By Ben Taylor

As my final project in our course, I would like to offer a different way of looking at our universe. The thought that some how our universe is expanding into somewhere outside of itself or that there are possibly other universes besides ours, has left me to wonder whether we are interpreting the experimental data correctly. I also have reservations about our ability to impose a beginning and an end to processes that seem to be timeless. This is not to say that time isn’t important to us in terms of our ability to measure events that occur in the laboratory as well as those which occur naturally; however, to suggest somehow, in the “universal sense”, that time, ultimately, began and will end, based on our experimental data and the assumptions used, has caused me to wonder if there may not be another way of thinking about the universe.

Einstein’s eloquent work on relativity and his famous equation, E = m c2, caused me to ponder – What does this mean and where does the space occupied by the matter under consideration fit into this equation? One of the “Fundamental Properties” of matter is that it occupies space. Yet space seems to be detached from our discussion when we consider matter and its energy. In fact, for the most part, many consider space to be devoid of all matter. Concepts such as “dark matter” and “dark energy” are invoked to explain our lack of understanding of space. I think, more importantly, the question that should be asked, is “can one (space) exist independently of the other (mass)”? I don’t think so.

Some of our other discussions, during this class, have covered such topics as matter as particles and matter as waves. We also talked about electromagnetic waves and the energy associated with such waves, as well as electricity, magnetism and gravity. However, there doesn’t seem to be very much currently in the literature that offers to explain all of these concepts as possible “sides of the same coin”.

The Law of Gravitation tells us that, “all matter is attracted to all other matter in the universe”. It then goes on to define, mathematically, what that attraction is. I would think that any theory about the origin of the universe would have to obey this Law. In fact, since I attempt to teach science concepts to a mostly non-science oriented student population, I tell the young ladies in my classes – “When a young man tells you he is attracted to you. He’s not lying. Just make sure you get a ruler to measure the distance between you and a scale to measure your masses”. If we believe this Law, then there are other questions we need to ask ourselves. Why isn’t all of matter one big glob? How do we get energy out of matter? What happens when matter moves from one space to another space?

From the Laws of Thermodynamics, concepts regarding the conservation of matter and energy are derived. These Laws ultimately help us to understand “that matter nor energy can be created or destroyed”. The Third Law further tells us that, “no matter how hard we try we can’t remove all of the energy from matter”. This indicates to me that matter in its “ultimate form” is intimately related to the energy it can potentially produce and there needs to be some explanation which allows us to speak of the two with one voice. It has always interested me that the electron with its negligible mass, has a charge equal to but opposite of that of the more massive proton. If one takes the currently accepted mass values for the proton (1.6726 X 10-27 kg) and the electron (9.11 X 10-31kg) using Einstein’s equation (E = mc2), the energies associated with each species can be determined. If one then thinks of the electron in terms of its proton equivalents, there can be approximately 1,836 electron possibilities for one proton. Could this possibly mean that the electron ultimately is one small fraction of the energy of a proton that is expressed as the proton moves from one space to another? Could this also mean that all of the other energetic “particles”, in actual fact, be expressions of energy produced by protons being disturbed?

Current theory, based on our understanding of quantum mechanics, has led to a model of atomic structure of elements indicating a tightly packed nucleus containing almost all of the mass of an atom with only about 1/1836 of equivalent mass assigned to “particles” assumed to be in the space outside of the nucleus. We have even gone so far as to label the regions of this space and designate for them certain values. Based on our assigned quantum values and several restrictive conditions placed on the electrons filling these spaces, we have developed a model of elements that works very well for predicting the chemical activity of the elements. The nucleus serves as a template for predicting how much space is occupied by the orbitals surrounding the nucleus and based on Schrodinger’s equation, mathematical predictions can be made regarding the energy and the shape of these orbitals.

It is hard to imagine a proton as a spherical particle having two sides. A mass side and an energy side; however, I think that energy in the form of electrons as well as other particles are consequences of the shape of the space left as protons move from one space to another and other protons attempt to fill the gap. In other words, I believe energy is associated with the “space trail” that is left as mass moves in space. If we think about energy as a form of mass, then the argument can be made that there is only one form of matter in the universe – the proton. The question then becomes how can protons be organized to give us all of the possibilities we see.

If the Law of Gravitation is true, then it appears that we can assume that the universe has a center of gravity. That center of gravity must be equivalent to all of the mass attracted to it. From a universe point of view, I would suggest that half of the mass of the universe is that center of gravity. The protons in this “universal nucleus” are packed together in a very dense tightly packed form where the protons have squeezed out all of the space they possibly can, obeying the Law of Gravitation. On the other hand, no two protons can occupy the same space, obeying the fact that no two objects can occupy the same space. There is a tremendous amount of friction among these protons producing an enormous amount of energy in the form of all kinds of electromagnetic waves as protons jockey for position obeying the gravity and space requirements. At the other end of the spectrum, we have an abundance of space. The driving force for matter filling this space is the fact that “nature abhors a vacuum”. This means that protons, ultimately, are being attracted to the center of the universe while at the same time being drawn towards the space created as some theoretically make the return journey towards the universe gravitational center. This concept of the universe presupposes that mass in the form of some kind of proton is everywhere in the universe. This concept of the universe, I believe, better explains the concepts of universal conservation of mass and energy since the total number of protons is not changing and energy is defined as a manifestation of a moving or oscillating proton.

In a similar fashion, the sun can be thought of as a mass of protons that has a center of gravity of protons that is great enough to hold all of the celestial bodies in orbits throughout our solar system while at the same time maintaining an atmosphere of protons on its surface that because of the restrictions of space for these protons produces large quantities of energy as these protons interact with each other. Using the same line of reasoning, earth can be thought of as a core of protons with a gravitational attraction that is strong enough to keep us from floating away as well as maintain an atmosphere and attract other heavenly bodies that periodically visit us. The earth’s core is extremely hot while its surface is fairly cool.

I have tried not to make this discussion a mathematical proof of the origin of the universe but simply to offer a discussion of another way of looking at it from the standpoint of some of the things we know and concepts that even nonscientists can relate to. In my one particle universe, the proton can viewed in different ways. First, it can be thought of as a particle spinning on its axis with no angular momentum and therefore no apparent charge. These protons I would call neutrons. While other protons spin with angular momentums that are different leading to charge distribution. I would call these protons hydrogen or “hydrogen like protons”. These protons due to their angular momentum when found in the nucleus of matter will come together to shape the space around them leading to the charge distribution found in matter. The purpose of neutrons in the nucleus of atoms is to provide additional space. However, as seen in hydrogen, adding one neutron to the nucleus produces a stable isotope. If we add two neutrons to the hydrogen nucleus, we have an isotope which has an unstable nucleus.

Finally, I believe the universe is full of these various forms of protons just as our oceans are full of water. We consider the mass part of the proton when we think about positive charges, magnetism and motion. The space part of the proton we consider when we think about energy, waves and radiation. An electromagnetic wave can be defined as “an emanation from disturbed matter”. In my view an electromagnetic wave is a pulse that oscillates through the fabric of matter displaying in turn matter’s space side (electro) and its mass side (magnetic) as it travels at the speed light through space.

I think I would like to end with these “electromagnetic vibrations”. Pinch yourself gently, at first, and then as hard as you can and then asked yourself, “how much did those electromagnetic impulses weigh going from the site of the pinch to your brain? Imagine the center of gravity of the universe as representing the biggest pinch of them all.