Albert Einstein's Unified Field Theory

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

The scientific insights

What is the unified field?

The unified field is radiation, or light in its most general sense.

Whether we call radiation an electromagnetic field, electromagnetic waves, photons, or light, basically any form of oscillating electromagnetic energy (where the energy swings from positive to negative and back again around a mean or central position known as true zero energy, similar to the plucked string of a guitar vibrating from a central position) is the unified field.

The critical thing here is the oscillating nature of the electromagnetic energy. If you do not have oscillation in the energy, there is no unified field. And that means there can be no gravitational field. The electromagnetic field must be oscillating to be described mathematically, according to Einstein's work, as a unified field and generating a gravitational field of its own.

What does Einstein mean by unified?

From Einstein's perspective, it is essentially the linking of the electromagnetic field with the gravitational field.

What is the Unified Field Theory?

What Einstein was trying to say through his mathematical equations is that radiation generates its own gravitational field. He came to this conclusion after conducting thought experiments about the nature of light. In other words, after seeing how radiation moves solid matter (please note that radiation moves both charged and uncharged matter as we are told in any physics textbook; but as we shall see, charges always come with mass and this could have consequences for physicists in the way they make certain assumptions in relation to this mass when explaining how radiation moves ordinary matter) and how light bends in a gravitational field. Einstein realised that something else is in the radiation for these things to happen. Therefore, Einstein had to assume that for radiation to behave like ordinary matter, it must create some mass, which in turn must come with a gravitational field. Radiation cannot be without the gravitational field. The two must somehow be inextricably linked.

As a result, Einstein decided to encapsulate the two fields into a highly complicated mathematical structure known as the unified field equations.

However, things gets more interesting when we pursue this unified picture to its logical conclusion. In particular, how is the electromagnetic field, when oscillating, any different from an ordinary gravitational field? Indeed, are there any other ways to generate a gravitational field that does not require radiation or an oscillating charge to be present?

The problem seems to be that physicists are also assuming the gravitational field is a real and distinct force of nature. If that is true, radiation must carry a gravitational field of its own in order to explain how radiation can move supposedly uncharged matter. But what if the gravitational field never really existed? Rather, it is only the electromagnetic field that is doing all the work. Is it possible we live in an electromagnetic universe controlled by the electromagnetic field and nothing else?

Why do you say "supposedly" for uncharged matter?

There is a problem with keeping the gravitational field concept as a way of explaining this movement of uncharged matter in the presence of radiation. Something is not quite right, and Einstein understood this when he looked more closely at this mysterious field he was trying to solve.

Firstly, Einstein has not approaching a definitive answer to understanding the true nature of the gravitational field. All he knew was the gravitational field is mixed up with the electromagnetic field and mathematically supported through his Unified Field Theory. He still could not explain the gravitational field. That was the whole purpose of pursuing the development of his Unified Field Theory. He wanted to know the very nature of the gravitational field. In other words, what is the gravitational field?

For a long time, scientists have learned to accept the existence of the gravitational field only because everyone can see objects falling to the ground. Something is obviously pulling (or pushing) objects to the ground. Then Sir Isaac Newton came along to make the first suggestion that perhaps we have a "gravitational field". Well, scientists have to start somewhere, right? In the days of Newton, electromagnetic fields were not known. It was unclear what else could be responsible for an apple to fall from a tree. But ever since that day when Newton suggested the gravitational field, the mystery of the gravitational field has never really been solved. Physicists merely accept it, assume it is a real and distinct force of nature, and continue to maintain the concept as a way to remember the great scientist who first proposed the concept and, given his immense intellect, had to be assumed to be correct. Well, in a sense yes. Some kind of energy is influencing the apple to fall to the ground. But until we fully understand the nature of this energy, the gravitational field concept is just a starting point. A place where physicists should be seeing any links to other sources of energy, such as the electromagnetic field. After 1929, Einstein was the first to consider this possibility.

However, there is a problem in relying on mathematics too much to get an answer, as Einstein realised and stated elegantly in his statement:

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

The problem with the unified field equations is that we have an "equal sign" that relates the gravitational field with the electromagnetic field. Or to be more precise, while physicists assume uncharged matter is without charge and the gravitational field is a distinct force of nature unrelated to the electromagnetic field, the equations would suggest the electromagnetic field is having a partial contribution to the creation of the gravitational field. But even if one could assume the electromagnetic field is the only thing in nature to create the gravitational field, how does one get away from the equal sign in the equations in order to get to the bottom of the gravitational field problem? What exactly is the gravitational field? But if we assume the electromagnetic field is not the source of the gravitational field, we find a second mathematic component of the equations that scientists assume is not electromagnetic in nature. This is the external energy-momentum tensor representing the mass or energy content of space, which is presumed to be totally uncharged (for mass) and the energy of space is not electromagnetic (and hence something in the mass must be creating the gravitational field). When combined with the gravitational field created by the electromagnetic field as represented by the electromagnetic field tensor, we get the total gravitational energy through the equal sign, which is then mapped mathematically in terms of the energy density of the field as "mountains" and "valleys". The taller the mountain, the higher the energy density or strength of the gravitational field, and vice versa.

But what do we mean by uncharged mass? And is the external energy-momentum tensor truly free of electromagnetic energy?

The question that has to be answered, and the next thing to preoccupy Einstein in his later years, is whether mass and the energy of space is truly uncharged and not electromagnetic. In order to solve the mystery of the gravitational field, he had to imagine ways in which the universe could produce the gravitational field without the electromagnetic field and the presence of charges. And if there is any chance there could still be charges present, Einstein had to imagine these charges as disappearing in his mind in order to see what's left in the universe. For whatever is left must be the source of the gravitational field. Whether it be something exotic or whatever. That is the key to working out what the gravitational field is and how it is created.

Did Einstein push this idea to its logical conclusion? What did he find in the end?

It is quite likely Einstein did come to a conclusion. But something was stopping him for telling his contemporaries as if he felt the world was not ready. At the same time, he remained quietly confident he was on the right track by not deviating from his goal or admitting he was wrong in his approach.

Now the we can re-trace the steps Einstein took and see what it is Einstein saw in the end. If we conduct the necessary thought experiments, we can actually see a different picture on the nature of solid matter that has not been considered before by physicists until now. For a long time, physicists had assumed a gravitational field had to exist independent of any other field, including the electromagnetic field, in order to explain how uncharged matter clumps together on their own in what scientists call the "gravitational effect". And when physicists try to measure the charge of any solid matter when this "gravitational effect" happens (using their generally oversized electrodes connected to a gravimeter), they have been unable to detect a measurable charge of any sort. It is no wonder physicists have been assuming the gravitational field exists and must be real. Without the detection of a charge, physicists assume there is no electromagnetic field. Therefore, we must have a gravitational field.

But what if this picture is not true?

There is something else in nature that is performing this so-called "gravitational" effect.

Firstly, we have to acknowledge at some point the reality that solid matter is constantly charged even if our instruments claim there is no charge. The problem with instruments is that they are not absolutely precise and instantaneous in its measuring. Machines are not perfect. They can't measure at every instant and at any size the charge of an ordinary object. It is impossible. But if we could, we would realise the supposedly uncharged object is "charged". When we observe an object, we are viewing the radiation from the object reaching our eyes. This is only possible because the object has charged particles, called electrons, capable of sending off electromagnetic energy into space through its accelerating and delecelerating motions in the orbits around atoms. There is no such thing as a truly uncharged object. There is electromagnetic radiation spuriously coming off the object all the time. Out instruments are not sensitive enough and the electrodes not small enough to detect this electromagnetic energy.

Indeed, a careful thought experiment will show all ordinary matter made of electrons, protons and neutrons must be constantly charged and spuriously emitting radiation all the time. You can look at any object from the largest to the smallest scale and we have to conclude that charges are present all the time. These charges are making up the object and are able to emit radiation all the time.

So clearly we do have extra charges present in ordinary matter that we once called "uncharged" and bundled in the external energy-momentum tensor. If We are to separate the gravitational field from the electromagnetic field,. all these charges must disappear from the universe for us to see what is left.

When we do remove the charges, what's left is the neutron, right? And as physicists say, the neutron is uncharged. Therefore, the origin of the gravitational field must come from the neutron. Well, hold your horses. How do you know the neutron is uncharged? What evidence do we have for this? Is this because physicists are relying onb instruments to tell them the neutron is uncharged? For all we know, physicists could be falling again into the same trap of assuming the neutron is uncharged.

But what if we told you the neutron is actually composed of an electron and proton? In fact, physicists already know this after breaking up the neutron in a particle accelerator. What physicists can't tell you is how the electrons and proton combine to create the neutron. Are we sure the two particles are properly merged into a single and unique particle? Or is it possible the two charged particles remain as separate individual entities and are merely spinning around each other at very close range and at a high speed that our instruments cannot as yet detect them as separate entities by realising the neutron is leaking electromagnetic energy as the neutron swings its charge from negative to positive? All our instruments can do is take an average reading over a given time frame and present the results to the physicist to suggest there is no charge. But all this could be a furphy.

If this could be true, what happens when we remove the electron and proton from the neutron? We have no neutron. All energy that we know of disappears, and that includes the electromagnetic field. And according to the unified field equations, if everything on the right side of the equations is set to zero, physicists must interpret the field equations as saying the gravitational field is also zero.

So now we have a situation where Einstein could not seperate the gravitational field from the electromagnetic field. But more important, this thought experiment is telling him the electromagnetic field is the source of the gravitational field, and nothing else in nature can create the gravitational field without the electromagnetic field being present. You need the electromagnetic field to be present all the time for the gravitational field to exist.

So how can physicists say that when matter clumps together in what they describe as the "gravitational effect" is not in any way connected to the electromagnetic field? At the very least we have to conclude that the electromagnetic field emitted by charges in matter are contributing to the gravitational field. But exactly how much of a contribution are we talking about here? Ten percent? Fifty percent? Eighty percent? Or could it be one hundred percent? Our previous thought experiment on the nature of so-called uncharged matter and eliminating the charges is suggesting the contribution from the electromagnetic field is one hundred percent.

But could there be a more exotic energy that we don't know of that could produce the gravitational field independent of the electromagnetic field? Perhaps. The only thing is, physicists have not been able to detect what this exotic energy is. Nothing has been found as yet to have a hope of explaining how the gravitational can exist without the electromagnetic field being present.

If you think about this carefully, carrying out all sorts of thought experiments, we will start to realise there is no way we can ever separate the two fields. If one field exists, we should expect the second field to be present, just as we see mathematically in the unified field equations. There is a reason why the two fields are related. One is at least contributing to the other. But now it is looking like the source of the gravitational field is the electromagnetic field, oscillating by its very nature.

Could the electromagnetic field, when oscillating, be the gravitational field? Here we have an interesting scenario and a place for physicists to pursue and find out.

Remember, radiation can behave like a gravitational field by virtue of its ability to move what we originally thought was "uncharged matter". The more we look at radiation and how it behaves with ordinary matter, it reminds us of how a gravitational field behaves.

Is this a coincidence?

Our thought experiment on uncharged matter is suggesting maybe not. It could potentially be true that it has always been radiation that has been pushing solid matter together (rather than a gravitational field pulling on matter) and physicists had not realised it after all this time. All we have to do is to conduct real experiments to determine just how much of a contribution the radiation has on the gravitational field by affecting the electromagnetic field through ingenious methods and seeing how this might affect the gravitational field.

What observational evidence is there to support a gravitational field in radiation?

It is mainly in the observations in certain devices in which radiation seems to move uncharged matter. Uncharged in the sense that no one can see a battery connected to the matter. The matter just moves on its own in the presence of the radiation. A classic example would have to be the radiometer. This is a well-known device for which many scientists assume no charges are applied to it, and yet it is patently clear to scientists how the radiation from the Sun can move the so-called "uncharged" metal plates acting as "solar sails" and watch them spin on the tip of a fine needle. In addition to this, Einstein saw from his General Theory of Relativity another important clue about the nature of light. Principally it is how light can bend in a gravitational field, much like a tennis ball thrown through the air can bend its path by the gravitational field of the Earth.

