elements lighter than it are exponentially more common than the heavier elements because only elements up to iron are produced by the ordinary fusion process, by gravity and known as the S-process for slow. In these elements up to iron, the binding energy per nucleon increases as the elements get successively heavier.
The much more rare elements that are heavier than iron are produced only by the the R process for rapid This means that their formation is dependent on the input of additional energy that happens only when the star actually explodes as a supernova. The binding energy curve in these heavy elements gets less, per nucleon, as we move to heavier elements.
But yet this vast amount of information that we see in the differing proportion of the elements must have come from somewhere. The atoms produced by the Big Bang were only hydrogen, about a quarter of the atoms are believed to have been helium, and there may have been traces of the next two elements. But today, we see 92 elements, with a great variation in relative numbers of atoms of those elements, and with a vast amount of information beyond that in the many different isotopes and of many different possible proportions of different isotopes within those elements.
Isotopes are forms of the same element, but with different numbers of neutrons in the nucleus. An element is defined by the number of protons in the nucleus, a different number of protons would make it a different element, but the number of neutrons can vary. The first thing that most people think of when they read of isotopes is uranium, Most uranium atoms have 238 nucleons, which are protons and neutrons combined in the nucleus. Uranium always has 92 protons so that means 146 neutrons. But about one out of every 140 uranium atoms are of isotope 235, with only 143 neutrons.
This is so important because only the 235 isotope can undergo nuclear fission, being split by a high-velocity neutron, to release some of it's binding energy. The laborious process of separating out the 235 isotope is known as enrichment. But if the 238 isotope can be bombarded by neutrons so that it absorbs them, the additional neutrons can break down into protons, which turns the uranium into another element, first neptunium and then the much-sought-after plutonium.
Remember my formula for the complexity of a number, which is the same thing as the information contained in the number. The complexity of any number is the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a fraction. This means that every whole number has a complexity of 1, a higher whole number is not more complex than a lower whole number. If we express the relative proportions of each element, this means that there is a tremendous amount of information in their relative proportions, because these are fractions, and this information must have come from somewhere. There would be much less information if there were even numbers of each atom.
We could point out that when small atoms are crunched into larger ones by nucleosynthesis, there is a greater concentration of information but a reduction of total information of position because fewer larger atoms have less information of the position of the atoms than the many smaller atoms that they were crunched together from. But yet if the Big Bang was symmetrical, as it must have been because there wasn't any other information available to make it otherwise, the information of position of the many smaller atoms would have been repetitive, and remember that the information in something is reduced by repetition.
The only conclusion that we can come to is that, for even the first stars to shine, as atoms coalesced by gravity to be crunched together into larger elements, there simply had to be more information from somewhere. Information, like the energy that is really the same thing, cannot come out of nothing.
There is not only the tremendous amount of information in atoms that we have to explain here, but also that in the molecules which are combinations of atoms. First, after the Big Bang, there is the information of only four different atoms. Now, there are 92 different atoms, each in it's own proportion which is very different from the others, thus enclosing a lot of information, and most with varying numbers of isotopes. But the information within the matter of the universe goes far beyond this because there are also many thousands, perhaps even millions, of possible molecules which can be formed from combinations of these atoms.
An atom can be described as a "zero unit" of electric charge, where the concentrations of the two electric charges which are the component particles of the atom, balance out. But atoms may not be entirely efficient in balancing charge so that they combine together electrically to seek the balance between electric charges that is a necessity in the universe.
There are a fantastic number of organic molecules, based on structures of carbon. By one account, carbon can form 35 times as many possible molecules than all other elements combined. This is why carbon appears black, light enters and simply "gets lost" and absorbed in the complex structures of carbon atoms.
There would be a lot of additional information required to form this vast array of organic molecules, even though there is much repetition in the structures of organic molecules. Long polymer molecules, for example, might be the same simple combination of atoms repeated over and over.
The additional information, and energy, required to form organic molecules comes, of course, from the radiation from the sun that is absorbed by plants. This energy, and information, comes from the fusion within the sun that comes from crunching smaller atoms together into larger ones. Now that these small atoms have been moved around, concentrated into the star by gravity and heat, there is information of position in them that can be released when they are crunched together into one larger atom. This information of position could not have been there at the Big Bang, because there was no information to make the Big Bang other than symmetrical.
This information about why there are few common atoms, six in biology and maybe seven in inanimate matter, must have come from somewhere. Since information in the universe flows from the lowest scales to the highest we can presume that, since atoms are not the lowest level structures, that this information came from sub-atomic particles.
Protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, which have partial electric charges. Up quarks have an electric charge of + 2/3, while down quarks have a charge of - 1/3. Two up quarks and one down quark make up a proton, with an overall electric charge of +1. One up quark and two down quarks make up a neutron, with an overall charge of zero.
But there are actually six quarks, along with their corresponding anti-quarks, although it is said that if all of the remaining four quarks disappeared tomorrow, only particle physicists would notice. But all quarks are related, or else they wouldn't be called quarks, and so they must all have some influence on matter. How much of a coincidence can it be that there are six quarks, two of which are the components of atomic nuclei, and there are about the same number of atoms that are exponentially more common than the rest?
Not only is there six quarks and about six really common atoms in the universe, there is also six of another family of particles called leptons. The best-known lepton is the electron which orbits around the nucleus of the atom, which is composed of protons and neutrons, which are composed of quarks. How much of a coincidence can this be?
It seems clear that the only way that information, above the very basic information in the alternating arrangement of negative and positive electric charges in space, can be arranged is through matter. There is information in electromagnetic waves, but these waves are a function of matter, and not vice-versa. This is because an electromagnetic wave has to have a wavelength, and so requires something to define it's wavelength. The only thing that can provide such a definition is various arrangements of matter. The alternating electric charges in space cannot define the wavelength because it is the distortion in the pattern of these charges which is the very definition of the wave.
My conclusion is that any and all subatomic particles that are present in the universe must add information that is somehow displayed in matter, either in it's structure or it's behavior. This must be true even if we do not yet see how these particles could affect matter. this explains where all of this additional information that we see comes from.
The account of the number of such particles in the universe varies, because some have been hypothesized but not yet proven to exist. But there is generally believed to be about sixty such particles, sometimes referred to as "The Particle Zoo" and classified in that is known as the Standard Model, and all must somehow add their information to matter. It does not make as much difference how many of each particle there are, because such repetition is not complexity except in the arrangement of the particles. The information is in the differences in the particles from one another.
There is still more information in the universe, that must have come from somewhere. The distribution of matter in the universe must be symmetrical on a large scale (posting action reaction), but that is clearly not true on a local scale. This means that the distribution of matter contains information.
The Big Bang was a relatively simple event, and must have been symmetrical because there was no information to make it otherwise. The matter in the universe today must be symmetrical, but only on a large scale. Where did the information come from to make it asymmetrical on a local scale? Remember the rule in my cosmology theory that negative and positive electric charges must always balance out, but energy increases the area over which it must balance out, creating asymmetry and the information associated with it, on a local scale.
This is why I say that all gravitational spheres in the universe, stars, planets and, moons, must be different from one another. One way of looking at it is that they must be different because there is not the information required that would make them the same. These gravitational spheres are composed of different atoms, of which there are countless possible permutations on a large scale, and so there is not the information available to overcome these differences to make them the same. If even two gravitational spheres were exactly identical, with all of the others remaining different, it would mean a much higher information state to explain how this came about.
But another way of looking at it is that if all stars, planets and, moons were identical to the other, it would represent a much lower information state that does not reflect that vast amount of information that is in the universe by way of subatomic particles.
We can think of the matter in the universe as a kind of parliament or congress where every different particle in the universe gets a say in how the matter in the universe will be set up, although some get more say than others. The quark family are the "senators" of the universe, but the rest of the particles get a say too.
13) THE VIRTUAL UNIVERSE
The Virtual Universe explains that information flows through the universe, from the smallest to the largest scales, because the universe actually is information.
Our discussion of the nature of complexity and information leads us to the question of just how real the universe really is. The recent posting "A Celebration Of The Inverse Square Law" leads us to find that information and distance are really the same thing.
Both distance and complexity, which refers to the volume of information, operate by the same Inverse Square Law. This Inverse Square Law refers to the fact that, if something is twice as far away, gravity, angular diameter and the brightness of light will be reduced to one-quarter because two squared, or multiplied by itself, equals four. Likewise, if something were three times as far away, gravity angular diameter and, the brightness of light would be reduced to one-ninth because three squared equals nine. All of these entities which operate by the Inverse Square Law, such as gravity, brightness and angular diameter, are forms of information.
Complexity, which is the volume of information, operates by the Inverse Square Law because, if there are interrelationships between each of a number of units, and we doubled the units, the number of interrelationships would then be multiplied by four, which is the square of two. Of course, the principle that I refer to as granularity comes into play if there is any less than an infinite number of units, and this makes it so that the number of interrelationships would not be exactly as the Inverse Square Law would dictate unless we take the granularity that was described in "A Celebration Of The Inverse Square Law" into account..
Radiation, such as light, is also information and this clearly operates by the Inverse Square Law in that it's intensity is reduced to one-quarter at twice the distance. This shows that energy and information are interchangeable and are really the same thing. There is energy in mass, known as the Mass-Energy equivalence, and this energy is interchangeable with the energy and information contained in electromagnetic waves in space which travel over distance.
This means that distance and information must really be "two sides of the same coin". Both are also interchangeable with distance and this gives us yet another of those three-part formula of the form A = B x C, which seem to govern so much of how the universe operates, which we saw in the posting on the cosmology blog "Basic Physics And Cosmology". In the section "Progress And The Inverse Square Law" of the posting on this blog, "A Celebration Of The Inverse Square Law", we saw another example of the relationship between complexity and distance, the more complex a society becomes the more movement is necessary.
The information within us, which makes it possible for us to have consciousness, is in how our basic building blocks are arranged. But those basic building blocks are the same as that of the universe as a whole, the fundamental electric charges. This is why we can perceive and impose our higher level of complexity on our surroundings, but we must cross distance to get anywhere or do anything.
We must transverse distance to get to an object, whether by observation or physical travel, because there is information between us and that object which must be accounted for simply because we are made of the same kind of information. If we had a higher level of complexity, but still made of the same atoms, we would have greater technical potential but would still have to transverse distance to do anything. It is for a similar reason that we cannot just put our hands through physical objects, we are made of the same kinds of atoms and electron repulsion prevents it.
We can describe the universe with sets of numbers, but that is only because the universe actually is a set of numbers. Most physicists believe that everything is really numbers, all information must be expressible as numbers. Distances and wavelengths are numbers. The two fundamental electric charges of which the universe is composed, positive and negative, are represented by positive and negative numbers. My concept is that the universe is really just information, and distance in the universe is the manifestation of that information.
In our numbering system, the number 9 takes up no more space than 2. Numbers ten and above take up more space only because of the decimal numbering system that we use. But if numbers had consciousness, they would see one another as space proportional to value. Figures in a drawing, if they had consciousness, would perceive the drawing as just as real as we perceive the universe.
Remember my principle that we see the universe as we do not only because of what it is, but also because of what we are. We are part of the universe ourselves, and cannot see it from outside and this is why it seems so real to us.
The fundamental electric charges of which the universe is composed are so infinitesimal as to be without dimension at all, they are mere points that can be defined only by their location. But if this is the case, then how can there be distance in the universe? If we have something that is infinitesimal, the opposite of infinite, then any number of those, short of an infinite number, should still be infinitesimal. The universe should really have no more volume than an electron.
We see the universe as being vast and very real, but that is only because we are made of the same kind of information that it is. The electric charges of which the universe, both space and matter, is composed are mere points of information. The charges themselves can have no actual size, because there is nothing else with which to define distance. These charges must themselves be the definition of size. The only possible information lies in the number of these electric charges, and how they are arranged. It is this information that must define what we perceive as distance.
These electric charges are what comprise the universe as we see it today. But yet we see the universe as encompassing truly vast distances. The fundamental electric charges, and the rules of the relationship between them, defines the nature and structure of the universe. But if there was information contained in these fundamental charges, then that would have to be manifested in the universe that we see.
NUMBERS
Matter is a manifestation of numbers. Opposite electric charges in the universe attract in an effort to balance out to zero, which we perceive as seeking the lowest energy state. The result is a kind of zero unit structure, between negative and positive, which we refer to to as atoms. The tendency of matter in space to form spheres, as well as falling due to gravity, is all numerically-driven in that it is a seeking of the lowest energy state.
There is information both within the structure of matter and also where that matter is located in space, relative to everywhere else it could have been located. The universe accommodates this difference as empty space, unoccupied by matter. Matter can be moved to accommodate not only where it is, but also where it could be or could have been. This is the primary manifestation of the pattern that I refer to as "The One And The Many", where matter is the one and space is the many. The matter, in terms of numbers, is represented by a given number and the space is represented by all numbers other than that number.
The information contained in what we perceive as the arrangements of matter must be manifested somehow, and we perceive it as the vastness of empty space in the universe. In another way of looking at things the universe may really be infinitesimal, with no actual volume at all. But information must be manifested and we must see not only where everything is, but also where it could be or could have been. The more places that the matter could have been, relative to the place where it is, the more information is contained and this information shows up to us as distance, because we are part of the same equation.
Just as, to understand a number, we must also understand all of the numbers that number is not. A number is defined by what it is in relation to what it is not. If there was only one number, it would be meaningless.
The real universe is just bits of information about electric charges which created space. But if beings such as us have the ability to see the results of this, we must see not only the one but all of the ways it could have fitted into the many. The result is the arrangements of matter within the outer set of information that we see as the empty space of the universe.
We have to cross space, as we perceive it, to get from the arrangement of information that we are in to the arrangement that we want to be in. This does not necessarily mean that space actually exists, but is necessary because we must see and go through all of the possible permutations of the information.
The individual electric charges that comprise all that there is in the universe are nearly infinitesimal in scope. Since the universe is somewhat less then infinite, a finite number of infinitesimal units should logically mean that the entire universe should be infinitesimal. The only reason that we see the universe as anything but infinitesimal is that there is so much difference in the information in the permutation that is and all of the permutations that could have been, that we perceive as matter and space, that must be manifested.
Suppose that you see a three-digit number, 473 for example. Let this number represent an object in space, such as a planet. Remember that physicists believe that everything is really numbers being manifested. The reason that the planet seems to be far away is that to see 473, you must also see all that 473 is not and, with three digits, there is 1 that 473 is and 999 that 473 is not.
It is necessary to see not only what it is but also what it is not but could have been, because all information present must be accounted for and manifested. We see what it is not as space, but it is all really just information. To understand why we see it as space, we have to remember that we see the universe the way we do not only because of what it is but also because of what we are.
Just as virtual reality is really data bits stored on a computer drive, the universe that we see is essentially just a set of information. We perceive it as being so "real" because our material bodies are composed of the same information and we are, in fact, a part of this universe. To God, the universe could be just a set of numerical information with each of us as subsets. If we were to ask God, in Heaven, where we were relative to the universe, he might show us a tablet with numbers written on it, and say "This is the universe".
Remember that the reason that information flows through the universe, from the lowest to the highest levels, is because the universe itself is really information.
14) EVERYTHING IS REALLY THE SAME THING
If we take a close look at the universe, we realize that energy, information, matter and, distance are all really the same thing. We just see them as we do being separate because of our own nature.
Energy and information is the same thing because we cannot apply energy to anything without also adding information to it, and we cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it. Matter is information because it is defined, in my cosmology theory, as how the electric charges differ in arrangement from the alternating checkerboard pattern of empty space, with matter being a concentration of like charges. Matter is also energy because it takes energy to hold it together against the electric repulsion of like charges.
Space is defined as an alternating checkerboard of negative and positive electric charges. Adding energy disrupts this pattern, and so this energy must also be information holding the disruption pattern. The concentration of like charges, against their mutual electric repulsion, by this energy and information, is what creates matter. This is how we get the well-known Mass-Energy Equivalence.
Distance is information because it refers to the number of electric charges which comprise space. Distance also amounts to information because, when the same amount of matter is scattered over a greater distance, it creates a greater number of possible permutations over which the matter could be arranged, and thus the description of these arrangements or permutations requires more information. Distance is also energy because, if an object falls from a greater distance, it falls with more force, and an object in a higher orbit has greater orbital energy. (An satellite with three times the orbital energy of another will orbit at nine times the altitude, but will orbit at only one-third the velocity).
The difference between matter and electromagnetic radiation is that matter is a concentration of electric charge by application of energy, with the energy opposing the basic rule of electric charges that like charges repel, while electromagnetic radiation is the spreading of energy over distance in space by the applied energy opposing the basic rule of electric charges that opposite charges attract. The propagation of electromagnetic radiation is governed by the Inverse Square Law, a light seen at twice the distance will be only one-fourth as bright. We can see how this Inverse Square Law is based on information, as in the number of permutations, so that distance is really information. When we have some units with two possible permutations, such as the two sides of a coin which represent the possible permutations in space of the negative and positive electric charges, doubling the number of units (coins) will give us four times the possible number of different permutations.
In my cosmology theory, energy is distance in that the conversion of mass, which is equivalent to energy according to the mass-energy equivalence into energy involves very long strings which we perceive as the particles of matter and extending in the dimension of space that we perceive as time. When mass is converted back to energy, such as in a nuclear or matter-antimatter reaction, all of the energy in what we perceive as the future dimension is released at one point on the strings, then radiates out as energy in perpendicular dimensions. This is why it takes only about the amount of energy in the mass of a note of currency, a dollar, euro, pound, etc., to destroy a city in an explosion. It is because all of the energy binding the like charges of the string of matter together in the future dimension is released at what we see as one point on the strings.
The ultimate reason that this happens is the definition that was provided by the two-dimensional sheet in my cosmology theory, from which all matter originated. The energy is being transferred from one dimension in the sheet, the matter dimension, to the perpendicular energy dimension. The movement of this energy, from what we perceive as the future dimension of the strings, takes place instantaneously and it not bound by the speed of light, which is only the movement of our own consciousnesses along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains. The energy being released cannot take a diagonal "short cut" because the original sheet of space had only two dimensions, at right angles to one another.
Everything is ultimately composed of negative and positive electric charges.
An alternating checkerboard of these charges forms empty space. A concentration of like charges, by overcoming the electrical repulsion of like charges by the application of energy forms matter, which requires energy and is information in how it's electrical structure differs from the alternating charge pattern of space.
Overcoming the attractive force of opposite electric charges in space also disrupts the alternating charge pattern of empty space, but in a different way than in overcoming the electrical repulsion to concentrate like charges. This overcoming of the attraction between opposite charges spreads the disruption of the alternating charge pattern over all of space, rather than concentrating it as in matter. This scatters the disruption, which involves both information and energy, as electromagnetic radiation, but the total disruption of electric charge per energy applied is the same as if it had formed matter.
The only reason that we see the elements of the universe, such as information, energy, distance and matter, that we do is that we are part of the universe ourselves. We do not have an unbiased, outside view. If we could have an unbiased and outside view we would see all of the universe as simply the energy between electric charges, and nothing more.
Remember my principle that, to understand the universe, we must understand that we see it as we do not only because of what it is, but also because of what we are. There are several ways in which this applies.
The first, most obviously, is time. In my cosmological theory, time is not a fact of physics but something that comes from within us. Matter really consists of stationary strings in four-dimensional space, but we see matter as moving particles in three-dimensional space, because one of the dimensions is what we perceive as time. We see the speed of light as the maximum possible velocity because that is actually the velocity at which our consciousness is proceeding along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains.
The second, also very obviously, is scale. We see our surroundings, but cannot readily see either molecules or galaxies because they are outside our scale.
