Uncategorized

Abbott, E. (1884). Flatland: a romance of many dimensions. Retrieved February 22, 2010, from http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/201

Ambjorn, J., Jurkiewicz, J., & Loll, R. (2008). The Self-Organizing Quantum Universe. Scientific American, 299 July(1), 24–31.

Baggot, J. (2013). Farewell to Reality: How fairytale physics betrays the search for scientific truth. London: Constable.

Barbour, J. (1999). The End of Time: The next revolution in physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Barrow, J. D. (2007). New theories of everything. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Burke, D. L., & et al. (1997). Positron Production in Multiphoton Light-by-Light Scattering. Phys. Rev. Lett., 79, 1626–1629.

CMS collaboration. (2012). A New Boson with a Mass of 125 GeV Observed with the CMS Experiment at the Large Hadron Collider. Science, 338(December, 6114), 1569–1575.

Comay, E. (2009). Physical Consequences of Mathematical Principles. Progress in Physics, 4(October), 91–98.

Conway, J., & Koch, S. (2006). The free will theorem. Found. Phys., 36(10).

Cramer, J. (1986). The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 58, 647–688.

Davies, P. (2006). The Goldilocks Enigma. Penguin Books.

Davies, P., & Brown, J. R. (1999). The Ghost in the Atom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dunning, B. (2008). Will the Large Hadron Collider Destroy the Earth? Skeptoid Podcast. Retrieved from http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4109

Ent, R., Ulrich, T., & Venugopalan, R. (2015). The glue that binds us. Scientific American, (May), 32–39.

Everett, H. (1957). “Relative state” formulation of quantum mechanics. Rev. of Mod. Phys., 29, 454–462.

Feng, J. L., Rajaraman, A., & Takayama, F. (2003). SuperWIMP dark matter signals from the early universe. ArXiv:Quant-Ph/9912088v1. Also available at http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030708/full/news030707-2.html

Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Vol. Second Edition, Enlarged). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Lederman, L., & Teresi, D. (2012). The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?

Marburger, J. (2011). Constructing Reality. Cambridge University Press.

Oerter, R. (2006). The Theory of Almost Everything. London: Plume, Penguin.

Penrose, R. (2010). Cycles of Time. Vintage Books.

Richard Feynman. (1985). QED, The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. Princeton University Press.

Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of Behavioral Research; Methods and Data Analysis (Vol. Second). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Smolin, L. (2006). The Trouble with Physics. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.

van der Mark, M. B., & t’Hooft, G. W. (2011, May 22). Light is Heavy. Retrieved from http://www.tardyon.de/mirror/hooft/hooft.htm

Wheeler, J. A., & Feynman, R. P. (1945). Interaction with the Absorber as the Mechanism of Radiation. Reviews of Modern Physics, 17(2–3), 157–161.

Whitworth, B. (2009). A Comparison of Human and Computer Information Processing. In M. Pagani (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Multimedia Technology and Networking (p. 230–239). Hershey PA: Information Science Reference.

Whitworth, B., & Ahmad, A. (2013). The Social Design of Technical Systems: Building technologies for communities. The Interaction Design Foundation.

Wilczek, F. (2008). The Lightness of Being: Mass, Ether and the Unification of forces. New York: Basic Books.

Woit, P. (2007). Not even wrong. London: Vintage.

Wolff, M. (2001). Spin, the Origin of the Natural Laws, and the Binary Universe. Presented at the American Physical Society Meeting, Wash. DC.

Zizzi, P. (2003). Emergent Consciousness; From the Early Universe to Our Mind, arXiv: gr-qc/0007006. NeuroQuantology, 3, 295–311.