After carefully thinking about these two observations, Einstein came to the conclusion that there had to be no difference between radiation and ordinary matter (and hence the gravitational field). Or at the very least, the gravitational field has to be part of the radiation, as if the radiation is somehow creating it. If a tennis ball can bend down to the Earth and so too can radiation, then how can we observe any differences in the behaviour? There is no difference. We have to conclude that both observations are a "gravitational effect". Any bending of the path of light or a tennis ball is always assumed to be gravitational in nature.

Just think about it. If there is no matter in space but we observe radiation bending in space, how can it bend if:

for the bending to occur? There is no way the light can bend unless it has a gravitational field of its own to interact with the gravitational field of space to make it bend. Or from a Newtonian perspective, radiation must be generating "mass" that interacts and is influenced by the "mass" of space itself. This is why Einstein eventually made the decision to see radiation as like any other matter (and there are plenty of quotes from other physicists that have concluded in the same way), and that includes having its own gravitational field.

As a result of his careful thinking, Einstein decided to encapsulate the electromagnetic field and the gravitational field into a highly complex mathematical structure known as the unified field equations. This was Einstein's way of saying to the world that he believed the two fields are related.

However, if we think about this link further, the question arises as to how to separate the two fields in reality to show whether one field can exist without the other. How can we be sure one field is not the source for creating the other field and vice versa? With further careful thought, one can actually show the two fields are one and the same thing, if you wanted to make the effort.

Is there a difference between solid matter and the unified field?

From Einstein's perspective, there is none. When radiation creates a gravitational field of its own and interacts with other matter, it behaves just like ordinary solid matter. When radiation is analysed for its particle-like properties (known as photons) during its interaction with solid matter and compared to how a gravitational field is meant to interact with the same matter, Einstein found no difference between an oscillating electromagnetic field and a gravitational field, and similarly between an oscillating electromagnetic field and solid matter. Everything is seen as one and the same thing.

The only question for Einstein was whether radiation is the gravitational field. This is the sixty-four million dollar question. Or is there another way to generate a gravitational field without ever needing to use an electromagnetic field? Indeed, that was the only remaining question Einstein had in his mind in the latter part of his life after he published his Unified Field Theory in a German scientific journal in 1929. For if there was a way to show radiation is the gravitational field and nothing else can create it, then we can say we live in a purely electromagnetic universe. Then the only force of nature is the electromagnetic field (via radiation), and everything must have an electromagnetic explanation, including gravity and universal gravitation. It is as simple as that.

But if that is not true, then there must be more exotic things happening in the universe that physicists have to learn about. Perhaps an unseen exotic particle is creating the gravitational field? So far, there is no evidence to support this. No exotic particle alleged observed in particle accelerators can live long enough and have the means (and in sufficient quantities) to create a gravitational field all the time to explain how matter comes together on its own throughout the universe. If one had to poke a stick at any other energy capable of doing this with solid matter throughout the universe, you would have to choose radiation. It is ubiquitous. We live in an ocean of radiation, and there is no way of escaping it. The quantity is there. The question is how radiation interacts with solid matter and what imbalances in the electromagnetic force is taking place between two or more objects. If there is an imbalance in the force, could it be enough to account for the gravitational effect of matter clumping together?

What areas of physics are likely to be challenged by Einstein's Unified Field Theory?

There are a number of areas, but our research indicates that physics will almost certainly face in the near future the following fallacies within its current body of knowledge:

  1. Gravity and universal gravitation is a separate and distinct force of nature.
  2. The neutron is uncharged at all times.
  3. There are exotic forces of nature known as the "weak" and "strong" nuclear forces.
  4. There are uncharged objects in the universe.
  5. Radiation cannot exert a strong enough force on solid "uncharged" matter for any practical purposes on a large-scale.

Looking at the Unified Field Theory and the way the universe works from observations, it is looking strongly like the following is closer to the truth:

  1. There is no difference between gravity/universal gravitation and radiation. Gravity and universal gravitation is controlled by radiation, and radiation is gravity/universal gravitation. So why bother having a gravitational field if radiation can do all the work of the gravitational field? The universe should be seen in a purely electromagnetic way with radiation applying the necessary pressure needed to keep things on the surface of planets and other objects as well as moving planets around stars, and stars around galaxies. It is up to us to confirm this remarkable possibility through mathematical calculations or an experiment. Or better still, use computer modelling.
  2. The neutron is constantly charged. It is controlled by the two fundamental charged particles of the electron and proton spinning around each other to give the impression to an outside observer that the neutron is uncharged.
  3. Only the electromagnetic field controls how protons stay together and how the electron comes out of the neutron. There are no exotic forces of nature to consider.
  4. No matter how much we like to think or believe after measuring something and observing the results with our eyes, there is no such thing as a perfectly uncharged object at all times. We cannot trust what we see with our eyes or instruments all the time to think that we have the truth. We have to use our imagination to go beyond what our eyes are observing and to use computer modelling to confirm the new picture. Therefore, an atom with equal numbers of electrons and protons cannot be considered totally and consistently uncharged at every instant in time. The same is true of the neutron. Indeed, not even radiation can be considered truly uncharged at all times. Its oscillation ensures it remains continuously charged as well.
  5. Radiation is only moving the charged component of matter. And that means there is a way to amplify the radiation force on matter, simply through adding more charge in solid matter, as well as its acceleration (which is controlled by frequency of the oscillating charge, and hence frequency of the radiation).

Computer simulations will help to simplify the mathematics and the amount of calculations needed to be solved in order to test the new electromagnetic approach to universal gravitation/gravity and how protons stay together in the atomic nuclei.

Can we not calculate this mathematically to see if all this is true?

Yes, but the calculations are numerous and quite complex when accounting for all the factors. It is better to let computers do the simulations in a way that follows how radiation interacts with solid matter and see how solid matter moves. In fact, mathematics can be an impediment to seeing the solutions because it often requires a lot of calculations to solve complex equations, especially when we are dealing with the unified field equations. Something that Einstein knew very well after he realised how long it took for him to find just one solution — a static case that allowed him to simplify the calculations.

However, we need to be dealing with non-static case, such as an oscillating electromagnetic field and watching what happens from the solutions we derive from the unified field equations. Unfortunately, all this work would involve a considerable amount of calculations to solve the unified field equations.

In his day, Einstein had no computers to assist in his work. Today, scientists can speed up the calculations and do approximate modelling to simplify the mathematics in a fraction of the time and see how likely certain pictures emerging from the Unified Field Theory are likely to be true.

What is the gravitational wave?

If the new picture we have based on the Unified Field Theory is true, then a gravitational wave is likely to be nothing more than an electromagnetic wave. Or to put it simply, radiation.

If you think about this, it will make sense. A gravitational wave is simply a higher energy density of the normal universal background gravitational energy. An electromagnetic wave is also a heightened energy-density region of electromagnetic energy compared to the surrounding universal background radiation. But since radiation can create a gravitational field according to the Unified Field Theory and it appears to the source of the gravitational field, it stands to reason that the gravitational wave is most probably the electromagnetic wave. For example, a laser beam is a region of higher electromagnetic energy density. At the same time, if we wish to retain the gravitational concept, then, according to the Unified Field Theory, the laser beam is also a gravity amplified region of space due to this link between the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field.

Thus a sufficiently intense flash of light from an exploding star or the merging of two black holes in the depths of space of shooting of electromagnetic energy should provide sufficient gravitational energy in the light for scientists to prove the existence of a gravitational wave. But is this wave nothing more than light itself from a purely electromagnetic perspective? In other words, could any kind of light flashes in space be evidence for the existence of gravitational waves? Probably. The only reason why traditional 20th-century-thinking physicists are not considering this situation is because they need to observe everything and that means it is important to have a sensitive enough instrument to measure this tiny amount of gravitational energy in the flash of light. But if they could, physicists would see the gravitational waves in all the light that comes from space.

Perhaps what physicists need is a way to amplify the radiation for the gravitational effect to be more obvious and easily detectable.

How fast do gravitational waves travel?

After learning of the connection between the electromagnetic field and the gravitational field, it is not surprising to see that the two waves do travel at the exact same speed, which is the speed of light. In fact, an experiment has been conducted by scientists to show the world's first measurement on the speed of gravity. As we have mentioned in our UFT book:

"In an article published in the New Scientist magazine dated 7 January 2003 and titled "First Speed of Gravity Measurement Revealed", two scientists Ed Fomalont of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in Charlottesville, Virginia, and Sergei Kopeikin of the University of Missouri in Columbia, made the first measurement on the speed of gravity with the help of the planet Jupiter.

The experiment involved scientists looking at the radio waves from a distant quasar focused into a ring and seeing it get distorted as the radio waves interact with Jupiter’s own gravitational waves.

First, Kopeikin managed to rework the equations of general relativity in such a way as to show that the gravitational field of a moving body can be determined by just three basic variables: mass, velocity and the speed of gravity. Since scientists already know the mass and velocity of, say, a large planet (in this case, Jupiter), it should be a relatively simple matter to work out its gravitational field and with it the speed of gravity. And second, the scientists had to choose a distant radio wave source (in this case a quasar) to conduct the experiment.

In September 2002, Kopeikin and his colleague, Fomalont, had the opportunity to test the speed of gravity by observing the radio waves from an extremely distant and bright quasar as they bend slightly around Jupiter and became distorted by the gravitational waves of the planet before the radio waves finally reached the Earth.

After experimentally measuring the apparent change in position of the quasar, the scientists were able to work out the gravitational field of Jupiter and, with it, provide the world’s first measurement of the speed of gravity.

The official figure showed a speed of 0.95 times that of light with an error margin of plus or minus 0.25―well within the expected range needed to support Einstein’s assumption that the speed of gravity is the speed of light. As the scientists were quoted in the New Scientist magazine:

"We became the first two people to know the speed of gravity, one of the fundamental constants of nature."

The result was announced at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Seattle, USA."

If we did not know about this connection, it would be seen as an astonishing fact that two separate forces of nature — namely, the gravitational and electromagnetic fields — could travel at the exact same speed (well, the above experiment shows the error margin does cover the expected theoretical speed). How can this be? Are we to assume this is a coincidence? Well, not anymore. There is a reason why the two forces of nature can travel at the same speed. They are meant to be one and the same field (or at least give scientists a clue that the two fields are probably related given how fast the fields travel).

Can the speed of light change?

Yes it can. It has been assumed by most scientists that radiation (and, therefore, gravitational waves) travels at constant speed and never seems to vary no matter the energy density of space. Actually this is not true. Depending on the energy density of space, the speed of light and gravitational waves can increase or decrease. Generally, the lower the energy density, the faster the speed. Increase this energy density, and the speed slows down. Thus when light bends in a denser gravitational field surrounding an astronomical body, the speed of light naturally slows down. When it emerges into the depths of space, the energy density goes down slightly, and the speed of light increases in response to reach the standard speed as we know it based on this natural density.

In the limiting case of zero energy density in space known as the perfect vacuum of space (i.e., no ocean of radiation), radiation can stretch out to cover any distance (right up to infinity) and will transmit energy across this distance at infinite speed.

On the other hand, increase the energy density of the space and radiation gets compressed and slows down. If the density is high enough in a certain region of space, you can technically walk faster than the speed of light (so long as you are in a lower energy density environment). Increase the density a little further and radiation can be made to bend back on itself (also known as radiation recycling).

Everything is controlled by the energy density of space (also known as spacetime).

Is this limiting case of infinite speed in a perfect vacuum mathematically supported?

Yes. In Newtonian physics without any relativistic considerations (i.e. the presence of the universal background radiation), the mathematical universe created by Newton's equations is always described as a perfect vacuum. If radiation (and solid matter) could be confined to a small spherical volume within a perfect vacuum (this is questionable in reality), both radiation and solid matter will behave in accordance with the Newtonian laws of physics, including the ability to accelerate to infinite speed, or bend its path in a gravitational field.

