A New Radical Concept of Gravity

Professor Hawking once mentioned that, gravity may provide a limit to the 'sequence of boxes within boxes' in our attempt to unveil the secrets of the universe". In viewing a different kind of gravity, this notion should be reversed - gravity may lead us to understand why there is that sequence of boxes within boxes. This is the final article and its goal is to describe a kind of gravity, more consistent with these recent developments in the studies of modern science.

Arguments About Space

In our common daily experiences, when we talk about 'space', it pertains to an unoccupied area, as an example, an 'empty room' where nothing could be found - no table, no chair or anything at all (except the walls and the ceiling). Or, space maybe a place where one could occupy, such as, an 'available seat' in an auditorium. But in a more scientific situation, when we talk about space, it pertains to the 'outerspace' where there is no air or any substance present. However, space based on its geometrical description, is that limitless three-dimensional expanse within which all bodies exist.

But space a 'real thing'? There are people who are insisting that space is not a material thing (or substance), such as a dough or a rubber and it is not capable of expanding. Others think of space as an imaginary concept, existing only in our minds and never in a real world. But in mathematics and physical sciences, space is considered a 'fact', Therefore, it is just logical to deal space as 'real' and 'existing'. But there was also this hypothesis (or theory), postulating that during the Big Bang scenario, 'space' along with time, matter and energy were all been simultaneously created. In that case, it is valid argument to say that space is also expanding as the universe matured (since both time and space are directly proportional). It is where the confusion started, is it the 'spaces in between galaxies' that are expanding? The following arguments may give us a clear understanding of space.

First Argument:

“The 'absolute space in its purest empty form' is the one that is infinite and static.”

One way to clear up the confusions and misconception about an expanding space (that is, ‘it is the space that is expanding’), is to establish first the concept about ‘where’ or ‘what’ the universe is expanding ‘INTO’. If space, along with time, matter and energy were all been simultaneously created (or existed), during the very instance of the Big Bang scenario, it would be valid to argue that ‘space’ is a property of the universe. Therefore, the ‘entity’ (whatever it is), into which the universe is expanding, could not be a space at all. The question then, “what could it be”? It would be a good idea to ‘postulate’, that it is the ‘absolute space’ (or total void), based on the classical geometry of Euclid (in which “space is three-dimensionally flat, empty and limitless”), into which the universe is expanding. This would indicate that space is a separate entity into which the universe is ‘interacting’ and not the other way around. Therefore, if the recent studies indicate that the expansion of the universe is likely to be ‘indefinite’- the first argument is valid. The obvious reason is, if the ‘total void is limited’, it would be ‘impossible’ for the universe to expand indefinitely.

Second Argument:

“This absolute space in its purest empty form (simply call it a 'total void'), is not affected by time, always exist and would never diminish nor destroy.”

Postulating a ‘total void’ as the one infinite and static, would only indicate that it would not also be affected by time. Time is a property of motion and vice versa. In a total void, nothing existed – no matter, energy nor changes to observe. Therefore, time is not part of the ‘total void’. Since no changes to observe, implying that it always exist and would never diminish nor destroy only emphasize the ‘absolute’ character of a ‘total void’.

Third Argument:

“It is the universe itself that is a part or a mere portion of this 'total void' ”

It is a widely accepted idea that the universe began from a point of singularity. It is popularly known as the "Big Bang" Theory. Experts say that there was no really an explosion and the universe never came from a little ball of fire. The occurrence was rather an event, ”filling all of space” with all of the particles of the embryonic universe, rushing away from each other. Majority of the experts, supported the theory that what occurred was a huge split-second inflation of the universe, followed by gradual expansion that continues this day and now accelerating. Therefore, it is a valid idea to hypothesize that it is the universe that ‘interacts’ (or intermingle), with the total void. The word “total” in the phrase ‘total void’ does not denote the ‘sum totality’ of the absolute space. ‘Infinity’ is the reciprocal of zero, which is ‘immeasurable’. Therefore a total void is immeasurable. The part which the universe occupied within this ‘total void’ would also be immeasurable and therefore, to determine its ratio with the total void would be ‘irrational’. To make it clear, the word ‘total’ denotes ‘pure emptiness’ which could be abstract but a valid idea.

