The processing model of Figure 4.19 begins with one process, a simple circle that gives the null result of space. The first event then separated this process to start our universe as a plasma of pure light, with no matter at all. Most of this extreme light then diluted to ordinary light by the expansion of space, but some collided to create matter. A one-axis collision gave electrons or neutrinos, based on phase, while a three-axis collision gave up or down quarks, also based on phase. In both cases, the net process that repeated was mass, and the processing that didn’t run was charge, including the one-third quark charges.
Quarks then combined into protons or neutrons by sharing photons, to give the atomic nuclei around which electrons orbit. The first atom, Hydrogen, was just a proton and an electron, but neutrons allowed higher atoms to evolve based on nucleosynthesis. Both light and matter then evolved from one quantum process running on a network.
Unlike the standard particle model (Figure 4.18), a processing model (Figure 4.19) explains:
1. The evolution of matter. Matter evolved, first from light then into higher atoms, rather than being fundamental.
2. The forces of nature. All forces come from quantum waves on a network, rather than virtual agents.
3. Anti-matter. Processing implies anti-processing, while particles have no natural inverse.
4. Space. Space is a network null process, rather than nothing at all.
5. Neutrinos. The neutrino is an electron byproduct, rather than a pointless particle.
6. Charge. Charge is a mass byproduct, rather than an arbitrary property.
7. Quarks. The one-third charge of quarks are expected, rather than unexpected.
The processing model of Figure 4.19 has no virtual agents, and only one quantum process underlies everything, including space. It also explains what a particle model can’t, including:
1. Why does matter have mass and charge? (4.3.2)
2. Why do neutrinos have a tiny but variable mass? (4.3.3)
3. Why does anti-matter exist? (4.3.4)
4. Why isn’t anti-matter around today? (4.3.5)
5. Why are quark charges in strange thirds? (4.4.3)
6. Why does the force binding quarks increase with distance? (4.4.4)
7. Why don’t protons decay in empty space? (4.4.6)
8. Why does the energy of matter depend on the speed of light? (4.4.8)
9. How did atomic nuclei evolve? (4.6.1)
10. How did electron shells evolve? (4.6.2)
11. Why do charges add simply but mass doesn’t? (4.7.3)
12. Why is the universe charge neutral? (4.7.4)
13. What is dark matter? (4.7.6)
14. What is dark energy? (4.7.7)
These explanations assume only that the waves of quantum theory are processing waves on a network. If a quantum network defines space, it will then keep point matter entities apart. If the network transfer rate is one point per cycle, the speed of light will be constant. If electrons and neutrinos are phases of the same interaction, they will be brother leptons. If up and down quarks are phases of a three-axis interaction, they will have one-third charges. If a process creates matter, there must be anti-matter. One process can then explain what many particles can’t.
The Newtonian idea that God made our world like a clock from existing bits now struggles. If the standard model is God’s Lego-set, why do higher generation leptons and quarks play no part at all in the physics we see? If all the bits that make our universe were lying around before it began, where did they come from?
The alternative is that before our universe began, it didn’t exist at all. There were no divine shortcuts as everything had to be made! This wasn’t possible in one step so light, being simpler, came first and matter followed. Essentially, complex outcomes evolved from a simple process.
The Mandelbrot set illustrates this, as one line of code repeated produces infinite complexity (Figure 4.20), based not on complex bits but on a simple process that endlessly evolves.
If the null process of space became light that became matter that became us, our complex universe came from simplicity, or as Douglas Adams put it, nothing:
“The world is a thing of utter inordinate complexity and richness and strangeness that is absolutely awesome. I mean the idea that such complexity can arise not only out of such simplicity, but probably absolutely out of nothing, is the most fabulous extraordinary idea. And once you get some kind of inkling of how that might have happened, it’s just wonderful.” Douglas Adams, quoted by Dawkins in his eulogy for Adams (17 September 2001).
Quantum theory’s description of how physical complexity comes from quantum simplicity supports this extraordinary idea, but how can it be tested?