Next

The following questions are addressed in this chapter. They are better discussed in a group to allow a variety of opinions to emerge. The relevant section link is given after each question:

1. Are mass and charge related? (QR4.3.2)

2. Why are electrons and neutrinos both leptons? (QR4.3.3)

3. Why do neutrinos have a tiny mass but no charge? (QR4.3.3)

4. Why is our universe made of matter instead of anti-matter? (QR4.3.5)

5. Anti-particles run our time in reverse, so can they go backwards in time? (QR4.3.6)

6. Why do quarks have strange one-third charges? (QR4.4.3)

7. What causes the force that binds together the nucleus of an atom? (QR4.4.4)

8. Why does this force increase with distance? (QR4.4.4)

9. Why are three quarks needed to form a proton or neutron? (QR4.4.5)

10. What do the quark colors of the standard model represent? (QR4.4.5)

11. What makes neutrons in space decay into protons? Why don’t protons decay? (QR4.4.6)

12. The Higgs doesn’t cause any of the mass around us, so what mass does it cause? (QR4.4.7)

13. E = mc², but why does the energy of matter depend on the speed of light? (QR4.4.8)

14. Why does string theory need eleven dimensions to work? (QR4.5.1)

15. What did Newton think caused gravity? Does current physics agree? What does the evidence suggest? (QR4.5.2)

16. Why are virtual particles magical despite having lawful effects? (QR4.5.2)

17. How does current physics decide when virtual particles interact? (QR4.5.3)

18. How does the standard model explain new and unexpected findings? (QR4.5.4)

19. What is the difference between an equation and a theory? (QR4.5.5)

20. How is the standard model of physics similar to the standard model of medieval astronomy? (QR4.5.6)

21. Are the standard model’s fundamental particles actually particles? Are they fundamental? Explain. (QR4.5.7)

22. How does a processing model classify the basic entities of physics? (QR4.5.8)

23. Why does quantum realism’s claim that matter is made of light contradict the standard model? (QR4.5.9)

24. What came first, matter or light? Give a reason for your answer (QR4.5.9)

25. Why do all higher atomic nuclei need neutrons? (QR4.6.1)

26. An atom of lead has 82 electrons in a small space, so why don’t they collide with each other? (QR4.6.2)

27. How do electrons fill the shells and sub-shells of an atom? (QR4.6.3)

28. Can electrons as point-particles spin? Why do electrons half-spin? (QR4.7.1)

29. Why are neutrinos always left-handed? (QR4.7.2)

30. Why are protons much heavier than the quarks from which they are made? (QR4.7.3)

31. Why is the universe charge neutral? (QR4.7.4)

32. Why do leptons and quarks have three family generations, then no more? (QR4.7.5)

33. Why are the higher generations of leptons and quarks increasingly heavy? (QR4.7.5)

34. What is dark matter? Why can’t we see it? How does it differ from ordinary matter? (QR4.7.6)

35. What is dark energy? Why can’t a particle model explain it? (QR4.7.7)

36. Is our universe dead or alive? Give reasons. (QR4.8.1)

37. Is our universe finely tuned for life? (QR4.8.2)

38. What are the quantum evolution equivalents of biology’s reproduction, variation and selection? (QR4.8.3)

39. Was our universe “built” as a watchmaker builds a watch? If not, how did we arise? (QR4.8.4)

Next

Next

Table 4.8. Chapter 4 summary: Physical realism vs. quantum realism for matter
Physical realism	Quantum realism
Matter. Matter is made of fundamental particles, so: a. Space is nothing, as there is no null particle b. Light is a wavy particle with no mass or charge c. Masscomes from the particle substance d. Charge is a property unrelated to mass e. Anti-matter is matter with the same mass but opposite charge, that exists for an unknown reason f. Our universe was built from a Lego-set of the standard model’s 62 fundamental particles	Matter. Matter is generated by quantum processing, so: a. Space is null process, not nothing b. Light is that null process distributed c. Mass is the net processing at a network point d. Charge is the net processing remainder e. Anti-matter is when the processing of matter runs in reverse, so it has the same mass but opposite charge f. Our universe evolved from quantum waves that combine to create everything we see
Electron. Is a fundamental matter particle that: a. Exists at a point with no extent or structure, yet it has mass, charge, and spin b. Has mass even though it has no extent or substance c. Has a negative charge because it just does, and this isn’t related to its mass d. Has an imaginary spin that is half of its total spin, for an unknown reason e. Moves like light, but is slower for an unknown reason f. Never collides in an atomic shell, despite being a particle, for an unknown reason	Electron. A head-headextreme photon collision that: a. Repeatedly overloads all the channels of one axis through a network point, so it has a structure b. Has mass as the net quantum processing that repeats c. Has a negative charge because negative processing is left-over after a head-head photon overload d. Really spins in quantum space, but it takes two turns to rotate it e. Moves like light on two dimensions, not three f. Never collides because it is entirely light-like in a two-dimensional atomic shell