Fourth Argument:

“It is the universe itself which is self-forming, consists of matters and energies and affected by time that interacts with space.”

1) It was a fundamental belief that between every celestial body in the cosmos are separated by empty spaces. But recent studies seems to indicate that it is not much of the 'visible' things such as the planets, the stars and galaxies that define our Universe but rather, the 'unseen' things in the void around them that truly define it. It was formerly theorized that space itself is not flat but is curved (or warped), by the distribution of mass and energy in the universe. Recently, some scientists are considering adopting the idea that beside the ordinary matters and energies known to science, there might exists two other types of matter and energy in the universe – popularly known as dark matter and dark energy. In that case, it is a valid argument to hypothesize that the universe consists of matters and energies (although they have different types).

2) Time is as abstract as space. It has no physical feature but we definitely accept that it is real and existing. But we can sense the passing of time by the ‘changes’ that we observe around us. The continuing expansion of the universe only proves that it is ‘changing’, a valid reason to argue that the universe is affected by time.

3) The universe is self-forming that ‘interacts’ (or intermingle), with space seems to be ‘new’ and unconventional idea. In that case, it needs an extensive ‘explanations’ to visualize the validity of this argument.

Hawking’s Self-Contained Universe

In his attempt to unify gravity with quantum mechanics (popularly known as ‘quantum theory of gravity), Stephen Hawking suggested to incorporate Feynman’s ‘sum over histories’ formula with the use of ‘imaginary time’ and taking Einstein’s space-time (with a curved space), to be Euclidean (to make a curved space re-appear flat?). In doing that, he concluded then that the universe would become completely ‘self-contained’ and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. What is significant with this proposal is that the ‘singularity’, from where the universe began, as a point of infinite density would be automatically eliminated – “there would be no singularities at which the laws of science become insignificant”. He also hypothesized that there would be no edge or boundary for space-time because the direction of time is at the same footing as to the direction of space, implying that the universe would has no boundary at all. In viewing the universe as self-contained, it would indicate then, that space is indeed, a property of the universe – bringing back the question of ‘what’ the universe is expanding into. Another thing is, if the universe is expanding but self-contained, it would imply that space itself should also expand along with the universe. The no boundary condition of the universe, on the other hand, is an indication that the universe would possibly expand indefinitely, which match today’s observation. The issue here are, if the universe is self-contained but both space and time to be infinite (or space-time itself infinite), this would give us the ‘impression’ that the universe has no edge or boundary – does this shows, that the ‘universe maybe infinite’ (through a quantum theory of gravity), but only appears to be expanding in the real world? On the other hand, if the universe is self-contained and space-time finite (in a quantum theory of gravity), but in a sense, has a property (or ability), to continue expanding forever, it would imply that ‘space’ itself does expand and not merely a ‘metric’ kind of expansion. Is it really the space itself that has the capability to expand?

There is another interpretation of this Hawking’s mathematical proposal. Maybe, the universe appears to have a singularity because the past universe is still the ‘same’ but only smaller in size. What occurred was, there might be a time in the past that the universe completed its structure and then started to expand, three dimensionally. All the things it contained (if that how Hawking interpreted it), are also expanding in size. But “Hawking’s self-contained universe”, in a way, is ‘no longer the accurate description’ of the universe that we have today (due to recent observations of the Universe) - it is maybe ‘self-forming’, maintaining (itself), to remain cohesive as well as homogeneous while interacting with the ‘total void’. It would continue to expand forever, constantly producing both ordinary matters and dark matters from its source.