The same is true in quantum theory. For example, when you hear the claim by physicists that a quantum particle can influence another particle at any distance instantaneously, known as quantum entanglement, it is because the mathematics represent a perfect vacuum for light (the messenger of the information) to transmit energy at infinite speeds. There is no relativistic considerations applied to quantum theory.

Do solid particles and radiation stay together in a perfect vacuum?

If a perfect vacuum could ever exist in the real universe (actually, it is impossible), radiation and solid matter would fall apart and the energy contained within them would spread out and disappear. Then, there would be no solid matter or any perceptibly measurable radiation (of course, we cannot discount quantum fluctuations unless the Universe is infinite in size, but then it would be impossible to prove through any experiment due to small-scale nature of these fluctuations). Only in the mathematical world of Newtonian physics (and quantum theory) do we assume that photons and other solid matter can stay together in a confined region in a perfect vacuum and behave in the manner described by the equations of motion.

Can matter exceed the speed of light?

In the current energy density of space above the Earth's atmosphere, the speed of light is approximately 300,000km/s based on the perspective of an observe looking at light while he thinks he is stationary. In different energy density environments, you can have ordinary matter moving at or exceeding this speed of light value shown above. This is certainly feasible and achievable. However, even though the speed of light can vary in a different energy density environment and can give the impression that we can go faster than the speed of light, in reality, no solid matter moving in that same energy density region can ever attain or exceed the speed of light.

When the energy density in space is the same everywhere, Einstein’s fundamental law regarding the maximum speed possible for light and matter is never violated.

How is solid matter created?

Physicists are not entirely sure. What we do know is that energy and matter are never created out of nothing, nor are they destroyed. Energy is only converted to matter and vice versa. Therefore, whether energy becomes a particle or not will depend on things like the energy density of spacetime (i.e., the energy that is permeating space, which is primarily radiation). If the density is pushed to the extremes, you can either (i) convert matter to energy in a very low energy density region; or (ii) create matter from energy in a very high energy density region. In the latter case, this is done by bending the path of radiation to create what appears to be a self-perpetuating, ring-like structure of energy having all the necessary electromagnetic (and apparent gravitational, or solid mass-like) properties that give it the ability to exert an electromagnetic (or so-called gravitational) force on anything pressing against it so as to give it the impression of being a solid object. How this is done precisely is not entirely clear, but perhaps it is closer to the truth to say that when the ring-like structure is formed and is rotating at high speeds, not only is synchrotron radiation being emitted to help recoil on its internal energy and keep the atomic particle together, but the loss in energy from the synchrotron radiation can push against other matter. Then, depending on the way this electromagnetic energy making up an atomic particle is behaving and shaped (combined with its rotational factor), it may help to acquire more energy from the surroundings (perhaps through the poles) in order to maintain this internal electromagnetic structure and provide the continuous emission of synchrotron radiation. The exact structure of the energy inside an atomic particle for an electron or proton needed to replenish the energy it has lost to the environment remains unknown.

Could this mechanism be similar to the way tornadoes work by requiring some external force to keep pushing against the energy and mass that is rotating at high speeds in order to keep it in a tight ring-like (or vortex) structure, while the rest of the environment is able to feed into the system at the top and bottom ends of the ring-like structure the necessary replenishing energy and mass and have it "electrically activated" in a manner that maintains the structure?

What are exotic particles?

Exotic particles are likely to be unstable ring-like structures created by radiation. In the normal energy density of space that we see in the real universe, they are extremely short-lived. The energy in space is not able to feed the particles what it needs to sustain the ring-like structure and eventually the particles fall apart into smaller and simpler particles and eventually into pure electromagnetic energy. The only truly fundamental and stable particles we know of in the real universe and at the current energy density of the Universe are the electrons and protons. All other matter we see, which is stable and visible, was created by these two fundamental particles and radiation (i.e., the neutron).

What is inertia?

You know the feeling when you are accelerating or decelerating, including the spinning or turning in a different direction (which is just another way of saying you are accelerating), that seems to make your body want to move in the opposite direction when it was at rest, or travel in a straight line when changing direction? This is called by the physicists as inertia. Traditionally, this was seen as a purely "gravitational effect" because of how inertia seems to be controlled by mass and one has to be in a region containing a gravitational field in order for the field to move the mass. Well, according to the Unified Field Theory, inertia is almost certainly the radiation. But more interestingly, it is likely radiation is moving the charged particles making up your body, not the mass.

When you spin yourself on one spot, something wants to stretch your body apart. And the more you move away from a central position, the more the body feels like it is being pushed away from the centre by an invisible force. This is the radiation going in from one direction and coming out of your body (similar to the way particles are formed through its rotational movement and highly compressed energy density) and taking with it the charges making up your body. Any energy that flows in a certain direction will be replenished from another direction to help maintain this inertial force in accordance with energy conservation laws.

Pick up a heavy bowling ball and hold it in your hand with your arm stretched out. As you spin around with it, extra radiation flows through the ball and pushes it outwards more strongly. There is extra mass, but in fact there is extra charges, and that's the focus here. Radiation is only moving the charges, not the mass. When you have more charges, radiation can move more of these charges to create the effect of inertia inside the so-called uncharged matter. If another person could pick up this extra energy emitted by the ball as it swings past him/her, there would be a naturally heightened energy density region coming off it and travelling through space at the speed of light like a rotating sprinkler head emitting water. Compared to the surrounding environment, every time the ball swings past the observer, he will receive what physicists call a gravitational wave. It will be very faint and extremely hard to detect, but it is there. However, this is nothing more than an electromagnetic wave of high-energy density compared to the rest of the environment. And it is this wave that is moving the charges in mass to create the effect of inertia.

It is radiation that is controlling the inertial effect, not the gravitational field.

Is there such a thing as uncharged matter?

No. According to the Unified Field Theory, anything that looks uncharged must carry a charge. And the charge is coming from electrons and protons (the only two fundamental particles of the Universe, apart from the photon in radiation). We only describe it as uncharged because our imperfect instruments and oversized electrodes for measuring things will take a sample of the charges present over a short time frame and surface area and present an average result, which is zero charge.

All matter is continuously charged by the electrons (negative) and protons (positive) that compose the atoms and form the crystalline structure. Furthermore, electrons and protons will naturally and continuously emit radiation because they perform accelerating motions, such as spinning and orbiting one another (in a neutron) and around the nucleus of atoms, and the atoms as a whole vibrate ever so slightly in all directions. So as the electrons move around the orbits, there are changes in the charge of the atom as a whole (and not just the electrons and protons), which can be partially negative (from extra atoms congregating more to one end of an atom in one instant in time) or partially positive (if the nucleus is partially exposed). It is this radiation that gives rise to matter creating a gravitational field and subsequently create the so-called "gravitational effect" of matter being able to clump together (and the formation of the chemical bonds), and it does so through the process known as radiation shielding leading to an imbalance in radiation pressure exerted around the surface of solid matter by the presence of other matter.

What does this mean for the neutron?

It means the neutron cannot be uncharged. It has to be constantly charged at all times. It is just that the neutron is doing a very good job of fooling physicists into thinking it is uncharged based on their measurements using their imperfect instruments. The Unified Field Theory expects there to be a charge. The appearance of "no charge" is an illusion. There has to be a charge and is being hidden or not carefully observed with a sensitive enough instrument to see this properly.

What is the key to understanding the strong and weak nuclear forces?

The key lies in the neutron — something that other physicists have noted. There is something interesting about the neutron and it plays a pivotal role in keeping protons together inside the atom's nuclei. But how does it do this?

First we have to know the charge of a neutron. This is crucial as the model one creates to explain how protons stay together will differ markedly.

At the present time, physicists is of the opinion that the neutron is charged. The evidence is based on their observations using instruments to measure the charge (or at least see how the particle moves through space in the presence of an electromagnetic field). By accepting this observation without further thought, physicists have to resort to some kind of complicated and exotic particle(s) and forces of nature to explain how protons stay together as well as explain how neutrons decay into protons and imagine two mysterious and exotic new forces of nature being responsible for keeping the protons together, and why neutrons can "decay" to become a proton and a neutron. They are called the strong and weak nuclear forces.

Well, someone has to start somewhere as Newton did for the gravitational field.

And then to explain why the electron and proton do not show their charge in the neutron, it was necessary for physicists to create new exotic subatomic particles called quarks and hopefully find some experimental support for the existence of these particles and of the type of force holding them together.

So far so good, right? Not exactly.

We have the Unified Field Theory to contend with (thanks to Einstein's efforts), and here the neutron does indeed play an important role in holding together the nuclei of an atom, but not as physicists had originally thought. If the new picture of the neutron based on Einstein's work is correct, the forces of nature within the nuclei should actually be entirely electromagnetic in nature.

In other words, the neutron must be charged.

As physicists have discovered, the nucleus of an atom is composed of neutrons and protons. The protons are positively charged atomic particles. So by the laws of electromagnetism, these particles would naturally prefer to repel each other. However, they are kept together, partially by synchrotron radiation of the spinning positively charged nuclei creating a recoiling force on the particles, but also by the neutrons themselves. The question is, how does the neutron do this? The answer may lie in the composition of the neutron.

So far, physicists are confident in saying the neutron can be broken down or decay into an electron, a proton, and some remaining energy to form an uncharged anti-neutrino. Sometimes there is a delay in the decay process for the electron once the proton emerges as the electron can be bound to some additional energy to form a W-Boson, but eventually decays into the electron and anti-neutrino. At any rate, we can already see from this picture how there are opposite charges lurking in the neutron. The problem for the scientists is what happens to the electron and proton when they are brought together inside a neutron. Do the particles retain their charge, or do the particles combine in some unknown mechanism to get this charge neutralized? If it is the latter, then we do have an exotic uncharged particle called the neutron. But if not, then everything must rely on the electron and proton.

According to the Unified Field Theory, we cannot have an uncharged neutron. The neutron has to be charged and done in a way that gives the impression it is uncharged. For this to be possible, the charges must be of equal magnitude, opposite in the charges, and doing something in their motions to fool scientific instruments into showing an uncharged result. Luckily for the scientists, the electron and proton are there to provide this equal and opposite charges. Furthermore, it is interesting to find that the mass of the neutron is only slightly greater than the combined total mass of the electron and proton as if suggesting that the electron and proton may not have transformed themselves into another particle but could potentially remain intact and providing their own charge properties for the neutron. Any remaining energy is probably there to help with keeping the electron and proton at close range. What remains left now is how the electrons and protons are moving to create charge and fool physicists into thinking there is no charge.

Is it possible for the neutron to be "constantly charged"?

Well, what if there is a chance that the electron and proton are separate charged entities spinning around each other to give the impression to an outside observer of a single uncharged particle called the neutron? A perfectly reasonable picture and something to consider.

To give an analogy, consider a boy and girl holding hands and spinning around each other as quickly as they can. The boy’s force keeps the girl standing, and her force keeps him standing. As long as neither lets go, the pair will continue to spin in place. But if either the boy or the girl weakens the force by suddenly letting go, the pairing will separate. Inside the neutron, a similar thing is probably happening there too. Both the electron and the proton are engaged in an electromagnetic "dance” with each other; but if the dancing is disrupted, the neutron will be destroyed.

Once we realise this possibility, thanks to the Unified Field Theory, we have an interesting situation where protons can literally stay together in the nuclei in a manner not unlike the clown at a circus that holds three bricks mid-air. All the clown has to do is press the bricks together with his hands and provide just enough lift to stop the bricks from falling down straight away. Once the bricks stay in the air, he let’s his hands go, moves them very quickly as he grabs one brick and puts it in another position, and then brings his hands together quickly. The bricks are joined together and prevented from falling by the hands. Once the bricks are lifted slightly to keep them in the air, he can start the whole process over again. Do it at night with glowing bricks and the clown wearing black clothing throughout, and the bricks will look like they are floating in the air and jostling with each other, vying for a position, and perhaps even trying to repel each other and move away, before something invisible somehow holds everything together. If would look like as if a mysterious force is causing the bricks to stay attracted to each other. Sure, we all know that it is clown who is holding them together. However, if we didn’t know this, you could say that the attractive force was gravitational. Well, how would you know for sure? With the advent of the Unified Field Theory, we can say that anything that is gravitational has to be electromagnetic in character. Therefore, in the atomic nuclei, it is likely that the strong nuclear force holding the protons together is nothing more than the electromagnetic force that pushes the electrons and protons together. This is the force that makes the oppositely charged particles look like they are attracted to each other. If this is true, then the thing that is gluing the protons together is the electron (within the neutron). What is more important is the electron (or the radiation it emits, or lack thereof through destructive interference) in each neutron—it helps to act as the "electromagnetic glue" for the protons in the atomic nuclei. And if the neutron should ever get too close to a proton, the electron can naturally and electromagnetically be displaced and move to the proton, turning the neutron into a proton, and the proton receiving the electron will become a neutron. This is the so-called "weak nuclear force" in action, but done in a purely electromagnetic way.

