The Lowest Information Point

INTRODUCTION

This is a new theory that I have been working on about the origin of the scales of matter in the universe. This theory grew out of my earlier theories, the cosmology theory, the theory about what information is and, the theory about how information flows through the universe from the lowest to the highest levels. It became apparent that, if we put the cosmology theory and the theory of what information is together, it reveals more about why the scales of matter in the universe are what they are.

This is one thing that never seems to get explained, the scales of matter in the universe. We know that a proton or neutron is about 2.4 x 10 (-15) meters in diameter. But why is this it's diameter? We can see what the typical diameters of planets and stars are, but why is this the case? Now we know how big galaxies are, but the question is why?

Just as with my cosmology theory, which I call "The Theory Of Stationary Space", and is in the posting on this blog by that name, there was something that I could not find any answer to. Before beginning that theory, I wanted to know what time actually was, but could not find a satisfactory answer anywhere. The so-called "Standard Model" of physics does a good job of explaining all of the particles, but does not try to explain what time really is.

So, I set about figuring it out for myself, and the result is that theory. When I did, all manner of other unexplained things about the universe fell neatly into place around the explanation of what time is.

Recently, I wondered about the scales of matter in the universe. Why are things like atoms, planets, stars and, galaxies the scale that they are? As with time, there were no satisfactory answers to be found. I had three major theories about how the universe operates: The cosmology theory, "The Theory Of Stationary Space", "The Theory Of Complexity" which is about what information is and how energy and information is really the same thing and, "The Flow Of Information Through The Universe" which describes how the information involved in constructing the large-scale structures in the universe must come from the small-scale structures of which the large-scale structures are composed because there is no information from anywhere else.

None of my three theories about how the universe operates had an explanation for why the scales of the universe were what they were. But when I put the three theories together, it became apparent that there was a simple explanation of why the scales of matter in the universe were what they were, and the result is this theory here.

SQUARES, RELATED RATIOS, AND THE LOWEST INFORMATION POINT

Here is a basic principle of my theory of information: If there is more than one dimension to something, it must represent the lowest information state if those dimensions are equal. A square is a lower information state than a rectangle, because the square takes only one piece of information to describe, while the rectangle takes two. A sphere represents the lowest energy state of any three-dimensional geometric form, and thus the lowest information state, because energy and information is really the same thing, because all of the diameters and radii of the sphere are equal. This is why planets and stars are spherical.

My theory on the nature of information revealed that energy and information are really the same thing. Since the universe always seeks the lowest energy state, and if information is really the same thing as energy, then it must also seek the lowest information state.

I find that if we take this concept of dimensions being equal as representing the lowest information state, and thus the preferred state, a step further to dimensions of information, it reveals a lot about the universe. Particularly about why the scales of matter in the universe are what they are.

Related successive proportions, A / B = B / C is the lowest information, and thus the preferred, state. In my theory about what information really is, and how energy and information is really the same thing, called "The Theory Of Complexity", the complexity of a number is the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a ratio or a fraction, and it is the lowest information state if all related ratios are the same. The complexity of a number is not how high the number is but how high the denominator is when the number is expressed as a fraction.

What I mean by "related ratios" is A / B = B / C, so that the denominator of one ratio is equal to the numerator of the other. This is so we can say that "A is to B as B is to C". If two ratios are not related we cannot say this, even though the ratios may be equal. A / B = C / D, but the two are not related ratios because B does not equal C. There are four pieces of information, A,B,C,D in an unrelated pair of equal ratios, but only three in a related pair of equal ratios, A,B,C, because B is both the numerator of one and the denominator of the other. This gives us the lowest information state, which the universe prefers, because three pieces of information is less then four.

The Lowest Information Point is a favored point for the scale of matter structures. It is halfway between the two beginning reference points, because when there are already two reference points, the Lowest Information Point for a third related point is halfway between them. Remember my rule for the complexity of a number, the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a fraction or ratio. 1 / 2 is the Lowest Information Point because 2 is the lowest number, other than 1 which represents the already existing information points.

The fact that the universe always seeks the lowest information state supports my cosmological concept of a two-dimensional sheet in four-dimensional background space, as we saw in the cosmological theory "The Theory Of Stationary Space". This makes it so that energy which came from the disintegration of one of the two dimensions of the sheet must be conserved. There is not enough energy to "go around" in the universe because two is fewer than four.

If this were not so, matter and space would be of equal information, and there would be no reason for the universe to always seek the lowest energy state. It is like a shopper not having enough money to buy all that is in the store, and so seeking a "lowest money state" by getting what he need by spending the least amount of money.

SPHERES AND THE LOWEST INFORMATION POINT

The most obvious application of The Lowest Information Point is in how spheres are the default gravitational form of matter in the universe.

When there is enough matter in space to pull together by mutual gravity, it will form a sphere, as we can see in the moon and stars and planets. This is because a sphere is said to represent the lowest energy state of any geometric form, and the universe always seeks the lowest energy state, and that is why matter takes the form of a sphere.

In terms of information, which is really the same thing as energy because we cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it and we cannot apply energy to anything without adding information to it, a sphere is also the lowest information state. My information theory associates the information in an object with it's surface area. When information is applied to something, it generally has to increase it's surface area. We see that a sphere has the lowest surface area per volume of any three-dimensional geometric form. It has the surface area that it does because of the information in the atoms that compose it.

Another way of seeing a sphere as the lowest information state is that it takes the least information to describe a sphere of any three-dimensional geometric form. A sphere is three-dimensional, but it requires only one dimension of information to describe it. A right-angle figure in three-dimensional space requires three dimensions to describe it, it is a cube if all three dimensions are equal.

Thus, in our terminology here, a sphere is a square because it's dimensions are equal. This is what makes it the Lowest Information State and thus the default form of matter in the universe.

But if only one dimension of information is given to describe a form that will occupy three dimensions of space, there is nothing that it can be except a sphere because all of it's radii are equal. Other geometric forms have more surface area per volume than a sphere, because surface area is associated with information and these forms had to have more different dimensions of information to describe them. A sphere also has no need of defining the angles between it's dimensions, as in a conic, trapezoidal or triangular figure.

Matter in the universe defaults to equal dimensions, if not blocked by other information that must be manifested, because that is the Lowest Information Point. The dimensions of space are a cube, which we can see because it is only right angles which fit together with no leftover space, matter takes the form of a sphere, if pulled together by gravity.

There are only three geometric forms that can have equal dimensions. These are a square, or cube, a circle, or sphere, and an equilateral triangle. These represent the lowest information state. The reason that not everything takes these forms is that whatever information there is must be manifested, and this brings about higher informational forms, where the dimensions are greater or are not equal. The arrangements of atoms in molecules tend to take the forms of triangles. Any crystal molecular structures tend to take the form of cubes or triangles.

A circle or sphere is actually a polygon with an infinite number of sides. Yet it represents the lowest energy state, which is also the Lowest Information Point because it has the least surface area per volume. Remember my principle that the complexity of a number is the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a ratio or fraction. A higher number, such as 27, is not more complex then a lower number, such as 2, because 27 is really 27 / 1 and 2 is really 2 / 1.

Infinity must somehow be expressible as a ratio, and the only possible way to do it is to have a denominator of zero. Infinity is 1 / 0, because zero can go into 1 an infinite number of times. This is why a sphere is the lowest information state and the lowest energy state, because it's infinite number of sides give it a denominator of zero, when expressed as a ratio.

A sphere is thus the Lowest Information Point because all of it's dimensions, from the center, are equal. Information can be added to the sphere, which will be manifested as increasing it's surface area to create hills and valleys. Surface area represents information because distance is information. It is also described as the geometric form with the lowest energy state, since energy and information is really the same thing. This is why the sphere is the dominant form of matter in the universe, as seen in stars and planets.

THE BELL CURVE AND THE LOWEST INFORMATION POINT

What about that statistical form that we are so familiar with because it shows up in so much of what we do, the Bell Curve? It is so-named because the statistical graph is shaped like a bell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution#/media/File:Normal_Distribution_PDF.svg

The Bell Curve applies to everything from test scores to the heights of people. When a test is given to a large number of people, most people will tend to score in a median range. Some scores will be higher, and some lower, but these will tend to diminish as we move further from the median.

The same kind of statistical Bell Curve will tend to appear if we graph the height of a large number of people, one for males and one for females. Most people will be near the median range. As with the test scores, some will be taller and some shorter but these will diminish as we move further away from the median.

But the familiar Bell Curve is simply my concept of the Lowest Information Point turned upside down. The curve is because measurements involving humans and other living things tend to be more complex than the simple Lowest Information Point principle that tends to apply to inanimate matter. This is because humans are more complex than our inanimate surroundings.

A Bell Curve is based on a peak, but is more complex than a simple peak so that it is curved. Unlike the universe of inanimate matter, living things tend to operate by peaks such as optimum temperature, optimum balance of factors like work and sleep and food, and optimum percentage of oxygen for breathing.

Inanimate matter, in contrast, is simpler in that it tends to operate by a slope rather than a peak. The more matter a star has, the better, the more fuel and oxygen combustion has, the better. There is no optimum or peak factor.

Things in the inanimate universe also tend to graph as a simpler slope, rather than as a peak or Bell Curve. There are many smaller atoms and few larger atoms. There are many smaller stars and few larger stars. There tends to be no median factor, but a slope from more smaller to fewer larger.

Let's have a look at how a Bell Curve represents the Lowest Information Point with the simple arithmetical operation of multiplying together two numbers that sum to ten.

9 x 1 = 9

8 x 2 = 16

7 x 3 = 21

6 x 4 = 24

5 x 5 = 25

Notice how the results, if graphed, would form half of a Bell Curve. The closer the two numbers are to each other, the higher the result.

The complexity of a number is the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a ratio or fraction. But when two numbers are multiplied, the more difference there is between the numbers the higher the information point. Thus the Lowest Information Point is when the two numbers are equal.

Now, suppose that the two numbers in each equation were the sides of a right-angled figure. 5 x 5, which gives the highest value of 25 because it's factor numbers contain only one piece of information because they are the same number, thus making it the Lowest Information Point, remembering that such a Bell Curve is really the Lowest Information Point turned upside-down.

THE FIVE SETS OF THE LOWEST INFORMATION POINT

Just to briefly review the basics of this theory. We know that the universe always seeks the lowest energy state. This is why an object will fall to the floor, it is a lower energy state to have it on the floor than in the air.

We can also see that energy and information is really the same thing. We cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it and we cannot apply energy to anything without adding information to it.

Another way that we see energy and information to really be the same thing is that we can make our lives physically easier by the use of technology, but only at the expense of making them more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make our lives physically easier and also less complex. This shows that energy and information are interchangeable, and thus forms of the same thing.

The basis of my theory of "The Lowest Information Point" is that, when there are two related ratios, the universe will prefer one if the numerator of one is also the denominator of the other. A / B = B / C is a lower information point than A / B = C / D. The reason is that the first set of ratios contain only three points of information, A, B and, C, while the second contains four points, A, B, C and, D. The reason for this is that, in the first set, B is in both ratios as the numerator of the one and denominator of the other. This makes it the lower information point of the two, and thus preferred by the universe just as the universe always prefers the lowest energy state.

Another way of expressing A / B = B / C is to say "A is to B as B is to C". This means simply that B is midway in scale between A and C. A ready example of this in my theory is why so much of the matter of the universe is in the form of dust. Everything in the universe, matter and space, is composed of nearly-infinitesimal negative and positive electric charges. The entire universe itself is nearly infinite. Dust is so pervasive because the typical size of a mote of dust is exactly midway in scale between a single nearly-infinitesimal electric charge and the entire universe.

What I would like to explain here is that while this concept of "The Lowest Information Point" is the deciding factor in how matter and energy operates in the universe, my theory by that name is actually the third set of "The Lowest Information Point" because it explains the universe by it's preference for ratios involving three pieces of information, rather than four, because the numerator of one ratio is also the denominator of the other.

But there are two sets of "The Lowest Information Point" that are already known.

THE FIRST SET OF THE LOWEST INFORMATION POINT

The First Set is so-called because The Lowest Information Point there is a single piece of information. The First Set is a simple preference of the universe for an equality, as opposed to an inequality, because the equality is The Lowest Information Point of the two. An equality really contains only one piece of information because both sides of the equation are equal. An inequality must contain two pieces of information because the two sides are not equal. This is why we know that the universe must prefer an equality over an inequality.

Suppose that there is a difference in atmospheric pressure in two adjacent areas. That is two pieces of information, when the universe would prefer it to only be one. Air will thus tend to move from the higher pressure to lower so that there can be an equality in the pressure which is only one piece of information.

Equilibrium is an example of an equality, rather than an inequality. When a star forms, it expands or contracts so that the inward pressure of gravity is equaled by the outward energy of the nuclear fusion within. The edges of the star can thus be said to have sought The Lowest Information Point as an equality.

THE SECOND SET OF THE LOWEST INFORMATION POINT

Like my theory, as described above which is really the Third Set, the Second Set involves a ratio. But this ratio has been known since ancient times and is known as the Golden Ratio. The First Set tends to involve inanimate matter but the Second Set is about biology and aesthetics.

The so-called Golden Ratio has fascinated many scientists and mathematicians down through the centuries. It is defined simply as "An area, such as a rectangle, divided into a larger and a smaller area so that the ratio of the larger area to the smaller area is equal to the ration of the entire area to the larger area".

Algebraically, it can be expressed as the equation A / B = ( A + B ) / A, with A being the larger area and B the smaller. Basically, A + B is to A as A is to B.

The number is an irrational number, meaning that while it can be expressed as an algebraic ratio with variables it cannot be expressed as an integer or numerical ratio. This simply means that it is not a round number and can be taken to an infinite number of decimal places.

The Golden Ratio is 1.618....

This makes it one of those irrational numerical constants along with pi, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to it's diameter. I remember pi as 3.1415927 but it can, like the Golden Ratio, be calculated to a never-ending number of decimal places. Another one is e, 2.718. This constant often occurs in nature, involving anything exponential, with e being calculated as ( X + 1 / X ) raised to X power, with X being any large number. The higher the value of X, which can be any number, the more accurate the calculation of e. To get a perfect calculation of e, X would have to be infinity.

Arithmetically, the Golden Ratio can be expressed as ( 1 + the square root of 5 ) / 2.

Another way to arrive at the Golden Ratio with numbers are the Fibonacci Numbers, named for a mathematician from Pisa. Starting with 0 and 1, the Fibonacci series successively adds the previous two numbers so that we get the sequence, that can be carried on infinitely, 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21... The higher the numbers get, the closer the ratio of two adjacent numbers are to the Golden Ratio.

The Golden Ratio shows up in botany, in the placement of branches on trees, the placement of leaves, and petals during flowering. It is very important to humans in aesthetics. Humans have an innate preference to see the Golden Ratio, due to the horizontal placement of our eyes. Billboards, computer screens, photographs and, the pages of books and periodicals, are almost never square but approximate the Golden Ratio. This is a rectangle with one side 1.618 times the length of the other.

Related to the Golden Ratio is the Golden Spiral that is often seen in biology. An idealized example is the proportions of seashells. The growth factor of the Golden Spiral is the Golden Ratio.

This is similar in concept to my two related ratios, as described above. But the reason that I define the Golden Ratio as the Second Set of the Lowest Information Point is that it contains two variables. It is the ratio of the total area to the larger area being equal to the ratio of the larger area to the smaller area, but there still are only two variables because the total is the addition of the larger and the smaller areas.

THE THIRD SET OF THE LOWEST INFORMATION POINT

The universe prefers the two related ratios, A / B = B / C over A / B = C / D, because the first contains only three pieces of information whereas the second contains four. This is because, in the first set of ratios, the numerator of one, B, is also the denominator of the other.

Another way of putting this is, with so much to do with different scales in the universe, A is to B as B is to C. A is midway between A and C, and is thus the preferred "Lowest Information Point". The scale of the pervasive dust in the universe being midway between the scale of the nearly-infinitesimal electric charges that comprise everything in the universe, and the scale of the entire universe itself, is just one example that is described in the theory.

THE FOURTH SET OF THE LOWEST INFORMATION POINT

After describing those three sets, I started to wonder if there might be a fourth set out there somewhere. It actually didn't take long to find it. The Fourth Set of the Lowest Information Point involves the calculation of odds when a game or event with certain odds is repeated the same number of times as the odds.

In the simplest example, what are the overall odds of winning if the odds of winning a game are 1 / 2 and we play the game twice? We know that, since it involves uncertainty or chance, the odds can never be 1, which represents certainty.

In the first play, the odds of winning are 1 / 2. That leaves the other 1 / 2 remaining. In the second try, the odds are thus 1 / 2 of 1 / 2, or 1 / 4. That, added to the first try's 1 / 2, gives us overall odds of 3 / 4.

But what is interesting is that the odds of getting a win when a game with odds of 1 / X is played X number of times decreases with the value of X. The odds are greatest in the above example, where X = 2. Never again, with X being increasingly higher numbers, will the odds be as high as 3 / 4.

The odds, with successively increasing values of X, will decrease from 3 / 4, when X = 2, to exactly 1 / 2 when X = infinity. If a gambler plays a game in which the odds of winning are infinitesimal, but plays the game an infinite number of times, the odds of getting a win on one of the plays are exactly 1 / 2. If the odds are a million to one, but the game is played a million times, since a million is finite but a very high number, the odds of a win will be a shade over 1 / 2.

As it turns out, the reason that the odds must be exactly 1 / 2 in the infinite game, and also that the game with the odds of 1 / 2, X = 2, is because this is another manifestation of the Lowest Information Point, the Fourth Set.

The odds of a game with uncertainty cannot be 1 / 1, because that would mean certainty. The next lowest denominator would give us 1 / 2. Remember that, in my information theory, described in the compound posting on this blog "The Theory Of Complexity", the value of a number can only be expressed as the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a ratio.

This thus forms a curve with the greatest odds of getting a win at the odds of lowest value. This would be 1 / 2, with X = 2 so that the game is played twice, and which would give the odds of a win at 3 / 4. That is the highest odds of any value of X. This is then yet another example of a set of the Lowest Information Point.

Just to be sure that you know what I mean by X, suppose that X = 3. That means that a game of pure chance would have odds of winning of 1 / 3 and the game would be played three times. The overall odds of a win could be described as follows:

1 / 3 odds for the first try.

1 / 3 of the remaining 2 / 3 odds for the second try. 1 / 3 x 2 / 3 = 2 / 9. Since the first try 1 / 3 is the same as 3 / 9, that gives us 5 / 9 so far.

1 / 3 of the remaining 4 / 9 for the third try. 1 / 3 x 4 / 9 = 4 / 27. Multiplying the 5 / 9 of the first and second tries by 3 to get a common denominator of 27, this gives us 15 / 27 + 4 / 27 = 19 / 27.

This fraction cannot be reduced because 19 is an indivisible prime number. Notice that 19 / 27 is lower odds than the 3 / 4, if X =2. That is because 2 is lower than 3 and this is an example of the Lowest Information Point.

This very useful concept goes beyond games of chance and can be applied to anything that involves uncertainty or chance. What about nuclear fission? A high-speed neutron is fired into a mass of plutonium or the 235 isotope of uranium. When the neutron strikes a nucleus of an atom in the mass it will split that atom and more high-speed neutrons will be emitted from the collision, thus initiating a chain reaction.

But since the nucleus is so concentrated, relative to the total size of the atom, the neutron will pass right through most of the atoms that it encounters until, by chance, it strikes a nucleus. But if the mass of fissile material, plutonium or U-235, the surface area per volume of the mass will be larger and too many neutrons will escape from the mass, before striking a neutron, to sustain the chain reaction.

That is why, in a nuclear device, a certain minimum spherical mass of fissile material is necessary. It is spherical in form because a sphere is the geometric form with the lowest surface area to volume ratio. This minimum mass to sustain a chain reaction is known as the critical mass. It is based on cumulative successive odds, as described above, the odds of a neutron striking a nucleus before it exists the critical mass.

This concept of cumulative successive odds is the Fourth Set of the Lowest Information Point because it is at it's greatest when the denominator in the odds, the value of X, is at it's lowest.

THE FIFTH SET OF THE LOWEST INFORMATION POINT

The fifth set is another theory, which is closely related to this theory. It is "The Flow Of Information Through The Universe", January 2016. It is about how information tends to be reused from the lowest scales to the highest scales in the universe. This represents a lower information point than otherwise because it means that there is less total information in the universe. The simplest and most obvious example might be how the orbits of planets around the sun in the Solar System very closely resemble the orbitals of electrons in an atom around the nucleus. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Here is a table of contents of this new theory. Besides the most obvious examples described above, each is a separate example of how the scales of matter in the universe came to be what they are because it represents the lowest information state. The lowest information state is between two related ratios, so that "A is to B as B is to C". This forms the pattern of a square, because a related ratio has two "equal sides". This simple concept explains just so much about the scales of matter in the universe.