The Combined ‘Big Bang and Steady-State’ Theory

(Note: Merely an Informal Theory or Hypothesis)

The difference between the proponents of the Big Bang and the Steady State is that, the former believe that the universe began from a point of singularity of infinite density while the proponents of the Steady State believe that the universe is continuing to form from the new matter (a ‘term’ originally coined by Bondi and Gold), that constantly created in between galaxies. In viewing a different kind of gravity, both theories could be correct. The actual event that happened was, the Big Bang occurred first before the Steady State. There is a consensus that majority of the experts, supported the theory that what occurred was a huge split-second inflation of the universe, followed by gradual expansion that continues this day and now accelerating. Decades ago, astronomers found out that galaxies are not just moving away from each other, they have sideway velocities, indicating that in the past, galaxies were just close to each other. But what if, there was a time in the past that “the universe was already completed its structure but existed as a tiny version of our current universe”? This would imply that all matters and spaces (that we thought empty), in between matters are also expanding, three-dimensionally. As first impression, the statements above are clearly not true in reality. But the argument is very similar to Alexander Friedmann's two simple assumptions when he defended his claim that we should not expect the universe to be static. The expansion is not noticeable at small scale but more evident, in large scale. Again, there is also this similar logic reason to support this argument as Feynman pointed out when Einstein theorized that at the speed of light, the mass of a body tremendously increases - "Philosophically, we are completely wrong with approximating law. Our entire picture of our world has to be altered even though the mass (of an atom), changes a little bit. This is a very peculiar thing about the philosophy or ideas, behind the laws. Even a small effect, sometimes required profound changes in our ideas." The ‘profound change of idea’ here this time, is that, “all matters and spaces (which consist of unseen dark matters) are expanding three-dimensionally although at near or small scale, this is negligible (or unnoticeable)”.

The Higgs Field and Pure Energy

Peter Higgs, along with Brout and Englert, suggested that all particles had no mass after the Big Bang but as the universe cooled down, particles started to had masses due to an interaction with an invisible field known as the ‘Higgs Field’ which prevailed throughout the universe. The idea behind this Higgs Field solution came from the assumption that to make the unification of all forces in nature work (Grand Unified Theory), it requires that the force-carrying particles must have no mass at all. Specifically, any particle (or group of particles), that interacted with this field were given a mass, meaning, the more they interacted, the heavier or massive they became. Whereas particles that not affected by this field (or did not interacted), were left with no mass at all. But the fundamental definition or property of matter is that it must has a mass (or weight) and volume (it must occupy space). A particle is a minute or tiny part of a matter, ‘it is still considered as matter’, even how much small it is, therefore, it still occupying space (although in a very small volume) and must has mass ( and never zero). How could be a particle had no mass, unless it is not a particle at all. The idea of an ‘absolute pure energy’, although just an abstract concept, suggests that at its pure form, it does not contain any particle but pure energy field with enormous force at almost infinite frequency. This could be similar (in theory), to the ‘Higgs field’ that prevails throughout the universe. This pure energy, until now is still constantly emitting energy from its source (from a center of the universe?), continues prevailing throughout the universe to give particles, willing to interact with it, the acquired mass and the fully structured matters to acquire more mass and volume (that is, to expand three-dimensionally). In elementary physics, there are two kinds of particles – the matter particles (fermions) and the force-carrying particles (bosons).The matter particles obey the Pauli’s exclusion principle which stated that no two similar particles can exist in the same state of energy while the force-carrying particles can influence (interact), with matter particles and could exchange forces with them. After the split second scenario of the Big Bang, the first batch of waves of the pure energy scattered and occupied a large space (hypothesized as purely empty), and lost all their forces and began converting themselves into matter particles. The next batch of waves pushed these matter particles and later, also lost all the forces. The layers of matter particles became heavier that the succeeding waves of pure energy simply bounce back and interact with the outgoing waves of pure energy (coming from a central source). As they hit each others head on, they automatically converted themselves into matter particles (and not merely annihilate themselves as others suggested). Some waves, having no direct impact, simply bounce back and forth, pressing the developing matter particles into real matters as solids, liquids and gases. Later, the waves of this pure energy behaved like the ‘Higgs field’, converting into similar particles that converged with the developing matters, giving these matters, masses as well as volumes. It took millions of years to complete this process to create stars, planets and galaxies. After the universe completed its structure, the Higgs field constantly interacts with matters, making them heavier (increases in mass) and larger (increases in volume), every second of a time.