Can the uncharged anti-neutrino control gravity?

If everything we have said so far is not true, then our focus must be to find an exotic particle to create the gravitational field. We know the neutron is somehow contributing to this. But after breaking down the neutron, scientists have mentioned an uncharged particle called the anti-neutrino. Could this be the thing that is responsible for creating the gravitational field?

There is a problem with this view. Like neutrinos, these are thought to have zero mass and travel at the speed of light, but others have claimed it can have a small mass except it cannot travel at the speed of light. It is either one or the other. No one knows for sure. If it is the former, it is highly reminiscent of the properties of radiation as if it could be electromagnetic in character. Even if it could be the latter to help use its small mass to move other matter, what makes a neutrino especially hard to detect and study is how dense and small the energy packet is. So small and travelling so fast that it rarely interacts with other particles of matter, making it less of a candidate for generating the gravitational field. As you know, we need a gravitational field or some particle responsible for creating this field to move so much mass to form the spherical planets and stars and make them move in orbits. So something has to be interacting with solid matter in a fairly significant way, and far more than anti-neutrinos can ever deliver. To get an idea of just how rare the interaction with matter is, Katlyn Edwards said:

In fact, a neutrino would have to pass through several thousand light years of solid lead before it would have a 50-50 chance of being absorbed."

If that is not enough, John F. Beacom and Nicole F. Bell from the University of Melbourne acknowledged the possibility that neutrinos could "decay into truly invisible particles", making anti-neutrinos less likely to control the gravitational field for all times.

At the end of the day, with all things considered, the only thing that can control the gravitational field has to be the electromagnetic field. Or else we retain all potentially outdated theories and with it the view of an independent force of nature called the gravitational field.

Will quantum physics have classical Newtonian explanations?

There is a good chance there will be. Assuming the gravitational field is the electromagnetic field and we live in a purely electromagnetic universe, there will be changes in the way we view the quantum world. And the most astonishing thing is the likelihood that we will see a return of classical science to the quantum world. In other words, there will be classical Newtonian explanations based on the laws of electromagnetism to explain why quantum particles naturally do what they do, even for the most bizarre behaviours considered unique to quantum theory. Physicists may not be able to observe this, but our imagination should show these electromagnetic "cause and effect" explanations between mass and energy no matter how small or dense the particles or energy packets might be. As much as this may shock some physicists, the reality is that everything is related by the one and only force of nature known as the electromagnetic field. Fundamentally, it is radiation that links all the supposedly separate fields of Newtonian physics, general relativity and quantum theory in a coherent and simple way. It is up to us to use our imagination (rather than trying to observe everything or be too accepting of old concepts and bizarre quantum behaviours) to recognise the electromagnetic explanations for anything we don't fully understand or think is unique to a particular area of physics. Even the double-slit experiment will have a simple classical explanation.

The UFT book gives some insights into the quantum world, including how radiation can arrange quantum particles neatly as bands like a wave being constructively interfered on a screen in front of two open slits.

What are probability waves in quantum mechanics?


If you want to retain the gravitational field of Newtonian physics, then it is this field created by radiation that does the work of attracting quantum particles to certain regions of space. The gravitational field of the radiation is what raises the probability of quantum particles appearing in certain regions of space. Or eliminate the gravitational field concept and rely on energy density or constructive and destructive interference of electromagnetic energy to achieve the same so-called "gravitational" effects. And this time through a pushing force (rather than any pulling or "attractive" force).

Should we link light and gravity under the one fundamental force of nature called the electromagnetic force?

There is no reason why we shouldn't unless some physicist can prove the existence of something more exotic in the Universe, is stable for all times, and/or is available insufficient quantities to move solid matter.

<>In order to make the link between the two fields more palatable to traditional 20th century-thinking physicists of the old gravitational field concept, one should make efforts to explain gravity from a purely electromagnetic perspective. Use radiation as the driving force for all things. Find out if there is an electromagnetic explanation. Once a theory is developed to explain how gravity might work using electromagnetic fields, physicists should apply computer modelling and perform new experiments to show whether the electromagnetic field can produce a certain magnitude in the force of the radiation pressure on solid matter that would be same as the force of gravity. If it looks the same for all intents and purposes, we should see the two fields as the same.

Once we see the link, this would be the time when physicists must decide which field to use to explain virtually everything of what we see and is happening in the Universe. According to our research, the choice of a field that we recommend physicists to keep is the electromagnetic field.

Can we unify all the laws of physics and create the ultimate Unified Field Theory?

It would appear that there is a way to create a unified field theory for all of physics under the umbrella of electromagnetism. Einstein's Unified Field Theory was just the beginning. It probably needs some tweaking on the sides to cover the latest observations from quantum theory. Or maybe it does account for everything in the quantum world. But due to the complex nature of the mathematics, we recommend using computer modelling and simplified mathematics to confirm the electromagnetic explanations do relate to reality at all scales.

And we also recommend using more imagination to see the electromagnetic explanations for various phenomena. Do not stick to traditional concepts all the time.

So what is gravity?

Still salivating for more insights? You insatiable thing. Fortunately, there will be an electromagnetic explanation for gravity/universal gravitation.

Keeping the picture simple, what we can say is that experiments have determined that the "force of gravity" on the Earth's surface can be measured to a highly accurate numerical figure. The value will vary at different altitudes and whether you are standing on Mount Everest or at sea level. But generally, the number is fixed to a certain number of decimal places. If one wanted to use the curvature of space-time in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity to calculate this value, the results will be the same (and even more accurate when the mass approaches the Sun or something much more dense and bigger). In the case of the Unified Field Theory, this is merely an extension of the General Theory of Relativity. The results should be the same too, except we are using radiation as the prime mover for solid matter and the presence of charges in solid matter, not some mysterious gravitational field we don't fully understand and the mysterious mass making up so-called "uncharged matter" to explain it. We have the electromagnetic field, or radiation to use instead as well as the presence of charges in solid matter. Therefore, at the very least what will change here is the explanation we give to gravity using a new electromagnetic explanation.

Previously we were told that uncharged matter was essential to creating this force of gravity, and how much of it determines the strength of the gravitational field. Not any more. The Unified Field Theory is now telling us that it is the charged particles making up the so-called uncharged matter that is important, and how much of these particles are present in matter that will control the strength of the gravitational (or electromagnetic) field exerted by radiation. The particles are already accelerating through vibrations and spinning motions. We just need to account for the amount of charge and the energy density of space created by radiation to determine whether the magnitude of the radiation force pushing on all these charges is just right to match the magnitude of the gravitational force on so-called uncharged matter, and what exactly is happening to the electromagnetic field of the radiation around matter to allow matter to "clump together" in a gravitational way.

Leaving aside the charge in solid matter, rhe fundamental picture we need to understand in the electromagnetic theory of gravity is the idea of radiation shielding and how mass (or charges) reduce the amount of radiation and its frequency being emitted by matter to create an imbalance in the electromagnetic force exerted on matter by radiation.

For this radiation shielding effect to occur, you need mass (or, more accurately, the charges). You can have one body doing this radiation shielding effect if you like. But for the purposes of explaining this concept, let us imagine another body is present near the first one. Naturally both will act as a radiation shield to each other. Both bodies contain a certain amount of mass (or charges) to help reduce the amount of radiation reaching one side of each body — that is, the side facing each other. The effectiveness of this shielding depends very much on the separation distance and on the amount of mass (or charges) present, and even right down to the type of materials we use (e.g., metal spheres can act like large massive bodies with its highly effective radiation shielding properties). Once you have established some form of shielding, there is already an imbalance in the force of radiation coming in from space to hit the bodies on the outside surfaces compared to what is coming in to hit the inner surfaces, as well as what is coming off the inner surfaces when the radiation gets re-emitted back into space.

Remember, some radiation is being absorbed and emitted on the inner surfaces. Some of this radiation will try to travel through the body and potentially out through the opposite end (i.e., outer surfaces facing to space). Other radiation will get reflected or re-emitted back into space, which is why we can see the objects. But there is one other factor at play to consider here. We have to remember that the frequency of this emitted radiation is lower than when it hit the surface in the first place. Why? This is because radiation collides with the electrons in the atoms making up the mass. And as the laws of energy conservation states, this energy will be re-emitted, but not as you would expect. The frequency of the emitted radiation is not the same. It will be lower. Energy has been transferred to the electron and that takes up some of the energy, whereas any excess energy is emitted as radiation at a lower frequency. Now, here is the catch: lower frequency of the radiation means it has lower energy density. Energy density controls the force of the radiation on solid matter. So, when this radiation comes off the surface, the recoiling force of the radiation on the surface is reduced (compared to when the radiation arrived to hit the body because of its higher frequency). Combine this with the fact that radiation from space hitting the outer surfaces of the two bodies cannot entirely penetrate, let alone emerge unscathed out of the ground at the opposite end of each body, and we have a situation where the overall force of the radiation on the inner surfaces of each body must be less than what is being exerted by radiation coming in from space to hit the outer surfaces of the two bodies in the first place. The radiation between the two bodies must be reduced to a lower energy density by a lower frequency and with less radiation. It means that we have an imbalance in the electromagnetic forces exerted by this energy such that the radiation wants to push the two bodies together.

It is looking obvious that the two bodies will have to be pushed by radiation on the outer surfaces to bring them together.

When looking at this situation from the perspective of people standing on the Earth's surface, a certain amount of radiation from space has to be coming down on their heads and shoulders at a higher energy density and, therefore, exerting greater radiation pressure (or force) on top compared to what is coming out of the ground. This radiation is what's pushing people to the surface of the Earth compared to what is coming out of the ground.

Without the second body present, a molten object will naturally be pushed by radiation into a spherical shape. However, when two bodies are in close proximity to each other, the clumping effect of matter is entirely due to the way radiation wants to naturally push the matter together due to their radiation shielding effect and lowering of the frequency of the emitted radiation and quantity of radiation coming in from space. The movement will be slow at first, but would naturally accelerate as the radiation shielding becomes more effective (i.e., energy density on the inner surfaces of the bodes facing each other is reduced even more and there is less emitted lower-frequency radiation coming out) the closer the two bodies are to each other.

Furthermore, the force of radiation is exerted only on the charged particles making up the bodies, never on uncharged matter.

Also, if you add more charged particles to the bodies (or more mass, although the charge will play a more significant role), it is possible to increase or decrease the strength of this radiation force (or energy density) so as to repel or attract the bodies in a more dramatic way. This may seem counterintuitive because particles have mass and adding more particles should only increase the gravitational effect between the two bodies. However, if the particles have charge and are the same sign (i.e., other negative or positive), the gravitational effect can be seen as anti-gravity like. In other words, the bodies can be made to repel from each other. But if one body has a predominantly negative charge, and the other a positive charge, the bodies merely amplify the gravitational effect. The energy density between the bodies is reduced more dramatically through destructive interference of the radiation being reflected between their inner surfaces, and the radiation on the outer surfaces of the bodies can more easily push the bodies together.

Electrostatic attraction and repulsion can be seen as essentially an "anti-gravitational" and "gravitational" effect. But since the gravitational field need not have to exist, we can see this movement as caused by radiation pressure and changes to the energy density of space around the surface of each body of mass.