The third way, and not so obvious, is complexity. My complexity theory explains how we see the universe as we do because we are more complex than our inanimate surroundings. There is not enough complexity in these surroundings for everything to be true that we could perceive as potentially being true. This is what the complexity theory refers to as "truth possibilities", we are forced to make decisions because of this mismatch in complexity level between us and our surroundings. This is why we have free will. A being that was no more complex than it's inanimate surroundings would see no "truth possibilities" and thus have no use for free will.
We see today another way in which we see the universe as we do not only because of what it is, but also because of what we are. We could refer to this as the "operations view" of the universe. We see the universe as operating in terms of matter, energy, information and, distance because that is the way we operate within it, and it is reflecting ourselves back at us.
Consider communication. The most important words, in any language, are yes and no, and all variations of the positive and negative such as not. If there were not at least two component of the universe, the two electric charges, there would be nothing to communicate because there could be no variation of any kind.
Words and names beyond the positive and negative all represent some permutation of these fundamental electric charges, which form atoms and different types of atoms. Permutations to which we assign words tend to be repetitive, there is not one planet but many planets, and there are many possible permutations of electric charges which could possibly exist but do not. This is simply because there is not enough information. Words are convenient codes that we assign to common permutations so that we do not have to describe something by actually explaining the location of every infinitesimal electric charge in it.
Have you ever noticed that computer technology stores information by reflecting the nature of the universe? A regular pattern of electric charges in space, or of bits on a computer drive, holds no information. The blank computer drive represents empty space, with no meaningful pattern having been applied to the 1 and 0 bits representing the usual alternating negative and positive charge pattern of multiple dimensions of empty space. The computer drive is simply packaging the nature of the universe, substituting magnetic bits for the electric charges comprising the universe, so that we can use it. The information in either space or the computer is rearranging these basic units by applying energy to them.
If there was a computer drive in which the pattern of bits could also be rearranged by the distance between them, this could also store information in the same way that electromagnetic radiation is information, according to it's wavelength and amplitude, in space. We could thus say that matter is "digital", because the electric charge in a given location must be either negative or positive just as a computer bit must be a 1 or a 0, with no other options. While electromagnetic radiation is "analog" because it stores information not by an option being the "one or the other" of digital, but any value within a range of wavelength and amplitude.
An observer within the universe will see it in terms that most directly relate to the nature of the observer. This does not mean that there are not other potential ways of looking at the universe that we cannot see. We saw in the posting "Complexity, Humans And, Living Things", on the patterns and complexity blog www.markmeekpatterns.blogspot.com , how we inevitable organize things according to how we are organized. In this respect, all of our laws of physics are actually a reflection of what we are. In one way of looking at it, we see the universe as more complicated than it is because we are more complex then it is, and it is reflecting our own complexity back at us.
15) WHY ALL GRAVITATIONAL SPHERES IN THE UNIVERSE MUST BE DIFFERENT
As far as I know all stars and planets, what we could refer to as gravitational spheres which form by the pull of gravity, have at least some differences from one another. A sphere is the default form of matter in the universe, being the shape with the lowest energy state, but the collection of dispersed or oddly-shaped pieces of matter by gravity into the spherical forms of stars and planets greatly increases the likelihood that two such spheres, at two places in the universe, might end up being exactly alike, atom for atom, considering that there is no difference between atoms of a given element other than isotopes and possibly ions.
The formation of spheres by gravity would seem to reduce complexity, making everything above the spherization threshold the same shape in contrast to the variety of oddly-shaped fragments which were brought together to form the spheres. My conclusion is that this must be balanced by the universe configuring itself so that no two spheres that form by gravity can be identical.
If any two spheres which formed by gravity were identical, it would create a mode or norm, and in doing so would change the entire balance of complexity in the universe. The norm that would be created if any two gravitational spheres in the universe were identical would make it so that the complexity of the universe, which originated from the Big Bang, would then have to be described by the velocity and compositions and locations of these spheres, which would make it much more complex than the understanding of the distribution of matter as random that we have now.
A set of numbers cannot really be random if one of the numbers repeats more often than the others, the number referred to as the mode of the set. That number would then form a norm, and the other numbers would have to be defined in terms of their deviation from that norm. The existence of a norm in the gravitational spheres of the universe would take away this randomness so that the universe would then have to be considered as much more complex.
The formation of gravitational spheres involves planets, as well as stars. Any sphere that forms by matter being pulled together into a sphere by mutual gravity. It does not matter how indirect the formation of the sphere is, an original star at the beginning of the universe or second-generation stars and accompanying planets from the debris scattered by a supernova. In order to keep the rules of complexity and information consistent, the universe must adjust itself so that no two spheres are identical, in order to avoid creating a norm which would require a major increase in the complexity of the universe, meaning the information embedded within it.
Remember that information operates just like energy. In fact, the two are just different ways of looking at the same thing. We cannot apply energy to something without also applying information to it, and we cannot add information to something without applying energy to it. Just as the energy introduced into the universe by the Big Bang can never be created or destroyed, but only changed in form, the same goes for the information provided by the Big Bang.
Energy, or information, went into "welding" together the strings of matter at the Big Bang as described in my cosmology theory, and into binding the protons in atomic nuclei together. The more energy that has gone into atomic nuclei, the stronger the gravity will be, and thus the smaller the stars or planets could be. From an information point of view, and remember that information is really the same thing as energy, this is because more information included makes it less likely that any two spheres will be identical. This means that there will be more possible permutations of different atoms and their energies in a sphere, and thus there can be more gravitational spheres in the universe without any two being exactly alike.
Even if we do not completely understand how the physics of something may work, we can be sure that the rules of information, like that of energy which is the same thing, will always hold true and this will give us a breakthrough. Just as the energy introduced into the universe by the Big Bang can never be created or destroyed, but only changed in form, so there is only a fixed amount of information in inanimate matter and everything must be constructed from this information that is available.
Suppose that two artillery shells explode, and each scatters outward twenty pieces of shrapnel. In Shell A, the twenty pieces of shrapnel fly off in random directions. No two adjacent pieces of shrapnel have exactly the same angular spacing between them. In Shell B, the twenty pieces of shrapnel are evenly spaced, with exactly the same angular spacing between them. Which shell explosion is more complex, with more information involved?
It would require more information to describe the locations and trajectories of the pieces of shrapnel from Shell A because, unlike Shell B, are irregularly spaced. but it would require more information to set up Shell B because all of the propulsion and trajectories of it's pieces of shrapnel would have to be coordinated together, unlike Shell A.
This is what we could describe as randomness, it is not that there is more information in the shrapnel from Shell A, because it would take more information to describe, it is that Shell A lacks the information of coordination of Shell B. We cannot say that the irregular pattern of shrapnel distribution from Shell A is more complex than the regular pattern of Shell B, even though it would require more information to describe, if the setup of Shell B was more complex than that of Shell A because it had the additional information of coordination between the propulsion of the shrapnel, which Shell A lacked.
If any two pairs of adjacent pieces of shrapnel from Shell A happened to have exactly the same velocity and angular distance between them, that would form a norm, this would break the random pattern and the motions of all of the other pieces of shrapnel would have to be defined by their deviation from that norm. This is much like a sine wave, in which the zero point is the norm. But describing it by the locations and velocities of shrapnel would be the higher complexity way of doing it. It would have to be more complex then Shell B, and remember that the complexity of something is equal to the least amount of information that it takes to describe it. We can relate this to the universe-the reason for differences between stars, and variations in their positions, is not the complexity of the Big Bang but rather the lack of complexity of the Big Bang. Even though the Big Bang brought the universe that we know into existence, it was a relatively simple event.
If any two pairs of adjacent pieces of shrapnel from Shell A were equal, that would make Shell A more complex because then it would have to be described by information as to why the other adjacent pairs were different from this norm. It is less complex if there is no norm, so then each piece of shrapnel can be considered as more like an independent bullet.
As a similar example suppose that a group of people were each given a traffic cone, or other marker, and told to place their marker somewhere in a field without regard to where the other people were putting their markers. The markers would be randomly placed, so that a lot of information would be required to describe their locations. Now suppose that the people were instructed to put their markers in a straight line with one another. It would require that the people be given more information to begin with, but would require less information to describe the final positions of the markers. Then suppose that the people were instructed to place their markers not only in a straight line, but also with equal space between them. It would require still more information to begin with, but would end up requiring even less information to describe the final positions. If the amount of information about setting up the markers that could be given at the beginning was limited, it would mean that the distribution of the markers in the field would have to be more random.
The Big Bang could not have been perfectly even, or we would not see the variety that we see in the universe today. The root of differences in the gravitational spheres is the different atoms which formed after the Big Bang. Most of the atoms which formed at that time were hydrogen, but there was also heavy hydrogen (deuterium) with a neutron beside the proton of the hydrogen nucleus. There were two isotopes of helium, with one and two neutrons. There was also some lithium formed. We could say that the similarities in stars is represented by the majority hydrogen, and the differences between stars by the other atoms of light elements which were mixed in.
The original break in perfect symmetry after the Big Bang is rooted in this distribution of the several types of heavier atoms that was formed among the ordinary majority hydrogen atoms. All variation between stars and planets, in fact their very formation at all if the Big Bang was otherwise symmetric, can be traced back to this.
Heavier atoms, mixed in with hydrogen after the Big Bang, added uneven gravitational mass and were a step ahead of ordinary light hydrogen in the fusion process. If only ordinary hydrogen was produced in the Big Bang, and the outward thrust of the Big Bang was equal in all directions, all stars should be uniformly spaced and exactly the same. It was the addition of unevenly distributed heavier atoms which broke up this uniformity. In fact if the universe was perfectly symmetrical, it is doubtful whether stars would form at all because there would be no breaks in the uniformity along which the continuum of matter would divide to form stars. It would seem to require the addition of "seasoning" with some heavier atoms to get stars to form at all.
Lighter atoms are ultimately fused, of course, into heavier atoms in the centers of stars. When a large star explodes as a supernova, and scatters these heavier atoms across space, the matter can coalesce by mutual gravity to form planets. Planets can be more different from one another than can stars because it is made of these heavier elements. More energy, and thus more information, has gone into the heavier elements of planets. This makes for more possible permutations of the atoms and their energy in planets than in stars, and this is why planets can be smaller than stars because there is less risk of any two ending up exactly alike, breaking the randomness and bringing about a norm of information distribution.
So, if the universe avoids having any two of it's gravitational spheres, such as stars and planets, be exactly alike, how exactly does it accomplish this?
Matter in the universe has a built-in mechanism to restrain gravity so that spheres which form by mutual gravitational attraction will be large enough so that any two such spheres will be identical, atom for atom or with identical distribution of information. My cosmological theory has gravity as the net attractive force left after the repulsive force between like-charged protons is overcome by nuclear binding energy in a nucleus. The reason for this attractive force being leftover is that not only must the two electric charges in the universe be equal, the two basic rules of electric charges must be manifested equally-opposite charges attract, and like charges repel.
The universe, which is built on these electric charges, cannot alter the charges themselves. Gravity comes from the energy that goes into binding the nucleus and from the energy of the Big Bang, which went into binding the primal electric charges of space together into matter. But the same kind of energy, released by the explosion of the Big Bang, went into binding negative electric charges into electrons. Since the outer electrons in adjacent atoms have identical negative charges, they repel each other.
This is known as electron repulsion, and it is what keeps electrons from merging together. It is electron repulsion that was the subject of the posting "Electron Repulsion And Density", on the physics and astronomy blog, www.markmeekphysics.blogspot.com . This explains why matter made of smaller atoms is generally less dense than that made of larger atoms. The same amount of mass, composed of more smaller atoms, has more overall surface area and thus more electron repulsion than it would if composed of larger atoms.
Electron repulsion thus opposes gravity. Electron repulsion is also why matter in a gravitational field has weight. In the posting on the physics and astronomy blog, "The Weight Hypothesis", we saw how weight is actually a manifestation of hindered gravitational attraction. It is also electron repulsion that keeps gravity in check in the universe as a whole, forcing the spheres which form by mutual gravitational attraction to be larger so that no two such spheres in the universe will be exactly identical.
The electrical charge on electrons is much more concentrated than it is on the much-larger protons. This is because protons are composed of quarks with mixed partial charges so that the proton, 1,836 times the mass of an electron, has a charge that is equal but opposite to that of the electron. If the charge on the electron were as diffuse as that on protons, electron repulsion would have much less of a an effect and matter would be more dense.
Electron repulsion has a much greater effect with lighter elements, particularly hydrogen, because there is more overall surface area with a given amount of mass. This fits with our scenario here of the sizes of spheres being managed by electron repulsion to keep spheres which form by gravity large enough so that no two such spheres in the universe can be identical, atom for atom and with exactly the same information. With lighter elements, particularly hydrogen, there are fewer different elements so that gravitational spheres must be kept larger in order to prevent any two such spheres in the universe from being identical, and thus introducing a norm which would necessarily increase the required complexity.
But when there are more heavier elements, there is less chance of any two spheres in the universe being exactly identical because there are more different types of atom, with their isotopes, present and thus more different permutations and less chance of any two such spheres being exactly identical. This is why the universe can afford for planets composed of heavier elements to be smaller than stars. This comes about because there is more energy (information) that has gone into heavier elements, more different atoms and more permutations are available so that the planets can be much smaller than stars, and this is brought about by electron repulsion and which is lesser per mass in heavier elements.
It makes sense to me that the Big Bang operated according to the Inverse Square Law in strings of matter, according to my cosmology theory, being "welded" together by radiation released by the Big Bang in a way that prevents any two gravitational spheres in the universe from being identical, and thus starting a norm which would force the complexity of the universe to be defined in a different way and requiring complexity that isn't there. By the way, this concept that I have of the energy from the Big Bang "welding" strings of matter together should be very familiar because plants synthesize the molecules in your food, based on the structures of carbon, in the same way.
If the universe were larger, going back to the folded sheet of two-dimensional space in my cosmology theory, a greater proportion of the energy released by the dissolution of one of the two spatial dimensions of that sheet would have been absorbed by the newly-formed strings of matter, including electrons. This would have made the charges on the electrons greater, which would have increased the electron repulsion which holds atoms apart so that gravitational spheres such as stars and planets would have to be larger, in proportion to the greater amount of matter in the universe.
If gravity were stronger, it would take fewer atoms to form a gravitational sphere, and this would increase the likelihood that there would be two such spheres in the universe which were perfectly identical and thus creating a norm that would change the way the complexity of information in the universe, which emerged from the Big Bang, would have to be defined.
16) PATTERNS AND THEIR REPETITION IN THE UNIVERSE
The thing that I want to focus on is how repetitive everything in the universe is. There are different things, but there is not just one of each thing. There are very many of each thing. The universe contains stars and galaxies and atoms and planets and clouds and rocks. But there are very many of each one. Certain various patterns in the arrangements of matter occur, but these patterns occur over and over again.
The fact that there are certain patterns in the arrangements of matter which occur in the universe, but that these patterns are very repetitive are a reflection of the flow of information in the universe according to how my theory of how information flows through the universe operates.
To see how much this relates to our daily lives, picture the original two-dimensional sheet of space as a flat sheet of paper. Now suppose that we divide each edge of the square sheet of paper into six equal sections, and then connect the sections so that the paper is divided into 36 squares, which we then number 1 to 36.
Next, suppose that we add a dimension to the sheet of paper so that it now forms a cube. If we follow the same procedure that we did to divide the paper into squares, we will now have a cube that is divided into 36 x 6 = 216 smaller cubes.
Now suppose that we number each cube, as we did with the squares, but we can only use the numbers that we already had on the two-dimensional squares. There will not be enough numbers to go around, because there are 216 cubes, but only 36 squares. Therefore, the numbers in the cubes will have to repeat themselves with the same number assigned to multiple cubes.
This is exactly the way the universe operates, according to my cosmology theory, with regard to information. In the higher-dimensional space, across which the strings of matter from the disintegrating two-dimensional sheet were thrown, there are many more possible permutations that the strings of matter could potentially occupy in comparison with the two-dimensional sheet of space. In our example above, the two-dimensional sheet of space is represented by the sheet of paper which was divided into 36 squares. The multi-dimensional background space, across which the strings of matter from the two-dimensional sheet were thrown, is represented by the 216 cubes which would have been brought about if another dimension had been added to the sheet and subdivided in the same way.
The 36 squares on our two-dimensional sheet of paper represent all of the different patterns which occur that we see around us. These are basically the words in the dictionary, such as star, planet, comet, cloud, rock, and so on. The 216 cubes which are brought about if we add another dimension to the sheet of paper represent the repetition of those basic words or patterns. There are many stars, many planets, many comets, many clouds and, many rocks.
There is not enough information to fulfill all of the potential complexity because the information contained in two dimensions was scattered across four dimensions. This is why patterns must be repetitive, just as the numbers on the two-dimensional sheet of paper must be repetitive if we add another dimension to the sheet, forming the more numerous cubes, but can only use the same numbers that were on the sheet.
It was the formation of atoms, in the early universe, which was the doorway to multi-dimensional space. Atoms of each element are essentially identical, but can be arranged in many different ways when distributed in multi-dimensional space. Another way in which we can see the repetition of information because the only information that there is in the universe to build on is in orbits. Electrons in atoms are in orbitals around the central nucleus. In the astronomical objects which are composed of these atoms, we see this pattern repeating itself in how moons orbit planets and planets orbit stars.
This is the way it has to be because there is no other information to build on, other than that contained within the atoms. The additional dimensions over which the strings of matter from the original two-dimensional sheet were thrown bring about the possibility of forms that were hitherto impossible, but there is no new information to go on so that the same patterns must be repeated.
In the section, "Why All Gravitational Spheres In The Universe Must Be Different", we saw how no two gravitational spheres which form in the universe can be exactly alike. These gravitational spheres are the stars and planets which form by matter in space being pulled together by it's mutual gravity to form a sphere, because that is the geometric form with the lowest energy state. The reason that no two such gravitational spheres can be exactly alike is that this would require that there had been more information contained in the Big Bang, which was a relatively simple event.
Consider the example that I used of a group of people each being given a traffic cone, or other marker, and told to place their marker somewhere in a field without regard to where the other people were putting their markers. The markers would be randomly placed, so that a lot of information would be required to describe all of their locations. Now suppose that the people were instructed to put their markers in a straight line with one another. It would require that the people be given more information to begin with, but would require less information to describe the final positions of the markers. Then suppose that the people were instructed to place their markers not only in a straight line, but also with equal space between them. It would require still more information to begin with, but would end up requiring even less information to describe the final positions. If the amount of information about setting up the markers that could be given at the beginning was limited, it would mean that the distribution of the markers in the field would have to be more random. This is the way the Big Bang was, it's simplicity did not contain the information required for the gravitational spheres in the universe to be exactly alike or evenly spaced.
As another simple example of the information in the Big Bang, suppose that you threw a handful of sand. The grains of sand would have to distribute in a random pattern simply because there is not enough information in your muscles which threw the sand to make the grains of sand land in any kind of regular or meaningful pattern.
There is another way of looking at why no two gravitational spheres in the universe can be exactly the same, and it has to do with my cosmological theory of a two-dimensional sheet of space disintegrating, in the Big Bang, into one-dimensional strings of matter thrown out across four dimensions of the background space, but with only the information contained in it's two dimensions.
In my cosmological theory, there are two original dimensions and two additional dimensions, and these two sets of dimensions which comprise our universe must naturally be equal. If every planet were identical to every other planet, and every star identical to every other star, there would be far, far more repetition of these two patterns than the numbers of the patterns themselves. This would mean that the two additional dimensions of space contained more information than the original two dimensions of space, the two-dimensional sheet which disintegrated to form our strings of matter.
Since this cannot be, the two sets of two dimensions must contain equal volumes of information, it has to be that patterns like stars and planets continuously repeat but no two repetitions are exactly alike. The fact that they are not exactly alike puts more information back in the original two dimensions so that the information in the two sets of dimensions balances out. If the matter of our universe is distributed across four dimensions, the information within that matter must be spread equally across all four dimensions. But the repetition is necessary because the information in only two dimensions is spread across four dimensions. If the matter from the original two-dimensional sheet had been thrust across more than four dimensions, that would open up more potential complexity so that there would have to be even more repetition of patterns.