1) The Bias Toward Dust
  1b) Dust And The Crab Nebula
  1c) The Relationship Between Molecules And Dust
  1d) Why Metals Exist
2) The Scale Median Of The Inner Planets
3) The Galactic Threshold
4) The Square Universe And The Informational Width And Length
5) The Nuclear-Chemical-Astronomical Relationship
6) The Relative Freezing And Boiling Points Of Water
7) Human Biology And The Lowest Information Point
8) Nucleons In Thirds
9) The Scale Of Gem Formation
10) Radiation And The Lowest Information Point
11) The Special Numbers Concerning Atoms
 11b) Integers As The Lowest Information Point
 11c) The Lowest Information Point As The Least Number Of Information Points
 11d) The Beginning Of The Universe
 11e) The Proton And Nucleon Roots
 11f) Iron And The Planetary Orbits
 11g) 8 Is A Special Number Both In The Nucleus And In The Electron Orbitals
 11h) The Most Common Elements Between Iron And Uranium
 11i) Comparison Of These Special Numbers With The Magic Numbers
 11j) The First Atoms And The Inverse Square Law
 11k) The Lowest Information Point Concerning Atoms
12) The Diagonal Of The Square And Black Holes
13) The Open Universe In Terms Of Information
14) Matter And Energy, Square And Rectangle
15) Nuclear Reactions In Terms Of Information
16) Testing The Lowest Information Point
17) The Number Of Stars In The Universe

18) Lagrangian Points And The Lowest Information Point

1) THE BIAS TOWARD DUST

So much of the solid matter in the universe today is in the form of dust. Dust is everywhere. The sky is blue and the sunset is red because of dust in the atmosphere scattering light. In our homes and buildings, dust seems to continuously appear from out of nowhere. We have weather because dust particles act as condensation nuclei so that clouds can form. Much of the space between stars in galaxies is filled with dust, and our view of distant stars is obscured by it. Stars form when gas and dust in space is brought together by gravity.

It takes a supernova scattering heavier elements across space to bring about dust, but the universe must have some kind of bias toward it, since it is the most common state of solid matter. How might we explain this bias toward dust?

We can begin with my principle that if there are two or more related ratios in the universe, it represents the lowest energy state if those two ratios are equal. In other words, A is to B as B is to C.

If my cosmology theory is correct then Planck's Length, which shows up in all manner of physics formulae, is actually the size of one of the infinitesimal electric negative or positive charges of which everything, space and matter, is composed. What would we get if we take the size of one of these charges and compare it to the scale of the entire universe?

What we will find is that the scale of a particle of dust is exactly halfway between the scale of the infinitesimal electric charges and the scale of the entire universe. An individual electric charge is to a particle of dust as the particle of dust is to the entire universe.

Using very round figures, the size of the observable universe is on the order of 1 (27) meters. In terms of exponents, this means a 1 followed by 27 zeros. Planck's Length is on the order of 1 (-35) meters. Halfway between this is a scale of 1 (-4) meters. This represents one one-hundredth of a centimeter, or the size of a particle of dust. This is the preferred scale of matter in the universe because it is at the point of least information.

That is why there is so much dust in the universe. Maybe it will make sweeping and vacuuming a little bit more interesting.

This is what I mean by the two related ratios being equal representing the lowest information state. A / B = B / C, where A is the scale of the infinitesimal electric charges which compose the universe. B is the scale of a particle of dust. C is the scale of the entire universe.

The fact that the halfway point between the scale of the universe and the scale of the electric charges of which everything in it is composed is the scale of dust is why the universe has a bias toward dust, and why it is by far the predominant form of solid matter in the universe. This is because the scale of dust is where the two halfway ratios are equal, and thus it is the lowest information state.

We speak of something "turning to dust" if it is exposed to time or the elements. But should this surprise us when the universe has this lowest information state bias toward dust? The starting points of information in the universe are the scale of the infinitesimal electric charges of which everything is composed, which shows up in physics formulae as Planck's Length, and the scale of the entire universe itself. Anything else represents a higher information state and so it must eventually turn to dust because the universe prefers the lowest energy state and, since energy and information is really the same thing, it must also seek the Lowest Information Point. This is why things "turn to dust".

The vast majority of living things are also somewhere around the scale of dust. If we took the size of every living thing on earth including microscopic forms of life, and averaged them all together, we would get just about the scale of dust. This is based on the underlying nature of the universe, because it is halfway between the scale of the universe and the scale of the infinitesimal electric charges of which it is composed.

But if dust is clearly the preferred state of solid matter in the universe, then why is the much-larger sphere the default form of matter that has been pulled together by gravity, such as stars and planets? An equivalent volume of dust would have a far larger total surface area per volume than the same amount of matter that had been pulled together by gravity into a planet.

I have defined surface area as being proportional to the information in a geometric form. Since the scale of dust is clearly the preferred state of solid matter in the universe then this must have some other explanation. Why don't gravitational spheres form at the scale of dust?

The answer to this question lies in the nature of atoms, that the vast majority of an atom is empty space.

1b) DUST AND THE CRAB NEBULA

The compound posting on this blog, "The Flow Of Information Through The Universe", is all about how information flows though the universe from the lowest to the highest levels. The same information as in the lowest levels has to be reused because there is no information from anywhere else with which to build the matter structures of the higher levels.

Probably the most obvious example is the orbits of moons and planets around stars. These orbits are just like the orbitals of electrons in the atoms of which the stars, planets and, moons are composed. The information at the astronomical level has to be the same as at the sub-atomic level because there is no information from anywhere else with which to build the structures at the astronomical level.

We now know that the groups of galaxies that compose the highest level of the arrangement of matter in the universe are not spread anywhere near evenly across space. Galactic groups are structured in filaments, with vast voids between them. We cannot see this with ordinary observation, but it becomes apparent when the distances and direction of many galactic groups in the universe are plotted. The filaments are millions of light-years across and the voids between them are hundreds of millions of light-years across. Our own galaxy, so vast that we really cannot grasp it, is just a speck in all of this.

This is a chart of the distribution of large groups of galaxies in our general area of the universe. Our group of galaxies is referred to as simply the Local Group, and the wider group that it is a part of is called Laniakea. Notice how, when seen on a very large scale, the groups of galaxies form filaments with vast voids between them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laniakea_Supercluster#/media/File:Laniakea.gif

One thing that is really striking is how the filaments resemble the folds in a crumpled sheet of paper that is opened up again. Remember that, in my cosmology theory, the matter in the universe originated with a two-dimensional sheet of space that was within, but was not contiguous with, the four dimensions of background space, one of which we perceive as time, over which it was scattered by what we perceive as the Big Bang.

Now, look at the Crab Nebula. This is the remnants of a supernova explosion in 1054, nearly a thousand years ago. Notice how the dust that composes the Crab Nebula, the heavy elements that were fused together in the progenitor star before it exploded and scattered it's component matter across space, is also arranged not as just a cloud of dust, but in filaments. In fact, the filaments that we can see in the Crab Nebula very much resemble the filaments, with vast gaps between them, of which the matter in the entire universe is arranged.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_Nebula#/media/File:Crab_Nebula.jpg

So knowing that matter always seeks the lowest energy state, why did the matter thrown outward into space by the supernova explosion that caused the Crab Nebula form these intricate filaments? This has got to be a far higher information state than just forming a cloud of dust. Why would the matter of the Crab Nebula instead take the form of these fine and complex filaments that we see?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_Nebula#/media/File:Filaments_in_the_Crab_Nebula.jpg

But yet the matter in the Crab Nebula definitely does form those complex filaments, and the information must have come from somewhere.

In the Crab Nebula, what is happening is that the universe is literally making a model of itself. The supernova that formed the Crab Nebula is a reenactment of the Big Bang and the countless grains of dust, being able to hold a lot of information in their arrangement, copies the information of the arrangements of matter in the entire universe, but with specks of dust instead of stars. But the dust, of course, came from a star.

But why is this the only place that we see, as far as I am aware, an arrangement of matter forming a literal model of the arrangement of matter in the entire universe?

Smoke from a chimney simply forms a small cloud. The water droplets in the clouds in the air do not form any such filaments, except for the ice crystals in cirrus clouds and they usually are just straight lines. The arrangements of stars in galaxies do not form any such filaments that are a model of the universe, spiral galaxies like ours have the "arms" but are nothing like these complex filaments in the universe and the Crab Nebula. Neither do the asteroids in our Solar System's Asteroid Belt form any such filaments.

What happens is that the molecules in a gas do not take the form of filaments because the molecules are too small. The stars in a galaxy to not arrange in the form of filaments because the stars are too large. But it does happen with enough dust thrown out into space, and under the right conditions, because the grains of dust are just right.

But what does it mean for the scale of the grains of dust to be "just right"?

Remember "The Bias Toward Dust". The reason that dust is so abundant, as well as why it is just the right scale to form a model of the structure of matter in the universe, is that the typical size of a speck of dust is exactly halfway between the nearly infinitesimal negative and positive electric charges of which the universe is composed, and the nearly infinite scale of the entire universe.

This scale of halfway between the scale of an electric charge and the entire universe must go by size, and not by mass. The gravity between enough grains of dust with the right disbursement in space has just the right amount of gravity between them to allow the dust to arrange into the filament structure that is a model of the universe. It is true that atoms are almost all empty space, but if the atoms in the dust were more dense then the atoms of the whole universe would be more dense and, with their grater gravitational pull, the universe would be more compact but, even so, the scale relationship of dust particles as halfway between the scale of  electric charges and of the entire universe would still hold true.

The arrangement of dust that forms the clear filaments in the Crab Nebula is literally a model of the structure of the universe. This shows that, when conditions are right, information not only flows from the lowest to the highest levels, as from atoms to the orbits of moons and planets, but also in the other direction, from the highest levels downward. The Crab Nebula cannot be expected to be a perfect model of the universe because it's component grains of dust are subject to the tidal forces, differences in gravity, from nearby stars.

The reason that the Crab Nebula is not spherical in form, as we would expect the universe to be if the Big Bang which threw the matter outward was even, can be explained by the rotation of the progenitor star before it exploded in the supernova. The matter originating from around the equatorial plane of the star would have been thrown outward with a greater velocity than the matter from around the polar regions. That is why the nebula is shaped more like the shell of a crab, hence the name.

So if the dust of the Crab Nebula is a model of the matter structure of the universe, as it seems that it is, what else might that be able to tell us?

Notice that the dust in the Crab Nebula is more concentrated in it's outer regions than it is toward the center. This is to be expected since the matter was thrown outward by an explosion and is still moving outward today. But yet we do not see this same arrangement in the vast filaments of matter in the universe as a whole. There is no corresponding concentration of matter toward the outer limits of the universe, as compared with nearer the center.

The answer to that is actually simple and is explained by the cosmology theory, as described in "The Theory Of Stationary Space", on this blog.

The reason that we do not see any concentration of matter toward the outer limits of the universe, as we might expect if all matter was thrown outward by the Big Bang, is that the universe is actually strings of matter in four-dimensional space, instead of the particles of matter in three-dimensional space that we perceive, with the missing dimension of space being the one that we perceive as time.

When we look out into space, we are looking at right angles to the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains. We cannot see the center of the universe, which is where the Big Bang was centered. For this reason, there appears no large-scale difference in the distribution of matter.

1c) THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOLECULES AND DUST

In "The Chemical-Nuclear-Astronomical Relationship", which is part of "The Lowest Information Point", we see that the relationship between the amount of matter that must collect by gravity to form a sphere in space and the far greater amount of matter that must collect by gravity before the mutual gravity is strong enough to overcome the electron repulsion between atoms and crunch atoms together to initiate the nuclear fusion of a star is essentially equal to the relationship between the energy released by chemical processes and the far greater energy per mass released by nuclear processes.

In "The Gem Formation Hypothesis", we see that first, natural gems that refract light are very limited in size and second, that they are formed by geological processes. That can only mean one thing. Gems are made of atoms that are shaped into their final form by the processes in the earth. The practical limit to the size of gems that refract light must therefore be that the gems must be closer in scale to that of their component atoms than to the size of the earth. If the gem were closer to the scale of the earth than to the scale of the atoms, the geological processes would not be able to form the atoms into the neat rows so that light can be refracted by passing between the atoms.

Today we have another such scale relationship. We have seen that so much of the matter in the universe is in the form of dust because there is a bias toward dust. The universe is nearly infinite in scale but, according to my cosmology theory, it is composed of near-infinitesimal negative and positive electric charges. The reason that Planck's Length is so important in physics is that this is the scale of these charges. There is a universal bias toward dust because it's scale is exactly halfway between the scale of the universe and the scale of the electric charges of which it is composed. This halfway point in scale forms a "square" which is a lower information point than a rectangle because it's two sides are equal, thus is the preferred scale for structures of matter.

Matter, like space, is formed of electric charges. The difference between the two being that space is a perfectly alternating checkerboard of negative and positive charges, in multiple dimensions, while matter is a concentration of like charges, held together against their mutual repulsion by energy. Atoms are the "zero unit" of matter, where negative and positive charges get together to form a structure with a net electric charge of zero. The number one rule of the universe is that the two electric charges must always balance out. This rule comes before always seeking the lowest energy state.

Atoms have accomplished the balancing of the electrically charged particles comprising matter to zero. But not completely. With most atoms, there is still some charge imbalance. The way that this is balanced out is a further development, that of molecules. The less-than-perfect electrical balance in atoms, leads most of those atoms to combine into molecules in order to completely alleviate any charge imbalance. It is only those atoms of the inert gases, with completely filled outermost electron shells, that have no remaining electrical imbalance.

But what is so surprising is just how many different molecules can form from so few atoms. At the Big Bang, there were four different original atoms. Ordinary fusion in stars of smaller atoms into larger ones brings about 26 different atoms, up to iron. Application of the energy that is released when a large star explodes in a supernova further fuses atoms together that could not have been formed by the ordinary fusion process. This brings about a total of 92 different atoms, up to uranium.

But out of this relatively few number of different atoms the number of different molecules that can form, no one knows exactly how many, is millions upon millions upon millions. The vast majority of all possible molecules includes carbon, because of it's outstanding ability to form molecules.

The reason that so many different molecules can form from so few different atoms, all because of the imperfection of atoms at resolving the imbalance of electric charges, is that there are two scales that do not coincide, but which must exist together. These two scales are those of space and matter.
The reason that there is a mismatch between the scales of space and matter can be explained by my cosmology theory. The two did not form together, as in conventional theories of the Big Bang. Space formed first, and then matter.

The place where the two scales meet is at the scale of dust, as described above. The scale of dust is halfway between the scale of the infinitesimal electric charges of which the universe is composed, and the scale of the entire universe. The scale of dust is thus based on the scale of space and matter, since it must exist within space, "meets" the scale of space at dust and this is why there is a bias toward dust in the universe and so much of the matter in the universe is in the form of dust.

The scale of matter is much smaller than that of space. The "halfway" scale of space, where the matter that is scattered across it comes to meet it, is the scale of dust. But the dominant structure of matter, atoms, is so much smaller in scale than that of dust.

One way of explaining this is my cosmology theory. Matter originated from a two-dimensional sheet of space that was within, but not contiguous with, the multi-dimensional background space. When one of the two dimensions of the sheet disintegrated in what we perceive as the Big Bang, the matter that originated with the two-dimensional sheet was scattered over four dimensions of the background space. So that is the reason for the great different in primary scale of matter, compared to space. The scale of atoms represents the two dimensions of the original sheet of space that formed matter and the scale of dust represents the four dimensions of space over which the matter was scattered by what we perceive as the Big Bang.

The vast majority of an atom is empty space. The purpose that they serve is to act as a structure that brings about the balance of electric charges. Atoms are composed of both positive and negative charges and the reason that they are the scale they are is the strength of the charges of which they are composed.

But because of this difference in scale between matter and the space that it inhabits, both being composed of the same set of electric charges, atoms do not completely accomplish their objective of being the structures that balance electric charges. That is why atoms group together into molecules and these atoms are attached together by the leftover charge imbalance of atoms.

The reason that just so many different molecules form from so few different atoms can thus be explained simply. There is a simple relationship here. The tremendous number of different molecules that can form, relative to the number of different atoms, is equal to the scale of dust which is the scale of space, relative to the scale of atoms, which is the scale of matter.

Put simply, there is a relationship here similar to the two that we saw in the beginning. The universe favors such relationships because they represent the lowest information point. Essentially as many molecules can form from the few number of atoms from which they form as there are of these atoms in the typical scale of a speck of dust.

1d) WHY METALS EXIST

Why are there metals and non-metals? The usual answer to this question is something like "Oh well, that's just the way it is".

The majority of the elements in the periodic table are metals. Atoms have a positively-charged nucleus, consisting of protons and usually neutrons, with negatively-charged electrons in orbitals around the nucleus. There are 92 different naturally-occurring atoms, defined by the number of their protons, that make up the periodic table. Two or more atoms can join together, or can react chemically, by the interactions of their electrons in the outermost orbitals.

What makes metals different from non-metals is that a large number of atoms in metals share their outermost electrons. In non-metals, electrons are shared between atoms only in covalent bonds. These "communal" electrons that span a large number of atoms in a metal are referred to as "delocalized".

These delocalized electrons are what gives metals their properties, making them different from non-metals. It makes metals ductile so that they can be bent or shaped or drawn into wires. If an electrical potential difference is applied across a metal, the electrons will flow from the negative to the positive terminals in an electric current.

The periodic table is arranged in eight columns, with each column having those elements with the same number of electrons in the outermost electron shell. There are eight columns because the maximum number of electrons in the outermost shell is eight. Metals tend to be to the left of the table, with the fewer numbers of outermost electrons.

Elements with 1, 2 or, 3 electrons in the outermost shell tend to lose those electrons, in a chemical reaction, to those that have 7, 6 or, 5 electrons in the outermost shell. That is why there is a strong tendency for metals to react with non-metals.

But the question, once again, is why metals are structured like this. Why would a large number of atoms in an element share their outermost electron between them? This is a very primal question but has never been answered.

Maybe the answer lies in the cosmology of the universe.

My theory is that the universe seeks "The Lowest Information Point", and that is the name of this theory. We know already that the universe always seeks the lowest energy state. we also see that energy and information is really the same thing because we cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it and we cannot apply energy to something without adding information to it. Another way that we see energy and information as really the same thing is that we can make our lives physically easier, through technology, but only at the expense of making them more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make our lives physically easier and also less complex.

So if the universe always seeks the lowest energy state then it should also always seek "The Lowest Information Point". Suppose that we have two related ratios, A / B = B / C and A / B = C / D. The first one should be preferred by the universe because it is the "Lowest Information Point". It has only three pieces of information while the other ratio has four. The first ratio has only three pieces of information because the numerator of one ratio, B, is also the denominator of the other.

But that means that the universe should have certain favored scales, the lowest information points, where the numerator of one ratio is also the denominator of the other. In other words, A is to B as B is to C.

One of the first things that I noticed is that this explains why dust is so prominent in the universe. Our galaxy contains extensive clouds of dust that comprises so much of the matter in the galaxy. The reason for this "bias toward dust", as I call it, is simple. It is a matter of "The Lowest Information Point". The typical scale of a mote of dust is exactly halfway between the scale of the nearly-infinitesimal electric charges that comprise everything in the universe, and the nearly-infinite scale of the universe itself. I see no other way to explain why dust is so predominant in the matter of the universe.

So what does this have to do with metals? What about the scale of the large numbers of atoms within metals that share their outermost electrons which gives the metals their properties? Have you ever thought that this might be similar to the typical scale of a mote of dust, and for the same reason? The scale of an area of shared delocalized electrons in a metal is, like a mote of dust, halfway between the nearly-infinitesimal scale of the electric charges that comprise the universe and the nearly-infinite scale of the universe itself, and that is what produces metals?

How else is there to explain why there are metals and non-metals? For non-metals such as rocks, compounds of silicon and oxygen, and compounds of carbon this favored "Lowest Information Point" shows up as the preponderance of dust. For metals, it shows up as the area of atoms that share their outermost electrons and that is what makes them metals.