Neutrino. A fundamental matter particle that: a. Exists at a point with no extent or structure, yet it has mass, charge, and spin b. Has a tiny mass that varies unpredictably, despite its expected zero mass c. Always has zero charge, despite having a tiny mass d. Always spins left-handed, for an unknown reason, which contradicts the spatial symmetry of the universe e. Is a lepton like an electron because it just is, for no structural reason	Neutrino. A head-tail extreme photon collision that: a. Repeatedly overloads all the channels of one axis through a network point, so it has a structure b. Has a tiny mass as its heads and tails don’t quite cancel due to the asynchrony of the quantum network c. Always has zero charge as its remainder is always zero d. Always spins left-handed because in a matter universe, all photons spin left e. Is a lepton like an electron because it is the same one-axis collision structure with a different phase
Quark. A fundamental matter particle that: a. Is again a structureless point with no dimensions b. Has two types, up and down, with different masses and charges, for an unknown reason c. Is never observed alone, for an unknown reason, but can exist in groups d. Has unexpected one-third charges for some reason	Quark. A three-axis extreme photon collision that: a. Repeatedly overloads all the channels of a plane b. Has two viable collision phases: head-tail-tail (up) and head-head-tail (down), that produce mass and charge c. This collision doesn’t fill the channels of a plane, so it isn’t stable alone, but it can survive in groups d. A three-axis collision produces one-third remainders
Many fields. All the forces of nature come from invisible fields in space that invoke virtual particles to do their work: a. Gravity. Acts at a distance by creating virtual gravitons, yet there is no evidence at all that they exist b. Electromagnetism. Acts in photon units because the electromagnetic field creates virtual photons c. Strong force. Quarks bind into protons and neutrons by virtual gluons whose red, green and blue color chargescancel to clear, so massless gluons create the proton’s extra mass in an unknown way d. Weak force. Neutrons turn into protons when a weak field creates massive virtual particles called W bosons, but they never turn protons into neutrons for an unknown reason, except in stars e. The Higgs. The virtual particle that explains the mass of the virtual particles that explain the weak force f. Virtual particles. Virtual particles cause all effects and create most of the mass we see around us	One field. All the forces of nature come from processes that spread and interact on the quantum network: a. Gravity. The processing of matter spreads to create a gradient that affects other matter (next chapter) b. Electromagnetism. Acts in photon units because the photon is the basic process of the quantum network c. Strong force. Quarks bind into protons and neutrons when they share photonsin atriangle structure where their axes orientate in complementary ways, and the increased interference creates the proton’s extra mass d. Weak force. Neutrons turn into protons when a neutrino flips a set of photon heads into tails, but to do the reverse, to turn a proton into a neutron, requires an electron collision, which only occurs in stars e. The Higgs. The imaginary cause invoked to explain another imaginary cause that explains an effect f. Virtual particles. Virtual particles are imaginary agents that don’t exist at all
Our universeof matter was built from fundamental particles as a house is built from bricks a. Atoms. Electron particles with mass that orbit a nucleus should collapse or collide, but they never do b. Electron shells. Electron shells based on data-fitted quantum numbers must be tweaked to predict the rows of the periodic table c. Atomic nuclei. That protons and neutrons sit in the atomic nucleus like fruits in a bowl doesn’t explain why neutrons are needed at all d. Family generations. There are two higher forms of the basic particles then no more, and they are much heavier, for an unknown reason e. Dark matter. A halo of unknown matter around the center of a galaxy that is over 85% of its mass f. Dark energy. Is over two-thirds of the energy of the universe, but no particle can explain it	Our universeof matter evolved from light by trying all the options to discover what is stable a. Atoms. Electron waves find different harmonics and shell distances to vibrate in, so they don’t interfere b. Electron shells. Electron shells based on the wave harmonics that can occupy a sphere surface predict the rows of the periodic table with no tweaks c. Atomic nuclei. That protons and neutrons form an atom nucleus as a single closed string requires neutron buffers between the protons d. Family generations. The higher forms of basic entities occupy the extra dimensions of space, so only two are possible, and their mass increases by interference e. Dark matter. The halo of light orbiting a galaxy black hole will produce matter as a constant net processing f. Dark energy. Is generated by the ongoing creation of new space that absorbs energy for its first cycle
We are the accidental result of a universal machine that is going nowhere	We are the natural result of an evolving universe that is becoming what it can