The Higgs bosons (or force-carrying particles), could be interpreted this way - as the waves from the pure energy no longer propagate at a very high speed due to increasing amount of elementary particles (much more basic than the quarks?), that remained as themselves and scattered in what we thought as empty spaces in the universe, these waves tried to pass through the narrow spaces in between these particles, creating tiny gaps between particles. These particles that remained as themselves (maybe they were not affected by the wave interactions from the early universe), known to quantum physics as ‘particles that do not interact with the Higgs field’, scattered in large amount in space could be the same, unseen stuff that the scientists detected as dark matter. These new batches of waves from the pure energy that constantly trying to create a gap of space in between these ‘undeveloped’ particles, at the end, would loose all their powers (or forces) and soon, convert themselves into the same form of particles. Therefore, the amount of dark matter would constantly increase, creating an unseen force that seems pushing the galaxies apart, popularly known as the dark energy. If the recent findings shows that the expansion of the universe is indefinite (or forever expanding), it would be valid to hypothesize that the stock (or amount), of this pure energy would also be ‘absolute’. Therefore, the proper description of our Universe would be like this – it is similar to an expanding transparent balloon which contains ordinary matters that constantly growing, immersed in an ocean of dark matters that are also constantly increasing in amount from a source of pure energy somewhere out there at the center of the universe itself.

Einstein’s Curved Space

In 1915, Einstein introduced the General Theory of Relativity. Initially, he hypothesized that gravity was not a force of any kind. He believed that space, (or his spacetime, itself), is not flat but warped by the presence of bodies that curved the spaces near them. He assumed that a body like the Earth is not really moving in a circular orbit but rather follow the nearest thing to a straight path in a curved space, also known as ‘geodesic path’. While on the other hand, he also hypothesized that rays of light must also follow a geodesic path in spacetime (this time, in opposite way), that light is not really always moving in a straight path but sometimes curving, near a massive body - giving the idea that light should be bent by gravitational field. These imply the reversible relationship of bodies (or matter), and spacetime. Moving bodies (such as the planets), are affected by spacetime while at near massive body (like the sun), spacetime warps or distorts (as the evident of bending of light rays). Historically, the basic postulate of General Relativity originally suggested that a ‘uniform gravitational field’ (such as near the Earth), is equivalent to a ‘uniform acceleration’. It implied that “a person cannot tell the difference between standing on the surface of the Earth, feeling the effect of gravity (or force of gravitational pull) from the same effect, standing inside an elevator that is accelerating in upward direction (in respect to the man’s position inside the elevator), at a uniform rate of 9.8 meters per second per second”. But it seems not clear (as a personal view), if Einstein pertained this ‘gravitational field’ as due to gravitational force of a body (such as the Earth), or simply due to the ‘property of a space warping or curving’ by the presence of massive bodies. If it is due to gravitational force, therefore, Einstein admitted the validity of Newtonian gravity and like a bar of magnet with a magnetic field, gravitational field could be due to the “unseen attracting forces present at the surroundings of a certain body”. But if this gravitational field is ‘somewhat’ spatial in nature, then our understanding of space as according to Euclidean geometry as ‘purely empty’ seems to be wrong. If ‘gravitational field’ is spatial in nature, there is ‘something’ present in space or if not, ‘space’ itself (which is invisible but does exist), could be the one having the property to bend the rays of light at near a massive body. In a way, we could visualize (or imagine), the curvature of spacetime, the way ‘Hans von Baeyer’ described it - “spacetime is like an ‘invisible stream’, flowing ever onward, bending to objects in its path and carrying everything in the Universe (things moving in space), along with its twists and turns”. But some people “do not conform to the idea that ‘space’ is a material thing”. The question would be what is spacetime and why it curves the space and ‘dilate time’, as General Relativity suggested?