The size of this scale at the favored halfway point is not a strict rule, it depends on the size of the atoms and other factors. But it is a general rule. But it is not the same thing as the crystal arrangement of atoms in a metal.

2) THE SCALE MEDIAN OF THE INNER PLANETS

Here is a concept about the nature of stars and the distance scale of the universe. I have long thought that we could somehow measure the scale of the universe just by what we see around us. This is fairly simple, but I do not see it documented anywhere.

Let's start with the scale of atoms. A hydrogen atom, the smallest of all atoms, has a diameter of about 1.2 (-10) meters. An iron atom, iron being as far as the ordinary fusion process in stars go, has a diameter about ten times that of the hydrogen atom.

Information online is that the observable universe is close to 100 thousand million light years in diameter, expressed in exponents 1 (11), although that doesn't mean that there couldn't be more beyond that. Since light travels at 300 million meters per second, and there are 86,400 seconds in a day, and thus 31,536,000 seconds in a year, a light year is about 1 (16) meters, or a 1 followed by 16 zeroes.

This means that the diameter in meters of the observable universe is about 1 (27), a 1 followed by 27 zeros, because to multiply the number of meters in a light-year by the number of light-years in the universe, we add the exponents.

So counting by tens, this means that there are 38 orders of magnitude of difference between the scale of the hydrogen atom, 37 for the iron atom, and the scale of the observable universe. By these orders of magnitude, I mean 10 x 10 x 10...We have to count zero as an order because ten to the zero power = 1.

Do you notice something interesting here? This means that the midpoint of the scale, the middle order of magnitude, between an iron atom and the entire observable universe is 1 (9), which is on the order of about ten million meters, or about ten thousand km.

This is exactly the general scale of the diameter of the Earth, and the other terrestrial planets in the Solar System, all with abundant iron. In fact, iron is the most common element on earth by mass. The planet Mercury contains so much iron that it is nicknamed "the Iron Planet". Mars is red in color because of iron oxide. Venus, close in size to earth, has a similar iron core.

In fact, if we take the average diameter of the four inner planets where iron is so abundant, Mercury, Venus, Earth and, Mars, we get just about exactly a diameter of ten thousand km, which is the midpoint in terms of scale between the iron atom and the observable universe.

The earth's moon doesn't count in this because it is made of rock, but lacks iron. The earth is 64 times the volume of the moon, but has 81 times it's mass, because the earth has the heavy iron core that the moon lacks. But the fact that the moon is somewhat smaller in diameter than the average of the inner planets is also a reflection of this Lowest Information Point. Rock is a compound of silicon and oxygen, and these atoms are somewhat smaller than iron atoms, and this is reflected in the diameter of the moon being somewhat less than that of the inner planets.

So, this means simply that the size of an iron atom is to the average diameter of the terrestrial planets as the diameters of the terrestrial planets is to the diameter of the entire universe. This could not be a coincidence, and is based on what I refer to as the "Scale Median", or the "Lowest Information Point", because the iron atom is to the scale of the terrestrial planets as the terrestrial planets are to the scale of the entire universe.

The diameters of the inner planets are not exactly smooth, there are mountains and valleys. To understand why, we have to understand that the atoms of which these planets are composed are not smooth. There are electrons in orbitals around the atomic nuclei, and these electrons bring about the molecular bonds which make mountains and other unevenness of the surface possible.

We saw in the posting on the geology blog, "The Mountain Altitude Constant And Molecular Bonds", that the maximum altitude of mountains on a planet, relative to the size of the planet, no matter how they form, is equal to the difference in the strengths of molecular bonds in comparison with the much stronger bonds that hold the nucleus of the atom together.

This concept of the Scale Median, or Lowest Information Point, expresses it in terms of scale. An single electron is in size to a mountain as the mountain is to the entire universe. That is why the molecular bonds which make mountains possible reflect the electrons in the atoms that form the molecular bonds.

This means that the inner planets, including the earth, are actually scale models of the atoms of which they are composed, halfway to the scale of the universe in which those atoms exist.

I find this to be absolutely amazing. Can you see how much is out there waiting to be discovered, that has not been pointed out yet? Much of it is simple things like this. All around you, right now, are things that have not yet been noticed by anyone.

The Scale Median, or the Lowest Information Point, is going to be defined as follows: "When lower and higher scales intersect, such as the iron atoms in the entire universe, the point where the two scales meet will be exactly halfway between the scales of the two. This is because that would be the meeting point requiring the least information. I define the complexity of a number not in how high the number is, a million is no more complex then two, but in the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a fraction. Thus, the "meeting point" of the two scales would be halfway between the two, or 1 / 2.

3) THE GALACTIC THRESHOLD

This theory is like a pyramid resting on both the earlier cosmology and information theories. My cosmology theory is that everything, both space and matter, is composed of infinitesimal electric charges. Alternating negative and positive charges are space, and concentration of like charge is matter. Like charges of matter must be held together with energy, and this is what gives us the well-known Mass-Energy Equivalence.

But what ratios in the universe, which must exist because they represent the lowest information state, might these fundamental charges be part of? Planck's Length is the shortest possible length, and shows up in all manner of physics formulae. This is because it is the size of one of these fundamental electric charges, which compose everything in the universe.

Why do galaxies form at the scale that they do? The information must come from somewhere. We have seen, in the theory about how information flows through the universe, that the types of galaxies are related to the number of common atoms. A galaxy is typically hundreds of billions of stars, but there must be a threshold of galactic formation that is above that of the globular clusters which exist around the edge of our galaxy.

This "galactic threshold" would not be the average size of a galaxy because galaxies can merge together into larger ones. We can see that the Andromeda Galaxy, the largest member of our local group, has a double nucleus which indicates a merger. There are galaxies that are much smaller than ours, like the Magellanic Clouds that can be seen from the southern hemisphere.

The size ratio of an infinitesimal electric charge to that of the largest atoms that can form naturally is the same ratio as one of those atoms to the scale of galactic formation. Once again, our concept of related ratios being the Lowest Information State, A is to B as B is to C, explains the scales of matter that we see in the universe.

4) THE SQUARE UNIVERSE AND THE INFORMATIONAL WIDTH AND LENGTH

The universe has to be what I refer to as "square". However, I do not mean the actual geometric shape of it. Let me explain what I mean. This section rests on my cosmology theory.

First, let's briefly review the cosmology theory. Remember that this is not a review of this theory here, but of the earlier cosmology theory, "The Theory Of Stationary Space", upon which it rests.

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.

Conventional theory is that both space and matter expanded outward from the Big Bang that began the universe. My cosmology theory has it that space came first, by the mutual induction of opposite electrical charges, beginning with a single charge, in multiple dimensions. Matter came separately, when an "orphan" two-dimensional sheet of space formed, by the same mutual induction of opposite charges, that was within but was not contiguous to the background space.

I would like to explain why matter must have begun as described, by applying the logic of how information works.

Consider that there are different things that are made of matter, but there are many of each thing.

In the universe there are different "things", such as rocks, clouds, planets, stars, moons and, galaxies, and so on. But there is not one rock, one cloud, one planet, one star, one moon and, one galaxy. Rather, there are many rocks, many clouds, many planets, many stars and, many galaxies.

This makes it appear that, in terms of information, the universe is two-dimensional. One dimension, which we could call the informational width, is the number of different "things" which form from matter. The other dimension, which we could call the informational length, is the number of each of these different things.

Should it surprise us that, in terms of information, matter forms two dimensions like this? Remember that, in my cosmology theory, matter originated from a two-dimensional sheet of space. That is where the information for the two dimensions of matter comes from. Objects made of matter occupy three spatial dimensions, four if we include the dimension of space that we perceive as time, but that is because the two-dimensional sheet of space that formed matter was scattered across the four-dimensional background space by the Big Bang. But we see the information of the two dimensions again if we consider this length and width.

Another way that the informational length and width can be described is the information mismatch between the two dimensional sheet of space which formed matter, and the four-dimensional background space. Four is twice as much as two, and this gives us two informational dimensions of matter in space. The number of different things made of matter that form represent the two dimensions of the sheet, and the number of each of those things represents the space of twice as many dimensions over which matter is scattered.

But if both matter and space originated together, as in the conventional model of the Big Bang, there would be no reason for this arrangement. Everything made of matter cannot be different from everything else that is made of matter simply because there is not enough information for it to be so. But if matter and space originated together, as in the conventional model, both would have the same informational level, and this would not be the case. Everything would either be the same as everything else or different from everything else, there would not be this "halfway" situation that we have now.

This shows that my theory of how the universe originated must be correct. Also, other theories speculate on what happened after the Big Bang, but have no explanation of how it actually came about. My theory explains what caused the Big Bang. It takes the universe back to the existence of a single electric charge.

There is cosmological debate nowadays about the "shape" of the universe. Is it flat or curved? This means that, if it is flat, a spacecraft moving in a straight line would always get further from it's starting point. If the universe was curved, the spacecraft would eventually come back around to it's starting point. Another way of putting the debate about the "shape" of the universe is that, if the universe was covered in tiles, what shape of tile would fit together with no leftover space?

I have another question about the universe. This question only involves the matter in the universe, not the space. The question is as follows: Is the universe square or rectangular?

I define the shape of the matter in the universe like this: If the total number of "things" made of matter that can exist is equal to the average total number of each thing that exists, then the informational width and informational length are equal, and the universe is square, with two equal sides. But if the two are not equal, then the universe is rectangular, with either the width or the length being greater than the other.

If we combine my theory about that information is, and how information and energy is ultimately the same thing, with my cosmology theory as described above, it predicts that the matter in the universe must ultimately be square. Remember again that this has nothing to do with the right angles of the dimensions of space.

That is because a square universe is a lower information state than a rectangular universe. It requires only one piece of information to describe a square, the length of one of it's sides, but two pieces to describe a rectangle. If energy and information is the same thing, and if the universe always seeks the lowest energy state, then it must always seek the lowest information state.

If the universe began with the two-dimensional sheet, as described in my cosmology theory, there is no reason to believe that one dimension of the sheet would be longer than the other. It would be a higher information state, and there is nowhere to be seen where the additional information would have come from.

If we add living things to the two dimensions, it enlarges the square but does not change the proportions of it's dimensions. It should still be a square. Our view of this square may be affected by our language, words and, ways of defining things, but it should still be a square. We are part of the universe, with a certain perspective, defining things by how they relate to us, but if defined by how the universe works we should always end up with a square.

Obviously, the larger a thing is, such as galaxies or stars, the fewer of them there will be. But there will be more potential difference between them. An event of collision, such as the impact of a meteor with a planet, will make for fewer total things because the meteor will become part of the planet, but with more variation in like things because it will shape the surface of the planet.

Differences between like things that exist, such as stars, could be expressed as a non-whole number such as 1.1, and we could multiply the total number of that thing by this, but some definition must exist that would form a square. The application of energy will shape a surface area, and thus increase the difference between like things. But energy also creates things made of matter, in accordance with the well-known Mass-Energy Equivalence, so there must be a balance between the two because there is no information to make one greater than the other.

The trick to seeing this squareness that must exist lies in how we define things. In larger and fewer things, the variation from one to another must necessarily count for more. But things made of matter must form this square pattern because it is the lowest information state. If energy and information is really the same thing, as my information theory shows, and the universe always seeks the lowest energy state, then it must also seek the lowest information state, and this would be it.

But yet, when the universe began, it was an extreme rectangle and a very long way from being a square. The universe of matter began with two types of atom, hydrogen and helium, and trace amounts of the next two elements, but with nearly countless numbers of those two types of atom. But, ever since then, the universe has been moving toward the square.

If we consider processes over time, it becomes clear that the universe does not always have to be square, but it must always move in that direction. Indeed, it has been moving in that direction ever since atoms formed after the Big Bang.

Things are made of other things. A supernova throws out millions of rock and metal fragments, but the rock fragments then come together by mutual gravity to form planets. Thus, the number of things greatly increased, but then reduced back to nearly what they were before. This is the universe maintaining the square.

When things of vast numbers, such as raindrops or grains of sand, come into existence, that increases the informational length to form a rectangle. But these exist only temporarily, relatively speaking, until the universe pulls them back toward the square, grains of sand are pressed together into sandstone, rain makes it's way back to the sea, meteors and asteroids eventually come together to form planets.

But remember the cosmological theory, that matter began with a two-dimensional sheet of space. One dimension, of the two, disintegrated by the negative and positive sides coming into contact, releasing the energy that we perceive as the Big Bang. This left extremely long one-dimensional strings of electric charges that formed particles of matter, such as electrons. But, ever since then, the two-dimensional sheet has been "trying" to come back together. It cannot come back together, the way it was originally, because it is now scattered across the four-dimensional background space. But it is coming back together by forming this square in the things made of matter which exist.

The giving off of electromagnetic radiation, which is information, is bringing the matter in the universe back toward the square form. Theoretically, when the universe eventually grows dark and cold, it will be when it has been brought back to the square form. This is because the square form represents the two related ratios of A is to B as B is to C.

5) THE NUCLEAR-CHEMICAL-ASTRONOMICAL RELATIONSHIP

This was originally posted on the physics and astronomy blog, but I wrote it before I developed the theory of the flow of information through the universe. It turns out to be an ideal example of that flow. I am going to leave the copy of this posting on the physics and astronomy blog because there are references to it there in other postings. It also applies to this theory, about the Lowest Energy Point of A is to B as B is to C defining the scales of matter in the universe.

First, let's review the difference between chemical and nuclear energy. A material, such as wood, has bonds between the atoms holding it together. These bonds involve the electrons in orbit around the atomic nuclei in the material. Generally, organic substances are held together by so-called covalent bonds, in which neighboring atoms share electrons.

Metals are also held together by shared electrons among a group of atoms. This is why metals tend to conduct electricity, these loose electrons can be made to flow in one direction by the application of a voltage pressure to the metal. Molecules of non-metallic inorganic materials are held together by simple ionic bonds because one atom loses an electron to a neighboring atom.

Since the positive charges in the atomic nucleus are usually balanced by the negative charges in the electrons orbiting the nucleus, this means that the losing atom becomes positively charged and the gaining atom, negatively charged. Thus, the two atoms attract each other and are bound together.

These types of inter-atomic bond are known as chemical bonds because they involve only the electrons in orbit around the nuclei of atoms and not the nuclei themselves. These chemical bonds contain energy. If the bond is somehow broken, such as by heat, the energy that was in the bond holding the atoms together is released, also in the form of heat, which causes still more bonds to be broken and to release their energy. This is how combustion takes place.

In chemical reactions, the nuclei of the atoms are not affected at all. However, the positively charged nuclei of atoms also contain energy, in fact far more energy than the chemical bonds. The positively-charged protons in an atomic nucleus are held together by a powerful so-called "binding energy".

If the nucleus can be split, such as by a fast-moving neutron, this tremendous binding energy is released in the form of heat. This is the basis of nuclear fission in atomic bombs and reactors. Just as in simple burning, the released energy and neutrons from a split nuclei can go on to split other nuclei and sustain the reaction.

There is another nuclear process, fusion, which operates by crushing together two or more small atoms to form a larger atom but where there is less binding energy required than in the smaller atoms together. Thus, the extra binding energy is released. This is how stars operate. Energy is released by both burning, a chemical process, and nuclear fusion. As a general rule, the energy from fusion is about a thousand million times that from chemical processes.

Now, consider the structure of an object such as a rock. The atoms in the rock are held together by chemical bonds, forming the rock's structure. The rock also has gravity, but in a small rock or boulder, this internal gravity is insignificant in determining the structure of the rock.

Gravity is a very weak force compared with the other basic forces of nature but it is cumulative, meaning that it adds up as mass accumulates. If we begin adding matter to the rock, eventually we reach a point in which it's gravity becomes more important in the rock's structure than the chemical bonds between atoms. At this point, the rock and the matter that has been added to it begin to take the shape of a sphere.

This is because a sphere is the geometric shape in three dimensions requiring the least energy and information to maintain. Most of the asteroids in the Solar System orbiting between Mars and Jupiter are not spherical in shape. But the largest asteroids, such as Ceres and Vesta, are spherical or close to it. And, of course, larger bodies such as the earth, moon and, sun are inevitably spherical in shape. As a general rule, the threshold of spherization of heavy matter is probably about 100 km and there is no body to be seen a thousand kilometers or more in diameter that is not spherical in shape.

The shape of such astronomical bodies reveals the most important factor in it's structure. If chemical bonds between atoms predominate, the shape will be non-spherical. When there is enough matter together so that gravity becomes more important than the chemical structural bonds, the shape will become spherical.

Now suppose we keep adding still more matter to our now-spherical body in space. Let's keep adding millions and millions of times the matter it had when it first took on a spherical shape. As we add more and more mass, the internal gravity of the body keeps building and building. Eventually something will happen, the body will begin to glow with a light of it's own. A star has been born.

The body became a sphere when the cumulative gravity was strong enough to become more important than the chemical structural bonds in forming the body's structure. The process of nuclear fusion begins and forms a star when the internal gravity of the body becomes so strong that it overpowers the electromagnetic force in the atoms at the center of the star and crushes them together to form larger atoms out of smaller ones. This releases binding energy in the form of heat and light to continue the process and form a star.

What I am pointing out in this relationship is that the order of magnitude in the energy obtained from nuclear, as opposed to chemical fuels is the same as the order of magnitude between the amount of mass necessary to reach the spherization threshold to the amount of mass necessary to reach the fusion threshold and create a star. I have never before seen this pointed out and it makes the different branches of science seem much more inter-connected than ever before.

A relatively narrow band of scales, halfway between the scale of atoms and the scale of the entire universe, encompasses spherization, the formation of a spherical body in space from collected pieces by it's own gravity, the diameters of the inner planets and, the size of the average star where the spherical body has enough mass to overcome electron repulsion by gravity to fuse smaller atoms into larger ones. When this happens, the leftover energy is released as electromagnetic radiation and this is why stars shine.

Notice that we are using two different universal scales in this theory. If we use the scale of one of the infinitesimal electric charges of which everything in the universe is composed to the scale of the universe itself, we get a midpoint of the scale of a particle of dust. If we use the scale of a large atom, such as very common iron, to the scale of the entire universe, we get a midpoint of the scale of the inner planets, about 10,000 km diameter.

Of the 37 orders of magnitude between the scale of iron atoms and the scale of the entire universe, if we count by tens, the scale of the inner planets is right in the middle. The threshold of spherization, where matter collecting in space will form the shape of a sphere by it's own gravity, an example being the largest asteroid Ceres as the smaller asteroids are not spherical, is around two orders of magnitude below that of the inner planets. The scale of the average star, where there is enough inward gravitational force to overcome electron repulsion between atoms and commence the fusion process, is about two orders of magnitude above that of the diameters of the inner planets.

We could actually get more precise than this. There is the Chandrasekhar Limit, about 1.4 times the mass of the sun. If a star is above this limit, it will be a large star with a short life than will tend to end in either a supernova or a black hole. The so-called Main Sequence stars, including the sun, are below this limit of mass.

The Chandrasekhar Limit could be defined as the upper limit of this band of orders of magnitude of astronomical bodies, about 180 times the diameter of the inner planets at the center of the band, and with the threshold of spherization at the lower limit of this band.

This means that, of 37 orders of magnitude between the scale of atoms and the scale of the universe, we have a band of 4 orders of magnitude across the middle of the scale, where the astronomical processes from spherization to the scale of the average star takes place, with bands of 16 orders on each side. These numbers are only because we count by tens, but if we had a different number base the proportions would be the same.

It is also an ideal example of the flow of information through the universe, from the lowest to the highest levels. The amount of matter that is required to form a sphere in space by mutual gravity, relative to the much greater amount of matter that is required to crush atoms together by gravity, into larger atoms, so that the leftover energy is released as heat and light in the form of a star, the higher levels of the universe, is in the same proportion as the energy in the lower levels of the molecular bonds between atoms relative to the much greater binding energy of the atomic nucleus.

Remember that the universe always prefers the sequence A is to B as B is to C because it is the lowest information state.

6) THE RELATIVE FREEZING AND BOILING POINTS OF WATER

What about the range of temperature in which water is a liquid? Water is liquid over a range of 100 Celsius degrees, 0 to 100, or 180 Fahrenheit degrees, 32 to 212. Consider that temperature begins at absolute zero, where all atomic and molecular motion that is defined as heat ceases. Absolute zero is defined as -459 degrees Fahrenheit or -273.16 degrees Celsius.

If we consider the range from the freezing point of water down to absolute zero, and then add the same range of high temperatures above the boiling point of water, what do we get?