Our scientific understanding of gravity and universal gravitation is now changing even as we speak. The Unified Field Theory devised by Einstein is setting the scene for a new interpretation. And it is now looking strongly like it is radiation that is doing all the work.

How do we calculate the radiation pressure to test this new theory of gravity?

Here we have the crux of this picture: Is this radiation pressure merely contributing to the overall force of gravity? Or is it actually doing all the work of the gravitational field? The Unified Field Theory and careful thinking tells us that radiation and gravity should be one and the same thing. In other words, the radiation pressure from space at whatever energy density it has reached upon hitting the Earth's surface minus whatever radiation pressure is seeping out of the ground at its own lower energy density should equal the force of gravity coming down to push us to the surface as measured experimentally when we drop things to the ground from the same height (i.e., not too high, but kept close to the ground).

Is this true?

Computer simulations should tell us the answer. But if it works, a new revolution in physics will begin. And the chance to unify all of physics will be achievable under the umbrella of electromagnetism.

This is the next aim of physicists, sometime this century.

Was it not Sir Isaac Newton that began the Unified Field Theory? If so, didn't Einstein "stand on the shoulders of giants" prior to creating his own Unified Field Theory?

As Kenneth Chow said:

"The first person who raised Unified Field Theory was, as far as I am aware, Issac Newton (On the Shoulders of Giants, p.1146). The second was Michael Faraday. Einstein was only the third, at best, and he did not accomplish it before his death. The Unified Field Theory can only be reached by analysis of Newton's and Faraday's intuition and premonition."

Yes, it was important to have someone begin the work on a unified field theory. So, in a sense, you are correct to say that Einstein did require the standing on the shoulders of at least a couple of great men. In the case of the gravitational field concept, this was Sir Isaac Newton's forte. As for the electromagnetic field, we must thank Michael Faraday (and Sir James Maxwell for later encapsulating mathematically the experimental results of Faraday into a coherent theory). From these two (or three) men, Einstein was able to unify the electromagnetic field and the gravitational field in a mathematical way to create his Unified Field Theory.

However, as with all things, you can't stand on the shoulders of other great men forever. At some point you may have to make the decision to ignore the explanations given by other great scientists.

In the case of the Unified Field Theory, the way to advance science is to say there is no gravitational field. We could be living in a purely electromagnetic universe controlled by radiation. If that is true, then we must let go of our hold on the old gravitational concept and the need to stand on the shoulders of Sir Isaac Newton.

However, to see this more clearly, we have to ask ourselves, is there such a thing as a truly uncharged object?

There is no reason not to think that Einstein had not thought about this problem. The picture is simple enough. Someone of Einstein's considerable intellect would have considered this picture. Therefore, it would seem perfectly reasonable in the end for him to consider moving away from "standing on the shoulders of great men". Sure, you can say some great scientists must stand on the shoulders of other great men in science, at least in the initial stages. But, at some point, you must also be prepared to jump off the shoulders of these individuals. In the case of the gravitational field, there is now a strong possibility that the field does not exist. If this is true, one has to move away from Newton and make the giant leap into a new electromagnetic world.

Good science is not about staying continuously on the shoulders of great men. Good science is about being prepared to make an independent stand on your own shoulders and stating what is really going on. You cannot simply build upon other people’s work all the time and think everyone else must be right. Otherwise you would end up having a situation of constantly slapping on another bandaid on top of another to solve more and more problems (usually by creating new exotic particles and finding any evidence to support them) and not really getting to the source of the bleeding problem. All you are doing is holding up the current scientific knowledge, flawed as it is, without realising it is like a house of cards. Find a problem so fundamental whose answer is so radical that the entire house could collapse, and then we have to rebuild a new house to support a new way of thinking.

In our opinion, our research suggests that it is far better to get to the source of the problem and ensure the foundations of physics are right.

Didn't Einstein express doubt about his work?

Yes, Einstein always expressed doubts in his own work. It just wouldn’t be Einstein if he didn’t. It is natural for any scientist to question his own work in case something comes along to cast possible doubt on certain ideas. The question here is, which of his theories did Einstein question within his own work?

The General Theory of Relativity is a classic example where Einstein did express doubts. Partly because of the mathematics and how well it relates to reality, which is a perennial problem for all scientists who create mathematical theories. Fortunately for Einstein, his theory is noted for being reasonably accurate in predicting the bending of light around astronomical objects such as the Sun, self-collapsing high mass-energy density regions to form alleged singularities at the heart of black holes, the existence of gravitational waves, and the accelerating motion of astronomical objects causing a dragging of space-time, to name a few. Yet it is still not quite a complete theory. Of major concern for Einstein was why he was not able to explain the nature of space-time itself and in a real-life sense through a familiar natural phenomenon other than to believe that there had to be a mysterious energy flowing through space and one whose density would affect the strength of the gravitational field.

To put it another way, what is the source of the gravitational field which we know is part of space-time itself? Understandably, this was Einstein’s next major concern. After much careful thinking, he finally uncovered the clue he needed. He saw a picture in his mind that convinced him that he had to extend the General Theory of Relativity to take into account the electromagnetic field. When he completed his work, Einstein called it his Unified Field Theory.

Still, even with the inclusion of radiation into his General Theory of Relativity to create his Unified Field Theory (he merely extended the mathematics to take into account the electromagnetic field), Einstein continued to have doubts about how he could prove what he did and why he felt it was important for physics to follow his approach. Of biggest concern to him was explaining the gravitational field. He must have realised how much the electromagnetic field is contributing to the creation of the gravitational field. But was the electromagnetic field the source of the gravitational field? Einstein questioned this picture, again and again. He still wanted to know how he could prove it. Should he use more mathematics considering the difficulty in solving his unified field equations, relating the solutions to reality, and then finally proving a new picture from his solutions through experiments?

Or should Einstein use more his imagination to create the pictures in his head?

It is extremely likely that Einstein had been bogged down with the problem of working out how to separate the gravitational field from the electromagnetic field in order to see what was going on. His whole aim was to understand the gravitational field. But then he may have relied on mathematics a little too much to create his final theory and this was getting him nowhere. The idea behind creating the theory might be fundamentally correct and the reaosn for Einstein's confidence in maintaining the theory. However, SUNRISE thinks Einstein may have decided, late in his life, to return to his childhood skills of visualising and imagining the universe and seeing through the problem, and eventually saw something in the end. We think this is the reason for Einstein letting the world of his decision to continue supporting his theory on the day of his death by asking his secretary, Helen Dukas, to bring to him his latest calculations on the Unified Field Theory. Yet at the same time he felt the world was not ready to understand what this is after burning some papers relating to more advanced ideas about the Unified Field Theory.

It appears he was hiding something, as well as the possibility that he saw something else that made him quietly confident in his own work.

Einstein may well have seen a way out of the problem in the end, but was afraid to say so at a time when the world was too preoccupied with the Cold War between the United States and Russia and just coming out of the events that had already transpired from the previous two world wars.

Whatever we might think about Einstein's work, one thing is certain. Einstein never gave up on his final theory. He may have doubted some aspects of his work, but in the end, he never doubted the fundamental essence of his final theory. Even the picture he created in his mind for coming up with the Unified Field Theory had never waned. Indeed, something told him to maintain his theory right up to the end of his life. Surely, Einstein would have had many opportunities to say his theory was wrong. Apparently, he did not. Something made him unusually confident in his work and he did not need to say anything more about it.

As we learn from history, Einstein wrote to his friend Michael Besso in 1954 about the problem he was having with the Unified Field Theory:

"All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

To some of his contemporaries, this quote might suggest that his attempts of a unified field theory were not helping him reach an ultimate conclusion. Some people might even say that this is unequivocal evidence of his failure. But, then, we find another quote:

"...the idea that there exist two structures of space independent of each other, the metric-gravitational and the electromagnetic, was intolerable to the theoretical spirit. We are prompted to the belief that both sorts of field must correspond to a unified structure of space."

In other words, Einstein was confident that the two fields had to be linked together to form an integral part of the structure of space-time. That is why he created the Unified Field Theory and maintained it to his death bed. Without saying a word to anyone to suggest that he could have failed, he already knew he was on the right track. Yet something was keeping him back for stating to the world what he knew or eventually discovered toward the end of his life. The one constant in his life was knowing the theory was fundamentally correct. It was necessary to mathematically cement the two fields together because he could see a real-life phenomenon in the universe that actually does link the two together. Today, we can see this real-life phenomenon as radiation.

Thus, the only remaining problem for Einstein was trying to figure out late in his life how to separate the fields in reality. It is quite likely he came to a logical conclusion himself on this very matter in his own time, and doing what he loved of imagining things in his mind.

Einstein must have realised through his famous statement relating mathematics and reality that mathematics can only do so much. Imagination can do so much more. At some point, he must have realised something and decided he would keep it quiet. Maybe he did realise that matter is constantly charged and there is quite likely no gravitational field to consider. Perhaps he saw the neutron as charged but couldn't see a way to convince his colleagues to look at the new picture. Or maybe the state of the world after two world wars and the start of the Cold War with Russia was not conducive to sharing his knowledge after seeing the negative application of his famous equation relating mass and energy in the development of the atomic bomb, and later the hydrogen bomb. What is the point of saying anything if people end up using the knowledge to kill other human beings? Maybe that is the reason why he kept quiet. But to make sure the world would not take on the view that Einstein had failed in his quest, he asked his secretary, Helen Dukas, to bring in his latest calculations on the Unified Field Theory while sitting in his hospital bed. He knew his time was almost up. The most he wanted to say about the work was that he believed he was right by pursuing it to the very end. He was giving a subtle message to the world not to ignore the Unified Field Theory.

Now in the 21st century, we have a chance to solve this problem and finish off what Einstein was doing. Using our imagination, coming up with new experiments, and a little application of simpler mathematics (and computer simulations), it should be possible to show how the electromagnetic field is likely to be the holy grail of physics.

Can we find out for ourselves?

How do we find out if Einstein's Unified Field Theory is true?

Again we recommend applying your imagination to come up with innovative new experiments, as well as enough new electromagnetic explanations for the various mysteries of the Universe. Combine this with performing computer simulations where it takes into account the way radiation with its gravitational field (or constructive and destructive interference of the radiation by charges) behaves in the presence of accelerating charged matter, and we should be able to find out if Einstein's final theory is true. Either that, or you can start solving the unified field equations for certain real-life situations and see how well you can come up with solutions. After seeing how long it took Einstein to solve the equations and relate them to reality, we think the former is probably easier.

Here are some examples of how to experimentally test the viability of this "link between the electromagnetic and gravitational fields" idea:

  1. Reduce the temperature of an object and see what happens to the gravitational field (and the object itself).
  2. Place any object inside a perfect symmetrical metal box (i.e. the Faraday cage) and observe what happens to the object when it is accelerated or just sitting in space.
  3. Combine in resonance a series of degaussing equipment to create a high-frequency oscillating electromagnetic field and place an object inside the high-energy density region created by the field.

According to the Unified Field Theory, the expected results should be the following:

  1. Setting aside the fact that matter evaporates and disappears at the coldest theoretical temperature known to science (this is said to be the outcome for our universe at the end of time assuming the universe continues to expand into nothingness or, more likely, there might be some form of quantum residue depending on how big the universe is really going to get), if the object could stay together, it should effectively be able to thumb up its proverbial nose at the gravitational field of the Earth or any other object. Not even a black hole will affect the object if it was sitting right next to it. In other words, the object can be made to float in space.
  2. Accelerating the "floating" object (at the coldest temperature or inside a perfect Faraday cage) should produce no inertial forces internally within the object.
  3. At high electromagnetic field intensities, the light coming off the object placed in this high-energy density region should be bent back by the intense gravitational field of the electromagnetic field (NOTE: That is Einstein's essential picture of light, but it can be seen as other light pushing against the light from the object to make it bend), and the light from behind and outside in the environment can bend around the object. It means the object can be rendered invisible to the naked eye.