If our universe was made by accident, whatever made it has long ago abandoned it to the laws of physics. The second law of thermodynamics dooms everything to run down, whether our bodies or the sun, and the universe is no exception, so its likely future is a big freeze, an eternal emptiness where everything stops, like a clock that has run down. This dismal vision, of a universe going nowhere, implies that we are too, so what we do doesn’t really matter at all. 

This cosmic nihilism calls itself the voice of reason, but what if our universe is also evolving by a general principle that is just as important as thermodynamics? A watch doesn’t evolve, it just runs down, but our universe has evolved new outcomes like us, so are we pointless? If we are, then so is the universe, but if we aren’t, then neither is what made us. And what our universe will evolve in the future is unknown, so to conclude that it is going nowhere is premature. If we are part of an ongoing evolution, then nihilism is just a belief, not a certainty.  

A machine is designed to a blueprint, built from predictable parts, to operate in defined ways, so a universal machine should be the same. In contrast, an evolution needs no blueprint, is based on unpredictable participants, and unfolds in undefined ways. Given these perspectives, of engineering and biology, the latter seems to describe our universe better. Newton’s vision of a universal machine designed, built, and run by God isn’t supported by modern science.

Our universe then wasn’t built as a watchmaker builds a watch, from known parts, to a pre-existing plan, with an expected result. The alternative now explored is that it began as a seed that grew to become what it could, as the Goldilocks effect suggests. This allows a perspective not found in either engineering or biology, that our universe was predisposed to evolve based on its quantum origin.

In the beginning then, there was light, that had the potential to evolve into matter, so it did. Matter then continued to evolve into atoms and molecules, to eventually form the complex molecules that led to life. All this, not by design or accident but by inheritance. For example, an acorn that grows into an oak tree wasn’t designed to do that, neither did it do so by accident. It inherited that ability from its origin so if it succeeds, it always becomes an oak not some random thing. Likewise, a universe predisposed to evolve will do so, and what emerges from it isn’t accidental or designed.

Emergence occurs when a complex entity has properties that its parts don’t have on their own, that arise from how they interact. For example, a caterpillar that crawls can form a pupa from which emerges a butterfly that flies. Inside a pupa, the parts of a caterpillar recombine to form a butterfly that behaves differently, so it remakes itself by emergence. 

Matter can also emerge, as water emerges when hydrogen and oxygen atoms combine to form it. Again, the result has properties that didn’t exist before, like wetness, yet water arose from hydrogen and oxygen gases that aren’t wet. To think we make water from hydrogen and oxygen confuses emergence with manufacturing, as a sword can be forged in a furnace by hammer blows to a given length or sharpness, but emergence isn’t like that. Water emerges from hydrogen and oxygen by its design not ours, just as a butterfly does from a pupa.