In Celsius, the range from the freezing point of water at 0 degrees to absolute zero is 273.16. Double that because it has to be added to the other side of the range of liquid water, above the boiling point at 100 degrees, and we get 273.16 x 2 = 546.32 degrees. Add in the range of liquid water, 100 degrees, and we get 646.32 degrees.

In Fahrenheit, 459 + 32 = 491. Multiply it by 2, because it will be added to both sides of the temperature range of liquid water, and we get 491 x 2 = 982. Add in the temperature range of liquid water and we get 982 + 180 = 1162.

Now, if we calculate what the proportion of the range where water is liquid by the entire temperature range, we get 646.32 / 100 or 180 / 1018.

This fraction is close to the 4 / 37 of the orders of magnitude from spherization to the fusion threshold, as described in the Scale Median above. The range of liquid water, relative to the range to absolute zero on either side of the range of liquid water is somewhat greater than the 4 / 37, but remember that with the scales of planets and stars we are starting with the scale of atoms, while with the range of liquid water we are starting with molecules, because water is a molecule.

The range of liquid water would be different if we were on a different planet, with different temperatures and atmospheric pressures, but the proportion as described here would be the same. It should not really surprise us, that water in it's three possible states of matter follows the same scalar median rules that stars and the planets which form from them do. Water must have come from a nova, the blasting away of the outer layers of the star which preceded the sun, and the information for the operations of stars is also encoded in the water.

This concept actually gives us an informational explanation of why nuclear fusion, the fusing of smaller atoms into larger ones, must take place in stars. A star, composed mostly of hydrogen, is considerable closer to the scale of the entire universe than it is to the scale of the hydrogen atoms which compose it. This represents a higher information state, which is akin to a higher energy state since energy and information is really the same thing.

The universe "prefers" a lower information state, and the star tries to compensate by crunching smaller atoms together into larger ones. This brings the total sum of the star's atoms closer to the scale median. If the star is large enough, and thus even further from the Scale Median and closer to the scale of the entire universe, it may explode in a supernova, scattering the heavy atoms which form the planets which tend to be close to the Scale Median in diameter.

The outer planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and, Neptune, are much larger than the inner planets. They are actually about halfway in scale between the inner planets and the size of the average star. This is because compounds such as methane and ammonia can form as vast oceans of liquid, which would be vaporized by the sun's heat if they were with the inner planets. But their cores are on the order of that of the inner planets, halfway between the scale of the iron atom, which is as far as the ordinary fusion process goes, and the scale of the entire universe.

Stars typically end as planet-sized white dwarfs or neutron stars or black holes, which restores the Scale Median, even though it requires the actual destruction of the atoms of which the star is made.

The Scale Median, or the Lowest Information Point, specifically the width of the band which comprises it in comparison to the total scale range, is actually a measure of complexity. We saw that the range of the inner planets to the average star, which all depend on the nature of atomic processes, is a range of 4 / 37. This is a certain level of complexity but if we were dealing with something more complex, we should expect that the denominator, the value of which is the actual measure of complexity, would be higher.

But it is 4 / 37 only because of the way we count. I would actually say that the band of orders of magnitude from the threshold of spherization, the point at which debris in space will take a spherical form when brought together by mutual gravity, to the size of the average star, in comparison with the entire scale from atoms to the entire universe, comprises about 1 / 9 of the total orders of magnitude. This band of 1 / 9 is, of course, centered halfway between the scale of atoms and the scale of the entire universe.

7) HUMAN BIOLOGY AND THE LOWEST INFORMATION POINT

What about humans? We know that we are much more complex than the inanimate universe in which we live.

Consider our temperature comfort zone, which is usually only about 15 degrees Fahrenheit or 8 degrees Celsius, centering on about 72 Fahrenheit or 22 Celsius. Using the same technique as above, that means that our temperature comfort range is about 1 / 70.

This is a much narrower range than that of the astronomical processes, and that is because humans are so much more complex. Precision means over a narrow area, and involves more information than over a wide area.

The temperature comfort range involves our bodies in general. We know that the eye is far more intricate than the body as a whole. We can easily see this by using the same technique to measure the span of visible light, that we can see, in comparison with the entire electromagnetic spectrum. The answer to that is about 35 / one million or 7 / 200,000, which is a reflection of the great complexity of the eyes and the vision process.

Think of the Lowest Information State as a kind of valley into which the scales and pattern of matter tends to fall because it also represents the lowest energy state, because matter and energy are really the same thing.

8) NUCLEONS IN THIRDS

We have used atoms as the starting point in our scales, but one thing that we have not explained yet is the scale of atoms themselves. What is it that causes atoms to be as big as they are? The explanation with this theory is neat and simple, but it brings in the cosmology theory.

The electric charges in protons and neutrons are based on quarks, which have electric charges based on thirds. An up quark has a charge of + 2 / 3, and a down quark has - 1 / 3. Two down quarks and one up quark give us a neutrons, with a net charge of zero. Two up quarks and a down quarks give us a proton, with a net charge of + 1.

There are, of course, no such thing as partial electric charges, there is only + 1 and - 1. My cosmology theory explains that the up and down quarks which make up protons and neutrons must actually be based on sixths. If an up quark had five positive charges for every negative charge, each negative charge would balance out one positive charge, so that there would be a net charge of + 2 / 3. There is no way to partially balance based on 1 / 2.

Amazingly when we wonder about the scale of these nucleons, we see that the diameter of a proton or neutrons, using very round figures, is about 1 (-15) meter. Since the infinitesimal electric charges are about 1 (-35) and the entire universe is close to 1 (27), this means that the scale of protons and neutrons is just about exactly 1 / 3 of the way between the infinitesimal electric charges and that of the entire universe. This, applying the theory of how information flows through the universe, shows where this scale of thirds comes from.

Very interesting also is the fact that a proton is 1,836 times the mass of an electron. An electron, unlike a proton or neutron, is not based on fractions of charge but is more of a concentration of negative charges. Protons and neutrons are hadrons while electrons are a different class of particles called leptons.1,836 is a number that is very divisible into thirds. In fact, since protons and neutrons are based on sixths in my cosmology theory, 1,836 can be divided by 3 three times and then by 2 two times, until we reach the prime number of 17.

9) THE SCALE OF GEM FORMATION

This concept also applies to geological processes. Why are gems found in the scale that they are? All gems which refract light are of a certain size scale, just the right size to be worn as jewelry, regardless of the type of gem.

First, let's review the nature of transparency. Matter, such as water, is transparent when the component molecules are aligned in precise rows so that light can pass between the molecules. In water, this takes place because the molecules are polar. This means that, because the one oxygen atom in the molecule is so much bigger than the two hydrogen atoms, one side of the water molecule is more positively-charged and the other more negatively-charged.

This is why water is liquid at ordinary temperatures even though water is lighter than air by molecule. In fact, at sea level liquid water is 800 times heavier than air. The molecules of water line up and hold together by what is known as hydrogen bonding, and light can pass between the rows of molecules. Refraction occurs because the water bends the different wavelengths of light at various angles. Blue is refracted the most because it is of shorter wavelength, making blue light the first to be refracted back to the surface of the water so that deep water ordinarily appears blue. Red light is of the longest wavelength so that it has the most difficulty "squeezing" through the space between rows of water molecules. This is why red light is the first to be absorbed by water so that nothing appears red in photos taken underwater below about 9 meters (30 feet) depth.

Gems form by various geological processes. All gems that refract light must also have their molecules lined up in rows, just like water. This lining up in rows must be very precise, or light would not be able to get through. But, unlike water, gems are solid and there is no internal force akin to hydrogen bonding to line the molecules up in rows.

It can only be the geological processes which exert the pressure on gems that forced the component molecules into precisely even row so that light can shine through between the molecules. Geological processes, such as the tectonic movement of continental land masses, is driven by the rotation of the earth and is relatively simple in that there is not a lot of information or complexity involved. This is what makes gemstones possible, if geological processes contained more information then there would be more variation within the processes and the molecules in gems could not be lined up so perfectly that light could pass through.

The thing that I find so striking about gemstones is that no matter what kind of gem it is that refracts light, diamonds, rubies, emeralds, etc., all are of roughly the same size scale. Aside from the question as to why stones that can refract light can exist at all, we must wonder why gems are not found that can be cut to refract light that are as big as cars, or hills, or mountains.

Masses of gem materials may be found that are larger, but it seems impossible to cut a gem that will refract light above a certain limited size scale. It is tectonic pressure on limestone which forms marble which, unlike gems, is found in large quantity. But marble does not refract light and does not require the same precision of even pressure as gem formation.

My conclusion is that the common size scale of gems is a function of the size of the component molecules of those gems, and the size of the earth which hosts the geological processes which form the gems. These are the only two factors which are involved in gem formation. My hypothesis is that the practical maximum size scale of gems is halfway between that of the earth, and that of the component molecules. I have never seen this pointed out before.

Put simply, the maximum practical size scale of gems might be one one hundred billionth the size of the earth, while the component molecules of the gem might be one one hundred billionth the size of the gem. This would make the gem halfway between the size scale of the two.

If the earth were larger, but with the same geological processes, it could exert force that was perfectly even down to the scale of molecules over a larger area so that larger gems would form. If atoms were smaller, it would require more precision in the force that was precisely even enough to line them up in rows so that light could pass between them, and gems would have to be smaller.

Can there be another way of explaining why all gems which can be cut to refract light are of approximately the same maximum size scale, that to be worn as jewelry? This is yet another example of the Lowest Information Point. Gems that refract light only form up to this point. A is to B as B is to C. A is the scale of atoms. B is the maximum scale of gems that refract light. C is the scale of the earth, whose geological processes shaped these gems.

10) RADIATION AND THE LOWEST INFORMATION POINT

This theory is that, since energy and information is really the same thing, and we know that the universe always seeks the lowest energy state, it must also seek the Lowest Information State. The Lowest Information State prefers a square, meaning that two dimensions or sides are equal, because this is a lower information state than having the two sides as unequal.

Understanding this reveals a vast number of things about the universe.

The first three theories about the universe are completely independent of one another. To understand any one, it is not necessary to know about the others. These first three theories, all on this blog, are as follows:

"The Theory Of Stationary Space"- This is the cosmology theory explaining how so many otherwise-unexplained things fits together around the model of the universe as everything, space and matter, consisting of negative and positive electric charges. Particles of matter, such as electrons, are actually strings but we see them as particles because matter from the Big Bang was scattered over four dimensions of space, one of which we perceive as time.

"The Theory Of Complexity"- This theory explains what information is, why we perceive the universe the way we do, and why energy and information is really the same thing.

"The Flow Of Information Through The Universe"- This explains how the large-scale structures in the universe, such as solar systems and galaxies, have to be based on the same information as the lower-scale structures, such as atoms, because there is no other information from anywhere by which to build the large-scale structures. Just one example is how planets and moons in their orbits are a replica of the electrons in orbitals in the atoms of which they are composed.

This latest theory about how the universe operates is "The Lowest Information Point". Unlike the first three, this one is not independent of the others. This one rests on, as well as further confirms, the first three. As an example, Having the large-scale structures in the universe based on the information in the lower scales is a lower state of information simply because all of the scales of the universe are structured on only one set of information.


The universe of matter seeks the square form because it represents the lowest information state. Just as the universe seeks the lowest energy state, it also seeks the lowest information state, because energy and information is really the same thing. A square, meaning with equal sides, is the lowest information state because describing equal sides requires only one piece of information.

By square, I do not mean a geometric square, but something with equal proportions so that we can say that A is to B as B is to C, or A / B = B / C. The denominator of one ratio is also the numerator of the other. This requires only three pieces of information whereas A / B = C / D requires four pieces.

The most important example of this rule of the seeking of equal proportions in the universe is, of course, the fact that all of the negative and positive electric charges of which the universe is composed must balance out so that they are exactly equal to one another. This is the lowest information point.

We hear of the "Golden Ratio", expressed in decimal it is an irrational number of roughly 1.6. The Golden Ratio is often seen in biology, such as in the structures of the leaves of plants. It is also beneficial to us aesthetically and computer and television screens, billboards and, pages of books are often sized in close to the Golden Ratio, with the longer side being about 1.6 times the length of the shorter side.

While the Golden Ratio is geometrically a ratio, by my definition of the Lowest Information Point, it is actually a square, meaning that there is some equality in it's sides. The Golden Ratio is defined as the ratio between a larger and a smaller part so that the ratio of the sum of both to the larger part is the same as the ratio of the larger to the smaller part.

In other words, if A + B = C, and if C / A = A / B, with A being larger then B, then these two ratios are both the Golden Ratio. This represents a Lowest Information state, which is by pattern a square, because the denominator of one of two equivalent equations, A, is also the numerator of the other. In other words, C is to A as A is to B.

This not only explains how matter operates in the universe, it seeks the lowest information state just as it seeks the lowest energy state, it also explains the operation of radiation. Matter operates as a square, or at least seeks to be a square. Radiation is also a square because it's positive and negative components must be equal. But matter, by giving off radiation, can move toward being a square.

What I mean by matter is, again, not a geometric square. I mean that matter has two equal sides in that there is the same number of each "thing" made of matter as there are numbers of things made of matter. The number of things that there are that are made of matter is what I define as the "width" of matter. The number of each of the things that are made of matter, taken all together, is what I define as the "length" of matter.

By things made of matter, I mean things like rocks, clouds, planets, etc. But there are not one of each, there are many rocks, many clouds and, many planets. We are now in a universe with far more of each number of things that are made of matter, such as how many rocks there are, than the number of things that are made of matter, and the universe must be seeking to change this.

My reasoning is that if energy and information are really the same thing, and the universe always seeks the lowest energy state, then it must also seek the Lowest Information State. A square has less information than a rectangle because it's sides are equal, requiring only one piece of information to describe them. Therefore, the matter in the universe must seek to have the same number of things that are made of matter as the number of each of those things.

When a rectangle, such as the matter in the universe is now with it's length greater than it's width, seeks to move toward being a square, it must give up some of the higher information state of rectangleness, in pursuit of the lower information state of squareness. What I am pointing out here is that the matter in the universe is accomplishing that by giving off radiation during nucleo-synthesis, which is why stars shine. Radiation is already square in form, because it's negative and positive amplitudes must be equal, and this is gradually moving the matter of the universe toward becoming the form of a square, meaning equality in the number of things that are with the number of each thing.

A rectangle has more information than a square, because it's two sides are unequal. The longer the ratio, without being a multiple, in other words the less the relationship between the length and the width, the more information there is in it. The matter in the universe began with only about four kinds of atoms, mostly hydrogen, about 25% helium, and traces of two more elements. This was the only four things made of matter that existed. There were very very many of each of these four types of atoms. This means that the matter in the universe was in the form of a very very long rectangle, with a very short width of only four atoms.

Ever since then, the matter in the universe has been moving toward fusing smaller atoms together in stars to create more different types of atom, at the expense of the universe having fewer of each of these different types. In other words the universe is moving from being a rectangle, with the two sides are very unequal, toward being a square, where the two sides will be equal, because that will be the lowest information state that the universe is seeking.

Fusing light atoms into heavier ones is not the only way to bring the matter of the universe closer to a square in form. If it was, this would be impossible since there are only 92 naturally occurring atoms. An atom is a "square" even though it is actually spherical in geometric form, both because all of the dimensions of a sphere from the radius must be equal and it's negative and positive charges are also equal in that they balance out to zero.

But the more different kinds of atoms there are, the more possible "things" can be made from them. These "things" are the rocks, clouds and, planets that we see around us. With many possible different electron arrangements, the 92 different types of atom can form many millions of different molecules by combining with one another. These molecules can, in turn, be combined together to form other "things".

Gradually, the number of different things that can exist is gradually catching up to the total number of each "thing" that exists. In other words, the matter in the universe is moving toward being a square. The radiation in the universe, no matter what the wavelength, is already a square in form because it's negative and positive amplitudes must be equal.

Another way that matter giving off radiation brings the universe to a square form is described by my cosmology theory. In that theory everything, both matter and space, is composed of negative and positive electric charges. Space is a pattern of perfectly alternating negative and positive charges, matter is any concentration of like charges that are held together by energy. To form matter this energy, which we refer to as the Mass-Energy Equivalence, overcomes the mutual repulsion of like charges to hold the particles of matter together.

But if the negative and positive electric charges must always be equal then the two rules of electric charges, that opposite charges attract while like charges repel, must also be equal. The overcoming of the like charge repulsion by energy, which creates matter, also leaves an imbalance in the basic rules of the charges, leaving a net attraction involving matter, and this explains gravity.

Radiation, in contrast with matter, is the opposite in that it exists by energy overcoming the attractive force between opposite charges in space. This means that matter giving off energy brings the universe toward a square in that the overcoming of the attractive force between opposite charges moves toward being equal with the overcoming of the repulsive force between like charges.

But a rectangle is a higher state of information than a square, and that information that is being given up cannot just disappear. What is happening is that the rectangleness, the higher information state, is being decreased by the radiation that is being given off by stars when smaller atoms fuse into larger ones.

A waveform, a model of an electromagnetic sine wave, shows the same pattern as all matter does in seeking the lowest information state. The information, as well as the energy, of the wave is lowest, actually at zero, when the positive and negative directions of the wave are equal at every point. In the same way that matter will be in the Lowest Information State when the number of different things is equal to the number of each thing.

The more unequal the two directions of the wave are, the more energy and thus the more information that the wave has. This shows that an electromagnetic wave, except when it is at zero between the negative and positive direction, has a rectangular form in that, to carry energy and information, it's two sides must be unequal at any given point on the wave. Since all electromagnetic radiation is produced by matter, we can see how it is carrying the inequality of the rectangle away so that matter can ultimately take the form of a square with equal sides.

A four-sided polygon has the greatest area but the shortest diagonal if it is a square. If we make the sides of the polygon unequal, with the total lengths of the sides being the same, the diagonal will become longer but the area enclosed by the polygon will become smaller.

As an illustration of area, choose any two numbers that add up to ten and multiply them together. Ten represents the total lengths of the sides of the polygon. 1 x 9 = 9, 2 x 8 = 16, 3 x 7 = 21, 4 x 6 = 24, 5 x 5 = 25. You can see that the area, represented by the product, is greatest when the two numbers that add up to ten are equal. That is also the lowest information state because two equal sides is a square. The area of the polygon represents the inverse of the information state, with the largest area being the lowest information state. The diagonal represents the radiation that the matter of the universe is giving off in pursuit of that state.

The diagonal is being given off as the amplitude in electromagnetic radiation. Just as the diagonal of the polygon is longest when the two sides are unequal, the amplitude of an electromagnetic wave is greatest when the balance between the negative and positive directions of the wave are at their greatest inequality. At maximum positive amplitude, the negative direction is at zero, and vice versa. The energy of the wave is at it's lowest point, at zero, when the negative and positive directions are equal.

Shorter waves, of higher frequency and shorter wavelength, have more energy and can carry more information then longer waves because there are more amplitudes, from the zero plane to the peak value of the wave, in shorter waves. This adds up to greater total amplitude length than with longer waves, and moves the matter of the universe closer to being in the form of a square by shortening the diagonal of the matter rectangle.

After matter has finally taken the form of a square, it takes the next step. After completing the square, it reduces the square.

Great amounts of matter eventually collect together in such a way that it's own gravity becomes enough to crush the atoms of which it is made. If formed by a supernova, the explosion of a large star, it is known as a neutron star. But if it is the result of matter just continuously being brought together by gravity, it forms a black hole. We often find black holes at the centers of galaxies. In the center of our own galaxy, there is believed to be a black hole that is about four million times the mass of the sun.

So, the universe is composed of negative and positive electric charges. My cosmology theory defines space as alternating negative and positive electric charges and matter as any concentration of like charges, held together by energy. A black hole is matter in that it is still a concentration of like charges. The energy that holds matter together is what we refer to as the mass-energy equivalence, any amount of matter contains a corresponding amount of energy. It is in a matter-antimatter mutual annihilation that all of this energy is released, and the electric charges go back to be the alternating negative and positive charges of empty space.

But a black hole, despite the name, actually does give off radiation and eventually decays. The reason for this, explained by my cosmology theory, is that the electric charges composing the black hole gradually break up concentrations of like charge and go back to the form of alternating negative and positive charges of empty space.

But what this does is that it brings matter back to the lowest square of all, simply the alternating negative and positive charges of empty space. This empty space is already a square, because the negative and positive charges are alternating and equal, and also because the dimensions of space which form a square are equal. Even after all the matter in the universe comes back to being a square, with the number of different things and the number of each of those things being equal, the information state of the universe can be reduced still further by turning the electric charges composing matter back into the alternating charges of empty space, and this is the simplest square of all.