There are other ways to test the theory. However, to keep things simple, we recommend trying 2 or 3, which are much easier to implement (but will require considerable efforts to attain the require precision in symmetrical shape or very low temperatures. It will not be perfect, but if done well, there should be evidence of a variation in the gravitational effects of objects placed in the radiation reduced regions. Then we should be able to observe some level of a link between the two fields (hopefully it will be a direct 1-on-1 link in the sense that one cannot exist without the other, and vice versa, a kind of direct proportionality between the two).

Does Einstein's Unified Field Theory make predictions about what a black hole will look like?

Jim Wagenhofer asked:


"As scientists are entering the late stages of preparing the image of the black holes from the data gathered by the event horizon telescope project ( is there any prediction the UFT makes as to what the image would show? The pop science media keeps pitching it as a potential to disprove Einstein's General Relativity but might it serve as a landmark experiment to prove his Unified Field Theory?"

The unified field equations of the Unified Field Theory are structured in the same way as for the gravitational field equations of the General Theory of Relativity. Any predictions made in a mathematical sense in one should be the same for the other.

The only difference in the two theories is Einstein's decision to add the electromagnetic field tensor to the General Theory of Relativity to create his Unified Field Theory. He did this to take into account the presence of the electric charge and the electromagnetic field created by that charge and how these affect the strength of the gravitational field. The way this term is added gives the impression to a mathematician that the electromagnetic field from charged matter is merely contributing to the overall strength of the gravitational field and nothing more. Whereas the gravitational field itself is presumably independent of the electromagnetic field and is generated strictly by uncharged matter in some mysterious way (probably the source of which is coming from the neutron). New insights into the nature of the gravitational field and whether matter is truly uncharged is now unravelling the intricate nature of space-time and the thing that is controlling the gravitational field. It is now increasingly looking like it is radiation controlling everything. Therefore, any new predictions will come down to what light is doing in and around a black hole.

And could there be some odd and new prediuctions using radiation that scientists have not considered and could be tested to support the Unified Field Theory? Perhaps.

One difference is to say that a black hole is unlikely to be totally black. It will only become black once you get to the event horizon and pass through it. And when you do, light will be stretched out significantly into the red-end of the electromagnetic spectrum such that you will not be able to see anything. However, by then you will be torn apart by the crushing pressures, high heat, and speed of the rotating accretion disc surrounding the highly rotating star. Blackness will be your experience of death at this moment. However, before you get to the event horizon, if you could stand at a safe distance that does not significantly distort the light from visible matter surrounding the black hole, the black hole itself will not be black. It will be invisible. It isn't because of its size (which from a distance will be small), but because light can bend around the object. You see, light from behind the object will bend around the black hole, allowing an observer to see what is behind it. If viewing from a 45 degree angle to the plane of the accretion disc, it just means you can see what appears to be the inside of the accretion disc behind the black hole, if you are close enough. Further away, and you can see what is behind the black hole.

As for what happens at and beyond the event horizon, the mathematics of both the General Theory of Relativity and the Unified Field Theory break down and cannot be relied on to find any sensible solution. Again, another reason to ditch mathematics. There is a limit to how far mathematics can be applied to the real world.

Because of this, some people have imagined a door to another universe (see the Hollywood movie Interstellar) because of how distorted space-time is. Common sense will tell us that the star should be there all the time. It is just the fact that it rotates at massive speeds to help draw in radiation (and will try to emit this energy near the poles of the star where the accelerating motion is reduced) in order to create a powerful gravitational field.

One way to prove a star is still there lurking inside the black hole is to slow down the black hole's rotation. You can do this by getting another black hole or a big enough star to collide into a black hole.

Once we realise a star is still lurking inside a black hole, we have to conclude that there cannot be a singularity at the centre of the black hole. By singularity, we mean a point where there is infinite density in the mass. Einstein did not believe in an infinite density (another mathematical concept having no bearing on the real world). Anything infinite means that the mathematics will collapse and all sorts of weird and magical things start to happen or can be imagined, such as a possible tear in spacetime to allow for space and time travel to another part of the universe (more likely you will die and move on to another life somewhere in the universe as being the closest explanation). If not, then certainly the infinite strength of the gravitational field at the centre of the black hole should suck in all the mass and energy of the Universe. The reality is, black holes are never allowed to reach such a high energy density at the centre. Radiation from the charged particles (and partly converted into pure energy) making up the star balances the situation and prevents it from creating a singularity. There is an outward electromagnetic force balancing the inward gravitational force (this is supported by quantum theory). At the same time, the massive rotation speeds keep much of the radiation and matter rotating outside the event horizon. As the rotation of the star is not at its maximum "speed of light" scenario, some of this energy will go beyond the event horizon and fall into the star. It will not be redshifted to zero frequency. Just heavily red-shifted. This energy will be added to the black hole and potentially help slow the star down very slightly (but it will take billions of years to slow it down enough). Any mass that falls in will get converted to energy to help push out the star and stop it from imploding. This is what prevents an infinite density at its core.

If there is any place for the energy to re-emerge from a black hole, it is likely to be at the poles. Here the rotation of the mass is minimal. Depending on the speed of the rotation, a certain high-frequency incidence of the radiation can emerge as a beam.

How does light speed up in a perfect vacuum to achieve infinite speed?

You may have read the following article from New Scientist:

Light hits near infinite speed in silver-coated glass
17:33 07 January 2013 by Jeff Hecht

A nano-sized bar of glass encased in silver allows visible light to pass through at near infinite speed. The technique may spur advances in optical computing.

Metamaterials are synthetic materials with properties not found in nature. Metal and glass have been combined in previous metamaterials to bend light backwards or to make invisibility cloaks. These materials achieve their bizarre effects by manipulating the refractive index, a measure of how much a substance alters light's course and speed.

In a vacuum the refractive index is 1, and the speed of light cannot break Einstein's universal limit of 300,000 kilometres per second. Normal materials have positive indexes, and they transmit at the speed of light in a vacuum divided by their refractive index. Ordinary glass, for instance, has an index of about 1.5, so light moves through it at about 200,000 kilometres per second.

No threat to Einstein

The new material contains a nano-scale structure that guides light waves through the metal-coated glass. It is the first with a refractive index below 0.1, which means that light passes through it at almost infinite speed, says Albert Polman at the FOM Institute AMOLF in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. But the speed of light has not, technically, been broken. The wave is moving quickly, but its "group velocity" – the speed at which information is travelling – is near zero.

As a feat of pure research, Polman's group did a great job in demonstrating the exotic features of low-index materials, says Wenshan Cai of the Georgia Institute of Technology, who was not involved in the work.(New Scientist, 9 January 2013.)

It seems strange to imagine radiation as ever being able to accelerate in a perfect vacuum to infinite speeds. How is this possible? As one person said:

"If light were slowed as it passed through something, how could it speed up again as space becomes closer to a vacuum. Surely it would have continually less to push against in order to propel itself, especially in a vacuum where it has nothing to push against? This doesn't seem to fit with how physics works. Light propagating without a medium sounds like trying to swim without water. I've heard the explanation about electricity being propelled by its paired magnetic field, but it doesn't sound like that would work in a vacuum with nothing to pull on or push against. It can't move by pushing against itself, because that's not how physics works. In a vacuum, it would be like a floating astronaut — to move and keep moving, it would either need to push against something or spend energy, like burn a fuel."

Radiation is not a mechanical wave like we see in water waves propagating on ocean surfaces. Rather, it is an unusual form of energy with unique properties in the sense that it is incredibly lightweight, and can move through other radiation like it is an almost frictionless fluid. Furthermore, the way energy gets transported by radiation through space is highly reminiscent of the way energy moves through a highly electrically conductive metal, which is incredibly efficient. But as physicists know, the radiation is more a fluid rather than anything solid. And just to confuse the situation further, radiation can somehow move ordinary matter as if it is acting as solid matter. If all this is still not astounding you, then you should keep in mind that radiation can also self-propel and self-accelerate using its own energy to achieve the maximum speed possible (as set by the energy density by other radiation, if it is present).

There is nothing like this substance we call radiation in any solid material we have on Earth.

At the same time, radiation can also stretch out its wavelength in a low electromagnetic energy density environment. Here is a quote to support this:

"While the light is travelling...from a higher energy density region to a lower energy density region, Maupertuis principle of least action says that the light will adapt by decreasing its momentum. Therefore, due to the conservation of quanta, the photon's wavelength will increase and its frequency will decrease."

Thus, if the energy density in space is reduced to zero because no other radiation exists, the energy naturally stretches out to infinite distance (and so allowing energy to move between two points in space at an infinite distance, known in quantum theory as quantum entanglement). At the same time, radiation can self-accelerate faster to reach this impossible to imagine distance. In an infinite Universe containing a perfect vacuum, the energy will be miniscule, but not zero. We call this energy in quantum theory as a quantum fluctuation. If there are no quantum fluctuations, we have a perfect vacuum. Then, radiation can move at infinite speed.

How radiation is able to speed up in a lower energy density environment can be seen in the Abraham-Lorentz formula in classical electrodynamics for a charged object emitting radiation in one direction. According to the mathematical solution representing a perfect vacuum in space, and assuming the charged object remains intact (i.e., does not evaporate into pure electromagnetic energy within the theoretically coldest environment possible), the radiation is never lost into space the moment it is emitted from the charged surface. Rather, the energy is somehow able to stick to the moving charged object (this is presumably the gravitational field created by the radiation and accelerating charge helping to bend the radiation back on itself). The energy is literally being recycled to allow for the next radiation emission to accelerate the charged object again and again. In a perfect vacuum with absolutely no other radiation (or solid matter) to carry away the energy and cause the emitted radiation to redshift and thereby slow the object's acceleration, it can simply accelerate exponentially in a runaway solution to infinite speeds.

The same must also be happening to radiation. Apart from stretching its energy out in a low energy density environment, the radiation can also utilise its own energy to self-accelerate to the maximum speed possible.

How critical is the density of the mass of the universe in determining whether the universe is finite or infinite?

Very important. Whether the universe is finite or infinite and whatever it might be doing (either expanding or contracting) will depend on the following:

  1. The amount of matter in the universe:
    The first first important aspect to understand the universe is knowing how much matter is in the universe. You need matter to know whether something is going to contract or expand, finite or infinite, as controlled by the gravitational field. If there is no matter in the universe, there is no gravitational field. Then the question of size and age of the universe is practically meaningless.
  2. The density of matter in the universe:
    With only the universe to go by (the part we can see), there is a critical density set by the strength of the gravitational field that determines if the universe is closed (and thus likely to be finite, and possibly contracting unless other evidence is found to suggest otherwise) or open (and thus likely to be infinite and in a steady state, or else it has to be so large that we can't tell for sure how big but any other evidence to suggest matter is expanding and anything else could give us a clue to the actual size we might be dealing with here).
  3. The distribution of matter in the Universe:
    If the mass is distributed evenly throughout the universe, then depending on its density and amount of mass, the universe could be finite or infinite. If the universe is somewhat lope-sided with more mass in certain parts, the answer will be more complicated and less reliable.
  4. The interpretation of the redshifting of light of distant galaxies and other evidence:
    The discovery of an observation made since 1932 by Dr Edward Hubble that seems to provide evidence of what the universe is doing over time.

Looking at point 1, scientists can only rely on what they see within the visible spherical volume of the Universe, which we will call the universe (remember, the Universe is larger than the universe and contains the universe as well as the invisible part we cannot see). Thus, we can only give an estimate on the amount of matter in the Universe because if the universe extends well beyond the visible universe, we simply do not know precisely how much matter is present. Scientists must assume the visible universe is the Universe or is representative of so many other visible universes lying beyond our visible universe.

When analysing points 2 and 3, we know the universe has mass distributed throughout, and luckily for scientists the mass seems distributed evenly throughout the visible universe. If there were any lope-sidedness in the distribution of mass resulting in different densities values in space, any contraction or expansion of space and the matter contained therein would have slowed and merged with the rest of the universe. So far, it would appear that the mass is evenly distributed everywhere we look. It is as if there has been plenty of time for the universe to sort itself out and have matter distributed nicely in all direction.