Evolution is then based on emergence, as each generation allows new gene combinations. We then don’t make our children but rather they emerge from us, as offspring not products, so short parents can have a tall child. Emergence lets caterpillar parents have a butterfly child.  

To think that a butterfly contains a caterpillar within it, or that water has a gaseous base, is to misunderstand how new properties emerge. For example, the fruit bowl model portrays the nucleus of an atom as protons and neutrons sitting side by side but in this model, it is an emergent quark structure (4.6.1) that has a shape, unlike the particles that comprise it. Likewise, when light combines into electrons or quarks, matter and charge emerge as new properties. Emergence is then how our universe creates new entities with new properties. 

We build things and so think that our universe was built, but an evolving universe is building itself. The options and implications for us are then that our universe is a(n):

1. Machine, so we are the accidental byproduct of a universe that is indifferent to us.

2. Creation, so we are the intended product of a universe that was made for us.

3. Evolution, so we are the offspring of a universe that is discovering its future.

In the first cases, our universe was built from matter so humanity could be by accident or design, but in the last case we emerged naturally, as the poem Desiderata expresses:

You are a child of the universe no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should. (Ehrmann, 1927).

Table 4.8 compares how physical realism and quantum realism describe matter, so the reader can decide if we are the accidental byproduct of an indifferent machine or the natural result of a universe evolving to become what it can.

Next

Darwin’s great idea was that human beings were naturally selected by evolution over millions of years, rather than built as we are now from the beginning. This evolution was based on three features of life:

1. Generation. Species generate offspring that carry on their traits.

2. Variation. The traits of offspring vary, for example by mutation.

3. Selection. Offspring that survive are selected to continue the lineage.

Evolution is then an iterative process that explores biological patterns to select those that survive, not a manufacturing process that builds a product based on a blueprint. It was initially applied only to biological systems but it is now thought that any active system that chooses from variable results can evolve, including social, geophysical, and technical systems (Bejan, 2023), so it is a universal principle distinct from the second law of thermodynamics.

It is now proposed that quantum systems have the features necessary to evolve. For example, when a photon of light finds the best path to any destination, it evolves by Darwinian principles because there is:

1. Generation. The photon wave actively generates offspring by instantiation.

2. Variation. Photon instances vary in properties like location and direction.

3. Selection. A physical event selects one instance to restart the photon lineage.

Hence, a photon cloud passing through both Young’s slits to hit a screen point is also an evolution, as one of many generated variants triggers a restart that selects how the photon is reborn. In this case, the outcome seems accidental, but some instance always finds the best path. Likewise in Darwinian evolution, species seem to survive by accident, but that some will survive isn’t an accident, as life always finds a way, if there is one.  

Light then evolved matter as follows. By the law of all action, the extreme light produced by the big bang tried every combination to eventually produce electrons, a new entity species that isn’t light. The electron was then selected by its stability, as it is constantly bombarded by competitors for its physical niche, just as a new species faces competition in a biological niche. Stability then drives the evolution of matter as survival drives the evolution of species. In both cases, the future comes from what carries on, not what doesn’t. 

Randomness was necessary for matter to evolve but it is pointless in a clockwork universe, as it introduces errors in the machine. What use is a clock that gives random times? Randomness is equally unhelpful in a designed universe, because it interferes with the divine plan. Einstein’s statement, that God doesn’t play dice with the universe, is that a supreme power, whether divine or scientific, doesn’t give up control, but what if it chose to? It is not then God that plays dice with the universe but its participants, by their choices. That matter evolved then needn’t deny theology or science, as for the first, evolution is the design, and for the second, matter is an effect not a cause. Both views are revolutionary, but that doesn’t make them wrong.