11) THE SPECIAL NUMBERS CONCERNING ATOMS

There are so many simple arithmetical relationships involving atoms and their formation that I cannot see documented anywhere.

The "factor tree" of how elements form from lighter elements during fusion taking place in stars is well-known. As a simple example, a helium nucleus, which is also known as an Alpha Particle, has two protons and two neutrons. Helium, being heavier than hydrogen, is more likely to get crunched together, by the gravity in stars, into heavier elements. In the beginning, the atoms in the universe were about 25% helium, today helium represents less than 10%. If the star were to crunch three of them together, the result would be a carbon atom with six protons and six neutrons. Four of them together would result in an oxygen atom with eight protons and eight neutrons.

(Note- The reality is a little bit more complex because electrons can be crunched into protons to create neutrons, known as K-capture. This is why heavier elements have more neutrons, but fewer protons and electrons, than the lighter atoms from which they were formed).

There is also the well-known "Magic Numbers", of nucleons in the nucleus, which denote an especially stable nucleus. The "Magic Numbers" can apply to either protons or neutrons. Stability is conferred on a nucleus is either the number of protons or the number of neutrons is a magic number. The few nuclei that have a "Magic Number" of both are referred to as "Double Magic".

But what I find is that neither of these factors fully explains the relative abundances of different elements in the universe. There must be another factor at work.

There is also the question of why the limits that are seen in the formation of heavy atoms by the nucleo-synthesis of lighter atoms in stars. Ordinary fusion in stars goes only as far as iron, the atom with 26 protons and 56 overall nucleons. But why is this the limit of ordinary fusion, known as the S-process for slow, goes?

Elements heavier than iron are formed only during the actual explosion of a large star in a supernova. That is why elements up to iron tend to be far more common than those heavier than iron. But this stage of fusion, known as the R-process for rapid, has it's limit also. It only goes as far as uranium, the atom with 92 protons and usually 238 overall nucleons, which is the heaviest natural element.

But there is no explanation of why these limits are what they are. Why couldn't there be more elements, or fewer?

(Note-In terms of nuclear science, "heavier" means an element higher on the periodic table, with more protons and more overall nucleons than another element. As we might expect, the more nucleons in the atom of an element the more it is likely to weigh if we put it on a scale. But this is not a strict rule. In nuclear terms, zinc is heavier than iron because it's atom has more protons and more overall nucleons. But if we weigh equal volumes of the two metals, we find that iron weighs more because it is denser).

11b) INTEGERS AS THE LOWEST INFORMATION POINT

According to my theory of "The Lowest Information Point", a state of the least information is favored in the universe. The least complex numbers are not necessarily the lowest numbers, but fractions or ratios with the lowest denominators. Remember that the complexity of a number is the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a fraction or ratio. The lowest non-zero number is 1. This means that the numbers representing the Lowest Information State are rations or fractions with a denominator of 1. These numbers are usually simply referred to as integers. Whole numbers with no fractions or decimal points.

The universe must begin with integers, because they are the simplest numbers. Before there can be 1.5 or 1.3, there must first be 1.

Notice how the electrons in orbitals around the nuclei of atoms, as one example, always revolve around integers. The Principal Quantum Number, in an electron's unique four-part "quantum address", is an integer that is referred to as N and designates the shells of electron orbitals. The maximum number of electrons in an given shell is 2 (N squared). This means that the maximum number of electrons for each shell, proceeding outward from the nucleus, are 2, 8, 18, 32...

The second component of the four-part "quantum address" of an electron is the Azimuthal Quantum Number, and concerns sub-shells, but are still all integers. This number is designated as L and the maximum number of electrons in any sub-shell, which are within the shells as described above, is defined as 2 (2L + 1). The sub-shells are defined as S=1, P=2, D=3, F=4.

This means, for example, that the second orbital in an atom, N=2, can have a maximum of 8 electrons. If it had that many, the first 4 would be in the S sub-shell and the rest in the P sub-shell.

But the point I am trying to make is that somewhere, matter and the universe must begin with integers and we can easily see this at the most basic levels of atoms. There must be 1 before there can be 1.5 because 1 is the Lowest Information Point.

11c) THE LOWEST INFORMATION POINT AS THE LEAST NUMBER OF INFORMATION POINTS

The concept of the Lowest Information Point can be summed up as the universe preferring that, if there are more than one dimension to something, that those dimensions be equal because that would involve less information than if they were unequal.

Another way of putting it is that if there are two related ratios, A / B = B / C is a lower information state, and is thus preferred, than A / B = C / D. The reason is that the first contains only three points of information, A, B and, C because B is used twice, while the second contains four. The first ration works with a number that is already there, and is thus a lower information point, and thus is preferred by the universe.

11d) THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE

When atoms first formed in the early universe, hydrogen was of course the first because it is the lightest and simplest of all atoms, with only one proton and one electron. But there was still enough heat energy from the Big Bang to fuse atoms together into heavier ones, in what is called primordial nucleo-synthesis.

Several different kinds of atom thus formed. By the time that atoms without stability had broken down, the universe was left with four different stable atoms. There were two isotopes of hydrogen, with just the one proton and a second isotope with one neutron as well. Hydrogen with a neutron in the nucleus is known as deuterium. If you have heard of "heavy water", it refers to water where the two hydrogen atoms in the H2O molecule are deuterium instead of ordinary hydrogen, without a neutron.

It is true that actually five atoms form, because there is the stable isotope of helium with two protons and only one neutron, helium-3. But nature seems to regard that as an incomplete version of the far more common helium-4, with two neutrons, and the universe operates, as we will see, as if there were four original atoms.

There was one isotope of helium, two protons and two neutrons in the nucleus. The fourth atom was lithium, with three protons and four neutrons in the nucleus. Let's refer to these as the First Stage Atoms.

So the first atoms that were formed from the original hydrogen by primordial nucleo-synthesis were four different atoms with fourteen total nucleons, which means both protons and neutrons. These numbers must be points of information, which would go into building the larger-scale universe.

What happens if we multiply 4 x 14? We get 56.

The first atoms are pulled together by gravity into stars. A star begins to shine when gravity is strong enough to overcome the electron repulsion that keeps atoms apart. Smaller atoms are fused together by gravity into larger ones. The resulting larger atom contains less total energy than the smaller ones which were fused together to form it. This excess energy is released as radiation, which is why stars shine. A star is an equilibrium between the outward force of the energy of the fusion and the inward force of gravity.

But, as we saw above, ordinary fusion in stars can only go so far. The heaviest atom that can be produced by ordinary stellar fusion is iron. The sun is a second-generation star following a large star that exploded, after going as far as the ordinary fusion process goes, and scattered it's component matter across space. That is why iron is so plentiful in the inner Solar System. Mercury is known as the "Iron Planet", Mars is red due to rust (iron oxides), and the most abundant element in the earth by mass is iron.

Iron is an atom with 56 nucleons, 26 protons and 30 neutrons. Remember that 4 x 14 = 56.

The First Stage Atoms, those formed by primordial nucleo-synthesis in the beginning of the universe, were four different atoms but only three elements, because there were the two isotopes of hydrogen. This means that, to get to iron with it's 26 protons, 23 additional elements had to form by stellar nucleo-synthesis, which we can call the Second Stage Atoms.

What happens if we multiple our original 4 x 23? We get 92.

The ordinary fusion process only goes as far as iron. But the largest stars can actually explode in what is known as a supernova, which is how the sun and the solar system came to be as the debris from a supernova fell back together to form the sun as a second-generation star. During the explosion a tremendous amount of energy is released and some of this energy goes to fusing atoms together into still heavier ones, which would never have formed by the ordinary fusion process. This can form atoms up to uranium. We can refer to these as Third Stage Atoms.

Remember that 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 process is known as radioactivity.

Uranium is an atom with 92 protons. Remember that 4 x 23 = 92.

The products of the First Stage give the limits of the Second Stage. The products of the First and Second Stage gives the limits of the Third Stage. This represents the Lowest Information Point.

Protons and neutrons, collectively known as nucleons, are not the only components of the atom. The electrons in orbitals around the nucleus each have 1 / 1836 the mass of a proton, but with an equal but opposite negative charge. The first thing we notice about 1,836 is that it is a very round and easily divisible number. We can divide 1,836 evenly repeatedly, first by 3 and then by 2, until we eventually get to 17, which is a prime number that cannot be further evenly divided.

The information about electrons is important for the nucleus of the atom because neutrons are made by crunching an electron into a proton during nucleo-synthesis in stars.

We notice that 17 is the total number of nucleons, 14, added to the number of elements, which is 3, in the atoms that were formed by primordial nucleo-synthesis. Remember that there were 4 different atoms but only 3 elements because there were two final isotopes of hydrogen that formed.

There was actually trace amounts of another primordial atom that formed, helium with only one neutron instead of the usual two, and known as helium 3. The Special Numbers seem to consider that as just an incomplete atom of ordinary helium, known as helium 4 with two neutrons. But if we do consider this as one of the original atoms, this gives us 17 total nucleons.

What happens if we multiply 14 x 17? We get 238.

238 is the total number of nucleons in the heaviest stable isotope of uranium. The vast majority of uranium atoms have 238 nucleons, which include the 92 protons. The 235 nucleon isotope of uranium is what is used for nuclear fission, the opposite of fusion.

Now we can see that 17, 14 and, 23 are Special Numbers, here is something really interesting. If we multiply 14 x 23 we get 322. If we add up all of the nucleons, which are both protons and neutrons, in the heaviest stable isotopes of all of the elements up to and including element 17, which is chlorine, they add up to 322.

Can you see how the same numbers, and products of those numbers, keep getting used over again in determining the limits of atoms? That is because of this principle of the Lowest Information Point.

11e) THE PROTON AND NUCLEON ROOTS

All four of the different atoms that formed during primordial nucleo-synthesis, the beginning of the universe, went into being fused together in stars into larger atoms, the Second Stage and Third Stage atoms. But the heavier two of the First Stage atoms, helium and lithium, were more drawn into fusion simply because they were heavier. Also, the heavier isotope of hydrogen, deuterium the one with the neutron, was more likely to be drawn into fusion than the lightest isotope of hydrogen, with only the one proton. This is why the universe started with about 25% of atoms being helium, but today the figure is less than 10%.

The number of nucleons in the heaviest two of the primordial atoms, helium and lithium, was 11, rather than the 14 total. The two heaviest of the four atoms were much more likely to be drawn into fusion but there was also the heavier isotope of hydrogen. This gives us the numbers 11, 2 and, 3, rather than the 14 and 4.

If we multiply 11 x 2, we get 22. This is the number of new atoms that are added to the First Stage to form the Second Stage. There are 23 new elements, but only 22 new atoms because we started with two different isotopes of hydrogen.

If we then multiply that 22 x 3, which the number of original elements even though there were four different atoms, we get 66. This is the number of elements that are added to the Second Stage to get the Third Stage, the elements from iron to uranium. There are 66 elements heavier than iron, up to uranium.

If we multiply 11 x 23, which is the number of new elements in the Second Stage atoms which get to iron which is element number 26, we get 253. This is the total number of stable nuclides in all atoms. A nuclide, similar in concept to an isotope, is any different combination of protons and neutrons, without regard to which element it forms, remember that elements are defined by the number of protons (atomic number).

This shows how information operates. A number involved with the primordial atoms is a point of information that is introduced into the universe. It does not matter at all how many or how few of each atom there are. In the early universe, there were only a trace amount of lithium that formed, and far more of the lightest isotope of hydrogen than anything else. But even so, each counts as a point of information.

Just as protons, along with neutrons, are included in the total number of nucleons in a nucleus, so we can see that the numbers that are the Proton Roots are included in the numbers of the Nucleon Roots.

The Nucleon Roots are the numbers involved with the number of original atoms (First Stage) and their total number of nucleons. The Nucleon Roots are 4 and 14, the number of different atoms and their total number of nucleons. These numbers tend to be involved in the numbers of nucleons, 4 x 14 = 56, which is the total number of nucleons in an iron atom which is as far as the ordinary fusion process goes (Second Stage).

The Proton Roots consider the number of nucleons in only the 2 heaviest of the four original atoms, helium and lithium, because there were far more likely to be pulled into fusion, due to their heavier mass, than the two hydrogen isotopes. Their total number of nucleons is 11. It also considers the difference between protons and neutrons in that there were 3 elements present in the original atoms, even though there were four atoms because two were isotopes of hydrogen.

So the Proton Roots are 2, 3 and, 11. These numbers tend to be involved in the number of protons, rather than in the total number of nucleons. It is the number of protons that we use to define elements (atomic number). If we multiply 2 x 11 = 22, we get the number of new elements that are added to the four original atoms to get the 26 elements, up to iron, that are in the First and Second Stages. If we then multiply that by 3, we get the 66 new elements that are added to the 26 to get the total 92 elements, up to uranium, that are in all three stages. The 66 elements are the Third Stage.

(Note-Just something interesting. It may seem that I am "jumping over" an element here in stating that there are 22 new atoms added to the original 4 to get the 26 elements, up to iron, that completes the Second Stage. But there were only 3 elements to begin with, even though 4 different atoms, so that seems to give us only 25, rather than 26.

But what we are discussing after the First Stage, the original 4 atoms, is the further atoms that were formed by stellar fusion. It turns out that the next element after lithium, beryllium with 4 protons, is not believed to form with stability in stars. It is a rare element that is actually formed by cosmic ray spallation, heavier elements having their atoms broken down into smaller atoms by high-speed cosmic rays. This means that I am not really "jumping over" an element).

11f) IRON AND THE PLANETARY ORBITS

Here is something really amazing. We have seen this before but I am going to add it to this posting. The information of the numbers being reused, in accordance with the Lowest Information Point, applies beyond atoms.

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.

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 Lowest Information Point, meaning that it uses the least number of different numbers on each side of the equation.

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 three original elements (even though there were four different atoms) or the number of quarks that make up a nucleon, which is 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, because the two heaviest of the original atoms were the ones most likely to undergo fusion, 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 center of 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.

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.

So the information of 56 nucleons in iron, which is as far as the ordinary fusion process went before the large star which preceded the sun exploded as a supernova and scattered it's component matter across space, provides the information for the spacing of the planets of our solar system which formed from that component matter.

(Note-The information of the numbers 2 and 3 has another possible source. Nucleons, whether protons or neutrons, are each made of 3 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. The information of the number 2 could have come, of course, simply from the number of fundamental electric charges that makes up everything in the universe).

11g) 8 IS A SPECIAL NUMBER BOTH IN THE NUCLEUS AND IN THE ELECTRON ORBITALS

As a general rule, as we move to heavier elements there are a greater number of neutrons relative to protons in the nucleus. The total number of protons and neutrons together are referred to as nucleons. A nucleon is thus either a proton or a neutron. Take gold, for example, it has 197 nucleons of which 79 are protons. That means that it's nucleon-to-proton ratio is 197 / 79, or nearly 2.5. Helium, in contrast as a much-lighter element, has four nucleon of which two are protons so that it's total nucleon-to-proton ratio is exactly 2.0.

The usual pattern is for the nucleon-to-proton ratio to increase as we move to heavier elements. We saw that the light helium has a nucleon-to-proton ratio of 2, while the heavy gold has a ratio of nearly 2.5. But the lowest nucleon-to-proton ratio is actually oxygen, which has 8 protons. Considering the isotopes of oxygen, and their differing atomic mass, it's nucleon-to-proton mass ratio is actually slightly below 2.

If this ratio should increase as we move to heavier elements, then how could oxygen with it's 8 protons have a ratio that is actually lower than helium, which has only 2 protons? This requires some special explanation.

Also, logic would seem to dictate that the lighter an element is the more abundant it would be and the heavier the less abundant. But oxygen, the atom with 8 protons, is actually the most abundant element in the universe after hydrogen and helium.

We see, by looking at a periodic table with the average atomic mass of each element, that the ratio does not increase at an even rate. For one thing Lithium, with 3 protons, has a higher nucleon-to-proton mass ratio than Beryllium, which has 4 protons. In fact we see that atoms among the lighter atoms with protons in multiples of 3, have a higher ratio than atoms whose number of protons are multiples of 2 or 4.

We have seen, in my cosmology theory, how special is the number 8 with regard to the electrons in orbitals in an atom. 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, which is a multiple of 8 ( 4 x 8 ), 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.

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. This keeps eight electrons on the outside of molecules, and is known as the "Octet Rule".

This also explains why an atom of oxygen with 8 protons has the lowest nucleon-to-proton mass ratio of any atom. There is definitely something special about the number eight.

(Note-By the way, how special the number 8 is in the universe cannot seen to have come from atoms, unlike all of the other Special Numbers. So it must have come from somewhere else. Remember that all of these atoms exist in space. My cosmology theory has it that the matter of the universe is scattered over four spatial dimensions, and there are two opposite directions in each dimension. It is thus confirmation of my cosmology theory that 8 is clearly a Special Number with regard to atoms, but cannot be seen to have come from the atoms themselves).

Now that we see how important iron's 56 total nucleons are, and we see how important the number 8 is to matter in the universe, what happens if we divide 56 by 8? We get 7, and this number should thus be important in atoms and in the stars which fuse them together.

Notice that there are 7 types of Main Sequence stars. Main Sequence simply refers to stars that are still using hydrogen as fuel. These star types are O,B,A,F,G,K and, M. The sun is one of these stars, in the process of fusing four hydrogen atoms into one helium atom. Stars that have moved beyond burning hydrogen, red giants, white dwarfs and neutrons stars, are off the Main Sequence.

Why would there be 7 different types? If the stars were using the same kind of atoms as fuel why wouldn't there be just one type? This information for the number 7 has to come from somewhere.

There are also about 7 atoms that are much more common than all of the others. 26 elements are found with the original atoms and those produced by fusing them together. A total of 92 elements can be formed naturally if we include those produced when the energy of a supernova is released. Of all of these, why should about 7 be far more common then the rest? I refer to this as "The Rule Of Common Atoms" that we saw in "The Flow Of Information Through The Universe".

Not only that, there are 7 of the "Magic Numbers", as described at the beginning of this article, that confer special stability on a nucleus if there are a magic number of either protons or neutrons or, better yet, both.

11h) THE MOST COMMON ELEMENTS BETWEEN IRON AND URANIUM

The First and Second Stage elements, up to iron, are exponentially more common then the Third Stage elements, from iron to uranium. The reason being that the Third Stage elements are formed only during the actual explosion of a large star in a supernova (R-process), and not by the ordinary fusion process (S-process).

The only Third Stage elements that we might deal with on a daily basis, other than gold and silver which are rare, are copper, zinc, tin and, lead. Zinc is used in galvanizing sheet metal so that it will not rust or corrode and tin is used for tin-plating "tin cans" for the same reason.

But why would these four elements stand out among the 66 elements between iron and uranium?

Lets look at the numbers we have thus far. We saw that 8 is a special number. 8 x 8 = 64. The median number of nucleons in the stable isotopes of copper is 64.

We saw that there was 22 new atoms added from the First Stage elements to the Second. There were already 4 atoms, the First Stage, and 22 more brings us to the heaviest Second Stage element, which is the iron at the end of the ordinary fusion process. Even though the Second Stage involved 23 new elements it was only 22 new atoms because there were 4 different atoms in the First Stage, even though only 3 elements, because the original atoms included 2 isotopes of hydrogen.

If we multiply the 3 original elements by the 22 new atoms, we get 66. This is the median number of nucleons in the several stable isotopes of zinc. Interestingly, 64 nucleons is the median of the stable isotopes of copper but an atomic mass or atomic weight, which refers to the number of nucleons, is actually the most common isotope of zinc, rather than of copper.

We have seen how both 17, the indivisible prime number in the very divisible relationship between the mass of a proton and the mass of an electron, and 7, both the rough number of "common atoms" in the universe and the number of Main Sequence star types, are special numbers. If we multiply 17 x 7, we get 119. This is the median number of nucleons of the isotopes of tin.

We have seen that 8 is a very special number with regard to atoms, both in the electron orbitals, the "Octet Rule" and in the nucleus, the element with 8 protons (oxygen) has the lowest nucleon to proton ratio of any element. 23 is also a special number because there are 23 elements in the Second Stage elements. If we multiply 23 x 8, we get 208, which is the number of nucleons in the most common isotope of lead.