With points 1, 2 and 3 covered and looking at the observations, scientists have calculated and are astonished by how balanced the universe appears to be in the sense that the density is about right. If it was not right, the mathematics would tell us the entire universe is either closed (and thus finite) and possibly would contract, or open (and either infinite, or finite and expanding). It looks like the universe is in a steady-state suggesting it could be infinite in size or so large that any expansion or contraction is undetectable unless we observe a long enough period of time. Whatever the truth, it led Einstein to introduce a cosmological constant into his field equations to show this balance.

However, point 4 complicates the situation somewhat. Here, scientists have noticed something in the universe and an interpretation has been given for this redshifting effect. The interpretation suggests that we have evidence of an expanding universe. And that would mean the universe is finite and has a fixed age.

Is this true?

Why have scientists come up with a finite figure for the age and size of the universe at the present time?

This is because 20th century astronomers have accepted one interpretation for the observational evidence of a redshifting effect in the light from distant galaxies gathered at that time as well as the fact that the eyes of the scientists and their instruments can only see so far into the depths of space to reveal where they think the edge of the universe (or Universe, if considered equal to the size of the visible universe) is. As a result of these limitations, scientists believe the visible universe is finite and expanding. Even today, astronomers have generally accepted this view and have merely added their support from the way they have interpreted other evidence they have gathered without realising there could be an equally valid and opposite picture to the one scientists have created in the 20th century. Welcome to our limited understanding of the visible universe as we have it from the scientists. Currently, scientists like to think of the universe as being relatively "young" and almost "anorexic" in size compared to what we presume to be a very large (perhaps infinitely) and, hence, extremely old Universe (well, the visible universe is said to be expanding, so it must be filling up a grander space that we must call the Universe). Ignoring the age of the Universe, the best estimate for the age of our visible universe is said to be approximately 13.82 billion years old. You may get some variation on this figure from other sources, but it is close to the figure shown here.

In terms of distance, and hence the size of the universe, the edge of the universe is, of course, 13.82 billion light years away because this is how far light travels at 300,000 km/s (based on the current energy density of space) in the time the universe came to exist and can observe from our position in the universe as the edge today while it has been expanding ever since. Thus we are in a sphere and we are somewhere near the centre, but not at the centre since scientists hate the idea that we are at the centre of everything. Nothing is ever so perfect in our case. And the sphere is expanding. Could light travel further? Sure it can. But so far scientists are having trouble resolving any light emerging at distances beyond 13.82 billion light years away using any telescope on Earth or in space. Therefore, it is assumed the visible limit we can observe is at or very near to the edge of the universe. There hasn't been enough time for light to travel any further. Any attempts to observe slightly beyond the edge of the universe will only reveal what appears to be "blobs" or regions where it seems the temperature of space rises slightly, but again scientists assumed that these blobs of light are the remnants of the primordial early universe at the time it first exploded 13.82 billion years ago. More time is needed for these blobs to coalesce into fully formed galaxies. Scientists are not expecting, say, the glowing gases surrounding superclusters of fully formed galaxies to exist beyond the edge of the visible universe . Scientists are of the view that those blobs are not fully formed galaxies, and anything beyond these blobs is complete nothingness.

In other words, light has not had enough time to cover greater distances, and scientists are not expecting anything to exist beyond the edge of the universe and the mysterious blobs of light. A complete emptiness presumably exists and is devoid of mass and energy throughout the Universe and the visible universe is simply filling it up as we speak through the expansion of the universe.

Doesn't this sound already a bit strange and somewhat contradictory considering the energy density of space actually determines the speed of light and how far radiation reaches in the Universe? If the energy density is said to be zero in any region of space, the speed of light has to be infinite as some experiments have proven in recent times (you can learn of one using metamaterials earlier in this page). So where exactly is the edge of the so-called "expanding universe"? Is the edge referring to the moment when radiation somehow increases energy density in certain regions to create matter and where this matter appears is the true edge of the universe? Or are we referring to the radiation and where that ended up reaching as the universe began expanding?

The remarkably precise numerical figure given for the age of the universe and the finite nature of our universe began when American astronomer Dr Edwin Hubble observed redshifting in the light from distant galaxies. As with all things related to science and the discovery of new observations and evidence, he had to find a reasonable and seemingly rational explanation. So he looked in the physics textbooks to find one. What he saw, and one that could explain this redshifting effect, is a familiar and well-tested concept known as the Doppler effect. As it looked rational and could explain the redshifting effect, a theory was developed for the universe. In other words, Dr Hubble interpreted the evidence as a receding of the galaxies from our general location, as if suggesting that the visible universe is expanding. And because the more distant galaxies appear to have their light redshifted more significantly compared to those closer to the Earth, Dr Hubble understandably assumed that this was due to an explosion that occurred at some point in time in the past. If this is the correct interpretation to make for the evidence he had gathered, he became the first scientists to accept a Big Bang theory for the start of the universe.

Today, this interpretation has been supported by most scientists mainly because:

  1. Scientists believe that we should stand on the shoulders of great men in the past, thinking they must all be right, and that includes Dr Hubble.
  2. There is a common law in physics known as the Doppler Effect that shows how sound waves and light can stretch out behind a moving object. If we pick up this stretched out wave, scientists can consistently be certain that the object must be moving away from us.
  3. The mathematical solution of the gravitational field equations of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity suggests that spacetime itself (i.e. the supposedly empty space between objects in the universe) is continually stretching out. NOTE: Scientists are using a version of the equations where Einstein modified the cosmological constant to take into account Hubble's interpretation of an expanding universe. So the solution obtained from the equations will naturally work like a self-fulfilling prophecy. The only real issue here is how we should interpret this stretching of space-time as predicted in the equations. Is it really space and all the matter in it moving away from each other, or should we interpret this in a different way altogether?
  4. The numerous tiny blobs of light seen by astronomers at the edge of the universe (i.e. helping to raise the universal background radiation to a slightly higher temperature) are thought to be the remnants of the primordial mass-energy material formed by the Big Bang and ready to coalesce into new stars, planets and galaxies.

However, if Dr Edwin Hubble had been privy to other scientific information at his fingertips — in particular, the Unified Field Theory and the Compton effect relating to the interaction of photons with solid matter and whether the same redshifting effect could be observed between colliding photons in space — he could quite easily have interpreted the same observational evidence of a redshifting effect in the light from distant galaxies in the following way:

  1. Light naturally redshifts (i.e., loses energy) as it travels through space due to the countless collisions with other light. This is because, according to the Unified field Theory, light behaves like ordinary matter, including collisions with itself to lower its energy. The only slight difference is that while solid matter will slow down with each collision, the speed of light stays the same. The thing that changes to indicate a lowering of the energy in light is its frequency, which is to naturally red-shift.
  2. The mathematical solution derived from Einstein's equations supports an energy loss, but not necessarily the receding of the galaxies via the Doppler Effect. All mass by way of planets, stars and galaxies need not have to be moving away, coming closer or whatever (or is imperceptible). They are just doing their usual thing of moving about in space while the energy loss takes place.
  3. The blobs of light seen at the edge of the universe are probably nothing more than concentrated and heated gases surrounding more distant clusters of galaxies. It is the ionised elements making up these gases (and the galaxies themselves) that help to raise the background temperature slightly over a region of space.

In which case, things could have been very different today in terms of the scientific theory cosmologists might promulgate in the textbooks. Who knows? Astronomers might be talking about an infinite universe instead of a finite and expanding one. But is the universe infinite? The truth is, it is anyone's guess. In other words, Hubble could have concluded that whatever the galaxies might be doing is irrelevant and may not have any contribution to the overall amount of redshifting we observe on Earth, especially the more distant they are from Earth the less we know. He could have easily said that the galaxies were not receding from us, but merely going about their usual business moving in any direction and at any speed. In which case, how can we determine the actual size of the universe? Or perhaps it is meaningless to ask the size and age of the universe? It might be a case that we have to accept the Vivarium of our universe. As the Hollywood movie depicted, there is no way of escaping the universe no matter how far you dig underground or travel the universe following the sun. or a distant star in another galaxy. You will eventually end up where you began, or everything will look the same given the enormity of the Universe. Using the new interpretation for the redshifting effect, there is now no definitive answer one can give for what the universe is doing. Once the light loses energy in space, it says nothing about what the galaxy was doing when the light was first emitted from it. The light is merely losing energy as it moves through space. What happens in some corner of the universe will have less and less of an impact and eventually no longer be measurable (i.e. any evidence of a Doppler effect) once a sufficient distance is travelled by light. Think of it as a kind of bubble in which we can record certain events in the universe within that bubble. Those events may help to reveal a Doppler effect if it is close enough to us. However, go outside the bubble and any events that take place there will never be detected, or less information will be none (such as the Doppler effect). Radiation will eventually erase or cover up the evidence of what happened beyond a certain distance. And unless the furthest galaxies are actually travelling at nearly the speed of light away from us and into the depths of the Universe, any Doppler effect will be miniscule or impossible to detect. So in the end, if Hubble had faced the universe in this way, he could only conclude that the visible universe is a very big and old place (too big or old to contemplate). It could be infinite, or it could be finite, except we may never be able to prove it or determine its size and age. Some things in life we just have to accept and leave it as that. Or if you want to believe in something, then choose. If you want to believe the (visible) universe is the Universe (both the visible and invisible) and, therefore, is infinite, then that is fine. Or you can choose to believe in a finite universe. Again, you are not technically wrong either way. It is just that you will never be able to prove it with absolute certainty. Sure, you will find evidence and interpret it in a way to suggest it is finite, but someone with the opposite belief can use his/her imagination to interpret the same evidence to support the opposite view just as convincingly as you do.

In the end, it is not about proving who is right or wrong on this matter, but rather whether you can see the two opposite sides to the story, especially when we reach the very extremes of time and space.

This is the paradox of the Universe.

Incredibly, this is the same kind of paradox present in the quantum world. Is something a particle or a wave? Is a quantum particle present in space at a particular time and place or not? We try to measure it, but as soon as we do, we only gain some information about the particle (such as the position or speed) but not enough in another area to know exactly what the particle was doing (i.e., where it was positioned or where it has gone and at what speed). What happens afterwards is unknown. All we can do is look at a bunch of particles to get a probability of where they are likely to be found and that's it. Welcome to the limitations of light in seeing what is going on in a precise way at the smallest scale. You have to accept the paradoxes created by light at opposite extremes of the scale, from the smallest to the largest, and realise our limitations in observing the universe.

So whether the universe is 13.82 billion years old or is much older and bigger than we can dare imagine, the debate will continue, probably for all times. Otherwise, you must choose to use your imagination to go beyond what you see, or you must gather more evidence, and more careful attempts at interpreting the evidence based on a wider range of scientific knowledge we have gathered so far, and bigger experiments we need to conduct in space, before anyone can give a definitive answer in this area of cosmology.

But can we be sure of the answer? Can we truly be God to know the answer in the end?

If direct observational evidence is your preference, you must build a spaceship to take humans far enough into the universe to see what is going on. But even then, given the time it takes to get there and how time outside will move very quickly when travelling almost at the speed of light not to mention how the bending of space-time will lead you down the cosmic garden path (are you really travelling a straight line?), the universe will change so drastically that we may never know for sure if the universe was finite or infinite. We could be like the blind man being asked to walk in a straight line, except we won't need to be blindfolded. Everything will change very quickly and we lose sight of our destination and where we should be heading. We might as well be blind and the result will be the same. even if you could travel in a straight line and reach where we think is the edge of the visible universe, the time passed would be at least 13 billion years, which is enough time for those "blobs" to resolve themselves into solid astronomical objects (i.e., galaxies). Then, we ask ourselves, "Was this really the edge of the universe? It doesn't look like it. I see more galaxies out here." Seriously, we will never know for sure if the visible universe really was finite prior to travelling to the edge of the universe. Unless a perfect vacuum wormhole can be created to take humans instantaneously to the edge of the universe and back again in one comfortable afternoon trip, any answer we give on Earth about the visible universe at the present time will have to be considered mere speculation. You might as well ask a bunch of crystal ball gazers and they will give just as valid and reasonable answers as the one provided by the cosmologists.