What about the world of living things, such as ourselves? I believe living things to be a special creation of God, but we are still composed of the same atoms as the inanimate universe and exactly the same repetition can be seen simply because if information contained in two dimensions is thrust across four dimensions, so that there is more potential complexity, patterns must repeat because there will not be enough information available to match this potential complexity.
In living things, there are many of each species but from the same DNA. The actions that living things do, such as eating and walking and sleeping, repeat on a daily scale. On a larger scale, it is often said that "history repeats itself", just as the orbitals of electrons in inanimate matter can be seen to repeat themselves on a larger scale in the orbits of the astronomical objects that are composed of these atoms. Even though there are very many of each individual species, no two are precisely alike, just as no two gravitational spheres in the universe can be precisely alike.
17) THE REALM OF THE INFINITESIMAL
The question of what infinity means can get somewhat philosophical in nature. I find that the opposite question, what infinitesimal means, is much more scientific. The infinitesimal is a state of pure information, that cannot be expressed as anything but information.
Physicists tell us that everything is really numbers being manifested. In my cosmology theory, everything is really information. The universe, both space and matter, is composed of electric charges. The information in how these charges are arranged tells us whether we have matter or space.
If there is an alternating pattern of negative and positive electric charges, we have space, since opposite charges attract as like charges repel. This is why so-called electromagnetic waves, such as light, appear to be electromagnetic. The disturbance of the wave upsets the perfect balance of the charges, revealing their underlying electromagnetism.
If there is energy holding like charges together, against their mutual repulsion, we have matter. The reason that you see objects is that an electromagnetic wave, such as light, cannot continue into an area where like charges are held together, and so reflects off it back into the alternating charge pattern of space.
Energy is the same thing as information because we cannot apply energy to something without also adding information to it, and we cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it.
Distance in space is information because it is really the number of possible permutations where the matter that is could have been, but isn't. Distance is the number of component electric charges across space, and since these charges cannot be compressed together, the information of how many electric charges and the number of possible permutations must show up as distance.
My definition of infinitesimal is that we are in the realm of the infinitesimal when everything can only be expressed as information, and not as matter or space or energy. The infinitesimal is thus the realm of pure information.
An electron is sometimes described as infinitesimal, a mere point particle with no discernible dimensions or internal structure, and whose only information is it's electric charge and it's location. Some physicists also describe an electron as a wave, as well as a particle. But this means that an electron is not truly infinitesimal because it can be described as something other than pure information.
Infinitesimal means not only pure information, but the lowest and least complex possible number representing that information. In the realm of the infinitesimal, we come to the electric charges that comprise the universe. There is ultimately only +1, for a positive charge, and - 1, for a negative charge. We cannot describe a single electric charge as anything but pure information, either + 1 or - 1.
Numbers higher than 1 cannot be expressed only as pure information because, with more than one electric charge in a set, there must be information on how those charges arrange, relative to one another, and that will define them as either matter or space. There are only these two possibilities for what a set of electric charges can be because there are only two rules governing the basic electric charges, that opposite charges attract while like charges repel.
(Remember my process for determining the complexity of a number. Express the number as a fraction, reduced to the lowest terms. The complexity of the number is equal to the value of the denominator. This means that all whole numbers have the same and lowest value of complexity, that of 1. A high number is not more complex than a lower number because all numbers are part of a unified system, with a number expressing what it is by relating to the other numbers that it isn't).
Since whether we have space or matter depends on how the component electric charges are arranged. So, a single electric charge cannot be described as either space or matter, but only as pure information. There is no way to break down an electric charge into anything more basic.
One thing that cannot really exist is nothing. If there was really nothing, there would be nothing to define it as nothing. Zero is not the same thing as nothing. Zero is an unfilled permutation, but since it has this definition it exists within the set of information that is the universe and is not the same thing at all as nothing.
Information flows so well through the universe, from lowest scale to highest, because the universe is actually information.
18) NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE INFORMATION IN THE UNIVERSE
I have found that the universe, and how it operates, becomes much easier to understand if we introduce the concept of negative and positive information.
We know that matter has more information in it than space, even though both are composed of the same two electric charges, because there are different possible permutations of the charges in matter, any of which can be reversed into antimatter. But there is no corresponding reversal of the electric charges in space because space is already the simplest permutation of the electric charges, which is an alternating checkerboard pattern of the two electric charges.
What I would like to discuss today is that there is information in every scale of the universe that we look at, from the scale of atoms right up to the scale of the arrangement of galactic groups across the entire universe. The information seen at every scale is actually the same information, but it has been reversed from the scale below. This is actually the way it has to be because there is no new information being introduced into the universe. The only information within some structure of matter is that contained within it's building blocks, such as the atoms of which matter is composed. These building blocks can only be the structures of the level below.
So, if information is simply reversed from one level of the universe to the next, it must mean that the information first goes in one direction and then the opposite direction. Thus, we could say that one direction is positive and the other negative, and this would match the information in the basic electric charges of the universe which can also be seen in the alternating crests and troughs of electromagnetic waves.
Here is my definition of negative and positive information. When something starts out in an orderly pattern, and it is thrown out across space in some way, there is information in it's new pattern that has been added. The new pattern will not be orderly, or at least not as orderly, as before. I call this positive information.
Information is not necessarily cumulative. Information may work against itself. We can actually add more information to the new, less orderly pattern, to reverse the previous information and bring it back to a more orderly pattern. This is what we can call negative information.
(Note-Remember, once again, that energy and information is really the same thing because we cannot add energy to anything without also adding information to it, and we cannot add information to anything without adding energy to it).
Like anything to do with the electric charges themselves, we could simply interchange the terms of negative and positive.
The Big Bang began the universe, and introduced it's complexity or information into it. But there is far more potential complexity in the universe which the matter from the Big Bang was thrown across than there was information in the Big Bang to fulfill that complexity.
This is why information in the universe must repeat itself. An example is orbits. There are electrons in orbitals around the nucleus of an atom, electrons operate in pairs with each having a spin that is opposite to the other. But when the atoms collect together by gravity to form spherical astronomical objects, such as stars and planets, there is no new information with which to construct these objects other than that which was already within their atoms. This is why we see spherical moons rotating while in orbit around spherical planets, and planets rotating while in orbits around spherical stars.
The information within the orbitals, and spherical shapes, of the atoms had to repeat itself at a larger scale because there was no new information with which to construct the astronomical objects. This is also why there are about the same number of classifications of stars and of forms of galaxies as there is common atoms, about seven or eight. This is, once again, because the information within atoms must be repeated at higher scales simply because there is no new information available with which to construct large-scale structures when atoms come together by gravity.
This is why most of the original atoms in the universe were hydrogen atoms, and those hydrogen atoms had to be the same as one another simply because there was no information available to make them different. For all hydrogen atoms to have been different from one another, or even for there to have been a number of classifications of hydrogen atoms, would have required more information than was available. this was thus negative information.
The atoms were thrown out across the universe by the momentum of the Big Bang. The information about their new positions in space must thus be positive information.
But when these atoms come together by gravity to form spheres such as stars and planets, we find that both sets of previous negative and positive information are visible. Instead of the spherical astronomical objects having to be the same because there is no information to make them different, like the atoms from which they are composed, we find that the opposite occurs. The distribution of matter across the universe, on the level of planets and stars, must be different in that it is random both in the sizes and makeup of the spheres and of the distances between them, because there is no information to make it the same, the same meaning the regular and orderly pattern that I define as negative information.
The analogy that I like to use for the distribution of matter in the universe, at the level of stars and planets, is that of a handful of sand being thrown. There is a tremendous amount of potential complexity in how the grains of sand could be arranged, but not enough information in the muscles which throw the sand to arrange it in any kind of orderly pattern. The planets and stars are quite different from one another, and the distances between them are also different. This is positive information.
Astronomical bodies above a certain size must form spheres when their atoms come together by gravity, but those spheres must be different from one another and randomly spaced because for it to be otherwise would require information which did not exist. This means that the level of gravitational spheres, stars and planets, represents positive information.
I saw the skylight dome in the roof of the Erin Mills Town Centre, a suburb of Toronto, and it reminded me of the old controversy of whether the earth is round or flat. The dome portrays the earth as round, but what does this mean exactly? We could define flat as the condition of least information, because hills and valleys would require more information. But a flat plane actually requires more information than a sphere because one such plane must be differentiated from all other geometric planes. A sphere thus really is flat, since it is the three-dimensional geometric form requiring the least information, but it is flat in all possible geometric planes, rather than one specific plane, because there is no information to specify one plane out of all the others..
But yet, when we move up to a larger scale we find that this pattern of information alternates again. At the next highest level above that of spheres, the galactic level, there is not enough information to being all of the spheres in the universe together into one sphere, which would be a giant black hole, So, it brings spheres together into many galaxies, which must be more similar to one another than the spheres. Spheres come together into the gravitational webs of galaxies, but not actually in contact with one another.
When those astronomical spheres, the stars and planets, come together by gravity into larger groupings which are galaxies then we see that those galaxies must be more the same, because there is no information available to make them different. This again represents negative information. This is the same negative information that made the original atoms more the same because there was no information to make them different, but not the positive information of the level of gravitational spheres in between.
There are only a few basic forms of galaxies, actually about the same number as the number of common atoms and the number of classifications of stars. When random distribution is arranged in a larger-scale structure, the arrangement must be more orderly because another level of randomness would make the distribution more random than it should be with regard to the information present.
The information that makes the level of galaxies more the same, because there is no information to make it different, cannot be new information because no new information has been added. It is actually a mirror-image reversal of the information at the previous level. It is thus not any new information, but the information at the previous level, except in reverse.
The information that brings about this reversal is not new information either, it comes from the information in the alternating negative and positive electric charges that comprise the universe. This alternation of negative and positive information also shows in how the permutations of electric charges which form matter can be in reversal as antimatter, and also how the electromagnetic waves which carry information through space consist of alternating crests and troughs. Each half-cycle of a wave is simply a mirror-image reversal of the other, and the universe works in exactly the same way.
But now when large numbers of galaxies come together, to form galactic groups, the pattern alternates yet again. The groups of galaxies, our galaxy belongs to a grouping logically called the Local Group, we find that those groupings must be quite different from one another because there is no information to make them the same. This is in the same way as the level of spheres, which was the last positive information cycle. As in each of the lower levels, this is simply a reversal of the information in the previous level.
Finally, when we come to the largest scale in the universe of all, that of the spurs and filaments and vast voids of empty space in between, we alternate back to the design of the universe being the same because there is not enough information to make it different. This is returning back to the negative information cycle of the original atoms of the universe, of which all of this matter is composed. The distribution patterns of groups of galaxies on an extremely large scale forms what are referred to as spurs and filaments with voids in between to form a kind of web-like structure. There is a Wikipedia article titled "Galaxy Filament", if you would like to have a closer look.
In summary, neither the orderliness nor the randomness of any distribution pattern can be increased by constructing structures in the next largest scale. To do so would require more information than is available if the only information was that being reused from the structure of the lowest level. So, the successive scales of organization must necessarily alternate between order and randomness, which is between negative and positive information. Order represents the information available, randomness represents the lack of information or the difference between the order and potential complexity.
Notice again that this alternating manifestation of complexity, that we have seen here, matches the alternating peak and trough cycles of electromagnetic waves. The wave pattern, in turn, is a reflection of the information in the fundamental electric charges of which, in my cosmology theory, everything including space and matter is ultimately composed. There are only two of these electric charges, negative and positive. Just as the orbits of astronomical objects is a reflection of the information of the electron orbitals within atoms, so electromagnetic waves with the alternating peaks and troughs are a reflection of the two opposite electric charges of which the space that the waves are travelling through is composed.
Living things have a second dimension of information that inanimate matter does not have, as we saw in "How Biology And Human Life Fits Into Cosmology". This shows up in how living things have both information states at the same time. There is similarity within each living species, but the species are different from one another because there is no information to make them all the same.
To really understand this universe, we must understand that it is a simple place with a limited amount of information.
19) THE INFORMATION INVOLVED IN THE ACCELERATION OF THE EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE
One of the great mysteries today is why the expansion of the universe, outward from the Big Bang, is not slowing down. In fact, not only is it not slowing down, the expansion of the universe has been found to be actually speeding up. But the concept of how information operates in the universe, that I have been discussing here, has a simple explanation for it.
Energy and information is the same thing. We cannot apply energy to anything without also applying information to it, and we cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it. We can make life physically easier through technology, requiring less energy, but only at the expense of making it more complex, requiring more information. We can never, on a large scale, make life both physically easier and also less complex.
This shows that energy and information are interchangeable, and thus the same thing.
Information can be stored as permutations. The energy equivalent of this information is that which it takes to arrange the permutations. This is the pattern that I refer to, in my patterns and complexity theory, as "The One And The Many". If there are a hundred holes in a peg board, and a peg that can fit into any one of the holes, there are a hundred possible permutations.
If there were two pegs, and they were equivalent and interchangeable, there would be 100 X 99 = 9900 possible permutations. There would not be 100 squared possible permutations because, when the first peg is put in a hole, there are only 99 remaining possibilities for the second peg. If the two pegs were distinct, and not interchangeable, there would be double the number of possible permutations.
The information in permutations is the permutation that is, relative to the number of permutations that could be but are not. Remember my axiom that the complexity of a number is not the value of the number, all numbers in our number system are of equal complexity, but the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a fraction. The information stored in a permutation is equal to the one permutation that is, divided by the number of permutations that possibly could have been but aren't.
Permutations may or may not involve open spaces. If it does, then the open spaces are just another element of the permutation. We could say that a permutation involving open spaces is an "open permutation" while one that doesn't, such as the bits in a computer code, is a "closed permutation". Matter in the universe is an open permutation, because there is space between the matter which forms the permutations.
Odds are information, such as three persons having the same birthday, because it is only one permutation among all possible permutations.
Computers store information by permutations of 1s and 0s, the arrangement of which is one permutation out of all possible permutations of the bits. It is permutations of electric charges in space which, in my cosmology theory, forms the information in matter, which is the information equivalent of the well-known Mass-Energy Equivalence. Empty space is alternating negative and positive charges, in multiple dimensions, and any other arrangement requires energy and holds the information that is equivalent to this energy, because remember that energy and information is really the same thing. Words and numbers store information as permutations of numbers and digits.
Suppose that we have a handful of sand. There is only one possible permutation of the sand grains because no energy, which is the same as information, is being applied to it. Now suppose that we throw the sand which is applying energy to it, and thus information, to it. This information must be manifested somehow. The only way to manifest it is the permutation of the grains of sand, as they land on the floor. The grains will occupy one permutation out of all possible permutations, or arrangements, of the grains with the level of energy, which is information, that was applied. Empty spaces on the floor, between the grains of sand, represent those permutations that could possibly have been with the amount of energy that was applied, but were not. This stores the information which is equivalent to energy.
If the sand was thrown with more force, the grains would land over a wider area. This means that there is more information. The grains occupy only one permutation out of all possible permutations, which is the pattern referred to as "The One And The Many". This is the information equivalent of the energy that was applied to throw the sand.
When energy is applied to throw units of matter, such as grains of sand, outward, the units will end up occupying one particular permutation out of a number of permutations that would have been possible with the amount of energy applied. The number of possible permutations is the information that is equivalent to the energy that threw the grains of sand outward. When the grains of sand are thrown with more force, the higher energy equals more information, and so there must be more unfilled permutations. in other words, the grains of sand scatter over a wider area.
But what if we use the same amount of force, and thus information, to throw a ball, instead of grains of sand? It would seem that there would have to be less information represented because the ball is not formed of grains that can scatter into a permutation. But actually the equation must include the information that went into making the ball. There is much more information initially in the ball than there is in the grains of sand. When the force, which is information, is applied to the ball, it is less in proportion to the information that is already in the ball then it is to the information which is already in the grains of sand. The information equivalent of the energy that went into throwing the ball would be expressed as changing the position and alignment of the ball relative to the surroundings.
The reason that the information equivalent of the application of energy in a throw would be expressed in the ball by the changed relation it caused to it's surroundings, but to the grains of sand their relation to each other is the level of information that the ball and the grains of sand have within them to begin with. The ball could be thought of as being composed of grains, like the grains of sand, that have already had the information (energy) applied to make them into a permanent permutation.
When matter was thrown out across space by the Big Bang, the matter crossed a certain amount of space. Why did it cross the distance of space that it did so that any matter is a given distance from any other matter? It can only be that the space that matter has crossed must be the information of all the permutations of matter that potentially could have been with the application of energy, but weren't.
Matter was thrown out far enough for atoms to form, and atoms are the main unit of information concerning matter. If matter had not been thrown out with enough energy, which is information, atoms would not form. Molecules, which are arrangements of atoms, are also information and require enough energy, which is information, to be applied in the beginning to form.
In this scenario of information in the matter thrown out across space by the Big Bang, identical atoms are interchangeable. With two atoms of the same element, isotope and, ion state would be interchangeable. It would represent only one permutation of the atoms in the universe whether or not the atoms had their places exchanged.
All universes that could exist have room for them to exist but, except for the permutation that is our universe, exist only as empty space. All open space that is within the domain of matter is the possible permutations of matter that would be other universe that possibly could, but do not, exist with the energy, which is information, that was applied in the Big Bang.
In 1998 two separate teams of researchers both found that, not only is the expansion of the universe from the Big Bang not slowing down, it is actually speeding up. What could possibly be making the expansion of the universe speed up? Scientists are looking for some "dark energy" that is driving the expansion, but my theory of how information operates in the universe provides a simple answer.
The basic unit of matter is atoms, and atoms are interchangeable with regard to the information in the permutation of matter in the universe as long as they are alike. But the atoms of the universe are not static. Small atoms are continuously being crunched together by nucleo-synthesis into larger atoms. Even though this means that there are fewer atoms in the universe, it increases the numbers of rarer atoms, and so increases the total number of possible permutations of the atoms in the universe.
If there are a hundred blue coins, which are interchangeable, in a larger number of open empty spaces into which they could fit, the coins will occupy one possible permutation or arrangement out of all possible permutations. The more open spaces, where coins could possibly fit, even if the number of coins remains the same, will mean more information, as well as more energy that it would take to spread the coins across the greater space. To open more spaces, into which the coins could fit, would be the equivalent of throwing the grains of sand out with more force, so that they assembled into a permutation over a wider area.
If we could fuse two blue coins together to form a red coin, which was not interchangeable with the blue coins, there would now be more possible permutations, and thus more information, even though there would be fewer coins. If each of the coins were distinct, and not interchangeable with the others, the number of possible permutations would be multiplied by the number of coins, relative to the number of permutations if the coins were interchangeable.
As the universe expanded from the Big Bang, matter underwent continuous transformation. It took a long time for the matter to cool enough for atoms to form. At any time during the expansion of the universe from the Big Bang, the space over which matter was scattered matched exactly the information in the possible permutations of that matter that possibly could have been, but weren't.
Nuclear fusion in stars, crunching smaller atoms into larger ones, and so changing the number of possible permutations of atoms in the universe, is literally driving the speeding up of the expansion of the universe. This is because the rarer heavier atoms that are being produced by crunching much more common smaller atoms together during nuclear fusion in stars means that there are more possible permutations of the atoms in the universe, and more space is required to express the possible permutations of those atoms that could possibly exist, but don't. The atoms of heavier elements from supernovae, when cooled down, that can form molecules, adds possible permutations and this is information that further drives the expansion of the universe.
20) THE GREAT MYSTERY OF CLOUD ALTITUDES
Matter is made of atoms, which may combine together to form molecules. The bonds holding atoms together, known as binding energy, are far stronger than those holding molecules together. This is why we get so much more energy, per mass, from the splitting of atoms in nuclear energy, on the order of about a billion times more, than we do from the chemical energy in the molecular bonds, that is released when we burn fuel.