11i) COMPARISON OF THESE SPECIAL NUMBERS WITH THE MAGIC NUMBERS

It has long been known that there are certain "Magic Numbers" associated with the nuclei of atoms. If a nucleus has a "Magic Number" of either protons or neutrons then that nucleus can be expected to be especially stable, with more binding energy per nucleon, and thus preferred in the universe. If a nucleus has a "Magic Number" of both protons and neutrons, that is even better and is known as "Double Magic".

As we have seen, not all atoms that form are stable. Those that are not eventually release energy in order to attain a more stable state. This process is known as radioactivity.

There are seven known "Magic Numbers". These are 2, 8, 20, 28, 50, 82, 126.

Obviously the 126 applies only to numbers of nucleons because there is no atom with 126 protons. The heaviest naturally-occurring element is uranium, with 92 protons.

The Magic Numbers are about stability, while my Special Numbers here are about limits. Why does the ordinary stellar fusion process only go as far as iron? Why does the fusion process that occurs only in  a supernova only go as far as uranium? If more different atoms would have formed at the beginning of the universe, by primordial nucleo-synthesis, there would be more different elements today.

These two sets of numbers are complementary, explaining the nature of the atoms in the universe. I would like to add my Special Numbers to the Magic Numbers.

The differences between the two sets of numbers are that multiplication and addition are reversed. Like the atoms with regard to my Special Numbers, the Magic Numbers can be divided into three stages.

The First Stage, 2 and 8, are also common with the Special Numbers.

If we multiply both by the first number and then add them together, ( 2 x 2 ) + ( 8 x 2 ), we get 20, which is the next Magic Number.

20 begins the Second Stage of the Magic Numbers, and in this stage the successive numbers are built up by addition rather than by multiplication. 20 + 8 = 28, which is the next Magic Number. 28 + 20 + 2 = 50, which is the end of the Second Stage of the Magic Numbers. Notice that 8 is not added because it is already included in the 28.

82 begins the Third Stage of the Magic Numbers. In this stage, we go back to multiplication, combined with addition, to get the number from the previous numbers. But multiplication in the Magic Numbers, in contrast with the Special Numbers, is only ever done by 2.

50 + 28 + ( 2 x 2 ) = 82

The final Magic Number is 126. 50 + 20 + ( 28 x 2 ) = 126.

(Note-Interestingly, the highest number that is multiplied by 2 in the Magic Numbers is 28. This gives a product of 56, which is so important to the Special Numbers as it is the number of nucleons in iron, which is the final Second Stage element).

Something else interesting is that the number 8 is common to both the Magic and Special Numbers. It is also very important in chemistry, as with the Octet Rule and that the 8 is the most electrons that any atom can have in it's outermost orbital shell. But yet, as we see by the Special Numbers, the number 8 does not originate from atoms themselves. It must originate from somewhere else. This supports my cosmology theory because it has matter being scattered over 4 dimensions of space and there are two opposite directions in each dimension, for a total of 8.

Another thing that is noteworthy is that the planets of the Solar System, the distances between which we can see came from the information in the iron atom, can also be divided into three stages. There are the inner planets, out to Mars, then the Asteroid Belt, then the outer planets.

The Special Numbers, in contrast with the Magic Numbers, start with addition and then compound by multiplication. The first atoms must have been hydrogen, the lightest and simplest atom. Some of these were added together, by primordial nucleo-synthesis, to create the four different original atoms, which are the First Stage atoms. But from there, to form the Second and Third Stage atoms, there is no more addition, it is all my multiplication as we see above.

Another difference between the Magic and the Special Numbers is that the Magic Numbers are all even numbers. It is known that atoms with even numbers of either protons or nucleons tend to be more stable than those with odd numbers.

The Magic Numbers 50 and 82 correspond to the elements tin and lead, which we saw are common considering that they are Third Stage atoms. But these Magic Numbers are the number of protons in these two elements while my Special Numbers also confer stability on tin and lead but by the total number of nucleons.

The first atoms are believed to have formed in space within minutes of the Big Bang. We can presume that the first atom to form was hydrogen, which is the simplest atom with just one proton and one electron. But there was enough heat energy in space to fuse many of those hydrogen atoms into three other stable atoms.

The other three atoms that formed in what is known as Big Bang Nucleo-Synthesis are:

1) An isotope of hydrogen known as deuterium. Like ordinary hydrogen, deuterium has one proton and one electron. The difference is that it also has one neutron in the nucleus. A neutron is made by crunching an electron into a proton, in the process referred to as K-capture.

2) Helium. A helium atom has two protons, two electrons and two neutrons. Neutrons are necessary in atoms with more than one proton because the neutrally-charged neutrons hold the positively-charged protons together so that they do not mutually repel due to their like electric charge. Four hydrogen atoms can be crunched together to create one helium atom and that is what the sun is doing now, turning hydrogen into helium. There is energy leftover when four hydrogen atoms are turned into one helium atom. The energy is released as radiation and that is why the sun shines.

3) Lithium is the element with three protons and four neutrons. Small amounts of it were produced following the Big Bang, but it still counts as a point of information.

It is true that actually five atoms form, because there is the stable isotope of helium with two protons and only one neutron, helium-3. But nature seems to regard that as an incomplete version of the far more common helium-4, with two neutrons, and the universe operates, as we will see, as if there were four original atoms.

11j) THE FIRST ATOMS AND THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW

As you may have seen by the compound posting on this blog, "A Celebration Of The Inverse Square Law", I am an admirer of the Inverse Square Law. This describes how if a light is twice as far away, it will have only one-quarter of the brightness. It is called inverse square because we must square the proportional increase in distance and then invert it. Twice as far so that 2 x 2 = 4, which inverted becomes 1 / 4.

But the Inverse Square Law governs the relationship between radiation and distance in space, it also works with gravity. Since the first atoms that were formed from hydrogen were put together in space by radiant energy from the Big Bang, shouldn't we also expect to find that the Inverse Square law applies to the formation of the first atoms in the universe?

We see that the maximum number of electrons that can be held in an atomic orbital, moving outward from the nucleus and beginning with 2, is governed by the inverse of the Inverse Square Law, so I suppose that we can just call it the Square Law. We begin with 2 because electrons usually exist in pairs, with opposite spins that balance out.

The first electron shell, denoted as N = 1, can hold a maximum of 2 electrons.

The second electron shell, in any atom, can hold a maximum of 8 electrons.

The third electron shell can hold a maximum of 18 electrons.

The fourth electron shell can hold a maximum of 32 electrons.

From there, the maximum remains at 32 for all electron shells. The maximum number of electrons in the outermost shell of any atom is always 8.

Can you see how the "Square Law" applies?

First Shell- 2 x (1 x 1) = 2

Second Shell- 2 x (2 x 2) = 8

Third Shell- 2 x (3 x 3) = 18

Fourth Shell- 2 x (4 x 4) = 32

Notice something interesting here. The ordinary fusion process in stars goes only as far as iron, which has 26 each protons and electrons. The first three electron shells add up to 26 but since the outermost shell can never have more than 8 electrons, which is why there are 8 columns in the Periodic Table of the Elements, iron requires four electron shells.

Elements heavier than iron, up to uranium with 92 each protons and electrons, are created only during the brief time that a large star is actually exploding in a supernova. After the fourth electron shell, the maximum number of electrons in a shell remains at 32. Continuing the same progression of the Square Law, the fifth shell should have a maximum of 50 electrons. The reason that the maximum is 32 is that there is not enough quantum addresses for more and every electron in an atom must have a unique quantum address.

Could it be that the universe didn't "plan on" there being the additional elements that are created by a supernova so that the electron shells after the fourth can still have a maximum of only 32 electrons?

We recently saw the "Special Numbers" that govern so many of the limits of the numbers of protons and neutrons in the different stages of production of new atoms. There are also the Magic Numbers that are already well-known.

A Magic Number applies to either the number of protons or the number of neutrons and confers a special stability to the atom, thus making it a preferred state. If an atom happens to have a Magic Number of both, that is even better for stability and is referred to a "Double Magic" nucleus.

The well-known Magic Numbers are 2, 8, 20, 28, 50, 82 and, 126.

Lead is one of the heaviest of elements, only ten below uranium which is the heaviest. Lead, like other elements heavier than iron, is formed only during the brief time that a supernova is actually exploding because a tremendous amount of energy is being released during that time. But that means that these heavier elements are usually exponentially less common than iron and the ones lighter than it. But lead happens to be a Double Magic element because the number of protons and the number of neutrons in the nucleus of it's common isotope are both magic, 82 protons and 126 neutrons. This is why lead is much more common than it's atomic number would indicate that it should be.

The Special Numbers that I have pointed out have two separate roots, the Nucleon Root and the Proton Root. The Nucleon Root is 4 and 14, and multiples of these numbers tend to govern the total number of nucleons in different stages of the fusion process. 4 x 14, for example, = 56. Iron, which is as far as the ordinary fusion process goes, has a total of 56 nucleons, which are protons and neutrons, in it's nucleus. The 4 and 14 come from the 4 original atoms which had a total of 14 nucleons.

The Proton Root of the Special Numbers is 2 or 3 and 11. This is because the four original atoms were all of different mass. The heavier two, lithium and helium, were much more likely than the two hydrogen isotopes to be pulled into fusion into heavier elements due to their greater mass. These heaviest two atoms of the original four had a total of 11 nucleons. The 2 comes from these two elements and the 3 for adding the heavier isotope of hydrogen, the deuterium, that was more likely than the lighter one to be pulled into fusion.

Notice that the first two magic numbers, 2 and 8, are the same as the maximum number of electrons in the first two electron shells, which operate by the Square Law. In the first four atoms, as described above, only the first two electron shells were necessary as lithium, the heaviest of these first four, has only three electrons.

My Special Numbers did not become important until stars formed and fusion of these first atoms into heavier atoms began to take place. The Special Numbers, in determining the limits of the numbers of protons and total nucleons in different stages of the fusion process, operate more by multiplication, but the Magic Numbers by addition. The reason is the way atoms were being formed. The first hydrogen was crunched together into the heavier three by collisions in space. Such a collision, with momentum from only one direction represents addition.

The difference between addition and multiplication is that addition is one-dimensional while multiplication is at least two-dimensional. When stars formed, and atoms were crunched together into larger ones, the gravitational pressure was from all around, not from a one-dimensional vector of momentum. This pressure from all around represents multiplication and is why the Special Numbers, which do not take effect until fusion to heavier atoms in stars begins, operate mainly by multiplication rather than addition.

We can see how the Magic Numbers accumulate by addition, except that we are allowed to multiply by 2 because of the information of the two particles that make up the nucleus, protons and neutrons. The Magic Numbers are 2, 8, 20, 28, 50, 82 and, 126.

(2 + 8) x 2 = 20.

20 + 8 = 28.

28 + 20 + 2 = 50

50 + 8 + 8 + 8 + 8 = 82 or 50 + 28 + (2 x 2) = 82

50 + 28 + 28 + 20 = 126

But in the maximum numbers of electrons in successive electron shells, which operate by the Square Law as we have seen above, start with the same as the Magic Numbers, 2 and 8, but then switch to additives of my Special Numbers, which begin with 4 and 14. This is because the Special Numbers did not become important until fusion of new and heavier elements in stars began. Remember that 4 and 14 are so important because there were 4 different original atoms with a total of 14 nucleons.

The maximum number of electrons in successive shells are 2, 8, 18 and 32. 2 and 8 are the same as the Magic Numbers but 18 = 14 + 4 and, adding 14 again, gives us 32. If there were enough quantum addresses available in the universe, the next electron shell would hold a maximum of 50, which we would get by adding another 14 and 4 to the 32.

Also, 22 new elements are added to the original 4 to make the 26 elements, the heaviest being iron, which concludes how far the ordinary fusion process in stars goes. Notice that 22 and 26 are additives of 4 and 14, and do not follow the course of the Magic Numbers.

In fact, all of the maximums of electrons in orbitals as well as all of the Magic Numbers are additives of the 4 and 14 that are the root of my Special Numbers.

Maximum electrons in an orbital shell, 8 = 4 + 4.  18 = 14 + 4.  32 = 14 + 14 + 4

Magic Numbers, 8 = 4 + 4.  20 = 4 x 5.  28 = 14 + 4.  50 = (14 x 3) + (4 x 2)  82 = (14 x 5) + (4 x 3)  126 = 9 x 14

What all of this tells us is that the reason 4 original atoms formed following the Big Bang, which had 14 total nucleons, is that so the atoms of matter in the universe would operate by the Square Law, which is the inverse of the Inverse Square Law, with a starting point of 2, because there would be 2 particles composing the nucleus, protons and neutrons, and electrons exist in pairs with opposite spin. The numbers produced by the successive squares, beginning with 2, are always composed of the numbers 4 and 14.

11k) THE LOWEST INFORMATION POINT CONCERNING ATOMS

Now, let's go back to my concept of the Lowest Information Point. Notice how the universe, in fusing lighter atoms together into heavier atoms, works with numbers that are already there and the products of those numbers. The Lowest Information Point is replicating numbers that are already present, just as A / B = B / C is a lower information state than A / B = C / D, because that involves the introduction of an additional information point.

The elements do compound from the lowest to the highest, starting with 1 and 2, and we should expect that generally lighter elements will be more common than heavier ones because mass is equivalent to energy, in accord with the well-known mass-energy equivalence, because the universe always seeks the lowest energy state.

In this scenario, we see that electrons are not separate from the activity in the nucleus because neutrons are created by crunching electrons into protons. This is how the mass ratio between an electron and a proton became involved in the Special Numbers.

The two elements at the end of each stage, or fusion type, which are iron and uranium, tend to be more common than they would be otherwise. Iron is so common in the inner Solar System because it is as far as the ordinary fusion process (the S-process) goes. Uranium is likewise more common than it would be otherwise because it is the final Third Stage element, the heaviest naturally-occurring element and as far as the supernova fusion process (the R-process) goes.

I find that these simple arithmetical relationships that define atoms and stars, that I cannot see pointed out anywhere, to be absolutely amazing and has the potential to reveal much more about how the universe works. This theory of the Lowest Information Point reveals these Special Numbers to add to the already familiar factor tree of the elements and the "Magic Numbers" to explain why the limits of atoms are what they are and the relative abundances of elements in the universe.

Remember, once again, that all around you, every day, there are simple things that no one has ever before pointed out. I was led to these Special Numbers because it caught my attention that there were 4 different original atoms, with a total of 14 nucleons. 4 x 14 = 56, and 56 is the number of nucleons in an iron atom which is as far as the ordinary fusion process in stars goes. I decided to look further to see if there were any more such simple arithmetical relationships that might define atoms.

12) THE DIAGONAL OF THE SQUARE AND BLACK HOLES

I once developed what I named "The Theory Of Puddles". The "landscape" of reality was sloped and we know that the universe always seeks the lowest energy state, which was lower on the slope. There is only a limited amount of energy in the universe and that energy was like water which "flowed" down the slope. The things which exist, such as atoms, molecules, stars, rocks, planets, galaxies, etc. are "puddles" on the slope of reality.

Things which could possibly have existed, but don't, or things which once existed, but do not any more, are the dry areas on the slope. When a large number of some things exists, such as hydrogen atoms or grains of sand, it represents a large puddle on the slope. When only a few of something exists, such as uranium or diamonds, it is represented by a small puddle. As we might expect, large puddles are common on the lower areas of the slope where the puddles get smaller as we go higher.

But this is how energy and information operate, something of a higher energy or information state will be less common. What happens on the slope is that it is affected by the things, the puddles, which exist on it so that the slope changes. The puddles themselves are part of the slope. When the slope changes things that did not exist before may come into existence and, possibly, things that once existed may no longer exist. When the slope changes, water from different puddles come together to form things which had not previously existed.

Remember what my definition of a square is in "The Lowest Information Point". A square does not necessarily refer to a geometric square, or to a number multiplied by itself, although these are certainly squares. What is meant by square is something with more than one dimension where the dimensions are equal. The opposite of a square is not a circle, because a circle or sphere is also a "square" in that all of it's dimensions are equal. The opposite of a square is a rectangle, where the dimensions are not equal.

It is the Lowest Information Point where there are two related ratios, but the denominator of one is also the numerator of the other. This means that there is only three pieces of information, rather than four, and thus it is a lower information point. A / B = B / C is a lower information point than A / B = C / D, because the first involves only three points of information while the second involves four.

In my theory of "The Lowest Information Point", the square refers to the plot of the total number of different things that are made of matter which exist in the universe, against the total number of each of these different things which exist. At present, this does not form a square as these two dimensions are definitely not equal. There are a far greater number of the total number of things which exist than there are the number of different things which exist.

What I want to focus on here is the diagonal or hypotenuse of the square or rectangle. That diagonal is none other than the slope of reality, as described above. As the universe seeks a condition of equality between the two dimensions of the square, the slope gets shorter and steeper. This is why it is continuously changing over time and new things made of matter can come into existence, that had not existed previously.

From the early universe of only one thing, hydrogen atoms, but a countless number of them, thus with a very shallow slope, the universe is moving back toward equal dimensions which brings a much steeper slope. As light atoms are fused into heavier ones in stars, there are more different kinds of atoms but fewer total atoms.

A slope of reality where the number of different things that could exist was equal to the number of each of these things were equal could be called a 45 degree universe. This would be the Lowest Information Point because it would be a square, with the two "dimensions" being equal.

Matter is brought together to accomplish this by gravity, which is the force that is trying to brings the two dimensions back to equality. With only hydrogen atoms in the universe, the diagonal would be close to being as flat as the horizontal dimension, representing the total number of different things. When helium atoms formed, the vertical dimension doubles and the horizontal dimension reduced. The vertical dimension also represents energy level so that things that are rarer are higher on the slope and thus closer to the vertical dimension.

As we go on with smaller atoms being fused into larger ones, with the two dimensions gradually coming closer to being equal, the area within the triangle gets smaller. The area within the triangle represents the well-known Mass-Energy Equivalence, which is the energy locked within the structure of matter. This reduces as time goes on because it is continuously being converted into radiation as stars shine during the fusion process that brings the lengths of the two legs of the triangle closer together.

The primary route for doing this is stellar fusion, which reduces the horizontal leg as it increases the vertical leg. There are fewer and larger atoms but more different kinds of atoms. This makes it possible for more molecules to form and to join to other molecules. But the horizontal leg gets shorter faster than the vertical leg gets longer. The total length of the legs is reduced so that the area within the triangle gets smaller, with the excess energy that was in the matter being released as radiation.

Unlike my other scientific theories, which are independent of one another, this theory of "The Lowest Information Point" rests on the others and is not independent. This immediately and obviously relates to the cosmology theory, as well as the way that information flows through the universe from the lowest to the highest levels, in that the information for this "square" that the universe is seeking must come from somewhere and it comes from the original two-dimensional sheet of the cosmology theory, from which all matter originates.

This sheet must have been a square, since being otherwise would have been a higher information and thus a higher energy state. The sheet must have been at an angle of 45 degrees to the alignment of electric charges in the surrounding background space, to which it was within but not contiguous, because being otherwise would be a higher information and energy state. This 45 degree angle as well as the square of the sheet shows up today in the pattern that the universe is seeking.

The two-dimensional sheet had dimensions of 1 / 1. The Big Bang was the disintegration of one of the dimensions, making the universe an extreme rectangle that could be described as 1 / the total number of original atoms. The reason that we can have such unequal legs of the square today is that one of them, which represent the two sides of the original sheet, disintegrated in the Big Bang. The two dimensions of the sheet are thus still there, but are scattered over the four dimensions of the background space.

We have a zero sum game, due to the limited amount of energy, where one leg of the triangle can only lengthen at the expense of the other, although the length of the total number of things gets shorter faster than the length of the number of different things gets longer. This shortage of energy is why the universe seeks the lowest energy state, and thus the Lowest Information Point since energy and information is really the same thing.

The explosion of the Big Bang, which began the universe of matter as we know it, changed all that and it was replaced by my square-seeking concept here but the universe of matter began as an extreme rectangle, with countless numbers of only one thing, hydrogen atoms. But just as a ball thrown into the air tries to come back down, the universe is trying to "come back down" to the square and the 45 degree angle of these two dimensions being equal.

The vertical leg of the square, which represents the dimension of the sheet that disintegrated in the Big Bang, can never be longer than the horizontal leg, which represents the dimension of the sheet that remained. But the vertical is as long if we count the "dry areas" on the slope, which is the diagonal of the two legs, which represent things that could possibly exist but do not. The horizontal leg has a dry area also, which is the original light hydrogen and helium atoms which no longer exist because they have been fused into heavier atoms. Referring to the Theory of Puddles, the puddle of original hydrogen and helium atoms is getting smaller.