Evolution is based on practice not theory, on results not rules, so matter is just finding what survives as life is. And it allows no shortcuts, as each step must give the next, with no missing links, so matter had to evolve from the first light, and stars had to die to create atoms like carbon that life needs. If the same features, of generation, variation, and selection, explain matter and life, then behind the evolution of life lies a grander evolution, that of matter. 

If the earth is a freakish accident, we may be alone in the universe, but if it is a natural evolution, that is unlikely. Even if life is so far limited to our earth, the grand evolution that allowed it is ongoing, as stars still evolve matter to this day. The foundation for life was laid long ago, so in a big universe it will occur, because it can, as our earth shows. And life can produce conscious beings, as humanity illustrates, so eventually the same will occur elsewhere, if it hasn’t already. 

Next

Humanity has long wondered how the stars, galaxies, and life itself began? For stars to create atoms needs stable galaxies, that would fly apart without the dark matter that just happens to prevent that. Stars create energy by the nuclear fusion of Hydrogen into Helium, based on neutrons that the weak force just happens to allow. And this fusion only managed to create the carbon atoms needed for life thanks to a just right energy resonance:

“The energy at which the carbon resonance occurs is determined by the interplay between the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force. If the strong force were slightly stronger or slightly weaker … the universe might very well be devoid of life and go unobserved.” (Davies, 2006).

The Goldilocks effect is that our universe has an unreasonable number of factors set just right for life, without which we wouldn’t exist. For example:

“Take, for instance, the neutron. It is 1.00137841870 times heavier than the proton, which is what allows it to decay into a proton, electron and neutrino—a process that determined the relative abundances of hydrogen and helium after the big bang and gave us a universe dominated by hydrogen. If the neutron-to-proton mass ratio were even slightly different, we would be living in a very different universe: one, perhaps, with far too much helium, in which stars would have burned out too quickly for life to evolve, or one in which protons decayed into neutrons rather than the other way around, leaving the universe without atoms. So, in fact, we wouldn’t be living here at all—we wouldn’t exist.” Ananthaswamy (2012).

Were these values set just so by a kind creator, or did a vast system spawn many universes and we just happen to be on the life-supporting one? The Goldilocks effect isn’t that our universe is designed for life as if so, it is a poor design, since most of the universe is inhospitable to life. It is that the nature of our universe is balanced on a knife edge, between the lushness of life and barren desolation:

“The great mystery is not why there is dark energy. The great mystery is why there is so little of it [10−122]… The fact that we are just on the knife edge of existence, [that] if dark energy were very much bigger we wouldn’t be here, that’s the mystery.” (Susskind, 2007).

The list of cosmic coincidences that allow life is long (Barnes, 2012), including:

1. Strong force. If the strong force was stronger or weaker by just 1% there would be no carbon or heavier elements anywhere in the universe.

2. Weak force. If the weak force was any weaker the hydrogen in the universe would be greatly decreased, starving stars of nuclear fuel and leaving the universe a cold and lifeless place.

3. Neutrons. If neutrons were slightly less massive the universe would be entirely protons and if lower by 1%, then all protons would decay into neutrons so no atoms other than hydrogen, helium, lithium and beryllium could form.

4. Cosmic microwave background. This radiation has a slight anisotropy, roughly one part in 100,000, just enough to allow stars and galaxies to form. Any smaller and the early universe would have been too smooth for stars and galaxies to form and any larger and stable stars with planetary systems would be extremely rare.

5. Cosmological constant. The positive and negative contributions to the vacuum energy density cancel to 120-digit accuracy, but the 121st digit makes our universe possible.

What then explains the good fortune that lets us exist? We can’t call it a lucky accident given a sample of one, unless there are many universes, so multiverse theory is popular because it supports the view that our universe is an accident. Yet while the Goldilocks effect is based on evidence, the multiverse is based on no evidence at all:

“The multiverse has only ever existed, so far as we know, in the mind of man. Its most promising research programs, string theory and early rapid cosmic inflation theory, have bounced along on enthusiasm alone, prompting ever more arcane speculations for which there may never be any possibility of evidence.” (O’Leary, 2017).