The difference in the strength of the two bonds is information, and, since our familiar universe is held together by these two bonds, the information representing the great difference between the strength of the two bonds should be expected to show up very prominently in the world and the universe around us.
If matter collects together by gravity in space, it will form into a sphere when there is a sufficient quantity of matter present. This is because a sphere is the shape with the least surface area per volume, and thus the lowest information and energy state.
Now, suppose we keep adding more and more and more matter. Eventually we will reach the point where the mutual gravity of the vast amount of matter will be strong enough to overcome the electron repulsion that keeps atoms apart. Because like electric charges repel, atoms are kept from merging into one another by the mutual repulsion of the electrons in adjacent atoms in their outer orbitals.
But if enough matter can be brought together to overcome this electron repulsion, small atoms are crunched together into larger ones. The larger one has less total binding energy than the smaller ones that were crunched together to form it. The excess energy is released as radiation. This is what is known as a star, and is why stars shine.
This is what we saw in the posting on the physics and astronomy blog, www.markmeekphysics.blogspot.com , "The Chemical-Nuclear-Astronomical Relationship".
But notice that the relationship between the minimum amount of matter that it takes to form a gravitational sphere and the minimum amount of matter that it takes to form a star is just about exactly the same as the relationship between the strength of the energy in the molecular bonds, which hold atoms together into molecules, and the strength of the binding energy that holds the atoms themselves together.
The relationship between the mass that it takes to form a sphere and the mass that it takes to form a star is information, and this information must come from somewhere, and now we can see where it comes from. The ratio of the minimum mass necessary to form a gravitational sphere to the minimum mass necessary to form a star is determined by the ratio of the strengths of molecular bonds to the strength of nuclear bonds.
What about on the earth? We see exactly the same relationship. The strength of gravity is proportional to the mass involved, and mass is energy according to the well-known mass-energy equivalence. But the energy in molecular bonds is not aligned with the binding energy in atoms, and thus can work against it. The energy in the molecular bonds is much weaker than the binding energy in atoms, but can counteract it to some extent.
This is what results in the irregularities in the earth's surface, the heights of mountains and the depths of the oceans. The information for how high mountains can be, in proportion to the size of the earth, has to come from somewhere, it does not matter how the mountains are formed, and it has just about the same relationship as the difference between the relationship between the formation of gravitational spheres and the formation of stars.
Since rock structures on earth are made of molecules, the strength of the energy in these molecular bonds relative to that of the binding energy holding the atoms together shows up in the scale of irregularities of the earth's surface, relative to the scale of the earth itself.
This is what we saw on the geology blog, www.markmeekearth.blogspot.com , in the posting "The Mountain Altitude Constant And Molecular Bonds".
Now, let's turn our attention to the clouds that are in the earth's atmosphere. There are three basic types of cloud. Cumulus are the low-level fluffy clouds. Stratus are the low-level layers of cloud. Fog is when a stratus cloud forms at ground level. Cirrus are the high wispy clouds that are composed of ice crystals.
The three basic types of cloud can combine to form cirro-cumulus or cirro-stratus. There is also the "alto" versions of the low cumulus and stratus clouds. The prefix alto- means "high", so that there are altocumulus and altostratus clouds. But the alto clouds are not as high as cirrus clouds.
Here is a chart of the cloud types, and their relative altitudes. To the left of the diagram, Cu represents cumulus, Ci represents cirrus, Ac represents altocumulus and, Cc represents cirrocumulus. S represents stratus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_cloud#/media/File:Wolkenstockwerke.png
We could refer to cirrus and cumulus as "structural clouds", because they have a certain definite form and structure, and stratus clouds as "non-structural" clouds, because they are simply a layer of water droplets that have condensed on particles of dust.
Here is the question that we are dealing with today: Why is it that "structural" clouds, cirrus and cumulus but not stratus, form at a narrowly-defined altitude at any given latitude on earth?
As water evaporates into the atmosphere, it condenses as clouds at a certain altitude. But what exactly determines the altitude? We know that both temperature and pressure decrease with altitude, and that cooler and thinner air can hold less water vapor and so the water must condense as the droplets that form clouds.
But both cirrus and cumulus clouds always form at about the same altitude. The altitude does vary somewhat with the latitude on the earth's surface, clouds are higher at the equator then at the poles, but does not vary from summer to winter or from high to low pressure. The difference in gravity from the surface to cloud altitudes is simply not significant enough to affect cloud formation.
This isn't something that most people stop to think about, but it long puzzled me and the information has to come from somewhere.
Cirrus clouds are formed primarily of ice crystals, rather than water droplets, and are very high in altitude. Since they are composed of ice, they could theoretically form at lower altitudes in the winter, but they don't. We can tell just by looking at cirrus clouds that they are composed of ice crystals because the clouds align with the wind direction at that altitude.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_cloud#/media/File:Cirrus_fibratus_and_Cirrocumulus.jpg
This means that the particles of which they are composed must have a long side and a short side, and the long side aligns with the wind like a wind vane. This is not true of cumulus clouds, composed primarily of spherical water droplets, which may move with the wind but do not align with it.
Another way to tell from the surface that cirrus clouds are composed primarily of ice crystals, while cumulus clouds are water droplets is by optical effects. The ice crystals of cirrus clouds give direct optical effects, in that they reflect light from the sun passing through to create sun dogs and similar optical effects ( See the section of the theory of how information flows through the universe, "Sun Dogs And The Nature Of Electron Orbitals").
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_cloud#/media/File:CircumhorizonArcIdaho.jpg
The water droplets of cumulus clouds give indirect optical effects in that light is reflected from the inside of the droplets that it enters, so that it is sent back in the same direction. This is why you only see a rainbow when the sun is behind you.
As we saw in my theory of water, "Water Made Really Simple" on the meteorology and biology blog www.markmeeklife.blogspot.com , the droplets of cumulus clouds do not necessarily freeze in winter because the curvature of the strings of water molecules prevents the cross-linking of the strings which brings about freezing. Water freezes when the temperature gets cold enough that the movement of strings of water molecules slows enough for cross-linking to take place.
I conclude that the determinant of cloud altitude is the total strength of the molecular bonds in the unit of which the the cloud is composed, whether water droplets or ice crystals, relative to the much stronger bonds holding the atoms together. The altitude of the cloud will be defined as the square of the altitude of the cloud above the surface, relative to the square of the radius of the earth.
Low-altitude cumulus clouds have relatively short strings of water molecules. Because the heat at lower altitudes makes the strings of water molecules vibrate faster, and the molecules at the ends of the strings are more likely to break off, the average string of water molecules will be shorter at lower altitudes. This means that the average length of a string of water molecules will be greater in alto-cumulus clouds than in lower-level cumulus clouds. This then means that there is more total molecular bond strength in the alto-cumulus cloud strings, and this is why they must be higher in altitude, because the droplet total molecular bond strength is greater relative to the strength of nuclear bonds.
Cirrus clouds are composed of ice crystals, rather than the water droplets of lower clouds. The difference between the two, according to my theory of water, is that there are the bonds of cross-linking as well. But this cross-linking adds more molecular bond strength to the total bond strength of the average cloud crystal. So this added molecular strength , relative to the much-greater strength of the nuclear binding energy which is represented by the size of the earth, means that cirrus clouds must be at higher altitudes than those composed of water droplets, without the cross-linking that brings about freezing.
It is really amazing that the usual highest altitudes of ordinary clouds, the heights of the highest mountains and the maximum ocean depths are all roughly equal. A comet impact could have caused deeper ocean depths, like the Marianas Trench. This distance is about one one-thousandth the radius of the earth. If we square one thousand, due to the Inverse Square Law, we get a million times. This is less than the order of a billion or so of the comparison of energy per mass of nuclear and chemical (molecular) energy.
But it would make sense that the molecular bond energies are cumulative so that each ice crystal in cirrus clouds, or rock crystal in mountains or in the rock of the seafloor contains an average of about a thousand molecular bonds, and so this distance relative to the radius of the earth would work out to be just about right. The reason that the heights of mountains and depth of seas are not one unit is that the continents are not part of the original earth, but were added later by the Continental Asteroids, as described in my geology theory by that name.
The reason that a few mountains can exceed this altitude rule, such as Everest and K2, is that my geological theory has two Continental Asteroids and when land masses that originated from each collide, this brings the information and energy of two Continental Asteroids, rather than one.
Another posting on the meteorology and biology blog, "Sunset Measurements", is the method of measuring cloud altitudes that I developed, using the sunset or sunrise.
21) SPIRAL AND ANTI-SPIRAL PATTERNS IN THE UNIVERSE
According to my cosmology theory, the universe began with the inductive reproduction of electric charges. An initial charge, whether negative or positive, induced an opposite charge next to it because it was necessary to bring about charge balance. That new charge then induced an opposite charge next to it, which was the same as the original charge, and so on in multiple dimensions.
This brings us to a multi-dimensional checkerboard pattern of alternating negative and positive electric charges, and this is what composes empty space. A charge is surrounded by opposite charges, in the pattern of a checkerboard, because opposite charges attract while like charges repel.
But if energy is present, it can overcome the repulsive force between like charges to hold a mass of like charges together. Such concentrations of like charge, according to the cosmology theory as opposed to the alternating charges of space, is what we would refer to as matter. This is what energy always ultimately does, overcomes the mutual repulsion of like electric charges.
This explains the structure of the entire universe. First, the inductive reproduction of opposite electric charges to form the checkerboard pattern of empty space. Second, the overcoming by energy of the repulsive force between like charges to bring about the concentrations of like charges that we perceive as matter.
But this is information and, if it is correct, must be reflected in the large-scale structure of the universe. This is because of my other cosmology theory, about how information flows through the universe from the lowest to the highest levels. The large-scale structure of the universe must be based on the structure at the lowest levels, that of the fundamental electric charges, because there is no other information from anywhere on which it could be based.
A simple example of how a large-scale structure must be based on the lower-level information on which it is composed is how planets orbit stars and moons orbit planets in the same way that electrons in orbitals around the nuclei of the atoms of which the stars, planets and, moons are composed. This is the way it has to be because there is no other information from anywhere on which to construct the large-scale structures which are the moons and planets and stars.
We could say that the difference between these two factors is that the inductive reproduction of electric charges is anti-spiral in that the induction by each charge produces the opposite of itself, that is the opposite charge, rather than producing more of the same. While the overcoming of the mutual repulsion of like charges by energy, to create matter, is spiral because it tends to produce more of itself.
According to my cosmology theory, the way that the overcoming of the mutual repulsion of like electric charges, to form matter, is spiral is that this is what brings about gravity. If inductive charge reproduction is so that the number of opposite electric charges, negative and positive, must be equal, then the rules of the electric charges, that opposite charges attract while like charges repel, must also be equal. If energy then overcomes some of the mutual repulsion between like charges, then it must leave a neat attractive charge. This net attractive charge is what we know as gravity.
Gravity is the basis of the spiral pattern in the universe, something that brings about more of itself, because matter has gravity that draws other matter in. This gives the mass still more gravity so that it can draw still more mass in, and so on. Thus, matter pulling in more matter by gravity is the fundamental spiral pattern, bringing about more of itself, in the universe.
So, if both my cosmological theory about the universe being based on electric charges, which compose strings of matter after some of the repulsion between like charges has been overcome by energy, and the cosmological information theory about how the structure of the highest levels of matter in the universe must be based on the information in the lowest levels, because there is no more information from anywhere on which to base the structure of the large-scale universe, are correct, then we should see both spiral and anti-spiral patterns in the universe all around us.
But since the electric charges, with the inductive reproduction of opposite charges, came first and are the more fundamental of the two, since the array of electric charges must first exist before energy can be applied to them to hold some bundles of like charges together against the mutual repulsion of like charges, which would bring about the gravity which is the primary spiral pattern, the anti-spiral pattern should dominate the universe overall.
There are indeed two great, and opposing, patterns which govern all change in the universe. These two patterns, encompassing all of the basic forces, are the spiral and the anti-spiral. Put simply, a spiral is a pattern of change that tends to create more of itself, resulting in a spiral, while the anti-spiral has a built-in resistance to creating more of itself. Spiral often amounts to attraction, and anti-spiral to repulsion or dispersion. These opposing patterns of change are reflected at all levels of reality in the universe. On a large scale gravity is spiral and the Big Bang, the explosion which began the universe, is anti-spiral.
The attraction usually represents the spiral, beginning with gravity, while the repulsion represents the anti-spiral. Since all the universe must ultimately operate on the principles of it's most fundamental components, this attraction and repulsion is represented in the universe as a whole as spiral and anti-spiral.
All motion and change in the universe results from the tension between spiral and anti-spiral. If there was either one, but not the other, the universe would be still. If the universe were totally spiral, there would be one concentrated black hole. If it were completely anti-spiral, there would be no coherent matter but only dispersed particles.
It was the Big Bang which defined the universe as primarily anti-spiral by scattering matter across space. Gravity, representing the spiral, attracts the matter back together but has not proven strong enough to reverse the dispersion brought about by the Big Bang. This sets the pattern that, while the universe has both the spiral and anti-spiral patterns, the anti-spiral is overall dominant.
If gravity does bring enough matter together it will form a star, but then some of those later explode in a miniature version of the Big Bang anti-spiral known as a supernova. But such an explosion of a star, which was brought together by gravity, is not enough to completely reverse the spiral concentration of gravity because the lighter elements which originally formed the star remain fused together into the heavier elements which are scattered across space by the supernova.
The two opposing patterns, rooted in the attraction and repulsion of the fundamental charges composing the universe, but with some of the repulsive force overcome by energy to form gravity, are to be seen in the smallest scale of reality just as in the largest. All of the basic forces of physics cannot be either spiral or anti-spiral, this would bring the movement and change in the universe to a halt. For the universe to be dynamic as we see it today, the basic forces must be divided between the spiral and the anti-spiral. But the ultimate reason that the universe is governed by these two opposing patterns is that it is composed of the two opposite electric charges, which we call negative and positive.
The strong nuclear force, which binds the positively-charged protons in the nucleus together against their like-charge mutual repulsion, is spiral. But the so-called weak nuclear force, related to the breaking apart of large atoms by radioactivity, and also the electromagnetic force which is based on the nature of the fundamental electric charges, are anti-spiral.
Here is a list, and a brief explanation, of common anti-spiral patterns:
Balance-anything that maintains balance resists the concentration of spiraling, and is thus anti-spiral.
Induction-an electric current in a coil which induces another current in a nearby wire, will induce the current in such a way that it resists the original current by flowing in the opposite direction, thus making it anti-spiral.
Equal And Opposite Reaction-Sir Isaac Newton's Law that for every physical action, there must be an equal and opposite reaction, maintains the overall balance of matter and so is anti-spiral. You can easily see that this law of equal and opposite reactions is ultimately based on the information in the two equal and opposite electric charges that compose the universe. Simple examples of equal and opposite reactions are the thrust of a rocket in one direction sends the rocket in the opposite direction and, if two gears are meshed and one is turned then the other will rotate in the opposite direction.
Flood-when liquid spreads out over a surface, instead of concentrating, it is anti-spiral.
Enclosed Gas-an enclosed gas in a container will spread evenly throughout the container, instead of concentrating in one place, making it anti-spiral.
Big Bang-the explosion which brought about the universe by scattering matter across space is the original anti-spiral.
Explosion-any explosion, resulting in dispersion rather than concentration, is anti-spiral.
Osmosis-the dispersion of a concentration in a liquid is anti-spiral.
Centrifugal Force-the outward force of spin is the opposite of gravity, and so is anti-spiral.
Fission-the dispersion of splitting large atoms into smaller ones is anti-spiral.
Radioactivity-this involves the splitting of large atoms, and so is anti-spiral.
Opposing Ideas-the competition and balance between opposing ideas, keeping one from dominating, is anti-spiral.
Anarchy-control is spiral, the dissolution of such control is anti-spiral.
Individualism-the concentration of the group is spiral, the dissolution of this is anti-spiral.
Entropy-I find that meaningful examples of entropy are found only in regard to living things, and the things that they make, but it is very anti-spiral. It is a lot easier to spill something than it is to put it back into the container.
Here is a list, and a brief explanation, of common spiral patterns which oppose the anti-spiral patterns:
Gravity-the ultimate spiral force is gravity. When a mass, such as a star or planet gains more mass by gravity, that will strengthen it's gravitational pull so that it can attract still more mass, creating the spiral. But this ultimately comes up against the dispersion anti-spiral of the Big Bang.
Centripetal Force-this is the spiral opposite of the outward anti-spiral centrifugal force.
Fusion-the spiral fusing of small atoms into larger ones within stars.
Hurricane-the self-sustaining nature of a hurricane makes it spiral.
Growth Pole-anything that acts as a starting point for growth is spiral.
Life-the growth and reproduction of living things makes them spiral, but this must ultimately be balanced by the anti-spiral death and decay.
Wealth And Poverty-wealth and poverty tend to exhibit a concentration spiral.
Authority-the opposite of anarchy is spiral.
Empire-one nation or authority, instead of many, is spiral.
Spread Of Idea-the triumph of one idea over others, and the resulting standardization, is spiral.
What we will refer to as a complex system involves both the spiral and the anti-spiral pattern. Complex systems are so called because they require more complexity to incorporate both the spiral and anti-spiral patterns. Living things are such complex systems, with the required complexity coming from the myriad of molecules that can be constructed from carbon atoms. Complexity itself is neither spiral, nor anti-spiral.
There are examples within simple spirals and anti-spirals of things to do with people or living things, such as nations or authority, but this is only because the higher complexity of people on opposing sides tends to cancel each other out.
The reason that I describe the universe as anti-spiral is that, when the two relate in complex terms it is always the anti-spiral pattern which ultimately predominates. This must be true in any continuous dynamic process, including all biological processes.
Intelligent living things are capable of doing work, which means making changes which would not otherwise occur. Work is opposition to the prevailing pattern. Since the anti-spiral pattern predominates in the universe. this means that work is most often spiral. The most common anti-spiral work would be clearing a wilderness.
Here are examples, and brief explanations, of complex patterns involving a peak:
Star-a star results from a gravitational concentration of matter, and fuses lighter elements into heavier ones, which are both spiral. But in large stars, this ultimately explodes in a supernova that scatters matter across space and so is anti-spiral.
Fire-fire is spiral in that it spreads, but ultimately anti-spiral in that is scatters the component atoms of it's fuel as ash and smoke.
Growth-the concentration brought about by the growth of living things is spiral, but must end in the death and decay which is anti-spiral.
Prices-the rising of prices due to demand is spiral, but that gives incentive for more production or to find substitutes which is anti-spiral.
Settlement-the growth of a town or city brings opportunity, which draws more settlers which make sit spiral, but is balanced against the resulting land scarcity and prices which drives to other settlements and this is anti-spiral.
Recession And Wealth-both tend toward spiraling, but cannot go on indefinitely.
There is a definite pattern in what we can see as either spiral or anti-spiral. If some force consists of a balance between two entities, it will form an anti-spiral. Spirals form when a force that creates it does not consist of any kind of balance between sub-entities.
If the force for change consists of a balance, the balance must be maintained and this causes the entity to resist creating more of itself. To do otherwise would alter the fundamental balance because it would necessitate that the sub-entities be created at exactly the same rate to preserve the balance. Remember that the pattern of balance is ultimately based on the balance of negative and positive charges in the universe.
Electrical induction provides an ideal example. If a current in one coil induces a secondary current in a nearby coil, the secondary current will flow in the direction through the wires which opposes the direction of the primary current. In other words, electrical induction is anti-spiral because it resists inducing a current in the original direction. It can be said to resist itself by inducing a current in the opposite direction. This is, of course, because the behavior of electric current is closely based on the nature of the fundamental electric charges.