The vertical leg of the square is the number of different things which could possibly exist, not just those that actually do exist. The horizontal leg is just the total number of things that can exist, regardless of whether they are different from one another. The two legs could be balanced only if everything that existed was different from everything else. But we cannot actually restore the two equal sides that the original sheet was because it is scattered over four dimensions of space. There is one dimension of information if everything is alike and two equal dimensions if everything is different from everything else.

Another way to look at it is with the total number of all things as the vertical leg of the square, which is one side of the original sheet. The hydrogen atoms "fall" down the slope just as small atoms fall together to form stars where they are fused together into larger atoms. The slope then goes from being just about vertical to being more horizontal.

There is one way to re-balance the two legs of the square and thus "restore" the original two-dimensional sheet. That is for all matter to come together into one massive black hole. If black holes cannot merge then it would still accomplish this because black holes eventually decay.

The universe started out, after the Big Bang, as one dimension of the sheet without the second. The universe has since been trying to bring the pattern of the square back together again by it having equal dimensions, or equal sides of our square. The only way that there can be the same number of things and the same number of different things is one black hole. They are equal now only if we count the dry areas, which represent things that could but do not exist, or that no longer exist. A spherical black hole is actually a square because all of it's dimensions are equal, we would be back to two dimensions counting it's time dimension. The equal dimensions of the sheet would be restored, and that is what the universe is continually seeking because it is the Lowest Information Point.

So that you can see how the universe is seeking to make the number of different things made of matter that exist equal to the total number of things that exist, meaning that there can be only one of each thing, and the only way to do that is to crunch all matter into one big black hole, let's have a look at other ways the physical universe always seeks equality because it is the Lowest Information Point. The reason that equality is the Lowest Information Point is that there is less information when two or more dimensions are equal. a square, than when they are unequal, a rectangle, let's have a look at some simpler examples.

If we put a hot object and a cold object in contact, the two will eventually reach the same temperature. The reason is that the two are now one thermal unit and it involves less information to have both objects equal in temperature, which is a square, than to remain unequal, which would be a rectangle.

If we mix water with a high salt content with water with a low salt content, the salt content will eventually even out by osmosis, for the same reason.

So if the universe seeks a square with these familiar everyday examples, because a square is the Lowest Information Point, why wouldn't it also seek a square with all of the matter in the universe as a whole, the number of different things that exist plotted against the total number of things that exist? We can see that the universe is moving in this direction, primarily by nuclear fusion in stars.

13) THE OPEN UNIVERSE IN TERMS OF INFORMATION

When it was first discovered that the universe had begun with a "Big Bang" and had been expanding outward from it ever since, a primal question soon arose. Was the universe "closed" or "open"?

What that is about is whether the matter of the universe will fall back together again by gravity. If we throw a ball upward, it will reach a certain height and then come back down. That means that the trajectory of the ball is "closed". If the outward momentum of the universe, from the energy of the explosion of the Big Bang, is greater than the inward pull of gravity, meaning that the matter will never fall back together again, that means that the universe is "open".

At first those who study the universe were divided, it seemed plausible that the universe would fall back together possibly to trigger another Big Bang and repeat the process, perhaps endlessly. The question was whether or not the expansion of the universe was slowing down, like a ball thrown up into the air. If it was slowing down the expansion would eventually reverse itself and the universe would be "closed".

But it was found that, not only is the outward expansion of the universe not slowing down, it is actually speeding up. That makes it certain that the universe is "open" and it's matter will not fall back together by it's mutual gravity.

One of the main points of my theory of how information works is that energy and information is really the same thing. I noticed that whether we see a process in terms of energy or in terms of information, the result always ends up the same. It is because we are made up of our bodies and our minds. If we deal with the universe in terms of our bodies, we see it as energy. If we deal with the universe in terms of our minds, we see it as information.

Another way of seeing that energy and information is really the same thing is that we cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it, and we cannot apply energy to it without adding information to it. Also we can make our lives physically easier through technology but only at the expense of making them more complex, which means involving more information. We can never, on a large scale, make our lives both physically easier and also less complex. This shows that energy and information is really the same thing.

But if energy and information is really the same thing, and we have shown in terms of energy why the universe is "open", that means that, if my theory that energy and information is really the same thing is correct, there must be a way to explain why the universe is "open" in terms of information.

Let me show how the following very simple algebraic statement shows that the universe must be "open". The statement is: x / x = 1. That means that any ratio or fraction where the same number is both the numerator and the denominator is equal to 1.

Energy and information is really the same thing. We know that the universe always seeks the lowest energy state. That is why an object released into the air falls to the ground. It involves less energy to support the object on the ground than to continue to support it in the air. It strikes the ground with an impact that has energy because that is the energy that originally suspended it in the air.

But if the universe always seeks the lowest energy state, and energy and information is really the same thing, that means that it must also seek the lowest information state. That is the point of this theory, "The Lowest Information Point", which was spun off from the three theories about cosmology and information that came before it.

If the universe sought "The Lowest Information Point" then, my reasoning went, there would be two things that it preferred. First, it would prefer what I call "related ratios" in which the denominator of one ratio was also the numerator of the other. In other words, preferring a / b = b / c over a / b = c / d. The reason is that the first contains only three points of information, while the second contains four. The first would thus be "The Lowest Information Point".

The second thing that the universe would prefer, and which is related to the first, is a square over a rectangle. Since both dimensions of a square are, by it's definition, equal, then that would represent a lower information point than a rectangle, whose two dimensions are not equal. Something defined as a square thus requires only one piece of information, while a rectangle requires two.

That is why so many ratios regarding the scales of the universe, from the subatomic to the galactic, are, as the theory shows, of the related ratio, "A is to B as B is to C". This is only three points of information, rather than four.

Consider that there are two components of the matter in the universe. 1) There is the number of different things in the universe. 2) There is the total number of all things in the universe. What "things" there are are based on the fact that most matter is made of atoms and there are a number of ways in which atoms can merge together with other atoms, and then combine to make different things.

These two components actually form the sides of a square. Well, actually it's a rectangle but it is trying to be a square because that is a lower information point than a rectangle, and remember that the universe always seeks "The Lowest Information Point".

When the universe was first formed by the Big Bang, there were only five different stable atoms that formed. Two isotopes of hydrogen, two of helium, and trace amounts of lithium. So there were countless numbers of individual atoms, but only five different kinds of atoms.

What that represented, in therms of "The Lowest Information Point", was an extremely, extremely elongated rectangle. One side of the rectangle was only five, the five different atoms, and the other side was the near-infinity of the total number of individual atoms.

Ever since then, small atoms have been crunched together within stars to form many different larger atoms and all atoms have been combining together with each other to produce a wide variety of the different "things" that the universe is made of. There are now 92 naturally occurring elements, of which there are several hundred different nuclides, or isotopes. A nuclide is a stable combination of protons and neutrons.

All of these many different atoms combine with each other in near-countless ways by chemical and structural bonds, and by gravity, to form the wide array of "things" that the universe today is made of. But the total number of atoms is, of course, far reduced from what it was immediately after the Big Bang.

What all of this combining amounts to is the universe trying to turn the original rectangle into a square, because it would be "The Lowest Information Point". The total number of atoms have been far reduced, since the Big Bang, but the total number of different things, from the original five different stable atoms, has been far increased. The universe has come a long way in it's progress toward being a square, which it is seeking because that is the "Lowest Information Point".

If the concept of the "closed" universe was correct, the matter of the universe falling back together by gravity, that would fulfill the square because, with all of the matter together in what would be one massive black hole, there would only be one object and thus only one different type of object, which would be a perfect square.

Given the algebraic formula at the beginning, it would be simply 1 / 1 = 1.

If the nature of matter was that the original small atoms were unable to combine together into larger atoms, and then into other things from there, then there would have to be a "closed" universe and the matter would have to fall back together in order to close the inevitable square that is "The Lowest Information Point".

But what happened, in terms of energy, was that, as smaller atoms were crunched together in stars into larger atoms, some of the energy of position in space, which is also information, was transformed into electromagnetic radiation, which is why stars shine. Since electromagnetic radiation like this does not exert gravity on matter, there is not enough gravity to pull the matter of the universe back together.

In terms of information, since the nature of matter makes it possible for few different smaller atoms to be combined together into many different larger ones, and then for those to be combined into very many different "things", the universe is able to gradually pull the original very elongated rectangle toward being a square. Since the two sides of a square are equal that means that, no matter what the number of different things and total number of things ends up being, which means that everything will be different from everything else in the universe, they will equal 1 when expressed as a ratio.

This is because, once again, x / x = 1. Thus the universe can be "open", it does not have to be "closed" to get to the square.

WHY THE EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE HAS TO BE SPEEDING UP, IN TERMS OF INFORMATION

To use a familiar example from computer technology, suppose that we have six bits and twelve empty spaces. Each bit can fill one of the empty spaces, but the bits are identical and indistinguishable from one another. This gives us 4,096 possible permutations of bits in empty spaces. Each empty space would be either full or empty but, since the bits are identical and indistinguishable from one another, it would not make a difference which bit was in which space.

Now suppose that we consolidate our six bits together so that they are distinguishable from one another. One bit we will leave as it is, and call it "One-Bit". We will combine two bits together and call it "Two-Bit". We will combine the other three together and call it "Three-Bit". Although we have fewer bits than before to put in the twelve empty space, three bits instead of six, the bits are now distinguishable from one another, and this adds information.

But even so, our consolidation of the bits would mean a net loss of information. Having the three distinguishable bits to go in the twelve empty spaces would give us 3,960 possible permutations, in contrast with the 4,096 with six separate but indistinguishable bits.

What this is a model of, of course, is matter in empty space. The bits are atoms and the empty spaces are space. The original six identical bits represent the original hydrogen atoms in the universe. The consolidated bits represent the heavier atoms that come from the nucleo-synthesis that takes place by fusion in stars.

There is one solution. In our simple example of bits in empty spaces, one way that we can maintain the same level of information is to increase the number of empty spaces as we consolidate bits together. The same number of bits in more empty spaces represents more information because it gives us more possible permutations, and that is how information is represented.

We may not be able to see it locally, but the universe must be expanding to accommodate the increasingly manifested information of what was but is no more and of what could have been but isn't.

14) MATTER AND ENERGY, SQUARE AND RECTANGLE

The basis of "The Lowest Information Point" is that all of the matter of the universe seeks to be in the form of a square, because a square requires less information than does a rectangle. Another way of looking at this basis is that the universe prefers the related ratio A / B = B / C to the ratio A / B = C / D, where the denominator of one ratio is also the numerator of the other, because the first contains only three points of information while the second contains four. This makes the first ratio a lower information point that is preferred by the universe.

We know that the universe always seeks the lowest energy state, which is why objects in the air fall to the ground. But we have seen here that energy and information is really the same thing because we cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it and we cannot apply energy to anything without adding information to it. Another way that we can see energy and information as the same thing is in how we can make our lives physically easier through technology, but only at the expense of making life more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make life physically easier and also less complex.

So, the reasoning of this theory goes, if the universe is well-known to always seek the lowest energy state, and if energy and information is really the same thing, then we should see that the universe always seeks the lowest information point.

As we have seen in "The Lowest Information Point", one way that the matter in the universe seeks to be in the form of a square, not a literal geometric square but a state in which two sides are equal rather than the higher information state of being unequal, is with regard to the total number of things in the universe relative to the number of possible different things.

What this means is that there are many things in the universe, agglomerations of matter that can be defined, but not every thing is different from every other thing. Rather, the "things" tend to fall into patterns with many of each. There are clouds, rocks, planets and, trees, but everything is not different from everything else. There are many clouds, many rocks, many trees and many planets.

Just after the Big Bang, and when matter had cooled enough to condense into atoms, The matter in the universe formed at extreme rectangle, with one side almost infinitely longer than the other. There were almost countless atoms, but only a few different types of atom. This was as far from a square that the universe would get because the total number of atoms formed the long side of the rectangle, while the very few different kinds of atoms formed the short side.

Ever since then, the matter of the universe has been seeking to move toward a square because that is "The Lowest Information Point". What is always happening is that more smaller atoms are being crunched together into fewer larger atoms by the nuclear fusion taking place in stars. Instead of the very few different initial atoms after the Big Bang, there are now 92 naturally-occurring elements, many of which have several different isotopes and ionic states.

All of these atoms that have come into being makes possible millions of different molecules, which in turn makes it possible for more "things" to form, such as our clouds, rocks, planets and, trees. Meanwhile, the total number of atoms in the universe is being continuously reduced because smaller atoms are being crunched, by fusion in stars, into larger atoms.

This is how the matter of the universe is moving from an extreme rectangle back toward a square. That will be achieved if the matter ever formed into one giant black hole. There would be only one thing, the black hole, and one type of thing.

But in this move from a rectangle to a square, the information of the rectangle cannot just be lost. Also, the principle that every action has an equal and opposite reaction means that, if the matter in the universe is moving from a rectangle to a square than something must be moving in the opposite direction. If energy and information is really the same thing, and the matter of the universe is moving toward "The Lowest Energy Point", then that means that energy must somehow be moving in the opposite direction to matter.

Notice that matter, in my scenario here, operates according to what we could call the "Square Law", seeking to be a square instead of a rectangle because it is the lower information point. But the electromagnetic radiation, which is released by the same fusion process in stars that moves the matter in the universe toward a square by crunching more smaller atoms into fewer larger atoms, operates by the "Inverse Square Law".

The Inverse Square Law is that the energy in an electromagnetic wave, such as those produced by fusion in stars, decreases as it moves outward from the source according to the square of the distance from the source. In other words, a wave at twice the distance will have one-quarter the energy because 4 is the square of 2.

So fusion produces fewer atoms in favor of more different atoms and, at the same time, more electromagnetic radiation relative to the number of possible wavelengths of that radiation. So matter and energy are moving in opposite directions according to the rule that every action produces an equal and opposite reaction. This means that the information of the matter rectangle is not being lost because energy is taking the place of the matter as that rectangle.

But if the matter of the universe "knows" to move toward being a square then the information of that square must have come from somewhere, and that is where my cosmology theory comes in. The theory, one of the theories here on which "The Lowest Information Point" rests, is described in the compound posting on this blog, The Theory Of Stationary Space" July 2017.

In this cosmology theory, the matter in the universe began with a two-dimensional sheet of space that was within, but not contiguous with, the surrounding multi-dimensional background space. Both blocks of space former by the same mutual induction of electric charges. Starting with one charge, whether positive or negative, that charge would have to induce an opposite charge next to it, in multiple dimensions because the number one rule of the universe is that electric charges must always balance out to zero.

But this original two-dimensional sheet of space must have been a square, with equal sides, because that would be the lowest information point and there would be no other information to make it otherwise. Thus is was the original square of the matter of the universe which that matter has been continuously trying to get back to after atoms formed following the Big Bang.

According to the cosmology theory described above, charge migration must have taken place in the sheet, one side becoming more positive and the other more negative, due to opposite charge attraction and like charge repulsion from the charges comprising the surrounding background space. These two sides attracted one another through the background space by opposite charge attraction. when the two sides of the sheet came into contact, they mutually annihilated in a matter-antimatter reaction that we perceive as the Big Bang.

One dimension of the two-dimensional sheet thus disintegrated and became energy and the remaining dimension became the one-dimensional strings of matter, such as electrons, that we see as particles because we can only see in three of the four dimensions over which the strings of matter in the sheet were scattered by the Big Bang. The fourth dimension, the one in which the strings are primarily aligned in space, is the dimension of space that we perceive as time.

That meant that matter and energy were originally equal after the Big Bang, one dimension of the sheet each, but energy has since been increasing while matter has been decreasing. This is because some matter is inevitably converted into energy, the large atoms produced by solar fusion contain slightly less energy than the smaller atoms from which they were formed, and this excess energy is released as the radiation which obeys the Inverse Square Law. This is why stars shine.

15) NUCLEAR REACTIONS IN TERMS OF INFORMATION

OPPOSITE NUCLEAR PROCESSES BOTH RELEASE ENERGY

The first thing that is confusing about nuclear science is that there are two basic major reactions, fission and fusion. Fission means "to split the atom" and fusion means to fuse atoms together. The two are thus opposite processes. But what doesn't seem to make sense is that if one process releases energy then shouldn't the opposite process either absorb energy, or at least not release energy? That is usually the way it works in chemistry. But yet both of these nuclear processes release energy, actually tremendous amounts of energy.

Fusion, the fusing together of small atoms into larger ones usually by the tremendous heat and pressure in the centers of stars, actually does require an input of energy, but only for elements that are heavier than iron. These heavier elements are formed only during the brief time that the star is actually exploding as a supernova, and the energy released makes the required fusion possible. That is why iron and elements lighter than it are exponentially more common than elements that are heavier than iron. Many heavier elements, their component smaller atoms having been forced together by the energy of the supernova, are less-than-stable. They gradually emit particles or radiation in the seeking of a more stable state. These emissions are known as radioactivity.

At the time of this writing, all nuclear power that we use comes from fission of uranium. We can get smaller atoms to fuse together by lasers, which is fusion, but no one has yet succeeded in getting net energy from the fusion process. But so many people are trying.

In the centers of stars, smaller atoms starting with hydrogen are fused together into ever-larger and heavier atoms. Two prominent fusion processes, depending on the size of the star, are the Triple Alpha Process and the Proton-Proton Process. Sometimes light atoms, which are usually common, are broken back down by natural fission process, and this is why light elements such as lithium and beryllium are relatively rare.

INFORMATION AND ENERGY IS REALLY THE SAME THING

We have seen, in my information theory, that energy and information is really the same thing. We cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it, and we cannot apply energy to anything without adding information to it. Another way that we can see the two as really being the same thing is in technology. We can make our lives physically easier by using technology, but only at the expense of making them more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make life both physically easier and also less complex.

We can see that both of these opposite nuclear processes release energy, which is somewhat confusing. But what happens if we express the nuclear reactions as information, instead of as energy, since energy and information is really the same thing?

We have already seen how easily the speeding up of the expansion of the universe is explained if we see it in terms of information.

THE TWO SETS OF INFORMATION IN ATOMS

There are two sets of information within atoms. The first is the electrical repulsion relationship between the protons in the nucleus. There has to be neutrally-charged neutrons to hold the protons together, against their mutual repulsion, so that the electrical relationships between the protons vary due to the distance between them. Each proton has this electrical relationship with every other proton in the nucleus. These relationships are information.

Let's call this the Inter-Proton Relationships Information.

The second set of information in the atom is the outer surface area of the atom itself, that of the outermost electron orbital. Distance, and thus surface area, is information and energy. The size of an atom is typically about ten thousand times that of it's nucleus.

The outermost electrons, which form the surface area of the atom, have the highest orbital energy of all the electrons in the atom. We can see how higher electron orbitals have higher energy than lower ones in that radiation can sometimes shift an electron to a higher orbital, and more radiation is releases when the electron drops back down. This is the principle behind fluorescence and phosphorescence. One way to see how energy, which is also information, changes the surface area is that the energy in wind increases the surface area of water by creating waves.

Let's call this the Surface Area Information.

Simple arithmetic tells us that, when an atom is split in two by fission, the total number of protons will remain the same but the Inter-Proton Relationships will decrease. If a nucleus has 12 protons, and each has the electrical relationship with all of the others, then there are 12 x 11 = 132 interrelationships. But if we fission it into two nuclei, each with 6 protons, then there are only 6 x 5  + 6 x 5 = 60 interrelationships.

In practical terms, since heavier elements tend to have more neutrons per protons in the nucleus, this also means that several neutrons will be released. In fission, a nucleus is split initially by a high-speed neutron, and the released neutrons go onto split other nuclei. This perpetuates the process and is what is called a chain reaction, at least until enough energy is released to blast the mass of material apart.

This is a drastic decrease in the number of Inter-Proton Relationships, which is information and thus energy tat must be released. But when one atom is split in two in such a way, something else is also happening. The other set of information in the atom, the Surface Area Information, is increasing. This is because the two new smaller atoms have a greater overall surface area than the original larger atom. Surface area is also information, and thus energy.

In real terms, a 235 isotope of Uranium is typically split in such a way into an atom of krypton and barium.

But if we fuse atoms together, in the centers of stars, the opposite to this process occurs. The total surface area decreases but the number of Inter-Proton Relationships increases.

THE TWO SETS OF INFORMATION MUST BE EQUAL

The essence of what I have realized is that, in any ordinary atom with equal numbers of protons and electrons, these two sets of information, the Inter-Proton Relationships Information and the Surface Area Information, must be equal in terms of information.