There could be an alternate reason why Einstein thought that “space is curved or warped by the presence of matter and energy in the Universe”. During the time that Einstein announced his Theory of General Relativity, most people at that time (1915), believed that the Universe is static. It would be contradicting to propose that the Earth along with everything in the Universe, to be expanding three-dimensionally (if one assume that the surface of the Earth, as the way the elevator in the basic postulate of General Relativity move, is also accelerating in upward motion at a uniform rate of 9.8 meters per second per second) - an idea which was basically against Einstein’s own belief that the Universe is static (that is, the Universe is not expanding). So he proposed the idea of a curved space. But Alfred Friedmann disagreed with him. He was the first person who openly argued (before Hubble’s discovery of galaxies receding from one another), that Einstein’s General Relativity suggested that the Universe should be in its expanding mode. The ‘metric expansion of space’ (a Friedmann’s solution to Einstein’s General Relativity), was not been given wide acceptance not until 1998, when reports about the supernova explosion implies that the Universe is in its ‘exponential expanding mode’, at an indefinite duration (meaning, the Universe would be expanding forever). Astronomical observations are also leading strong evidences of the validity of two of Friedmann’s assumptions (Isotropic), under the category of ‘Cosmological Principles’ which suggest that: 1) The Universe should look identical in whichever direction we look at it, 2) and this idea would still hold true if one observe the Universe from anywhere else. Therefore, “Einstein’s curved space”, like Hawking’s self-contained universe, is ‘no longer the accurate description’ of our Universe, if based on these recent developments.

Today, theoretical cosmologists agree upon at only three valid conditions that seem to conform on how we observe our Universe – the Cosmological Principle that the universe is both 1) isotropic and 2) homogenous and the last, the 3) Copernicen Principle that no point in space or any place in the universe can be considered as its center. Therefore, the metric expansion of space is likely to be one good aspect to consider in designing a model of the universe, it seems to be that the ‘metric expansion of space’ is correct in describing the behavior of our Universe today. Again, there is this alternate interpretation to explain the above observations of the universe.

Our Basic Concepts of Near and Far

If an object appears big and we are certain that it is actually small (such an example, an apple), we conclude then, that that object is too close or near to us (to be specific, too near to our face). On the other hand, if we are certain an object is big (such an example, a building) but appears small, we conclude that that object is too far. These are how we observe things. If a person tries to cross a street and he saw the front of a car appears getting bigger each seconds of a time, he is certain then that he could be in danger - a fast moving car is about to hit him. If one looks up in the sky and saw a jet plane appearing to be getting smaller and seems vanished in thin air, he is also certain that a fast flying object is moving away from him. The above examples are the basic concepts of how we perceive objects being near and far from us. But our concept of being near and far when observing the universe seems to be a different story. There is this speculation that the metric expansion of space is effective only at large distances that separate clusters of galaxies and not at the small local distances of celestial bodies of few lightyears away from us. This leads to the confusions and debates of why CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background), is being effective only at large scale distances while MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics), at local small distances. But consider this unconventional analysis:

At very far distances (millions of lightyears away?), the spaces in between galaxies are observed expanding (as mere metric function?), while galaxies only appearing as dots of lights, are observed to be moving away from each other. Due to the very far distances of those dots of lights from us, we are certain enough to conclude that those tiny dots of lights are actually ‘gigantically’ large galaxies (but still, we do nt have such an accurate instrument at this time that could directly measure their actual sizes), but because we can detect their ‘redshifts’ indirectly, we conclude (as far as the experts say), that they are moving away from us and at the same time, moving away from each other. But what if the individual components of these galaxies (the millions of stars, planets, etc. that comprise a single galaxy) are also expanding three-dimensionally? This seems to a radical idea but the point here is that any body (or matter in particular), occupies space and if the metric function of the what-we-thought empty spaces-in-between bodies are expanding, then, it would not also be valid to apply it to the occupied spaces, giving the impression that the spaces occupied by these bodies would also be expanding? This implies that the bodies themselves are also growing. There is this consensus that the over all average increase of distances in the universe is calculated as one percent every 140 million years. Limiting our concept that only at large scale distances that the metric expansion of space is applicable and not at close or near (small), distances seems to be inaccurate. The ‘three-dimensional expansion of everything in the universe’ is obvious if the numbers involved mathematically, are at very large numbers. The fact that ‘Lambda’ (Einstein’s cosmological constant), is extremely small (calculated to be ‘10 to the power of negative 120’ of Planck’s unit) although considering that it is positive (contributing to the acceleration of the universe’s over-all expansion), is still unnoticeable if the numbers involved mathematically, are very small (such as the size of the earth’s expansion or the solar system’s itself). This idea might settle the question of why CMB is effective only at large scale distances of cosmos while MOND at local or small distances.