Electricity is the movement of electrons, which are the fundamental negative charges of matter. This matter consists of a balance between our negative and positive charges which define the universe. Since the movement of electrons in the coil affects, and is affected by, this fundamental balance then an electric current must be anti-spiral in that it resists inducing more current in the same direction as the original.
Because electricity is related to the balance of charges, it must balance itself when induction takes place by inducing a current in the opposite direction. The way we see it a current which induces more current in the same direction would be creating electrical energy out of nothing, which would be nice, but not possible.
This information in the fundamental charges also defines the anti-spiral pattern that takes place when some force for change consists of a balance between sub-entities. When something from outside, such as the second electrical coil, becomes a part of the system, the only way to maintain the required balance is to have the current in the second coil flow in the opposite direction. This replicates the balance that exists between the fundamental negative and positive charges.
The reason that gravity is spiral is simply that, unlike the electric charges, there is no opposing force to gravity. Outside of science fiction, there is no such thing as anti-gravity. There is a balance in things that are anti-spiral because there is the balance between the negative and positive electric charges.
Gravity can be opposed by the kinetic energy of moving objects, but that is based on a principle similar in concept to the opposing electrical induction in that it is based on Newton's Law of equal and opposite reactions. The kinetic energy of moving atoms, which we refer to as heat, also ultimately comes down to this law that every action must be opposed by an equal and opposite reaction so that the original balance can be maintained. The equal and opposite reaction is, of course, a mirror of the equal and opposite electric charges of the mutual opposite charge induction that began the universe.
The same anti-spiral pattern can be seen in any force for change that consists of a balance. In economics, prices and goods pair up and create a balance. When there is a change in the supply or demand for the goods, prices change to restore the balance. This can only mean that, since it is based on a balance, the system must form an anti-spiral. Prices and goods remain in balance, neither just goes on increasing because it depends on the other. This is very similar to the negative and positive charges in balance.
Everything that brings about change is either spiral or anti-spiral. The Big Bang, the anti-spiral explosion which set the universe in motion, left it's imprint on the universe in that the anti-spiral must always ultimately predominate. For the two to be equal, gravity would have to be strong enough to pull the matter of the universe back together in order to reverse the Big Bang. The balance factor in the anti-spiral pattern is based on the original template of the balance between the fundamental negative and positive charges of which the universe is composed.
In conclusion, you can see that the large-scale universe is just as we would expect if both the cosmology theory of electric charges and strings of matter and also the theory of how information flows from the lowest to highest levels of the universe are correct. We can now see that both must be correct just by the patterns that we see in the universe.
There are both spiral and anti-spiral patterns all across the universe, but the anti-spiral ultimately predominates. This is because the anti-spiral pattern is based on the information in the alternating negative and positive electric charges that compose space. The opposite charges alternate because opposite charges attract, while like charges repel. But the repulsion between like charges can be overcome by energy, and this brings about the concentrations of like charge that we refer to as matter. But, since the two opposite charges came first and there is not enough energy to overcome only a very limited amount of the like-charge repulsion, the anti-spiral pattern dominates overall.
22) THE INFORMATION IN THE ROCK CYCLE AND THE WATER CYCLE
My cosmological theory of how information flows through the universe is that the highest-scale structures, such as stars and planets and galaxies, must be built on the information in the lowest-scale structures, such as atoms and sub-atomic particles, because there is no more information from anywhere with which to construct the large-scale structures. Once we establish this, it is very useful because it enables us to visualize what goes on in places where we cannot see, such as atoms and stars, because we can see information that must be a reflection of the information in these unseen places.
A simple example of how information flows through the universe, from the lowest to the highest levels, is how the orbits, on the astronomical level, of moons around planets and of planets around stars, is a reflection of the electron orbitals around the nucleus in an atom of which the stars and planets and moons are composed.
We know that matter is composed of atoms, which may combine into molecules. The bonds that hold atoms together are much stronger than those which hold molecules together. The difference in these two fundamental bond strengths is information that should show up in the nature of matter in different ways.
A ready example of this is how the minimum volume of matter that it takes to form a sphere, when matter collects together in space by gravity, compared to the minimum volume of matter that it takes to overcome by gravity the electron repulsion of atoms, in order to begin fusing lighter atoms into heavier atoms, so that the excess radiation is released and a star is born, is equal to the difference in the strengths of molecular bonds that hold atoms together in molecules, and the much-greater strengths of the bonds that bind the atoms themselves together.
A very simple example is the energy that is released in a nuclear reaction, when the bonds binding atoms together are broken so that their energy is released, in comparison with the energy that is released by similarly breaking molecular bonds when fuel is burned. The nuclear energy is typically about a billion times greater than the chemical energy.
There are two great cycles which shape the surface of the earth, the Water Cycle and the Rock Cycle.
The Water Cycle is by far the most familiar. The heat of the sun causes water to evaporate. When water reaches certain altitudes, it condenses on particles of dust, smoke or, salt, to form the water droplets or ice crystals of clouds. Air can hold only so much water vapor, cold air less than warm air, and more vapor condenses if it gets cooler. When water droplets get too heavy for the air to hold, they begin to fall. Combining together as they fall, the droplets form rain. If the rain falls on land, they make their way through the watershed to large bodies of water, until water evaporates from there and begins the cycle anew.
The Rock Cycle starts with magma, molten rock, from inside the earth. When it cools, it forms igneous rock. When the rock is exposed to waves and weather, for millions of years, it gradually breaks down into sand. If the sand layers are buried, they may be compressed by the weight of the layers above to form sandstones and limestones. Limestone, calcium carbonate, is formed of the bodies of microscopic creatures. The layers of sandstone or limestone may then be forced upward, by tectonic collision, to become dry land. If layers of sandstone are forced underground, by tectonic movement, they can be welded by heat into metamorphic rock. Then that can be forced upward and exposed to weather and waves, to start the cycle all over again.
The two cycles bear many similarities. But the rock cycle takes far longer than the water cycle. There is a connection between the two cycles, with the rock cycle having the initial igneous rock broken down into sand by the weather of the water cycle.
What I would like to point out here is that the lengths of time involved in the rock cycle, in comparison with the lengths of time involved in the water cycle, are roughly proportional to the strengths of the bonds that bind atoms together in proportion to those that hold molecules together, the difference between the two being on the order of about a billion. We see this same difference in magnitude of about a billion times in the energy that is released, per mass, in a nuclear reaction as opposed to the burning of ordinary chemical fuel. Since both the rock and water cycles involve atoms that are bound together in molecules, in water droplets as well as rock crystals. This is what we should expect because the composite atoms and molecules are where the information comes from for the relative time frames of the two cycles.
Rock cycle and water cycle, which work together on earth, are both rooted in the large star which preceded the sun and the Solar System. This star exploded in a supernova, which happens to only the largest stars, and part of it's component matter, which was thrown outward by the explosion, fell back by gravity to form the sun and planets. We know that the sun is such a second-generation star because it already contains heavy elements that are beyond it's present stage in the fusion process.
We have seen this vital large star that preceded the sun in the posting on the physics and astronomy blog, www.markmeekphysics.blogspot.com "The Supernova Energy Hypothesis And The Most Accessible Star". Near that posting is another one, details about how comets and water originated in the nova, which must have preceded the supernova, in the posting "New Thinking About The Origin Of Comets And Water". Also there is why large stars explode in "The Mystery Of Exploding Stars".
The heat inside the earth, which heats the magma that forms igneous rock, is primarily from radioactive decay of atoms within the earth. Energy is released by such radioactive decay, as an unstable heavy atom spontaneously releases particles or radiation in order to seek a more stable state. The energy that is released by these atoms is the same energy that fused the atoms together when the star exploded as a supernova.
There are two processes by which smaller atoms are fused together in stars into heavier atoms, the S-process, for slow, and the R-process, for rapid. Only the R-process forms radioactive atoms, and indeed all atoms heavier than iron and nickel. The S-process is ordinary fusion that always takes place within a star. The R-process is the use of the vast amount of energy that is released when the star actually explodes as a supernova, to fuse heavier atoms together which would otherwise not have been joined together by the S-process. The only way that a star can have atoms heavier than iron and nickel already within it is if it is a second-generation star, like the sun.
The rotation of the earth is also involved in the rock cycle. This contributes to moving rock layers because, if an object is large enough, it is affected by the rotation of the earth. The energy in the rotation of the earth also came from the star which preceded the sun. The force of the supernova explosion, which threw the matter of the star outward, before some of it came back together by gravity to form the earth. This means that tidal energy is also from this star which preceded the sun.
The energy for the water cycle, which evaporates water from the earth's surface, unlike the energy for the rock cycle, comes directly from the sun. But the sun's energy is from a continuation of the fusion process of the matter which comprised this star, which preceded the sun.
The water on earth, for the water cycle, comes from comets. My theory is that the star which preceded the sun exploded as a nova, blasting off only it's outer layers in an effort to regain stability, before exploding from the core as a supernova. Lighter atoms in the outermost layers of the star, such as hydrogen and oxygen, would have been fused together not into heavier atoms, as is done in the center of the star, but into molecules such as water.
Comets have extremely distant orbits around the sun, in comparison with the planets. My theory is that this is because they were formed from the matter that was thrown outward by the nova, the outer layers of the star which preceded the sun, which came some time before the star exploded from the core a s a supernova.
So, both the rock cycle and the water cycle originate in the large star which preceded the sun. The components of the water cycle originate in the outer part of the star, in the water molecules which were formed from the lighter atoms, such as hydrogen and oxygen, which were blasted out into space by the nova that I theorize preceded the final supernova in the large star which must have preceded the sun, because the sun is definitely a second-generation star. The energy that powers the water cycle, from fusion of the matter which was further inside this former star, which is now undergoing fusion and releasing it's excess energy, as radiation from the sun.
The rock cycle on earth originated in the very core of the star which preceded the sun. The core of a star is where atoms are fused into heavier atoms. The heaviest atoms, heavier than iron and nickel, are formed only by the direct energy of the supernova explosion, what is known as the R-process. The force of the supernova explosion forces atoms together so that the very heaviest atoms are less then stable, and they gradually emit either particles or radiation in an effort to regain stability. But by that time, they are within the earth and the energy that they release becomes the heat that helps to power the rock cycle.
So, the core of the former star is about binding atoms together by fusion. The ultimate explosion of that core, by the supernova, forces atoms together that seek to regain stability by releasing some of the energy that has gone into them from the supernova explosion. This is what powers the rock cycle, and also must provide the information to guide it.
While the core of the star is about binding atoms together, the outer layers of the former star are about binding molecules together. These molecules include the water, some of which eventually lands on earth as comets to start the water cycle, powered by the matter of the former star which has fallen back together by gravity to form a second-generation star, the sun, and continues the fusion process which releases energy.
This is the basis of the information of why the length of the rock cycle, hundreds of millions of years, compared to the length of the water cycle, measured in days, is equal to the strength of the bonds binding atoms together compared to the strength of the bonds holding molecules together, which is about a billion times greater.
Finally, do you notice something else about the flow of information that is really interesting here. In the water cycle, water evaporates from the sea, and then eventually falls back into the sea as rain. In the rock cycle, rock is gradually worn into grains of sand by the weather and the water cycle, until it comes back together as sedimentary and then metamorphic rock.
But the information for all of this comes from the large star which preceded the sun. This star exploded as a supernova, scattering it's component matter across space, until some of the matter fell back together by gravity to form the sun and planets. It is on one of these planets that the rock and water cycles are taking place. This forms exactly the same pattern as the supernova, and the information had to come from somewhere.
23) THE INFORMATION IN RADIOACTIVITY
We have been discussing my concept of how information flows through the universe, from the lowest to the highest levels. One of the most obvious examples is that of orbits. Electrons are in orbitals around the nucleus of an atom. When large numbers of those atoms are gathered together by gravity, to form stars and moons and planets, moons orbit planets and planets orbit stars in the same way that the electrons orbit the nucleus. It has to be this way because there is no information from anywhere else from which to construct the larger scale structures.
This concept of the flow of information applies to the entire universe. It is very useful because it enables us to see "up ahead" at the way things must be, before we have actually "discovered" those things. We cannot see atoms, and the electric charges of which they are composed, but we can, simply by looking at the scale of the universe that we can see, surmise what things must be like in that realm because what we can see, and what we can't see, must be based on the same information.
In the example of radioactivity that we can see today, the scale actually works both ways. The information coming from the star that preceded the sun, which we know exploded in a supernova, is reflected in the nature of radioactivity that we see. Radioactivity is the emission of particles or radiation by a large and unstable nucleus that is seeking a more stable condition.
A star begins when a large amount of matter collects together in space by gravity. The star begins to shine when the inward force of gravity becomes enough to overcome the electron repulsion between atoms at the center of the star. Small atoms, such as hydrogen, are crunched together into larger atoms. This process is known as fusion. The large atom has less total internal energy than the smaller atoms which were crunched together to form it (surface area). The excess energy is released as radiation, and this is why the star shines. The volume of the star is determined by the equilibrium between the inward pressure of gravity and the outward pressure of the energy from fusion that is released.
As time goes on, more of the smaller atoms within the star have been crunched into larger atoms, which are then crunched together in the fusion process into still larger ones. Although there would be fewer of these larger atoms, their presence means that a greater amount of internal energy within the atoms, which is referred to as the Mass-Energy Equivalence, is entering the fusion process within a given period of time. Since the larger atoms that are being produced by the fusion process always have less total internal energy than the smaller atoms which were crunched together to form them, this means that more energy is progressively being released from the center of the star, as time goes on.
This upsets the equilibrium of the star, which is the balance between the outward energy being released and the inward pressure of gravity. The star may thus expand outward, into what we refer to as a red giant star.
If the star is not very massive, the point will eventually be reached where the inward force of gravity will not be enough to crunch the atoms together in the center of the star. The reason is that the larger atoms require more pressure from gravity to crunch them into still-larger atoms than the initial smaller atoms did when the star first began. When this point is reached, the star will simply stop shining as the fusion process ceases.
In very large stars, where there is enough gravitational pressure to keep the fusion process going, the star reaches it's end in another way. As larger atoms within the star are crunched together in the fusion process, as opposed to the initial smaller atoms which were crunched together to form these large atoms, more and more energy is released per period of time. Some stars, as we have seen swell outward, into red giant stars, in accord with the new inward-outward equilibrium.
But, if the star is too large for this to happen, pressure from the energy released within builds, until the outer part of the star is blasted away. This is what we refer to as a "nova". The word means "new", because the ancients thought that it was the beginning of a new star. The nova is actually a self-regulating mechanism of the star, as it decreases the gravitational pressure on the center of the star, and thus slows the fusion process and decreases the energy that is being released.
But, once again, if the star is large enough, the inward pressure release may not be enough to stop the build-up of outward pressure as ever-heavier atoms undergo the fusion process in the center of the star. these heavier atoms have more internal energy than the lighter atoms which were crunched together to form them, energy is released faster and the point is reached where the star cannot hold together any longer at all. The star explodes from the center in what is known as a supernova.
(By the way, if there is so much mass present that even the explosion of the star cannot reverse the inward pressure of gravity, and the pressure is enough for not only heavier atoms to be fused together into still heavier ones, but to actually crush the structures of atoms altogether, the vast majority of which is empty space, the star becomes a black hole, and doesn't explode).
When a star explodes as a supernova, it scatters it's component matter across space. Some of that matter may fall back together, to form what we call a second-generation star. Some of the heavy atoms that were fused in the star, before it exploded, may also fall together, by gravity, to form planets that orbit the new star.
We know that the sun is such a second-generation star because it contains heavy elements that are beyond it's present stage in the fusion process. The sun is now in the process of crunching four hydrogen atoms into one helium atom, and shining as it releases the excess internal energy as radiation, but also contains atoms that are heavier than these two lightest elements. The planets, including every atom in your body, are composed of heavier elements which were fused together in this star which preceded the sun, before exploding in a supernova.
The ordinary fusion process, as described above, continues only as far as iron. We can see that the star which preceded the sun produced a lot of iron by how abundant it is in the inner Solar System. The core of the earth is iron, and the planet Mercury is known as the "Iron Planet". If a star was massive enough to have the gravitational force to fuse atoms beyond iron, it would also have enough force to crush the structures of atoms altogether, so that it would become a black hole.
The ordinary fusion process is known as the S-process, for slow. But when the star actually explodes as a supernova, a tremendous amount of energy is released and that some of energy also fuses atoms together so that we get atoms that are heavier than iron. This is known as the R-process, for rapid, and is how all atoms that are heavier than iron and nickel, including silver, gold and lead, are produced. This is why elements that are heavier that iron and nickel are so much more rare than the others.
The energy of this star that exploded can be seen in tidal energy, and in anything involving the rotation of the earth such as glacial and tectonic movement. It is also the source of the orbital energy of the moon. Just as we can see how far the ordinary fusion process went, the S-process, by looking around us at the abundance of iron and the scarcity of elements that are heavier than iron, we can see how far the explosive R-process went by the fact that the heaviest elements, known as the Rare Earth Elements, tend to be found together in mines.
Some of the largest atoms, products of the R-process which were forcefully fused together by the energy released when the star which preceded the sun exploded, are less-than-stable. These elements gradually release either particles or radiation from the nucleus of the atom, in order to reach a more stable balance of protons and neutrons. These emissions are known as radioactivity.
What I want to point out today is something that I have noticed and consider as really amazing. The information in the radioactivity that we see comes from, and is a reflection of, the information in the star which produced these radioactive atom while it was in the process of exploding.
While the star was undergoing the ordinary fusion process, it emitted the excess energy as radiation. In other words, the star was shining just as the sun is. When, I theorize, the star which preceded the sun first tried to balance the increasing outward pressure from the fusion within, it blasted off a small portion of it's mass as a nova. Finally the increasing internal pressure, from fusing ever-heavier elements together, resulted in the star ejecting all of it's mass, as well as a lot of radiation, by exploding as a supernova.
Now, consider the three types of radioactivity, alpha, beta and, gamma.
Gamma is electromagnetic radiation that is emitted by a nucleus seeking stability, this is congruent to the radiation which was emitted by the star during it's lifetime as it was shining while undergoing the ordinary S-process of fusion and also, of course, to the blast of radiation which was emitted when the star exploded as a supernova.
Beta is the emission of what amounts to an electron, to change a neutron into a proton, or it's antimatter equivalent a positron, to change a proton into a neutron. The electron is a small particle and this is congruent to the star blasting away it's outer layers in a nova, in order to seek stability by reducing the gravitational pressure on the core of the star in order to slow down the energy released from fusion. The atom seeks stability by beta emission because each element has stable combinations of protons and neutrons, and the atom is unstable if it has too many protons, relative to neutrons, or vice-versa. For each number of protons, which is what defines the element, there may be several stable numbers of neutrons that can be paired with the protons in the nucleus, these are known as stable isotopes.
Alpha is the emission by a large atom of what is known as an alpha particle. This is a large particle that is essentially a helium nucleus, two protons and two neutrons. This is how a large and unstable nucleus can lose mass or change it's proportion of protons to neutrons, in order to seek stability. The emission of an alpha particle by a nucleus is congruent to the explosion of the entire star which preceded the sun, and created the atom, in a supernova.
So, what happened is that the exploding star, which preceded the sun, transferred both it's information and, some of the instability which caused it to explode, into some of the heavy atoms that it created by the R-process of fusion when it did explode. The particles and radiation that are emitted in radioactivity and the nova and supernova of a star occur for exactly the same reason, the seeking of stability. Individual atoms are less complex than the entire star from which they came, but they carry the information on which that star was structured, and we see this in radioactivity. The nuclei in radioactive atoms are seeking stability, just as the star that produced them was, when it produced them by exploding.
