The Universe With Us And Without Us*

This has been added to the compound posting on this blog, "The Theory Of Stationary Space".

It may seem that science should be a simple realm, meaning that a statement must be either true or false and two contradictory statements cannot both be true. This is the way mathematics is. If 5 + 4 = 9 is true then 5 + 4 = 7 must be false.

But science has shown itself to be a complex realm, where two apparently contradictory statements can both be true, at least under certain circumstances.

Consider that there is "classical physics", relativity and quantum physics. All three are well-established and have precepts that are provable by experimentation. But both relativity and quantum physics have things that are impossible to explain by "classical physics".

Many have tried, with little success, to unite relativity and quantum physics. The great dividing line between the two is the speed of light. in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, everything revolves around the speed of light. Mass, time and length can all be variable, but the speed of light always remains constant and nothing can ever travel faster than the speed of light.

But in quantum physics, the speed of light is not even a factor at all. Information moves between two entangled photons instantaneously, no matter how far apart they are, with no speed of light limitation.

Furthermore, in quantum physics even the act of observing or measuring something affects it's outcome. In the famous double-slit experiment, if we do not observe light passing through two parallel slits we can see by the diffraction pattern that photons of light passed through both slits. But if we do observe it, the absence of a diffraction pattern shows that photons passed through only one of the two slits. This is completely alien to both classical physics and relativity.

But if the physical sciences are so closely associated with mathematics, then how can mathematics be such a simple realm, where contradictory statements cannot be true, while science is a complex realm where contradictory statements sometimes can be true?

My cosmological theory has a simple explanation. One of the most important points of the theory is that we see the universe as we do not only because of what it is but also because of what we are.

There are two possible universes that we might see:

A) The universe with us.

B) The universe without us.

We could also refer to it as the "Internal Universe", which includes our perspective and our nature, and the "External Universe".

When humans first looked around them, it seemed that the earth was flat and that the astronomical bodies revolved around the earth. Later, of course, we found that the earth is spherical, rather than flat, and that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around.

As science progressed still further, we ran up against the bizarre realms of relativity and quantum physics and the contradictions that they bring about. But let's see how these compare with the earlier contradictions between what we see and what we later find to be true.

We know that the earth is not flat and that the astronomical bodies do not revolve around the earth. But then why do we see it that way if we know otherwise?

The answer is that to see the earth as spherical and revolving around the sun, we have to get ourselves out of the picture. If we see with our own eyes, with ourselves in the picture, we will see the earth as flat with the astronomical bodies revolving around it.

The flat earth with all of the astronomical bodies revolving around it is the universe with us.

The spherical earth revolving around the sun is the universe without us.

The difference is in whether we collect and analyze data or whether we put our direct perspective into it. Neither is really correct or incorrect. If we look at architectural blueprints, the earth appears to be flat as there is no reason to involve it's curvature on a large scale. For the purpose of telling time, it is fine to refer to sunrise and sunset, as if the sun were going around the earth. It depends whether or not we are in the picture.

Now, let's move on to the development of relativity and quantum physics. The two are not compatible with classical physics, or with each other. But considering the above example of the apparent flat earth and earth-centered universe, wouldn't it be logical that this is another case of "The universe with us" against "The universe without us"?

We know that the classical physics of the spherical earth revolving around the sun, and not vice-versa, represents "The universe without us" that displaced the flat earth with everything apparently revolving around us of "The universe with us". Given that, wouldn't it seem that the first place to look at why relativity and quantum physics have such a contradiction with classical physics is that maybe those two represent "The universe with us"?

For another thing, none of these three branches is able to explain that time actually is. Relativity explains how time is affected as an object moves at speeds approaching the speed of light, but still doesn't tell us exactly what time is. Classical physics and quantum physics don't have much at all to say about what time is.

What about my cosmology theory? Have you ever thought that maybe what we perceive as particles of matter, such as electrons, are really strings in four-dimensional space and our consciousnesses are moving along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light? That is why the speed of light is so absolutely constant and everything seems to revolve around it and no one can explain what time is in terms of physics.

Relativity is "The universe with us", which is why it cannot be explained by the classical physics of "The universe without us". Time is something that is within us, which is why it has never been explained by classical physics. That is why I named my cosmology theory "The Theory Of Stationary Space", because everything is really still and it is only our movements and the movement of our consciousness that is the only "new" motion in the universe.

Electrons are one-dimensional strings in space. Light is two-dimensional waves in the background matrix of alternating negative and positive electric charges that comprise empty space. The only way that we can see, or measure of receive light in any way, is to have it interact with matter. When light interacts with matter it must absorb some of the energy in the light. Electrons are in orbitals around atoms so light interacting with matter usually means with an electron. But since light is a two-dimensional wave while electrons are only one-dimensional strings, that means that matter can absorb only one of light's two-dimensions.

Quantum physicists describe light as having both a wave and a particle nature, which seems contradictory and alien to classical physics. But since matter interaction, including seeing, involves contact with one-dimensional electrons, that means that one dimension of the light must be left over. Since my cosmology theory has what we see as particles as really one-dimensional strings, that explains the particle nature of light and the particles that we see as photons.

A photon is light where one of the two dimensions has been absorbed by interaction with matter. That explains the mysterious double-slit experiment. The only way that we can observe or measure light is to have it interact with matter, and this means absorbing one of it's two dimensions.

The speed of light is not a factor in quantum physics because time is really within us, the movement of our consciousness along the bundles of strings comprising our bodies and brains, and while that is a factor when we are moving, it is not a factor when we are seeing. Quantum physics is also "The universe with us", which is why it can never be explained by the classical physics of "The universe without us".

Relativity and quantum physics both, unlike classical physics, involve our perspective.

Special relativity is the effects that we observe revolving around the fact that our consciousness is moving along the bundles of strings that compose our bodies and brains at what we perceive as the speed of light. Matter is really strings in four-dimensional space but we perceive them as particles in three-dimensional space because we perceive the fourth dimension of space as time.

Quantum physics is the effects that we observe revolving around the fact that light, or any electromagnetic radiation, consists of two-dimensional waves, while the electrons in orbitals around the atoms in our eyes and measuring devices are one-dimensional strings. When light interacts with matter an electron absorbs energy from the light. But it can absorb only one of the two dimensions and this leaves the one-dimensional "particles" of light that we refer to and perceive as photons. This explains the wave-particle duality of light.

What we perceive as particles are really one-dimensional strings because we perceive one of the four dimensions of space as time. This is why information can move instantaneously between two entangled photons, without being bound at all by the speed of light.

I see my cosmology theory not as another branch, but as the way to link these three branches together.

This concept of two views of the universe, one with us and one without us, means that we have to be more careful about deciding that one scientific theory is correct, while another is incorrect. it might be that one is describing the universe with us while the other is the universe without us.

An ideal example is the nature of light. Prominent scientists like Rene Descartes, Robert Boyle and, Sir Isaac Newton developed a theory that light was composed of particles, which they named "corpuscles". But this could not explain the observed behaviors of light when it is passed through such optical devices as lenses, prisms and, diffraction gratings. Even though it was Sir Isaac Newton who first demonstrated that white light could be broken down into it's component colors through a prism.

The balance shifted toward the theory that light was composed of waves. This was put forth by the Dutch scientist Christaan Huygens and did explain all of the optical behaviors of light.

But then when quantum physics came along, it turned out that it's photons were just like the old "corpuscles", which were particles of light. Quantum physics described light as having both a wave and a particle nature. But what that meant is that both of the old theories could be correct. The "corpuscles" or photons represent "The universe with us" and the waves represent "The universe without us".