Arguments About Gravity

Listed below are some of the most popular theories about gravity, each had distinctive opinions:

1. Law of Universal Gravitation by Newton
2. General Theory of Relativity by Einstein
3. Supergravity Theory
4. String Theory by Scherk and Schwarz

The Law of Universal Gravitation (L.U.G.) could be the simplest theory. Its principle is very similar to magnetism. Like a magnet, a body has a tendency to attract and the strength of force is concentrated at the center of the body, Unique about L.U.G is it consider gravity as a natural force, a nature-given property of a body and that the strength of gravitational pull are based on two factors – masses of individual bodies and the distances between each bodies.

While the principle behind Supergravity Theory is very similar to electromagnetism. It consider gravity as composed of small particles called gravitons. The gravitational field is generated by gravitons in motion, similar to the magnetic field generated by electrons in motion.

Next is the String Theory. This theory suggests that gravity is composed of bundles of very thin (no thickness) rubber bands which are also very long (infinite length), each with a tremendous tension of about x10³⁹ greater than the ordinary rubber band that is connected to two bodies. Unique about this theory is that the strength of force is in the string itself and not in the bodies involved. In this string theory, gravity is considered as wave.

The last theory is the General Theory of Relativity. This is the only theory that declared gravity is not a force. In this theory, gravity has to do with bodies moving in geodesics in a curved space-time. In the author’s view, this theory is more related to what he called “geometrical physics”, describing physics analogous to geometry.

What is the significance of these theories? They have one common goal – to achieve a consistent theory of gravity.

Generations before Hubble’s discovery thought that the Law of Universal Gravitation was the sacred law of science that explains how nature works. But today, science no longer considered it as a consistent theory. In 1915, General Theory of Relativity emerged. This theory proved its consistency on how the Universe behaves but it implied that the Universe was originated from a point of singularity with infinite density. Also, the fact that Modern Physics regarded gravity as one of the elementary forces of nature disproved Einstein’s argument that gravity is not a force. But still this theory is considered valid but possibly incomplete. In 1976, with the success of Quantum Mechanics in dealing with elementary particles, led to the suggestion of supergravity. But still, with the failure to prove that gravitons do exists and other inconsistencies involved, scientists doubt it as the right approach to define gravity. After a decade, in the eighties, string theories were revived. Although string theories (including M-theory), seems to be anomaly-free, the complexities involved to relate it to gravity still doubt scientists but admit, they could not deny their importance. Hawking classified General Relativity as a classical theory, suggesting that all the laws of physics would collapse in a major singularity (Singularity Theorem). But he refused to accept that – he is confident that there could be away to explain the origin of the Universe. It is possible if quantum mechanics could be applied to gravity. He even proposed a mathematical analysis, modifying equations to achieve a possible unification of General Relativity and quantum mechanics and called it the “quantum theory of gravity”. But the problem was that, it was purely in mathematical form. Although they knew already at that time some of the features that such theory should have (that was in 1988), there were still no other theories related to Physics that supported it.

Hawking's book, "A Brief History of Time" was published in 1988. Since then, up to this time (2009), gravity still remains a 'mystery'. Is gravity a force, an effect caused by a curved space or by 'superstrings'...or is it just a 'myth'? The arguments still continue and part of them is this 'hypothesis.