(By the way, I believe that there was likely more than one nova from the star which preceded the sun. A nova would be the blasting away of the outer layers of the star, to reduce the gravitational pressure on the center in order to slow fusion, and release built-up energy, and to seek stability in the star's equilibrium. These outer layers would be composed of lighter atoms. The energy released in the nova would not only blast these layers out into space but fuse some together into molecules, just as the much-more powerful supernova would fuse atoms into heavy atoms which could not be produced by the ordinary fusion process.
This is why we see the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud, composed of ices of lighter atoms, and much further out from the sun than the planets because they had a higher "starting point" in the novae which preceded the final supernova).
The supernova did not just eject any mass from the star which preceded the sun, it ejected mostly heavier atoms. It was only the core where fusion was taking place, and it was only the core of the star which exploded. The star didn't destroy itself by exploding in the supernova, it actually gained the stability that it was seeking because a new and stable star fell back together after much of the mass of heavy elements were ejected by the supernova. That new star is our sun, and some of the heavier-element mass that was ejected is the planets in orbit around the sun.
24) THE INFORMATION IN MOLECULES
We know that atoms come from stars, being fused together from smaller atoms in the centers of stars. But where do molecules come from?
Molecules are the bonds between atoms, and contain energy which must have come from somewhere. If molecules contained no energy, there could not be endothermic or exothermic chemical reactions and we could not get any energy from food or fuel.
My theory is that atoms come from nuclear fusion within stars, which is ejected across space when the star explodes in a supernova, while molecules come from a nova in which a star blasts off it's outer layers while seeking stability. The energy that is released in a nova, much less than that released in a supernova, does not fuse atoms together into heavier atoms, but does fuse the lighter atoms in the outer layers of a star into molecules.
This is where water molecules come from, which land on earth by way of comets, and also molecules of light atoms such as the ammonia and methane which is so common in the outer regions of the Solar System. The reason that such molecules of light atoms are found in such abundance in the outer Solar System is that, being products of a nova, they had a higher "starting point" in the outside of the exploding star which preceded the sun than the heavier elements which came from the core region of the former star and were ejected out into space when the star exploded from it's core in a supernova. The parts of this star which preceded the sun that fell back together by gravity, to form a second-generation star, is what we see in the sun and it's planets.
A nova, which put the lighter atoms toward the outside of the star together into molecules, obviously did not put all molecules, the ones of heavy atoms, together, such as metals and their ores. But molecular energy can be transferred to other molecules by displacement chemical reactions. If an atom that is joined to another has a greater chemical attraction for a third atom, a displacement can occur in which the energy of a molecular bond is transferred to a new bond. The reason that heat generally speeds chemical reactions is that it contributes both to a breaking of chemical bonds and provides the energy for new ones.
The reason that molecules form at all is that atoms are collections of charged particles, in which the charge ideally balances out to zero. But this charge balance is usually not quite complete, and the balance is completed by atoms joining together to form molecules.
A common example of radiant energy input forming molecules is, of course, energy from the sun being used to put the structures of carbon atoms together which form plants. When we burn fuel, or digest food, we are releasing the solar energy that went into the plant during it's lifetime. Plants use solar energy to split molecules of carbon dioxide, releasing the oxygen and using the carbon to build it's structure.
There are two types of molecular bond, ionic and covalent. An ionic bond is based simply on electric charge, one atom loses an electron to another. This gives the atom which lost the electron a net positive charge, and the one that gained it a net negative charge. the two atoms are thus joined together because like charges attract.
A covalent bond is formed when multiple atoms share an outer electron, so that it holds the atoms together into a molecule. Covalent bonds are not brittle like ionic bonds, and are found in the biochemistry of living things.
Ionic bonds exist because the formation of atoms, while theoretically electrically neutral because their component charges balance out to zero, do not completely accomplish charge balance. Ionic bonds complete the necessary balance of charges. Covalent bonds can act as batteries to store energy, because an electron in a higher orbital has more energy than one in a lower orbital. This is in the same way that a satellite in a higher orbit has more orbital energy than one in a lower orbit. Energy is stored as space within the electron orbital.
Have you ever wondered why hydrogen is often advertised as an efficient fuel? This means that it must contain energy. But where does the energy come from and where is it stored in the hydrogen? Hydrogen is the lightest atom, with only one proton and one electron. The burning of fuel does not affect the atom itself, so how can it store any energy?
The answer is that hydrogen is diatomic. That means that it tends to exist in the form of two atoms bound together. This can only be a covalent bond, since a hydrogen atom cannot lose an electron to another, to form an ionic bond, because it only has one electron. It is this energy in the diatomic bond that is released when hydrogen is used as fuel. The oxygen that acts as the oxidizer is also diatomic.
The chemical formula for the use of hydrogen as fuel is:
H-H + O-O = H2O (water vapor) + O + excess energy released
The products in the reaction, the H2O and the single oxygen atom, O, has a lower molecular energy state than the original reactants. The excess energy is that which is released when hydrogen is used as fuel.
But the energy must have come from somewhere, since energy can never be created or destroyed. It would not have come from within the star which preceded the sun and exploded, because atoms are crunched together into larger atoms during the fusion process, not bound together in molecules. We know that the inside of a star is far too hot for molecules to exist.
It could not have come from solar energy, like the energy stored in the carbon structures of plants, because solar energy does not join single molecules in any such way other than within plants.
The only logical place that the energy in diatomic hydrogen bonds could have come from is a nova, in the star which preceded the sun, before it exploded as a supernova. This proves my hypothesis that there must have been at least one nova, the blasting off of the outer layers of the star in an attempt to regain stability, before the end of the star in the supernova.
There is energy in water molecules, which is a product of the hydrogen reaction with oxygen. We can break water molecules down, into their component hydrogen and oxygen, by passing an electric current through water. The electrical energy offsets the energy in the molecular bonds. But this means that the energy in all water molecules must have come from somewhere, and it is readily explained by a nova blasting the layers of lighter atoms, and bonding some together into molecules, before the star exploded in the supernova.
But what I want to point out now is the information involved, and my concept of how information flows through the universe. Look at the difference between ionic and covalent molecular bonds, and what do you notice?
In my cosmology theory, space is composed of alternating negative and positive electric charges, which we do not ordinarily notice because they usually balance to zero. But if energy is applied, it will go to overcoming the repulsive for between like charges to bind concentrations of like charge together. This is what we know as matter.
This shows up, with the information from the fundamental electric charges being the basis for matter construction at the molecular level, in the difference between ionic and covalent molecular bonds.
Ionic bonds, based on simple electric charge as one atom loses an electron to another, represents the nature of the fundamental electric charges. Ionic bonds exist because atoms, while ordinarily neutral in charge, do not completely balance the electric charges.
Covalent bonds, based on a higher-energy electron being shared between multiple atoms, represents the addition of energy to the fundamental electric charges because, according to my cosmology theory, what we perceive as matter is concentrations of like electric charge that are held together, against the usual rule that like charges repel, by the application of energy.
When a large amount of matter collects together in space by gravity, it forms a sphere. This is because a sphere is the three-dimensional form with the lowest energy state. Since information and energy is really the same thing, we could say that a sphere has the lowest energy state because it is the form with the least surface area per volume, and thus contains the least information.
But my cosmology theory has space as consisting of alternating negative and positive electric charges, in a checkerboard form in multiple dimensions. This is information that should show up in some way in the structure of the universe. If we can get a collection of identical atoms, that can be pressed together into a solid, we find that they form a crystal pattern. Crystal simply mean atoms arranged in a regular structure which is identical to, and a reflection of the information in, the alternating electric charges which compose space.
Two ways to tell if a solid is a crystal are that 1) They may be transparent or refract light. This is because light can pass through the atoms that are lined up in a regular structure in the crystal. 2) When shattered, crystal breaks into fragments that are roughly cubic in form. This reflects the regular arrangement of the atoms in the crystal.
But when matter is brought together that is composed of atoms of all different sizes, this crystal structure which matches the arrangement of the electric charges which comprise space is not possible. The matter that is brought together then takes the form of the next highest level of information, that of the shape of the atoms being spheres with orbits matching the orbits of the electrons in the atoms.
Water consists of regular structures, not of atoms but of molecules. This is why water is transparent to light. Lines of water molecules join together, negative to positive, because one side of the oxygen atom in the molecule has two hydrogen atoms attached, which can link to the next water molecule on the side of the oxygen atom that does not have the hydrogen atoms attached. This is also a reflection of the structure of the alternating negative and positive electric charges which comprise space.
25) THE MYSTERIOUS HEXAGON OF SATURN
The information with which large-scale structures are constructed must be based on the information in their most fundamental components, atoms and their subatomic particles and the electric charges of which they are composed. It has to be this way because there is no other information available from which the large-scale structures can be constructed.
This principle always holds true. It is extremely useful because it enables us to see the way that unknown things must be, even before we have actually "discovered" those things. A simple example is how we can effectively "look" into atoms, just by looking at the Solar System. Electrons in the atoms orbit a central nucleus, just as moons orbit planets, and planets orbit the sun. Again, it has to be this way because there was no other information from which to construct the Solar System.
This principle of information flow from the lowest to the highest levels began as part of my original cosmology theory, the one about the universe being composed of electric charges and matter being strings of electric charges in four-dimensional space, one dimension of which we perceive as time. But the principle of information flow has since developed into a separate cosmological theory that does not have to be presented with the first theory.
Today, I want to give a demonstration of just how useful this principle of information flow is, and how it solves one of the mysteries of the Solar System.
We know that water forms octagonal, eight-sided, ice crystals at the altitude in the atmosphere of cirrus clouds. These ice crystals may refract sunlight that passes through them, so that we see what are known as sun dogs or halos around the sun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/22%C2%B0_halo#/media/File:Path_of_rays_in_a_hexagonal_prism.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/22%C2%B0_halo#/media/File:22%C2%B0_circular_solar_halo.jpg
The basic angular distance between the halo or sun dog and the center of the sun is 22 1/2 degrees. This means that the diameter between the two sides, on opposite sides of the sun, is 45 degrees. The reason for this is that the ice crystals through which the refraction is taking place are octagonal, eight-sided, and 45 degrees is one-eighth of a complete circle.
Consider that these ice crystals are made of water. A molecule of water consists of an oxygen atom with two hydrogen atoms, the familiar H2O. An atom of oxygen has eight electrons and an atom of hydrogen has one electron. According to my theory of how the lower-scale information must be used to form the higher-scale structures, we see that a water molecule thus contains the information of eight, or one-eighth, based on the difference in the number of electrons in it's component atoms.
This is why the ice crystals in high clouds that it forms have eight sides, which is why we see halos around the sun and sun dogs as having a total span of one-eighth of a complete circle. The information to form these ice crystals, and to determine what form they should take, can only be based on the information in the molecules of which they are composed. The form of the ice crystals starts with the spherical shape of the atoms, but then is shaped into a polygon with eight sides, which represents the water molecule with the eight sides representing the number of electrons in the oxygen atom, in comparison with the one electron in each of the hydrogen atoms.
Now, let's have a look at a perplexing mystery far out in the Solar System. At the north pole of the planet Saturn there is a vast hexagonal, six-sided, pattern in the cloud formations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn%27s_hexagon#/media/File:PIA20513_-_Basking_in_Light.jpg
The latitudinal banding that is visible on Saturn and the other large planets is due to the rapid rotation of the planets. A point on the surface of a rotating sphere will move faster the closer to the equator of the sphere it is. The speed of rotation affects cloud formation, and the differences in clouds at different latitudes on the planet appear to us as this lateral banding that is seen.
But how can we explain this hexagonal figure at Saturn's north pole? Each side of the polygon is about the diameter of the earth.
Saturn's Hexagon has been observed to be changing color. It used to be blue, but the color has been diluted by the yellowish-tan that is usual for the cloud tops of Saturn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn%27s_hexagon#/media/File:PIA21049_Changing_Colors_in_Saturn%27s_North.jpg
We know that this yellowish-tan color of Saturn is due to the ammonia that is abundant in it's clouds. If we look at the planet Neptune, we see that it's blue color results from methane in it's clouds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptune#/media/File:Neptune_Full.jpg
A molecule of methane consists of a carbon atom joined to four hydrogen atoms. The chemical formula is thus CH4. A methane molecule is similar in concept to a water molecule except that instead of an oxygen atom with two hydrogen atoms, methane is a carbon atom with four hydrogen atoms.
While an oxygen atom has eight electrons, a carbon atom has six. This means that a water molecule has the information of eight, or one-eighth, embedded in it, but a methane molecule has the information of six, or one-sixth.
We would thus presume that ice crystals of methane would form six-sided shapes, in the same way that ice crystals of water form the eight-sided shapes that cause halos and sun dogs. If such crystals were going to form into a vast cloud formation, the shape that would require the least additional information would be the same shape as the crystals themselves.
This solves the mystery of Saturn's Hexagon as being composed of methane ice crystals, among the much more abundant ammonia, in which the entire vast cloud formation has taken the same shape as the ice crystals themselves. It occurs at the north pole because the rotation of the planet would break it up if it were elsewhere.
Can you see how easily this concept of information flow from the lowest to the highest levels solves one of the mysteries of the Solar System? This was simple, I was really surprised to find that this solution had never been noticed. But this concept of information flow opens up a new way of solving such things.
26) THE INFORMATION IN STATES OF MATTER
Here is something that is really simple, and is all around us, and is revealed by this concept of how information flows through the universe from the lowest to the highest levels. This principle that I have been developing here is that large-scale structures must be based on the information in their components, simply because there is no other information available on which to build the large-scale structures.
An ideal example, once again, is orbits. Planets orbit stars and moons orbit planets in exactly the same way that electrons orbit the nucleus in the atoms of which those stars, moon and, planets are composed. The orbits have to work this way because there is no other information available from which to construct the large-scale structures, other than that in the atoms of which they are composed.
One of the first things that students learn about science in school is that there are three states of matter, which are solid, liquid and, gas. A solid has a definite shape and a definite volume. A liquid has a definite volume, but no definite shape. Liquids will fill a container into which they are poured, up to the volume of the liquid. A gas has neither a definite volume, nor a definite shape, and will tend to fill it's container.
There can be other states of matter, such as plasma in conditions that are too hot for atoms to exist. Matter can also be crunched together into a black hole, white dwarf or, neutron star. But where matter exists as the structures of atoms, it will form one or another of these three states of matter.
Now, here is the question. Why is there three states of matter? This is one of those things to which we say "That's just the way it is".
But consider the atoms of which the three states of matter are composed. An atom has positively-charged protons in the nucleus, which are held together against like-charge repulsion by the neutrally-charged neutrons. The neutrons, which are in the nucleus with the protons, add mass but no electrical charge to the atom. The nucleus, which is in the center of the atom, is surrounded by the negatively-charged electrons which are in orbitals around the nucleus.
Look at the parallels between the three states of matter and the atoms, with their three components, of which these states of matter are composed.
The protons in the nucleus are in a fixed and definite space, and I see the protons as providing the information for the solid state of matter, with it's fixed shape and volume.
The electrons are not joined to one another, as the protons are. They are in orbitals in open space, far away from both one another and the nucleus, relative to the scale of the nucleus. This is where the information for the gas state of matter comes from. Electrons relate to protons in exactly the same way that a gas relates to a solid.
Like a gas without a definite volume, which fills it's container, the electron orbitals in atoms can vary in volume. As we move to the right in rows on the periodic table, toward heavier elements, atoms actually get smaller because there are more protons and more electrons, of opposite charge, pulling one another together with more force. The electron orbitals can also vary in shape due to outside forces. None of this is the case with the arrangement of protons in the nucleus, which is of a fixed shape.
The three states of matter are not equal to one another. The vast majority of all matter is either gas or solid. Liquids are rare by comparison. Of the ninety-two chemical elements that occur in nature only two, mercury and bromine, are liquid at room temperature. We see that nearly three-quarters of the earth's surface is covered by water, but if the earth were the size of a ball the water would be a thin film of dampness that would be barely detectable.
The least influential of the three components of the atom is the neutron. It adds mass to the atom, and holds the protons together against like-charge repulsion, but contributes no net electric charge. It's neutral charge is between the negative charge of electrons and the positive charge of protons. But, based on this concept of the flow of information through the universe, it's influence must show up in the larger-scale matter somehow.
Sure enough, we have liquids as between solids and gases, in terms of nature of matter, and is, by far, the rarest of the three states of matter, just as the neutrons to which it corresponds have, by far, the least influence in atoms. Just as neutrons are between electrons and protons in charge, in fact an electron can be crunched into a proton to make a neutron in the process referred to as K-capture, a liquid only exists when it has a solid beneath it and a gas, to exert pressure, above it.
If a liquid was placed out in open space, it would turn into either a gas or a solid. A gas if it did not have sufficient mutual gravity to hold it together as a sphere, and a solid if it did. In the same way, if a neutron is outside the nucleus, it will break down into a proton and electron within a few minutes. The nature of a liquid, outside the atom, closely parallels that of a neutron inside the atom.
This shows that liquid is actually a "secondary" state of matter, requiring solid and gas to exist first. It is interesting that both elements that are liquid at room temperature, mercury and bromine, are actually among the "secondary" elements that are heavier than iron and which are formed not by the ordinary S-process (for slow) of nucleo-synthesis by the fusion that takes place in stars, but by the R-process (for rapid) which occurs only during the actual explosion of a large star in a supernova.
Early in the universe, when there were only light atoms, matter was almost all gas. Only as more of the light atoms were joined together by stellar fusion did more solids form, and then liquids. This fits well with the solid state of matter representing the information in protons and gases in electrons. With heavier atoms, there are more neutrons and fewer electrons and protons, reflecting the increasing likelihood of solids and then liquids as the universe gets older, at the expense of gas.
In terms of energy applied to matter, heat favors gas and cold favors solids. The early universe, when atoms were smaller and the gas state of matter was more predominant, was hotter. The universe now, with more solid and liquid but less gas, is cooler due to energy being radiated away from matter by electromagnetic radiation. This is reflected in how heat favors gas and cold favors solids. An ideal example is water in it's three states of matter, as vapor, liquid or, ice.
Ordinary hydrogen has no neutrons in it's atoms, yet it can be liquified. But it takes pressure and low temperatures to turn gaseous hydrogen into a liquid. This pressure must come from other materials, which do have neutrons, and this is where the information for the liquid state of matter comes from. Hydrogen cannot be pressured by other hydrogen alone into a liquid.
Notice that, if we consider the matter in the Solar System, the vast majority of matter is in the gaseous state and, in fact, the volume that is in the solid state relative to the gaseous state is just about exactly equal to the volume of an atom, relative to the volume of the nucleus at it's center. The nucleus at the center of an atom is often compared to a small stone in the middle of a sports stadium, with the stadium representing the electron orbitals.
If we consider that the sun is all gas, being too hot for liquid or gas, and most of the volume of the giant outer planets would vaporize if brought closer to the sun, leaving only the inner planets and the rocky or metallic cores of the outer planets to represent solids, we see that the ratio between the solid and the gas in the Solar System closely corresponds to the ratio of the size of the nucleus to the total volume of the atom. Remember that this information from which to construct the Solar System had to come from somewhere.
States of matter are direct manifestations of the information within atoms, in their components. Using this concept of how information flows through the universe, we can literally study atomic physics by looking at the large-scale matter that is composed of atoms, because we can be sure that the information in the nature and structures that are composed of those atoms must come from within the atom, because there is no other source of information.
27) THE INFORMATION IN CARBON ATOMS
Part of this theory about how information flows through the universe is about how the information of different kinds of atoms greatly affects biology.
There is an incredible range of living things on earth, and the information for this variation must come from somewhere. Not only is there a vast amount of information in the living things that now exist on earth, but about 90 percent of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct. Even though God created life, the information stored in that life must somehow rest on inanimate matter. There must be something within inanimate matter that can hold all of this information.