For example, Smolin’s speculation that black holes spawn universes is based on no evidence at all, nor does it suggest why a mathematical infinity might create a universe.

However if our universe came from a primal quantum network, properties like its refresh rate, connectivity, topology, and bandwidth could explain the speed of light, Planck’s constant, the cosmological constant, and the electron’s mass and charge, respectively. Essentially, our universe has the properties it does based on the nature of quantum reality.

It also follows that if other universes began as bubbles in the quantum bulk, as ours did, they would have the same laws of physics, except they might break the anti-matter way. Our universe is then as it is neither by accident nor design but by inheritance, just as a seed inherits from its progenitor.

Was the universe then made for us, as a table is laid before a guest? Like Goldilocks, we sit before a meal just right for us but why? Crocodiles seem to live in rivers finely-tuned for them, but to see that as by design is to reverse causality. Rivers existed before crocodiles, who then evolved to live as they allowed. Likewise, our universe existed before we did, so we evolved to fit it. It wasn’t fine-tuned to us any more than crocodiles are fine-tuned to rivers. The Goldilocks effect is then like the cutlery at a table wondering why it fits the food, when it is no surprise. The universe wasn’t made to fit us, as we evolved to fit it, whether we realize it or not.

Next

If matter is everything, our universe is made of particles as a house is made of bricks, but by accident not design, so physics tried to smash matter apart in accelerators to find fundamental particles that aren’t made of other particles. 

Yet the term particle has implications. For example, chess pieces are like particles as they just sit there until they are moved, but ants put on a chess board crawl about themselves, so they are better described as entities. In general, particles move only when pushed while entities move themselves. 

Is our universe then made of particles that move when pushed or entities that move themselves? A case can be made for the latter, as light always moves, as do electrons, and so do neutrinos that whizz about everywhere unseen. Photons, electrons, and neutrinos are all fundamental, so this suggests a world of active entities rather than passive particles.

Particles go where they are put, as chess pieces do, but where a photon hits a screen isn’t defined only by the forces acting on it. It actually chooses where it strikes from the possibilities. Calling this random doesn’t disguise that the photon itself decides where it goes, as do electrons and neutrinos, so again they are like active entities not passive particles. 

Yet if fundamental particles move themselves and choose where they go, how was the universe built from them as a house is from bricks? The alternative now explored is that our universe wasn’t built but evolved, based on its own nature. If one photon led to the stars and galaxies we see, our universe is more like a seed that grew than a house that was built. What then defined the nature of that seed? 

Next

Materialism assumes that the matter of our universe has always existed, but if it began at a point as big bang theory says, it should have immediately collapsed into a black hole by the laws of physics.

In contrast, a universe created by a quantum network is expected to begin with the simplest entity, which is light. A first event that only produced light then wouldn’t collapse into a black hole but expand, as it did, so matter came later. This suggests our universe wasn’t built from matter as we build a clock, from fundamental parts, but rather built itself, like a seed whose potential is unfolding. This section describes that unfolding as an evolution.  

QR4.8.1 Particle or Seed?

QR 4.8.2 The Goldilocks Effect

QR 4.8.3 The Grand Evolution

QR 4.8.4 Emergence

Next

After confirming dark matter, in 1998 astronomers discovered that the expansion of space, which was thought to be slowing under the force of gravity, was actually accelerating. Some sort of negative gravity was pushing the universe apart, against the gravity that pulls it together, so it was called dark energy. Cosmologists estimate that 68% of the energy of the universe is dark, dark matter is 27%, and particle matter is less than 5%. Hence, even if the standard model did explain ordinary matter, which it doesn’t, it still doesn’t explain most of the energy of the universe.