A Universe Without A Force of Gravity

The idea of the ‘three-dimensional expansions of everything in the universe’ would still conform to the Cosmological and Copernican Principles. It would also match the idea of the basic postulate of General Relativity that gravity is the same as the uniform acceleration of a body riding in a certain vehicle (emphasize to the word ‘riding’), as represented by the earth’s surface moving upward (while a man is on top of it), in a uniform acceleration of 9.8 meters per second per second - implying that the earth’s size (or volume), is increasing (as well as its mass), each seconds of a time. I personally admit that I thought that “everything would proportionally increase” (in my original hypothesis), with the increase in volume and mass of the earth but maybe, things only appear that way in a near or close distances because we are not noticing the differences in increase (implying that everything are not really proportionally increasing), due to some sort of ‘special optical illusions’ that trick us on how we perceive things that ‘are growing but getting far’ from us (as we, ourselves are also growing). I believe there could be a mathematical relationship to that, based on the Friedmann’s solution. This idea would also imply that the earth (as a particular example) is not really circling around the sun, in a stationary orbit but rather, in a spiral path outwardly away from the sun as the sun itself, also increasing in size (and in weight or mass too). I also believe that the mathematics involved here would not be that simple. In viewing the universe this way, the space would not appear ‘curved’ but somewhat like a ‘logarithmic flat space’ (is that the right term?), to an observer in any particular place in the universe, perceiving bodies in very near and very far places in the cosmos, the same way as we perceive them here on earth. Therefore, gravity is not due to ‘a property of a body to attract another body’ but the effect of what we thought as a pull of gravity is due to the “three-dimensional expansions of everything in the universe”.

Tides and Black Holes

The proponents of the ‘Newtonian gravity’ firmly insisting that both the sun and the moon’s gravities affect the earth, trying to pull everything on it, toward them - as the evidence of the increase in level of ‘sea waters’ during noon times and full moons. Also, the ‘rendezvous’ trip followed by Apollo 11 in its journey to the moon and back to Earth were due to the gravitational forces of the moon and the Earth. These are the areas where this ‘new radical concept of gravity’ seems to be weak. But considering that space is not really empty (that there is some ‘invisible stuff’ on it), and the earth is spiraling outwardly from the sun, the same way as the moon from the earth while everything is growing (including the size of this ‘invisible stuff’), there could be a similar effect that may cause the sea waters to push (or concentrate), themselves in one area of the surface of the earth. It would be much better if this scenario is created (as a ‘simulation’), through a ‘computer generated animation’, to either confirm the validity of this idea or disprove this ‘claim’ in one go as mere “hallucination” and accept my defeat.

The other thing is the issue of blackholes. There are studies showing that black holes do not really exist. In viewing this kind of gravity (as due to the ‘three dimensional expansion of everything in the universe), there is no room for a blackhole to consider as existing. But still, there is a possibility. A blackhole could be the ‘site’ where two expanding ‘spacetime’ meet, carrying with them both the ordinary and dark matters in a violent collisions. In the process, they emit gamma and x-ray radiations but the large percentage of these disintegrating materials are converted back into ‘pure energy’ that keep the universe expanding. Therefore, a blackhole in this sense is somewhat like a feedback circuit of an electronic circuitry that ‘stabilizes’ the whole system of the universe - keeping the constant expansion of the universe, indefinitely.

The Significance of this Hypothesis

Viewing a different kind of gravity by ‘literally’ hypothesizing that the “earth along with everything in the universe is expanding three-dimensionally” was presented in this blog as an ‘alternate venue’ for scientists to consider. One good question to take notice of is ‘why there seems to be a non-ending sequence of boxes within boxes’ in our attempt to find answers about our Universe? In a universe where everything is expanding three-dimensionally indefinitely, any attempt to find the smallest particles as the most basic building blocks (or the ‘true’ elementary particles), would only frustrate scientists – it would be a never-ending search for them due to a reason that all things are growing in the universe every ‘tick of a clock’. But maybe one day we might find a way, if we are smart enough to formulate a mathematical equation that would indirectly point us into that direction. Another question is why ‘dark matter’ is invisible and undetectable by the most modern ‘instruments’ of today? It might be of a similar reason - ‘dark matter’ might be composed of the ‘true elementary particles’ (much smaller than the quarks), but as these instruments grow along with everything in the universe, these ‘true’ elementary particles become ‘too tiny’ for these instruments to either ‘see’ or ‘detect’. Haven’t you noticed that as these instruments and machines of modern technology, becoming more sophisticated, accurate and precise in exploring the very depth of the sub-atomic world and reaching the farthest corners of the universe, the more it seems that we deeply buried and getting farther away from achieving our dream of a ‘unified theory’?