According to one account, the carbon on which the biological structures of all living things are based can form thirty-five times as many molecules as all other atoms combined. My hypothesis is that the number of molecules that could form, based on the availability of atoms and very much centered around carbon, is roughly equal to the total number of living things that has ever existed, or ever can exist. The different molecules in biology act as "information points" to hold the information that makes possible so many different living things.
The total number of molecules that can form from all elements is theoretical, because it is limited by availability. As we saw in section 1, only a few of all the elements are really common. In biology class, the six elements that are really common to biology is often abbreviated as CHNOPS, for carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and, sulfur.
Molecules that contain carbon are known as organic molecules. We know that living things require four types of organic molecules, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, proteins and, lipids. Notice that the classifications of living things branches out in a tree-like structure, from simple to complex, just as does the organic molecules, from simple molecules consisting of a few atoms to very complex molecules.
The information for the wide size range of living things comes from organic molecules. Giant polymer molecules are formed of repetitive patterns of smaller molecules. The organic molecules do not have to occur naturally, only to be possible. Nor does this mean that larger living things are based on larger organic molecules. The molecules only have to be possible to be able to store the information that makes so many living things possible.
In no way does this mean that every organic molecule has to be present in living things to bring about the vast diversity of life. But the fact that such molecules can form shows that molecules can inter-relate chemically, and so can act as biological points of information in living things. Just as not all possible organic molecules will exist, with their being limited by the availability of the required atoms, living things which could possibly exist will only exist if suitable to the environment.
Due to this concept of the flow of information through the universe, from the lowest to the highest levels, we are actually studying organic chemistry whenever we study natural fields such as botany or zoology.
28) NUCLEAR PROCESSES AND MOONS
If you are wondering what nuclear processes and moons could have to do with each other, the answer is plenty. My concept of information flowing through the universe, from the lowest to the highest levels so that the information to construct the highest levels can only be based on that in the lower levels, provides a neat and simple explanation for why some planets have moons, and why the ratio of mass in the moons as compared to the planets is what it is.
Just to review one of the most obvious examples of this flow of information, from the lowest to the highest levels, notice that the orbits of planets around the sun, and of moons around planets, is a mirror image of the electrons in orbitals around the nuclei of the atoms of which these planets and moons are composed. It has to be this way because there is no other information from anywhere from which to construct the larger-scale realm of the planets and moons.
A certain amount of matter is in the planets of the Solar System, and a certain, and much lesser, amount is in the moons. This information of the matter ratio between the two must come from somewhere, but where could it come from?
For another thing, the Solar System with moons in orbit around planets is more complex and contains more information than if there were just planets in orbit around the sun. Why did the Solar System take the form of this higher information state, instead of the lower one? It makes it seem as if there must have been an input of additional information from somewhere.
First, a brief review of how the Solar System formed. There used to be a large star, much larger than the sun. Only the largest stars ultimately explode as a supernova, scattering it's mass across space. Some of the mass fell back together to start another star, the sun, and much of the rest coalesced by gravity to form the planets.
We know that the sun is such a second-generation star because we can see, by spectroscopy, that it contains heavier elements that are beyond it's current stage in the successive fusion process. At the present time, the sun shines by crunching four hydrogen atoms into one helium atom, the two lightest elements, with the leftover energy being released as radiation.
This giant star that preceded the sun would have followed the same fusion process. When much of the hydrogen had been fused into helium, the star would then begin crunching those atoms together into still heavier ones, and so on. But as the star is composed of successively larger atoms, more energy gets released per fusion, with the mass of the star being the same even though it is in fewer atoms of heavier elements, this upsets the equilibrium of the star, between the inward force of gravity and the outward push of the released energy.
The ordinary fusion process goes only as far as iron. This is why iron is so common in the inner Solar System. The earth has a molten iron core, and Mercury contains so much iron that it's nickname is "the Iron Planet". Fewer large atoms fuse more mass together, in a given period of time, than more smaller atoms. At the iron state of fusion, so much energy is being released that the star cannot hold together and it explodes as a supernova.
This causes the star to explode, with the result being a new and smaller star with a Solar System of planets around it. The sun is not large enough to explode as a supernova, and will eventually burn out.
This explains why some elements are more common than others. It is the result of a simple "factor tree" during fusion. Carbon has 6 protons in it's nucleus, and oxygen has 8. If three helium atoms happen to get crunched together during the fusion process, it will form an atom of carbon. If four helium atoms get crunched together, it will form an atom of oxygen. Elements with atomic numbers that are "off the factor tree" are thus less common.
This ordinary process of nuclear fusion is known as the S-process, for slow, because it gradually takes place over long periods of time. But there is a tremendous amount of energy that gets released during the explosion of a supernova, and this brings about another fusion process. The R-process, for rapid, is the fusing together of elements into heavier elements that takes place only during the release of energy during a supernova.
It fuses together heavy elements that could never be put together by the ordinary S-process. This is the only reason that there are elements that are heavier than iron, such as lead, silver, gold and, uranium. They are formed only during the explosion of a supernova. This is why elements up to iron are exponentially more common then those that are heavier than iron. Those heavier than iron are formed only during the brief moments when a supernova is taking place.
Some of the heavy atoms that are formed in such a way are less-than-stable. Eventually, they attain more stability by giving off either an electron, an alpha particle (a helium nucleus) or gamma radiation. This process is what we refer to as radioactivity.
But the fact that there are two separate processes of nucleo-synthesis, which create the atoms of which our Solar System is composed, means more information than if there were only the usual S-process. This additional information must somehow show in the Solar System, since the information on which large-scale structures are based must be the same as that on which the lower-scale structures are based.
The conclusion that I have come to is that the planets of the Solar System represent the usual S-process, while the moons that orbit some of those planets represent the R-process.
Have you noticed that the amount of mass in the planets of the Solar System is exponentially greater than that in the moons of the Solar System, in the same way that elements up to iron are exponentially more common than those that are heavier than iron? According to my theory of how information flows through the universe, this is no coincidence. Although this does not mean that the moons must be composed of the R-process elements, while the planets are made of the S-process elements.
This means that if there was the S-process of fusion, and then the supernova, but no R-process, there would be the planets but not the moons. But the R-process, during the supernova, represents additional information and that information must be somehow accommodated. The moons are the result of this additional information because a Solar System with moons in orbit around planets contains more information than one with just planets in orbit around the sun.
Unlike planets there are no moons around comets because, according to my hypothesis, they were formed by a nova, a blasting away of the outer layers of the star in a seeking of stability, but without any information from a second process involved.
The mass ratio between planets and moons is very different in the inner Solar System, as compared with the outer. The outer Solar System, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and, Neptune, have numerous moons and every space missions finds more. But most of those moons are very small in comparison to the host planet. The only large moon in the inner Solar System is the earth's moon. Mars has two small moons, Phobos and Deimos, that rarely get much attention.
The mass of the earth's moon is about 1 / 160 that of the four inner planets together, Mercury, Venus, Earth and, Mars. This is surely much higher than that of the moons in the outer planets. But this could be because a greater proportion of the mass of the inner planets consists of matter that was formed by the R-process. The reason that the inside of the earth is hot is due to the radioactive decay of heavy elements within the earth, aside from some heat left over from the formation of the earth.
The outer planets are much larger, but also much less dense, than the inner planets. Much of the mass of the outer planets consists of molecules of light atoms such as methane and ammonia. This may well be why the moons of the outer planets comprise less mass relative to those planets then the inner planets. A lower proportion of the atoms in the outer planets were formed by the R-process.
It is more difficult for Mercury and Venus to have moons, because they are too close to the sun and would face competition from it's gravity. But the information of the moon to the planets representing the R-process to the S-process must be upheld, and so the moon mass of the inner planets is in the one large moon around the earth.
This also explains the Asteroid Belt, between Mars and Jupiter. The asteroids could well be moons of planets but they directly orbit the sun, which counts them as planets, because that would upset the representation of information of the mass of moons being equivalent to the atoms produced by the R-process.
Another aspect of this theory of how information flows through the universe, from lowest to highest levels, is that of common atoms. As described in the theory, the number of different types of galaxies in the universe is equal to the number of atoms that are really common, most of the elements being relatively rare. This also applies to biology. Remember from biology class the acronym CHNOPS, for the six elements that are important to biology. These act as points of information and it is no coincidence that we see the same number of primary colors and there are the same number of basic kingdoms of living things.
The same concept applies to the number of planets that formed in the Solar System. There are about the same number of planets that formed around the sun as there are elements that are really common in the solid cores of the planets. The information for how many planets would form from the mass that was thrown outward had to come from somewhere, and these atoms acted as points of information.
Remember my concept that, when information is added to a system, something that "would not otherwise make sense" must be created in order to accommodate and manifest that information. An obvious example is neutrons. Neutrons do not exist, other than in the nuclei of atoms. A neutron is created during nuclear fusion by crunching an electron into a proton, which creates the neutron with it's neutral electric charge. A neutron will decay, in an average of about ten minutes, if ejected from the nucleus. Protons and electrons can exist outside of the atom, but neutrons can't.
Something else that "doesn't make sense" which is created is liquids. There are no liquids in open space, all matter is either gas or solid. A liquid is a secondary state of matter which requires a solid beneath it and a gas applying pressure above it. Liquids are created when matter comes together to form a planet with an atmosphere because information would otherwise be lost as the many different positions and vectors of the atoms which form the atmosphere of the planet are now coordinated together. The creation of the liquid, which on earth is water, adds information by acting as another information point so that no information is lost.
In a similar way, the moons of the Solar System are something that "do not make sense", yet must be created in order to accommodate the additional information that was added to the Solar System by the R-process of fusion when the star which preceded the sun exploded as a supernova, scattering the matter across space so that some of it could fall back together by gravity to form the Solar System.
The way that the basic rules of ballistics seem to me is that it does not make sense for matter that was blasted outward by the supernova to go into orbit around other matter that was blasted outward by the supernova. Not only does this add an additional layer of information that has to be accounted for, but if matter would coagulate together by gravity, to form a moon that goes into orbit around a planet, then why wouldn't it have just formed from the beginning as part of that planet. This would represent a seemingly more logical lower-information state.
29) LINK WITH COSMOLOGY THEORY
With hurricanes often in the news have you ever wondered how a hurricane, as seen from above, can so resemble a spiral galaxy? On a number of occasions, I have seen a satellite photo of a hurricane and thought it was a spiral galaxy. The form of the two are identical.
The stars which make up a spiral galaxy are in the form of the water droplets which make up a hurricane. Just as a spiral galaxy usually has a black hole at the center, where no physical processes take place, so the hurricane has the calm "eye" at the center.
This seems like another example of how information flows through the universe, from the lowest to the highest levels. One of the most obvious examples is the orbits of planets around stars, which are all made up of atoms, in the same way that electrons are in orbitals around nuclei in those atoms. The higher levels of matter must be constructed from the same information that is in the lower levels, because there is no information from anywhere else upon which to build the higher levels.
A hurricane is a dynamic system. With each water droplet being a separate information point, it has a tremendous capacity to store information. It draws on the information which was used to construct the entire galaxy.
But how could this flow of information possibly happen? How can the matter at one level "know" about the information in the other levels? There has to be some kind of unseen connection if information is going to flow, from one level of reality to another, in ways that do not seem possible.
But suppose that my cosmology theory is correct, the one described in "The Theory Of Stationary Space" on this blog?
Elementary particles, such as electrons, and thus all of the structures which are composed of them, are actually strings in four-dimensional space. We, of course, do not readily see this because we perceive this fourth spatial dimension as time. All strings are thus still connected to the structures from which they separated, in the direction of space that is our past in the time dimension, and are all ultimately connected at the Big Bang.
This is how information can flow through the universe, from the lowest to highest levels, because the strings of all of that matter, which we perceive as sub-atomic particles such as electrons, are still actually connected.
This shows that both of these theories is correct, whichever way we look at it.
If particles are strings that are still ultimately connected together, in the past direction dimension of space that we perceive as time, then it should not be surprising that there is this information flow from the lowest to highest levels of matter.
If there is a flow of information from the lowest to the highest levels of matter structures in the universe then we might expect that there would be some unseen connection, as described in my cosmological theory.
This is almost like a branch of quantum physics.
30) ELECTRIC CHARGES AND LIFE
Even the highest information level of the universe, that of living things, must exist in harmony with the flow of information from the most basic level. that of the fundamental electric charges.
If I had to describe the universe in one sentence, it would be simple:
"There are two electric charges, negative and positive, opposite charges attract and like charges repel, there must always be a balance between the two charges, and all else in the universe is details".
As an example, the information of the essential balance between negative and positive electric charges is reflected in one of the most basic operations of the universe, that of the balance that underlies a star. The inward pull of gravity is balance the outward force of energy released by fusion, and the outer boundary of the star is the result.
I believe that life is a creation of God, and did not arise from inanimate matter. But yet we exist within the universe, and must live in harmony with our surroundings, even if we did not directly arise from those surroundings. Since the basis of those surroundings is the two electric charges, and the essential balance between the two, we should see the nature of these two electric charges reflected in our nature and how we live.
Consider the peak pattern. This is vital to living things, but seemingly has no meaning in the universe of inanimate matter all around us. The peak shows up in living things as an optimum. We live best at an optimum temperature. Plants have an optimum amount of water and sunlight to be at their best. There is an optimum amount and balance of food for health. There is an optimum balance of work and recreation and sleep, and so on.
The universe seeks the lowest energy state, but that is not the first priority of the universe. The first priority is that there be a perfect balance between the number of negative and positive electric charges, and the universe is "willing" to expend energy to bring about that balance. In the same way, showing how we live in harmony with the inanimate universe we, and other living things, are willing to expend energy in order to live at our optimums.
We use mathematics to describe the universe around us, and the three most fundamental symbols of arithmetic are +, for addition, -, for subtraction, and =, for equals. This is a clear reflection of the two electric charges, negative and positive, and the equality that there must always be between them. There does not have to be equality between the electric charges in every given location, but there does have to be in the universe as a whole.
I have developed a philosophy of life that revolves around what we could call "The Balance Line And Truth Pairs".
The Balance Line is always there, in all that we do. It is a continuation of the peak pattern which characterizes living things, in contrast with inanimate matter. An ideal example is food, there is a peak which represents an ideal amount of food in a person's diet, as opposed to too much or too little. The Balance Line continues this individual peak pattern into a line which runs through all of human society. This peak pattern is completely missing in inanimate matter.
The Balance Line operates like a mathematical equation. What is on both sides of the equal sign (=) must be equal. We can change the equation however we like, as long as we make the same changes to both sides of the equation. This is why the equal sign is the most important symbol in mathematics. We could say that there is a balance line in the universe of inanimate matter, Newton's law that every action must be balanced by an equal and opposite reaction, but the balance line of human life is far more complex because it includes the second dimension of information.
When someone borrows money, they are getting money which they have not earned and this upsets the Balance Line. But when the money is repaid, the Balance Line is restored. We must live in harmony with the inanimate universe around us, even if we did not arise directly from that universe, and the Balance Line is a reflection of the balance that there must always be between the two electric charges which comprise the universe.
For the economic system to continue operating, people buying on one side of the Balance Line must be matched by people selling on the other side. This balance between buyer and seller underscores all of economics, such as the law of supply and demand.
In the posting "The Fundamental Currency" on my world and economics blog, www.markmeekeconomics.blogspot.com , the Fundamental Currency is actually freedom. There are two slants on freedom, "freedom to" and "freedom from". The underlying pattern in the operation of society is the exchange between the two slants of freedom.
The law is a manifestation of the Balance Line. When one breaks the law, the Balance Line is upset. When justice is done, the Balance Line is restored. Just as, unless energy is applied to increase the distance over which negative and positive electric charges must balance out, the two must always be equal.
The necessary equality of opposite sides of the Balance Line can be seen everyday wisdom sayings such as "You get what you pay for", "You reap what you sow", "You get out of it what you put into it" and, "Do to others as you would like them to do to you". These statements are all about maintaining the Balance Line.
I recognize four sets of truth pairs, and each of these pairs is a reflection of the information in the fundamental electric charges which comprise the universe:
1) True and False
2) Negative and Positive
3) Good and Bad
4) Right and Wrong
We, being of higher complexity then our inanimate surroundings, can see truth possibilities that may not actually be true. The reason is that not enough complexity exists in our surroundings to make all of the possibilities that our more complex beings can see be true.
The first truth pair, True and False, is what we use to find out what is true. This is why the two most important words in our language, "yes" and "no", are opposites that resemble a set of truth pairs and, of course, the two electric charges which comprise everything in the universe. If someone comes up with a theory about something, it would be more correct to state that the theory is either true or false, rather than right or wrong.
We have senses and feelings. There are things that we want, and things that we do not want. Some things are pleasing, and others displeasing. This is where the second set of truth pairs comes in, Negative and Positive, which just happen to have the same names as the electric charges which comprise the universe.
The third truth pair is Good and Bad. There is a difference between being pleasing and good, and also between being displeasing and bad. The difference between the second and third pairs often comes down to short-term versus long-term. Positive and Negative is in the short-term, while Good and Bad is long-term. Deciding to have a diet of nothing but chocolate might be positive in the short-term, but would likely be bad over the long term. Deciding to begin an exercise program might be a negative in the short-term, but would likely be good over the long term.
The Good and Bad truth pair is often based on the necessity of maintaining our elevated level of complexity. If not managed well, our level of complexity will deteriorate back toward the lower level of our inanimate surroundings. This is manifested in our health, and also the potential deterioration of poorly-maintained buildings and machines.
The seeking of how to bring about good instead of bad brings us to the fourth truth pair, Right and Wrong. This usually means doing, not whatever we want to do, but what we are required to do. A community agrees among themselves upon certain rights and rules for the benefit of all, and that no one will infringe on the rights of others. Right and Wrong also means following the requirements of God.
A person could "live" in any of these four sets of truth pairs. A person living in the True and False pair would be an impaired person, having difficulty differentiating reality from what is false. A person living in the Negative and Positive pair would be one who "lives in the moment", just living as their impulses tell them to. A person living in the Good and Bad pair would have the wisdom to live an effective life, by choosing what is good and avoiding what is bad, but only to get the benefits for themselves of living in this way. The highest way of life is to live in the fourth pair, Right and Wrong. This person would also do what is good, and avoid what is bad, but would do it because it is the right thing to do whether it would bring immediate benefits or not. This would mean considering the rights of others and obeying God, even if no tangible benefit is in sight.
We could say that these four truth pairs act as four bricks, one on top of another, to support the Balance Line. This structure of truth pairs is how we find our way to the Balance Line. I see this as the underlying mechanics of how human society operates. Animals operate by truth pairs also. Inanimate matter has no truth pairs, plants have the first two truth pairs.
The inanimate universe, of course, has only one set of truth pairs, that of negative and positive electric charges.
Remember my doctrine that any large-scale structure must reflect the nature of it's "building blocks". An ideal example is that of orbits, the orbitals and spins of electrons in atoms being reflected in the orbits of astronomical bodies that are composed of these atoms, because that is the only information available with which to construct the large-scale structures. This is very clearly reflected in these sets of truth pairs. In my cosmological theory everything in the universe, space and matter, is composed of infinitesimal electric charges. There are two charges, negative and positive. We could say that this is the one truth pair of inanimate matter, with the other truth pairs based on it, and that plants have the next two truth pairs and creatures with a free will having all four truth pairs.
Just as the sets of truth pairs are seen to be based on the underlying fact that everything in the universe, both matter and space, is ultimately composed of the two fundamental electric charges of positive and negative, the Balance Line in all human activity can also be seen to be ultimately based on this most important physical rule in the universe, that positive and negative charges must balance. We are based on the same mathematical rules as the universe of inanimate matter, but we have the second dimension of information also which cannot be quantified by mathematics.