This gives us a valuable bridge to understanding information and how it is the same thing as energy. There is no reason for the two sets of information to be not equal. The two electric charges, the positive of the protons and negative of the electrons, are opposite but equal. Having them equal means that we have two different kinds of information that we know much hold equal information simply because it is the Lowest Information Point. An equality is less information than an inequality.

The protons and electrons attract each other, because they have opposite electric charges, but it does not operate in quite the same way as a gravitational attraction. Electron orbitals in atoms are not free-ranging, like gravity, but are arranged in shells and sub-shells. Gravity is solely an attractive force but electrical repulsion is also factor in atoms as electrons in adjacent shells repel each other by like-charge repulsion.

THE ENERGY SURFACE AREA

This equivalence of the two information sets readily explains why the two opposite processes both release energy and can also give us a way to explain, in terms of information, exactly what is happening. But there is a factor that we have to take into account as to how it operates differently from gravity.

With objects in orbit around the earth, for example, the higher the orbit the higher orbital energy. If a satellite is given three times the orbital energy that is has, it will then orbit at 9x the distance but will move at only 1 / 3 the speed. This is because gravity, like electric charge attraction or repulsion, operates by the Inverse Square Law.

But inside the atom, the electrons in orbitals operate differently. As we move to the right across a row on the Periodic Table of the Elements, to successively heavier elements but with the same number of electron shells, each successive element has one more proton and one more electron (unless it is an ion) then the one before it. But instead of getting larger, with a higher surface area, as it would be with gravity, the atom contracts due to the increase in opposite charges pulling the electrons to the nucleus.

But since this means higher energy, and thus more information, we take not the literal surface area of the atom but what I will call the "Energy Surface Area". What we do to calculate the Energy Surface Area of the atom, which we know must be equal to the Inter-Proton Relationships Information, is to take the reciprocal of the difference between the radius or surface area of the given atom, subtract it from the radius or surface area of the atom in column 1 of that row on the Periodic Table, and then add it to the radius or surface area of the element in column 1 of that row.

Here is a periodic table, although it only has the symbols but not the names of the elements. A row is right-to-left, a column is up and down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table#/media/File:Simple_Periodic_Table_Chart-en.svg

Take, for example, the top row of the Periodic Table. There are only two elements in this row, the two lightest elements of hydrogen and helium with 1 and 2 protons each. The Wikipedia article, "Atomic Radius", under "Calculated Atomic Radii", states that a hydrogen atom has a radius of 53 picometers and a helium atom 31 picometers. Radius is proportional to surface area so that means that a hydrogen atom is considerably larger, although not heavier, than a helium atom.

But the helium atom must contain more information because it has 2 protons, while each hydrogen atom only has 1. The reason that the helium atom is smaller is the additional opposite charge pull of it's two electrons toward the two protons in the nucleus. So that we do is take the reciprocal of the relative size of the helium atom to the hydrogen atom.

31 is .5849 of 53. The reciprocal of .5849 is 1.71. 53, the radius of the hydrogen atom, x 1.71 = 90.6.

This is thus the Energy Surface Area of a helium atom, which is directly proportional to it's Energy Radius, even though it's actual radius is only 31 picometers.

WHY OPPOSITE NUCLEAR PROCESSES BOTH RELEASE ENERGY

The reason that these two opposite nuclear processes both release energy is the simple number of atoms. The split by fission uranium or plutonium atom only splits into two secondary atoms. But the fusion of a helium atom from hydrogen involves four hydrogen atoms being crunched into only one helium atom.

There is more information, and thus energy in the Inter-Proton Relationship of the helium atom than there is in the four hydrogen atoms with only one proton each, but the Energy Surface Area of the new helium atom is so much less than that of the four original hydrogen atoms, that the excess energy is released. That is why the sun shines since the sun's stage in the fusion process is now crunching four hydrogen atoms into one helium atom.

But in either nuclear process, the results are uneven and that is why energy has to be released. The reason that the process is uneven is the neutrons that are necessary to hold together the protons in the nucleus but do not participate in the Inter-Proton Relationships Information. Heavier elements must have progressively more neutrons per proton in the nucleus. Neutrons are readily formed during fusion by crunching an electron into a proton. This is known as K-capture and results in the neutron with it's neutral electric charge.

In the fusion of four hydrogen atoms into one helium atom, there is the increase in Inter-Proton Relationship Information but the decrease in Energy Surface Area is so much greater that a lot of energy is released, and that is why the sun shines.

Obviously, large atoms tend to undergo fission while small atoms tend to undergo fusion into larger atoms. In fission, the splitting of a large atom such as uranium, there is an increase in the Energy Surface Area, as there is now two atoms rather than one, but this increase is less than the decrease of the Inter-Proton Relationships in the nucleus, as it is split in two.

This is why fission also releases energy, even though it is the opposite process of fusion. The release of energy by fusion tends to be much greater because so many protons become neutrons, by having an electron crunched into them, and are thus eliminated from the collective Inter-Proton Relationship Information, which does not involve neutrons.

WHY THE ORDINARY FUSION PROCESS ONLY GOES AS FAR AS IRON

This model of seeing nuclear reactions in terms of information, rather than energy, and realizing that the two sets of information in atoms must be equal because that is the Lowest Information Point, also explains why the ordinary fusion process only goes as far as iron and why the input of energy from a supernova is the only way that heavier elements can be formed.

The number of Inter-Proton Relationships decreases as lighter atoms are crunched by the successive fusion process into ever-heavier elements. This is simply because heavier elements must have more neutrons per proton in the nucleus. Protons must have electrons crunched into them to form neutrons, known as K-capture, and are thus eliminated from the Inter-Proton Relationship Information. But due to the increasing number of electrons that each electron shell can accommodate, as we move outward from the nucleus, the Energy Surface Area of atoms does not increase as fast as the Inter-Proton Relationship decreases.

The point where the two cross is iron.

The last element that can thus be formed by the ordinary fusion process, which releases energy and is known as the S-process for "slow" is iron. Elements heavier than this require the input of energy from a supernova explosion, which is known as the R-process for "rapid".

Making use of this principle that energy and information is really the same thing, and seeing the two opposite reactions as information rather than as energy, shows not only why both release energy but why the ordinary fusion process only goes as far as iron.

16) TESTING THE LOWEST INFORMATION POINT

We know that the universe always seeks the lowest energy state. An object will fall to the ground because it requires less energy than to hold it in the air. The default gravitational form of matter in the universe is a sphere because surface area is equivalent to volume and a sphere is the geometric form with the lowest surface area per volume.

My reasoning is that energy and information 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.

Another way we can see how energy and information is really the same thing is in technology. We can use technology to make our lives physically easier but only at the expense of making them more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make our lives physically easier and also less complex.

The next step in my reasoning was that, if energy and information is really the same thing, and if the universe always seeks the lowest energy state, then shouldn't it also seek the lowest information state?

I found this to be a deep and far-reaching principle. 

This concept of the Lowest Information Point that the universe always seeks can be illustrated either algebraically or geometrically.

If we have two sets of related ratios, A / B = C / D and A / B = B / C, the second set is the Lowest Information State because it contains only three points of information, A, B and, C, while the first set also contains D. This shows how reusing numbers creates a lower information state because the denominator of one is also the numerator of the other.

Another way to illustrate the principle is geometrically. The universe should prefer a square, with both sides equal, to a rectangle because the square thus contains less information. The is the basis of my concept that, since the Big Bang, the universe has been moving toward a square in that, through nuclear fusion and gravity, the total number of things has been decreasing while the number of different things has been increasing. The rectangle has been closing into a square.

What if we could test my concept of "The Lowest Information Point"? We saw how the universe as a whole is moving in this direction but could there be any way to test it on a limited scale?

It probably would not be a lab experiment because gravity is the primary vehicle for moving the universe toward the Lowest Information Point. But the test or experiment would have to be a closed system, with no outside influences, so that it could be a microcosm of the universe as a whole.

Although one way to easily illustrate this principle is to put a hot object in a cooler environment. The longer side of the rectangle is the temperature of the object, the shorter side the temperature of the environment. The rectangle will move toward being a square, with both at the same temperature.

What about our Solar System?

We know that our sun is a second-generation star because it already contains heavy elements that are beyond it's current stage in the fusion process. A large star exploded as a supernova and scattered it's component matter across space. Some of the matter fell back together by gravity to form the sun and planets.

This falling back together of the matter after the supernova is a microcosm of the Big Bang, which began the universe, and the general moving of the matter of the universe from an extremely elongated rectangle toward a square is reflected in the vast number of pieces of matter from the supernova falling back together by gravity into the relatively few planets and moons of the Solar System.

Gravity and nuclear fusion are the primary vehicles in moving the universe from the extreme rectangle that resulted from the Big Bang, a vast number of total things starting with hydrogen atoms, but very few different things, to fewer total things but more different things.

What I mean by the number of "different things" is the compound forms that atoms collect in. For example: stars, planets, galaxies, rocks, clouds, etc.

This is what I mean by the universe moving from being a rectangle to a square, which is a lower information point than a rectangle because both dimensions of a square are equal. One dimension represents the total number of things in the universe and the other dimension represents the number of different things. The universe will be at it's Lowest Information Point when the two are equal, meaning only one of each different thing that exists.

The Solar System is not an entirely closed system. It may be occasionally affected by the gravity of passing stars. But the nearest outside star, the Alpha Centauri system, is four light-years distant. The center of the galaxy, around which our sun revolves, is so distant that it's tidal effect, the difference in gravity from one side of the Solar System to the other, is minimal.

Other than within the sun, the newly-formed second-generation star, the Solar System did not have fusion as a vehicle, but did have gravity. All elements up to uranium were produced but some were much more common than others.

Have you ever noticed the amazing match between the abundances of the most common atoms and the scales of the planets? The Solar System is doing what it can to restore the square, which is the Lowest Information Point because the information in it's two dimensions are equal.

From the Wikipedia article "Abundance Of The Chemical Elements", here is a chart of a few of the most abundant elements in the universe and their mass fractions in parts per million.

Hydrogen 739,000

Helium 240, 000

Oxygen 10,400

Carbon 4,600

Neon 1,340

Iron 1,090

Nitrogen 960

Silicon 650

Now look at the relative scales of the planets in the Solar System.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System#/media/File:Planets2013.svg

Notice how there are two large planets, two somewhat smaller planets, and several small planets. This closely resembles the relative mass distribution of the most common elements.

This match between the two shows the validity of the Lowest Information Point, since it involves less information because it shares the same information. This is also part of another theory on this blog, "The Flow Of Information Through The Universe", January 2016, and that theory is actually an extension of "The Lowest Information Point".

17) THE NUMBER OF STARS IN THE UNIVERSE

There are a certain number of stars in the universe. Although we do not know the exact number that number is information, and information must come from somewhere. Why are there as many stars in the universe as there are?

My theory of "The Lowest Information Point" offers an answer. Although we cannot tell the actual number of stars, we can see where the number comes from.

The theory is based on the idea that energy and information is really the same thing. We cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it, and we cannot apply energy to anything without adding information to it.

Another way we can see that energy and information is really the same thing is in how we can make our lives physically easier by using technology, but only at the expense of making them more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make our lives physically easier and also less complex.

We know that the universe always seeks the lowest energy state. An object will fall to the ground because that requires less energy than holding it in the air. Matter collecting by gravity in space will form a sphere because a sphere is the three- dimensional geometric form with the lowest energy.

So then if the universe always seeks the lowest energy state, and energy and information is really the same thing, then the universe should also seek the "Lowest Information State", hence the name of the theory.

The lowest information state would mean reusing numbers. It would also mean preferring a square over a rectangle, a square requiring less information because it's two dimensions are equal. This can mean a square in pattern, and not necessarily an actual geometric square.

Another example of the Lowest Information Point is related ratios.

Suppose that we have two sets of related ratios as follows,

A / B = B / C and

A/ B = C/ D

The universe should prefer the first set of related ratios. It contains only three pieces of information whereas the second set contains four. The first set only contains three pieces of information because the numerator of one ratio, B, is also the denominator of the other ratio. Such reuse of numbers makes it possible for the universe to reach the lowest information point.

In the section  1) THE BIAS TOWARD DUST, according to my cosmology theory, "The Theory Of Stationary Space", everything in the universe, both space and matter, is composed of nearly-infinitesimal electric charges. Planck's Length is a nearly-infinitesimal distance that shows up in all manner of physics formulas, and the reason is that it is the size of one of these electric charges.

Then we have an idea of the scale of the entire universe.

The reason that so much of the matter in the universe is in the form of dust, at least the heavier elements that have been through the fusion process in stars, that there is a "bias toward dust", is explained by "The Lowest Information Point". It is that the typical scale of a speck of dust is exactly halfway between the nearly-infinite scale of the entire universe and the nearly-infinitesimal scale of it's component electric charges.

Such reuse of information is how the universe achieves the "Lowest Information Point".

So we see this clear relationship between the entire universe, the electric charges composing it, and the dust that is the form of so much of it's heavier matter. But what else might we be able to discern from it? There is a finite number of stars in that universe, but whatever that number is it is information, and information must come from somewhere, and the universe always seeks the "Lowest Information Point".

Googling the number of stars in the universe gives us a figure of a billion trillion. This number would be written as a 1 followed by 21 zeros. There are higher estimates that I have seen but this is the generally accepted figure, not counting red and brown dwarfs as stars.

Students of chemistry may notice how close this is, relatively speaking, to Avogadro's Number, which is 6.02 followed by 23 zeros. In fact, our figure for the approximate number of stars is just about a six hundredth of Avogadro's Number.

Avogadro's Number is the number of atoms or molecules in an object, relative to it's mass in grams.

The atomic mass of iron is 56, meaning that there are 56 nucleons, protons and neutrons, in an atom of iron.

So, if we get a piece of iron with a mass of 56 grams, it will contain Avogadro's Number of atoms.

The atomic mass, sometimes called the atomic weight, of an element is always the total number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus. Electrons have an equal, but opposite, electric charge to the proton but have so little mass that they don't count. We can also use molecular mass, meaning the total number of nucleons in a molecule.

A gram is about the mass of a paper clip. Avogadro's Number is an arbitrary unit based on a gram. If the gram was different then Avogadro's Number would be different.

The dust of which so much of the matter in the universe is composed, because of "The Bias Toward Dust", consists of many different elements which have different masses. We know that the component elements of dust must be heavier than the two lightest elements, hydrogen and helium, which were the original atoms of the universe before fusion in stars. We also know that, as a rule, lighter elements tend to be more abundant than heavier elements.

Suppose that the average mass of an atom in the dust of the universe is that of oxygen, with an atomic mass of 16. Remember that we should expect a mote of dust in the universe as a whole to be heavier than one on earth because dust in the universe, mostly debris from exploding stars that hasn't yet condensed by gravity into new stars, will tend to contain much more metal than dust on earth.

If Avogadro's Number is six hundred times the number of stars in the universe, and we divide that by sixteen, that means that if the average bit of dust in the universe had a mass of about 2/75 gram, it would mean that there is about the same number of stars in the universe as there is atoms in a typical speck of dust toward which the matter of the universe is biased and of which so much of the heavier matter of the universe is composed.

This would make perfect sense and would be an ideal example of the principle of "The Lowest Information Point". There is a bias toward dust because the scale of a typical mote of dust is exactly halfway between the scale of the universe itself and the scale of the nearly-infinitesimal electric charges of which the universe is composed. Then there is about the same number of atoms in one of these specks of dust as there is stars in the universe.

18) LAGRANGIAN POINTS AND THE LOWEST INFORMATION POINT

With the launch of the James Webb Space Telescope you will probably be hearing about Lagrangian (or Lagrange) Points so now would be a good time to have a look at what this is about.

Aside from the James Webb Space Telescope being much more powerful than the Hubble Telescope the main difference between the two is their location in space. The Hubble Telescope is in orbit around earth, at an altitude of about 500 km. The James Webb Telescope, in contrast, will be positioned much further out in space, about a million miles or 1.6 million km away. The James Webb Telescope will actually be in orbit around the sun, rather than the earth, but will be in a very special place, called a Lagrangian Point, that will keep it in the same position relative to the earth.

There is nothing really complicated about Lagrangian Points. When one astronomical object is in orbit around another, such as the earth around the sun or the moon around the earth, five Lagrangian Points are produced. These points are labeled L1 to L5 and are the points where there is some kind of balance between the two astronomical objects.

Because the smaller astronomical object will be in orbit around the larger one their Lagrangian Points will be continuously moving.

Only at the first two Lagrangian Points is the gravity of the earth and the sun actually equal. If we move toward the sun we reach a point where the gravity of the two are equally balanced, that is L1. If we move in the opposite direction, away from the sun, we reach another point where the gravity of the two is equally balanced, that is L2.

Gravity operates by the Inverse Square Law, an object at three times the distance will exert only one-ninth of the gravitational force. Gravitational force is proportional to mass. The sun is so much more massive than the earth that the gravity of the two balances at about 1% of the distance to the sun.

What is so interesting about L1 and L2 is that an object in either of these positions will orbit the sun at the same rate as the earth, even though it is closer to or further from the sun than the earth. The James Webb Telescope will be positioned at L2.

L3 is the point on the earth's orbit around the sun that is diametrically opposite to where the earth is now located. If we draw an equilateral triangle, with the sun at one of the points and the other two points on the earth's orbit and the present position of the earth in the middle of the side opposite the sun, the two points other than the sun are L4 and L5.

L4 and L5 are both on the earth's orbit around the sun. L4 is 60 degrees ahead of the earth, as it moves around the sun, and L5 is 60 degrees behind it.

Unlike L1 and L2, the gravity of the earth and sun is not equal at L3, L4 and, L5. What is so important about all of the Lagrangian Points is that they are "preferred" positions in space. Objects, whether asteroids or satellites or clouds of dust, "prefer" to be located at Lagrangian Points than elsewhere in space. Objects sometimes orbit around one of the points, even though there is nothing at the point.

Jupiter has large collections of asteroids at it's L4 and L5. These asteroids are known as the Greeks and the Trojans. One group is ahead of Jupiter in it's orbit around the sun, and the other group is behind it. Any Lagrangian Point is designated by the two astronomical bodies and it's number, such as Jupiter-sun L4. We wouldn't just state "Jupiter L4" because Jupiter's moons also create Lagrangian Points in their orbits around the planet. Both astronomical objects that create the Lagrangian Points have to be specified.

Another thing that is so interesting, and useful, about Lagrangian Points is that objects in space can move from one Lagrangian Point to another with much less energy than would usually be required. There is a network, called the Interplanetary Transport Network, along which objects can move with a lot less energy than would usually be required.

Since there are more than two astronomical objects in the universe Lagrangian Points must be more complex than this. At the same time that the earth has Lagrangian Points in it's orbit around the sun, the moon has Lagrangian Points in it's orbit around the earth. We have looked at what we could call "primary" Lagrangian Points, but there must also be "secondary" points which share one of the two astronomical objects. Also, Venus is almost as massive as the earth and there are times when it is closer to the earth's L4 and L5 than the earth is.

These rules of Lagrangian Points only apply when one astronomical object is in orbit around another and one object is many times as massive as the other. The rules may not apply, for example, to a double or multiple star system where the stars were closer to each other in relative mass.

The concept of Lagrangian Points fits perfectly with my theory of "The Lowest Information Point". The universe always seeks the Lowest Information Point. Energy is really the same thing as information. We cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it, and we cannot apply energy to anything without adding information to it. Another way we can see that energy and information is really the same thing is in how we can make our lives physically easier, by way of technology, but only at the expense of making them more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make our lives both physically easier and also less complex.

So if energy and information is really the same thing, and the universe always seeks the lowest energy state then it also must seek "The Lowest Information Point", hence the name of the theory.

Part of "The Lowest Information Point" is that the universe "prefers" an equality to an inequality. This is because an equality, such as A equals A, contains less information than an inequality, such as A does not equal B. An equality is preferred because it contains only one piece of information, A, while the inequality contains two.

In the same way the universe prefers a balance to an imbalance, simply because it contains less information. Complexity is expressed as the value of the denominator when a number is expressed as a ratio or fraction. If there cannot be an equality then a balance of 1/2 is preferred over 2/3 or 3/4 because 2 is the lowest denominator.

This is why the Lagrangian Points are preferred points in space, because the gravity of the two astronomical objects is in some kind of balance, if not directly equal as at L1 and L2.

Reusing information brings about "The Lowest Information Point". The distance between the earth and the sun is information and L3, L4 and, L5 achieve "The Lowest Information Point" by reusing this information.