Knowing ‘what is dark matter and what is it made of (that is, its specific components)’, is not part of this hypothesis (I leave these questions to other people who are more knowledgeable in this field of science). Simply to make it clear, “relating dark matter to dark energy” is what this blog’s sole concern. While the word ‘pure energy’, on the other hand, is a layman’s term for that ‘initial’ energy released from the Big Bang – as other more accepted ‘scientific’ hypotheses are trying to present it as a ‘vacuum energy’, Higgs’ energy field, etc. Therefore, this blog is ‘limited’ only in areas related to the idea, where “gravity is defined as due to the uniform accelerating upward motion of a man standing on the surface of the earth”.

If we are dreaming of a ‘unified theory’ that could explain everything in one go as Hawking mentioned in his book “A Brief History of Time”, this hypothesis might be a good one, ‘appropriate enough’ in trying to achieve it. One good reason is that, there would be no need for two opposing forces (the attracting ‘gravitational force’ and a repelling ‘anti-gravitational force’), that would only subdivide our universe into different portions that sometimes attract or sometimes repel ‘bodies’ that in a way, would only complicate further of understanding of our Universe. Therefore, this blog as a whole is aiming to simplify the assumptions and approximations in dealing with how we interpret these recent developments in science and attained a valid model of a universe that would match such observations. But still, as Hawking also mentioned, the problem of extracting the ‘predictions’ would remains a formidable one.

CONCLUSION

There was once, a certain philosopher, Bishop Barkeley, who believed that all material objects, space and time are only illusions. In a way, he is correct, if one project this Universe in a fifth dimensional view but the difference is that, God gave us this sense of feeling – the sensation of “pull or push”. Although the author declared that gravity is not the same as Newton’s attracting force and in a way, supports Einstein’s view that gravity is not a force, its effect, “this gravitational effect”, makes things real because we are sensing it as a pull of attraction ( although possibly, the other way around, an outward push from the center of the earth).

There is also this character, a certain “Scott Adam” whose ideas were ridiculed as ‘crazy’ by his critic (or maybe a bunch of critics), as he gave this opinion that “scientists can’t find gravity, no matter how hard they look, and that Einstein’s explanation of gravity as spacetime curvature is somehow ‘useless’…that our perception of gravity is only an optical illusion” is somewhat similar to Bishop Barkeley. In a way, his idea of gravity is indeed, very similar to the author’s idea of gravity by hypothesizing that, “…instead of gravity being an attracting force, it is merely the doubling in size of all objects every second – we wouldn’t perceive it as increase in size, because we’d be increasing along with all the other objects”. His critic, ended in a comment, “Adam’s claims not to be able to think of any reason why it won’t work, and that he floated the idea in a Dilbert Newsletter and received no satisfactory objections, which just goes to show the ‘quality of thinking’ of readers of that newsletter”. This ‘written work’ did the explaining for Scott Adam and I will let my readers ‘judge’ it for themselves.

This is just a proposal, an informal theory that the author believes, would bring again the world of science in a lively interaction - one party in favor of gravity as a force and the other, in favor of Einstein’s argument that gravity is not a force and the issue between an 'Infinite Static Universe' against the 'Big Bang Theory'. But at the end, as Karl Popper emphasized, a good theory is characterized (or could survive) by the way its predictions, in principle, agree or disagree with experiments and with the major approval of competent people in this field of expertise (physicists, astronomers and alike),…only time can tell. (THE END)

Made minor editing: corrected 1) C in CMB from 'cosmological' into 'cosmic' 2) from..."issue between 'Steady State Theory' and Big Bang ..." into..."issue between 'an Infinite Static Universe' and the 'Big Bang Theory'