Atoms can be considered as a kind of "zero unit", which is composed of a balance of both of the opposite electric charges. But atoms often do not completely maintain the Balance Line between positive and negative charges, and this is what brings molecules into existence. The formation of molecules, from atoms combining together into a structure, is a further attempt by the universe to attain the Balance Line between the two opposite electric charges. Molecules form by either ionic or covalent bonds, both of which are based on an electric charge imbalance. Nuclear bonds, within the atom, are far stronger than the molecular bonds between atoms and this is a reflection of how the structure of the atom mostly, but not entirely, succeeds in attaining a balance between electric charges, and the attachment of atoms as molecules attains the rest.
This theory of "The Balance Line And Truth Pairs" illustrates how much more complex humans are in relation to our surrounding environment of inanimate matter. The universe of space, matter and, energy operates entirely by one pair of opposites, negative and positive electric charges. All of the laws of physics are ultimately based on these fundamental charges and the rules of their operation. The "Balance Line" of the inanimate universe is always the balance of electric charges.
The world of humans is also based on pairs of opposites, much like the primal negative and positive electric charges. But whereas the inanimate universe operates by only one pair of opposites to attain it's balance line, we have four pairs of truth pairs to attain our Balance Line. The Balance Line of the universe is always based on electric charges, while ours is based on higher intangibles like economics and justice. This is because we have the second dimension of information that inanimate matter does not.
This is in a similar way to inanimate matter having only two points of information, the two electric charges, while the DNA of which living things are composed has four points of information, even though it is composed of the same kind of atoms as inanimate matter.
However, it all shows how there is only a limited amount of information in the universe, originating with the Big Bang, and even the underlying mechanics of how the human world operates must be based on the same information that the physical universe does.
We live in a universe that operates by keeping opposites in balance. There are two opposite directions in every straight line. There is night and day, clockwise and counter-clockwise, money and the goods that they represent, checks and balances, opposite political parties, and it is all a reflection of the two electric charges which comprise everything, and the rule that there must always be a balance between the two.
31) IRON AND THE PLANETARY ORBITS
Have you ever wondered why the orbits of the planets in the Solar System are spaced as they are? Each planet has it's own orbit around the sun, but these orbits are unevenly spaced. This is information which must have come from somewhere. There is a formula for the spacing of the orbits of the planets but still, the information must have come from somewhere.
Stars operate by fusing smaller atoms into larger ones. A star begins to shine when enough matter is brought together in space by gravity so that the gravitational force is enough to overcome the electron repulsion between atoms at the center of the mass so that smaller atoms are crunched together into larger ones. The larger atom contains less energy then the total of the smaller ones that went into forming it. The excess energy is released as radiation, and this is why stars shine.
Stars exist as an equilibrium between the inward gravitational force and the outward pressure of the energy from the fusion going on at the core of the star. Smaller atoms, beginning with the lightest element of hydrogen, are fused into successively larger, but fewer, atoms. The element iron is as far as the ordinary fusion process goes. The so-called "atomic number" of iron is 26. This means that an iron atom is defined as one having 26 protons in it's nucleus. There are more neutrons in the nucleus than protons, so that the total number of nucleons in the iron atom, which means both protons and neutrons, is 56.
You may notice that some elements are more common than others. That is because this fusion of lighter elements into heavier ones forms a "factor tree". First hydrogen, with one proton, is fused into helium, which has two protons. If three helium atoms get fused together, it forms an atom of carbon, which has six protons. If four helium atoms get fused together, it forms an atom of oxygen with eight protons.
But as the star uses up light atoms and gets to fusing heavier atoms together, into still heavier ones, the energy being released by the fusion increases, even though the energy released per nucleon decreases. This upsets the equilibrium between the inward force of gravity and the outward force of the energy from fusion.
What happens at this point depends on how large the star is. A star like the sun will swell into what is known as a "red giant". But the largest stars will actually explode, scattering their component matter across space. Much of the matter will fall back together by gravity to form what is known as a second-generation star, and planets typically form around such a second-generation star from the heavier elements that were thrown outward by the explosion.
We know for sure that the sun is such a second-generation star because we can see, by spectroscopy, that it contains a significant amount of heavy elements that are beyond it's present stage in the fusion process. At this stage, the sun operates by fusing four hydrogen atoms into one helium atom and releasing the excess energy as radiation.
This means that every atom in your body, and in the world all around you, was once part of a large star that exploded. We can see how the ordinary fusion process only goes as far as iron because of how common it is in the inner Solar System. Mercury contains so much iron that it's nickname is "The Iron Planet". The oxidation of iron is what gives Mars it's rust-like color. Iron is the most common element in the earth, by mass. In the inner Solar System, only the moon lacks a significant amount of iron.
What I mean by the ordinary fusion process is the so-called S-process, for "slow". This is the process that fuses together elements up to iron. Elements heavier than that are only formed during the actual explosion of the star, by the tremendous energy released. This is known as the R-process, for "rapid", and explains why elements that are heavier than iron tend to be exponentially less common then iron and lighter elements.
Some of these heavier elements that consist of lighter atoms that were crunched together by the energy of the R-process during the actual supernova explosion are less-than-stable, and gradually release electromagnetic energy or particles in an effort to gain more stability. This release is known as radioactivity.
Like all elements that were formed by fusion, iron was put together by factors. Just as a number, such as 12, has the factors of 2, 3, 4 and, 6, the factors of iron are the smaller atoms that were crunched together by fusion, in several stages, to form iron with it's 26 protons and 56 overall nucleons. There are several routes by which smaller atoms could be crunched together to form an iron atom.
If we look at the common numerical factors that iron's 26 protons and 56 overall nucleons might have, the most obvious is that 56 = ( 4 x 4 ) + ( 4 x 10 ) and 26 = ( 4 x 4 ) + ( 1 x 10 ). So, if we were going to compare 26 and 56 in terms of their common factors, this would make the most sense because it is the least information state, meaning that it uses the least number of different numbers on each side of the equation.
The number of nucleons in an atom is information. But it is not all of the information that there is. Nucleons, whether protons or neutrons, are each made of three quarks, with two different arrangements of these quarks making either a proton or neutron. An up quark has a charge of + 2 / 3, while a down quark has a charge of - 1 / 3. Two up quarks and a down quark make a proton, with a net charge of +1. Two down quarks and an up quark make a neutron, with a net charge of zero. During fusion and radioactivity, a neutron can be made from a proton, or vice versa, by crunching an electron into a proton or ejecting one from a neutron.
So the star that preceded the sun exploded as a supernova, scattering it's matter across space. Some of it fell back together by gravity to form the sun and planets. There is information in the spacing of the planetary orbits, which could only have somehow come from the supernova. It has been known since the Eighteenth Century that there is a formula for the spacing of the planetary orbits, known as Bode's Law, but even so, according to my theory of how information flows through the universe, the information must have somehow come from the explosion of the supernova.
Suppose that we start with the numbers 0 and 3. The 3 represents the number of quarks that make up a nucleon, either a proton or neutron. The 0 represents the empty space in which both the nucleon and the entire Solar System exists. Remember how the information theory explains distance, whether or not it is empty space, as information.
Since two types of nucleons, protons and neutrons, make up the 56 nucleons in an iron atom, which is as far as the ordinary fusion process goes, let's then continue multiplying our 3 by successive multiples of 2, with each successive product representing the orbit of a planet.
This gives us 0, 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, 96, 192.
We still have our 4 and our 10 as described in the factors above. But if we add 4 to each number, we get:
4, 7, 10, 16, 28, 52, 100, 196.
If we then divide each number by our 10, we get:
.4, .7, 1, 1.6, 2.8, 5.2, 10, 19.6
Incredibly, these numbers are just about exactly representative of the relative distances of the planets from the sun, with the 2.8 representing the asteroid belt. Just by chance, the earth's distance from the sun is the 1. We sometimes refer to the average distance of the earth, 93 million miles or 145 million km, from the sun as an Astronomical Unit, or AU.
Another way of looking at it is that if we take out ( 2 x 3 ), multiply it by 10, and subtract 4, we get the 56 nucleons of iron, which is as far as the fusion process went before the supernova.
The supernova is an outward explosion, and thus a dramatic reversal of the inward fusion process. So if we start with the ( 2 x 3 ) and then undertake a mirror image reversal of the operations with the 4 and 10, we would add 4 and then divide by 10, and that would give us the sequence that is just about exactly representative of the distances of the orbits of the planets from the sun.
If the 1 of the earth's average distance from the sun is 93 million miles or 145 million km then the distances from the sun to the other planets would be as follows:
Mercury-37. 2 million miles or 58 million km
Venus-65.1 million miles or 101.5 million km
Mars-148.8 million miles or 232 million km
Center of asteroid belt-260.4 million miles or 406 million km
Jupiter-483 million miles or 754 km
Saturn-930 million miles or 1450 million km
Uranus-1822 million miles or 2842 million km
Considering that the 93 million miles or 145 million km is just an average distance of the earth from the sun, the earth is actually about 91 million miles, or 142 million km, from the sun in January and about 95 million miles, or 148 million km, in June, these figures are amazingly close to the actual distances of the planets from the sun.
The one planet that does not fit this model well is Neptune, the outermost planet after Uranus. The formula predicts that the orbit of Neptune should be 38.8 times as far from the sun as the earth, but it's average distance from the sun is actually only 30.1.
But if we apply this to Pluto, which is no longer considered as a planet, we find that it fits very well.
This formula predicting the orbital distances of planets from the sun has long been known. But it is information, and information must have come from somewhere. My theory of how information flows through the universe shows how it came from the information in the fusion process. After the star exploded, and much of the matter came back together by gravity to form the sun and Solar System, that information could not just be lost. It had to be manifested somehow.
Information and energy is really the same thing, because we cannot apply energy to anything without adding information to it, and we cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it. This information of the spacing of the planetary orbitals is energy also, the further out a planet orbits the more orbital energy it has.
There has been a lot of effort to find where this formula of the distances of the planets from the sun came from. The answer was right in front of us, we just had to apply this concept of how information flows through the universe, from lowest to highest levels, and how information, like energy, must be manifested and can never be created or destroyed, because information is really the same thing as energy.
If we start with our ( 2 x 3 ), multiply by 10 and then subtract 4, we get the 56 that is the number of nucleons in an iron atom which is the final stage in the fusion process of the large star before it explodes in the supernova which creates the new solar system with the planets.
If we then reverse this, because the outward supernova explosion which resulted in the formation of the planets is a reversal of the inward fusion which formed the iron, we start with the same ( 2 x 3 ) but from there reverse the formula, by adding 4 and dividing by 10, we get the sequence of numbers which describes the spacing of the planetary orbitals from the sun with amazing accuracy.
32) WATER PERCENTAGE AND CLOUD COVER
Here is something really interesting about how information flows through the universe, from the lowest to the highest levels, as well as about the earth itself. It is also very simple.
At any given moment, a certain percentage of the earth's surface is covered by clouds. If you ask how much of the surface is covered by cloud, at any given moment, the figure that is generally given is 68%. That means that, from an average point on the earth's surface either land or water, there will be a 68% chance that there is cloud overhead, regardless of the type of cloud, at any given moment.
But this is information which must have come from somewhere.
We know that the percentage of the earth's surface that is covered by water is 71%, and we notice that these two figures are not very far apart.
Have you ever stopped to think that, if we count only open water, considering the north polar ice cap as land, it is actually frozen sea, as well as the ice shelves off Antarctica, which is a continent, then the percentage of the earth's surface that is water matches exactly the percentage of the earth's surface that is under cloud cover?
This does not mean that the two have to coincide, a point on the sea is only slightly more likely to be covered by cloud then a point on land, but the information for how much of the earth's surface was under cloud cover had to come from somewhere, and this is where it came from.
It would be a lower information state, and thus preferred, for the sky to either all cloud or no cloud. But the information of 68% is there in the coverage of the earth's surface by water and this information is reflected in the cloud cover. The clouds in the sky are literally a reflection of the water on the earth, not literally but in terms of information.
This is not only a simple and basic fact about the earth, but also a fine illustration of how information flows through the universe from the lowest to the highest levels. The same information must be reused because there is no new information from anywhere else, and this shows again how this principle works throughout the entire universe.
33) THE RULE OF EIGHT
Atoms can have multiple shells of electron orbitals. In ordinary atoms, that are not ions, the number of negatively-charged electrons in the orbitals matches the number of positively-charged protons in the nucleus, so that the atom has a net charge of zero.
But the maximum number of electrons that any atom can have in it's outermost shell is eight. It is this outermost electron shell that governs the chemical behavior of atoms. As a general rule, when atoms combine together to form molecules, the "Octet Rule" is followed that tries to get each atom in the molecule surrounded by eight electrons.
The arrangement of the Periodic Table of the Elements is based on the chemical behavior of an atom being governed by the number of electrons in it's outermost shell. That is why there are eight columns in the table. Elements in the same column have similar chemical behavior because they have the same number of electrons in their outermost shells.
That maximum of eight is information and, since everything is composed of atoms, we should, if my theory of "The Flow Of Information Through The Universe" is correct, expect to see this number eight reflected in the large-scale universe somehow, since everything is composed of atoms.
Since the orbits of the planets bear so much resemblance to the orbitals of electrons in atoms, how much of a coincidence can it be that there are eight planets?
In ways that we may not yet understand, the Solar System "conspired" to prevent the asteroids between Mars and Jupiter from coalescing, by gravity, into a planet. This made sure that there would only be eight planets, matching the maximum number of outermost electrons in the atoms of which those planets are composed.
By the same token the earth's moon and Charon, the moon of Pluto, could possibly have been planets themselves but the "Rule Of Eight" went into effect, causing our moon and Charon to join planets so that there would only be eight planets.
This means that, with regard to other stars that we can see have solar systems, the "Rule Of Eight" means that there will always be a bias towards having eight planets in the solar system. This does not absolutely mean that there will always be eight planets, but it is the most likely number.
What about the number of continents on earth? As the earth rotates it's continents can be said to move around the center of the earth much like the electrons in orbitals moving around the nucleus of the atom.
It has recently been established that the vast shallow area around New Zealand is actually a continent, although it is mostly underwater. This means that there are eight continents. It looks like the "Rule Of Eight" has applied again.
Can you see how this concept of "The Flow Of Information Through The Universe", which must be taking place because there is no information from anywhere else to form the large-scale structures, enables us to "see ahead" how the universe must operate, even to things that we haven't "discovered" yet?
I find this to be a very useful concept.
34) ELECTRONS AND ELEVATIONS ON EARTH
If you are wondering what on earth electrons and elevations on the earth's surface have to do with each other the answer is an amazing example of how information flows through the universe, from the lowest to the highest levels.
What the flow of information through the universe means is that the higher-level structures in the universe must be composed of the same information as the lower-level structures of which they are composed, simply because there is no new information from anywhere on which to base them. A simple and obvious example is that our Solar System is made of atoms, and the orbits of planets around the sun very much resemble the orbitals of electrons around the nucleus of the atoms of which the Solar System is composed.
There are two basic elevations on the earth's surface, the ocean floor and the elevation of land above sea level. The average land elevation on earth is 840 meters above sea level and the average ocean depth is 3700 meters so there is a difference of about 4.5 km between the two levels.
But this difference in elevation is information, and information must come from somewhere. We know that the earth is composed of atoms, and we know that the information in larger-scale structures must somehow come from the smaller-scale structures of which they are composed. So atoms might be where we look to find out why this difference in elevation on earth is as much as it is.
As it turns out the answer is fairly easy to find. Electrons are in orbitals around the nucleus of the atom. The nucleus is composed of positively-charged protons and neutrally-charged neutrons. The electrons have negative electric charges that are equal, but opposite to the positive charge on a proton.
But the electron and the proton are not equal in mass. While the two are equal in charge the mass of a proton is 1,836 times that of an electron. This difference is information and we know that, since atoms are lower-level structures of which higher-level structures are composed, we might expect that this fundamental difference in mass of the atom's component particles may well be reflected in higher-level structures that are composed of atoms.
The average difference between the two basic levels of the earth's surface, the elevation of the land and the depth of the ocean floor, is about 4.5 km. The radius of the earth is about 6,000 km. If we divide the latter by the former we get 1,333, which is less than 1,836.
But we are dealing with the information in atoms here so the density of the earth counts, not just simply distance. The earth is not of uniform density, with higher density toward the center. The iron core has the highest density. The rock of the lower mantle is more dense than that of the upper mantle. The rock of the earth's crust, where the difference in elevation is located, is the least dense.
If we consider density multiplied by distance, rather than just distance, the difference between the two basic elevations on the earth's surface is just about exactly 1,836 times the radius of the earth, and this is the information in the atoms of which the earth is composed, the difference in mass between the proton and the electron.
Of course the earth's surface, whether land or seafloor, is far from being of even elevation. But that is because more information was added later, my impacts from space, tectonic collisions and glacial movement caused by the earth's rotation, and volcanic activity caused by heat energy from radioactive decay that is trapped within the earth.
But I find this to be an excellent example of how information flows through the universe, from the lowest to the highest levels, and the information in the lower-level structures must be used to construct the higher-level structures because there is no new information from anywhere else.
35) THE GREAT RED SPOT OF JUPITER
One of the most prominent features of our Solar System is the Great Red Spot Of the planet Jupiter. It is a circular storm, like a hurricane, that has been going on for centuries. The Great Red Spot is larger than the earth.
The Great Red Spot is centered at about 22 degrees south latitude on Jupiter. Because of it's rapid spin Jupiter has a very turbulent atmosphere. But nowhere else on the planet is anything like the Great Red Spot. One thing that has never been explained is why the Great Red Spot is where it is on Jupiter.
My concept of how information flows through the universe, from the lowest to the highest levels, explains it simply. All structures in the universe are composed of information. The higher-level structures must be composed of the same information as the lower-level structures because there is no new information from anywhere else.
An obvious example of this is that the Solar System is made of atoms. The orbits of the planets around the sun are based on the same information as the orbitals of the electrons in atoms. It has to be this way because there is no new information from anywhere else.
This provides a neat and simple explanation of why the Great Red Spot is located at about 22 degrees latitude on Jupiter. It is because of the way information works.
Most of Jupiter's atmosphere consists of hydrogen and helium, which are the two lightest elements. But there are also significant amounts of methane and ammonia.
Methane and ammonia are both molecules, which are combinations of atoms. A molecule of methane consists of one atom of carbon and four of hydrogen, which gives it a chemical formula of CH4. A molecule of ammonia consists of one atom of nitrogen and three of hydrogen, which gives it a chemical formula of NH3.
The atomic or molecular weight or mass of an atom or molecule is simply the total number of nucleons, protons or neutrons, in the nucleus. The nucleus of an atom of hydrogen has only one nucleon, a proton. The nucleus of carbon has twelve nucleons, six protons and six neutrons. The nucleus of nitrogen has fourteen nucleons, seven protons and seven neutrons.
There are some isotopes of these elements, with the same number of protons but differing numbers of neutrons, but these isotopes are rare relative to the figures given here.
This means that methane has a molecular mass, or molecular weight, of 16 and ammonia has a molecular mass of 17.
The electrons in atoms have an electric charge that is equal, but opposite, to that on the proton. But electrons are so light in mass that they are not even counted in the atomic or molecular mass. A proton has 1,836 times the mass of an electron.
A neutron is not exactly of the same mass as a proton. A neutron is essentially an electron crunched into a proton during nuclear fusion. The opposite charges of the electron and proton cancel each other out so that the neutron has a neutral charge, a net charge of zero. This means that the neutron is slightly heavier than the proton, 1,837 times the mass of the electron instead of 1,836. But this slight difference is not enough to be taken into account for the atomic or molecular mass.
What do you notice here, considering how information works in my theory? Most of the atmosphere of Jupiter consists of hydrogen, which has an atomic mass of 1. But methane has a molecular mass of 16, and ammonia of 17, and this is information.
The explanation of why the Great Red Spot is centered at about 22 degrees latitude is thus easily explained. It is because of the way information works. 22 degrees is about 1 / 16 or 1 / 17 of a complete circle.
No comments:
Post a Comment