The effect of dark energy is spread evenly through space and seems to have changed little over time. In equations, it makes space flat, but a property of space itself should increase as space expands, and it doesn’t. If it is caused by particles, as the standard model might assume, it should weaken as space expands, but again it doesn’t. The standard model struggles to explain dark energy because particles should clump together, not remain evenly spread, and particles don’t have a negative energy to push the universe apart. 

In this model, our space is the inner surface of a bubble expanding into a larger bulk, so it must lose energy, just as expanding a box cools the gas within it. Points of space add to space all the time, and being new, for their first cycle they receive but don’t transmit anything, so new space produces a negative energy that also has the properties of dark energy. It is spread through space because new points add everywhere, it doesn’t reduce as space expands because more space means more points to expand from, and it could explain why the expansion of our universe is accelerating.

Dark energy is expected if our universe is a bubble expanding but for a big machine, it is inexplicable. Particles don’t explain why dark energy exists, but the expansion of space does. 

Next

In the 1950s, astronomers discovered that our galaxy rotated as if it had more matter than its stars allowed, five times more in fact. They concluded that this was due to dark matter, dark because it can’t be seen, and matter because it caused gravity. The rotation curves of other galaxies suggested they were the same, so astronomers now estimate that about 85% of the matter of the universe is dark. Based on its effects, dark matter seems to exist as a halo around the black hole at the center of almost every galaxy, including ours.

What then is dark matter? It isn’t the matter we see because light can’t detect it, it isn’t anti-matter because it has no gamma ray signature, and it isn’t a black hole because there is no gravitational lensing, yet it holds stars in galaxies together more tightly than their gravity allows, so they don’t fly off. It made our galaxy stable, so the matter-producing factories we call stars had time to make the atoms needed for life and us. Dark matter is the glue that binds galaxies together, but its cause is unknown. 

However, the standard model needed a particle to cause dark matter, so it suggested WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles), but the result was just another wild-goose chase. Despite talk of super-WIMPs (Feng, Rajaraman, & Takayama, 2003), the search for WIMPs, like gravitons, proton decay, and squarks, led nowhere. A particle like that should have been seen by now so currently, the standard model doesn’t explain 85% of the matter in our universe.

What then does a processing model suggest? If mass arises when net processing repeats at a point, what halo could do that? We expect the black hole at the galaxy center to trap light in a circle around it. Light close to the black hole is pulled in, and light far away escapes, but at some radius, it will constantly circle in a loop (Figure 4.27).

This halo of light will build-up over time, as more photons join, until it is a dense flow of only wave-fronts, with no tails to cancel them. Light circling the opposite way would be the same, as in our matter world all light vibrates first up and then down. No particles are created, because normal light doesn’t collide, but the result is a constant net processing excess at every point, which in this model represents mass. A dense halo of light around a black hole would then create mass as usual, but without particles that could be seen.

Recall that by the pass-it-on protocol (2.4.4), points of space are interrupt driven so each cycle, a halo point would first pass on the current photon, then process the next photon received. Hence a halo of dense light, where photons arrive every cycle, will only process photon heads not tails. This interrupt loop is stopped by expanding space, but it may not be sufficient in this case. If so, the result is a permanent net processing excess throughout the halo, which in this model causes mass.

It follows that the halo of light circling a black hole will generate mass. This mass, like that of ordinary matter, comes from light but instead of being at a point, it is spread through a stream of light. If extreme light trapped at a point causes particle matter, it is no surprise that dense light trapped in orbit around a black hole can do the same. This explains why the halos of galaxies don’t collide when they do, but remain around each galaxy when they separate. It also lets small galaxies exist with no black holes, and galaxies that have lost their stars can consist of 99.9% dark matter.

Ordinary and dark matter then arise in similar ways, but while particles can be seen, a dark matter halo can’t, because photons either pass through it at an angle or join the stream. The standard model search for WIMPs was then fruitless because dark matter isn’t based on particles at all, and if most matter is dark, a model based on particles has no future.

Next