What is likely happening in the Universe today?

For the visible universe, the newinterpretation for the redshifting effect is telling us we don't know what it is doing. We can't be sure it is expanding or in a steady-state, finite or part of the infinite universe. There is a paradox we cannot resolve. Scientists can create two pictures for the same evidence gathered about our visible universe using the light from distant galaxies. In other words:

  1. From the Unified Field Theory perspective, the universe is likely to be infinite (i.e., the Universe), or at the very least extremely large and very old, but at the same time we cannot disprove the finite universe theory.
  2. We live in a finite universe which is expanding, but we can't be sure where the edge is due to the limit of our current observations (but most 20th century scientists are happy to assume that the limit of observations is the actual edge of the visible universe and anything else we can see here is the remnants of the primordial gases from the Big Bang).

In other words, we cannot be any more certain about an infinite universe as other scientists are of a finite universe starting from a Big Bang and expanding into a bigger Universe.

As for the grander Universe, the truth is that we really don't know. We are not God to know the answer. All we can say about the Universe is that it is very large and very old place.

How did the visible universe and invisible Universe begin?

This might be a moot question to ask. Seriously, how would we know if we don't know if the visible universe is expanding..

If we could imagine the Universe having started from a single point (or region) in space, that means everything in the Universe, including radiation itself, was wrapped up in a ball of energy. However, that would require such phenomenal energy density at the centre of this object that we might as well describe it as infinite density. A singularity for lack of a better word. And an infinite density creates an infinitely strong gravitational field to suck in all matter and energy in the Universe (this would mathematically lead to a point for all matter and energy). Einstein's view on this type of singularity (either as a point or a finite size of any kind where an infinite density can exist) is that he believes it to be a total figment of one's imagination, not something that can occur in reality. To reinforce this view, all mass and energy in the Universe to be localised to a certain region at the beginning of time would leave behind a perfect vacuum around it. And that, in itself, is impossible. Apart from the fact that a perfect vacuum cannot be createed in a real Universe, the presence of such a region would only cause the ball of energy to become infinitely unstable and literally explode instantaneously. Remember, the Unified Field Theory expects radiation to act as a pushing force to keep mass and energy in a spherical structure. If no radiation existed in space outside the ball of energy, how could the ball retain the shape it allegedly was and all the energy at the beginning of time? The internal pressure of the ball of energy will be so massive that it will literally be split apart and expand at phenomenal speeds. Radiation would be the first thing to emerge. This will naturally self-accelerate to infinite speeds in a perfect vacuum. As the radiation begins to fill the perfect vacuum void and slowly heat up space to a few degrees kelvin, any high-energy density regions within the radiation can form the fundamental particles of electrons and protons. Then came neutrons and atoms and, eventually, all the solid matter in the Universe we see today (i.e., stars, galaxies, planets and life). Apart from not knowing how far the radiation and matter has reached in the Universe in an infinitesimal timeframe (clearly, it must be bigger than the visible universe), a perfect vacuum could not be created in the first place to even lead to a Big Bang for the Universe. The Universe cannot have started out of a perfect vacuum region in the first place. Not even quantum fluctuations can be relied upon in this state. A perfect vacuum is a theoretical (mathematical) state that has no bearing on reality.

Did a Big Bang occur?

Not for the Universe, and probably not for the visible universe given the difficulties in creating a perfect vacuum and how one can interpret the redshifting effect differently to suggest there may not have been a Big Bang. At the end of the day, there is no way we can prove it without travelling far enough into space and give the Universe/universe sufficient time to see if there are any changes to the energy density of space and whether this is consistent in different parts of the Universe/universe.

If there was ever a big bang for the universe, it would have been more of a gentle expansion, which has to slow down and merge with the rest of the grander Universe and eventually reach a stead-state. If it isn't slowing down, or reached a steady state by now, our interpretation of the redshifting effect of light must be wrong. Otherwise, big bangs could be nothing more than very big supernova explosions that have led to the creation of new fundamental particles and new matter.

As for the Big Bang itself that started the entire Universe, this almost certainly (but cannot be proven) never existed.

How do we prove the universe/Universe is finite or infinite?

Good question. The only way to prove whether we live in a steady-state infinite Universe, or otherwise for the visible universe we live in, is to perform the longest running and biggest scientific experiment and with assistance from the oldest civilisations in the universe. The aim here is to find any variation in the average energy density of space over time at different places throughout the Universe. This can be done by measuring the speed of light passing through space. If there is any variation in the speed of light and it is consistent at any distances we travel away from a central point and no form of matter (or lack thereof) can account for this, the visible universe must be changing. In which case, the visible universe cannot be an infinite Universe and, thus, be in a steady-state. However, if the speed of light is, on average, constant everywhere for the given average energy density we are living in and at all times and different places, based on the limited time we have spent to measure this, we must conclude that the Universe has probably reached a steady-state and is infinite in size for all intensive purposes, and thus has reached the state of true balance.

Physicists can't rely on the Doppler effect or mathematical equations to get a definitive answer. This is one area that requires direct measurements. Consequently, physicists need to be travelling to different parts of space (which must be hundreds of light years apart) and over a wide enough timeframe to see what is going on. Basically, the further apart the distances are when making measurements of the energy density and the longer the experiment is run, the more accurate the picture will be, and thus has the best chance to see differences in the energy density that hopefully will be consistent and help us to see what is going on with the universe. If the energy density is consistently going down over time and place, then the universe can be interpreted as expanding. If the energy density is going up, then the universe is contracting and potentially finite in size if the universe is the Universe. If it isn't or we haven't provided enough time, then all the scientists can conclude is that the universe is very old and large and probably extends beyond the edge of the universe and into the grander Universe, but exactly how large and old is anyone's guess. No one knows. Not enough time and sufficient distances have been applied to get a meaningful answer.

Until we do the experiment, what is known about the energy density of space is revealed in this link, Scientists claim that the density is about right for a balanced and open universe. Both the accounting method and the geometrical method of calculating the mass in the universe in a certain large volume are in agreement and close to the "critical density" value.

Here is the quote:

"To date, both of these techniques return values for the density of the Universe entirely consistent with the critical density. Somewhat surprisingly, this suggests that we are actually balanced on the knife edge and live in a flat Universe."

Whether the our flat universe is expanding, or we are already in a steady state and has always been like this forever (or so incredibly long that we cannot be God to ever know precisely how old and big the Universe really is), the Unified Field Theory is acknowledging a paradox in the Universe.

To resolve the paradox, more observational evidence is needed to be gathered, and the interpretations we make of those observations need to be correct, before we can ever hope to get an accurate answer to this question.

Do wormholes exist?

Wormholes are "mathematical" regions of space where a perfect vacuum exists. We emphasise "mathematical" because that is what wormholes are. Wormholes are not actually real, and not likely to exist in the real universe. Theoretically, if a wormhole could ever be created in the real universe and if any object could ever stay together inside a perfect vacuum (i.e., not evaporate the energy making up its atomic particles in this impossibly coldest temperature known to science), then, technically, you can accelerate any matter to well beyond the speed of light and travel to any part of the galaxy or universe virtually instantaneously depending on the length of this wormhole and how quickly you can accelerate (there should be no inertial forces, so any amount of acceleration is feasible without affecting the occupants and the spacecraft). Unfortunately all this is purely mathematical and almost certainly has no bearing on the real universe. No technology of any kind, even for the most advanced alien species in the Universe (note that we are not using universe here), can create a wormhole. The Universe does not allow for it. It is an impossibility. Knowing the way the Universe works, no perfect vacuum can ever be allowed to exist in reality even for the shortest period of time.

However, it is perfectly fine to imagine them as existing in those science fiction films (e.g., Stars Wars) if it helps humans to use their imagination a little more (something we may be lacking in the world of physics).

What is dark energy?

According to an analysis of the light from supernova explosions in distant galaxies, there is a suggestion that some kind of a mysterious energy is pushing apart the universe at a rate that is greater than predicted by the standard Big Bang theory for an expanding universe. For lack of a better term, the best that scientists can do is to call this dark energy. However, the Unified Field Theory tells us that this energy must involve radiation. Somehow for radiation to give the impression to the scientists that the universe is expanding at a greater rate the further we look into the universe and even more so when analysing the light from a supernova explosion from these distant galaxies, the density of radiation in space must be initially at a higher level to create the extra red-shifting effect (and thus any loss from collisions with other light). Perhaps this is what is giving the impression that something is pushing the galaxies away from us at a faster rate to fill what scientists believe is a lower energy density region behind the galaxies (the part that we can't see). But what if the supernova explosions are fooling astronomers into thinking that the galaxies are racing away at a faster rate? For example, as the supernova explosions occur in distant galaxies, there is a naturally heightened level of energy density created from the explosions. From all this extra mass and light generated by the explosion, any light trying to pass through this high-energy density region must redshift more significantly due to energy loss as it passes through it. Once it emerges from the high energy density region back to the normal energy density of space between the galaxies, the light will stretch out a little more. Afterwards, the red-shifting effect (looking quite significant) continues at a slower rate as it travels through space until the light reaches the Earth where scientists observe the light and start making an interpretation of the red-shifting effect as a receding of the galaxy, but at a more significant rate as if the galaxy is moving away from us at higher acceleration. However, it is likely all this may be nothing more than the natural energy loss in space and from the explosion that has helped with creating more energy loss than normal when we observe this ancient light.

What is dark matter?

This is another interesting "exotic" term created by astronomers. It has come about mainly because they have found something in the space between the stars that somehow causes the stars to move around a galaxy at roughly the same speed no matter how far away they are. It is a bit like the strong nuclear force created because physicists don't know what is in space between the protons to cause them to stay together in a nuclei of an atom. So why not create an exotic force of nature and give it a name? Until we can work out exactly what it is, we might as well conjure up these creative terms to explain what we can't see as yet.

Beyond that, there can naturally be some regions of dark matter not emitting light as we see between Earth and the centre of the Milky Way. Certain regions along the edge of the Milky Way will appear blacked out, not because stars are missing, but because extra matter exists to block the light coming from stars behind it.

Therefore, dark matter can represent any kind of solid matter that does not emit light, thereby darkening a region in space. In which case, its gravitational effect (or more correctly, the electromagnetic pushing effect through radiation shielding) will naturally influence light and the path of visible matter (known as bright matter) near the domain of these dark matter regions to give an indication of their existence.

However, when it comes to the movement of stars around the galaxies, dark matter can also be used to describe any region of seemingly empty space where the energy density of the radiation is lower than the surrounding region. As such, it can act like a highly dense form of matter in pulling radiation and anything else in the higher energy density region towards this empty region. Scientists may loosely call this "pulling” as the gravitational effect, but it is more likely to be a pushing force of the outer higher energy density region filling in the lower density region to ensure that balance is always maintained (i.e., the average density of space should be the same everywhere). You can imagine the same sort of thing occurring with a highly dense and rapidly rotating matter, such as a neutron star or black hole. It will act like a lower energy density vacuum in space. The rest of space will naturally come in to fill the apparent suggestion of a void created by the matter until balance is attained. Then, the energy going in must be equivalent to the energy coming out (the latter being called Hawkings radiation).

A wormhole is another example of dark matter.

There is a third type of dark matter: a high energy density region of space composed of radiation that can behave like ordinary matter, and yet will appear invisible to the naked eye.

It is generally believed that through a combination of low- and high-energy density of the radiation (as controlled by the distribution of stars and how much radiation they emit) can control the rate of rotation of stars around a galaxy. It is believed this radiation at different densities along the length of a galaxy is helping to control the rate of speed of the stars around the galaxy in a way that makes it look like they are moving at roughly the same speed.

Is there any galaxy outside the Milky Way that is not showing this redshifting effect of light?

With so much discussion among cosmologists about the possibility of the universe being finite and expanding that one wonders whether there are any galaxies not showing a redshifting effect in the light. Well, yes there is. The Andromeda galaxy lies at a distance of 2 million light years away. Fortunately, the speed of this galaxy is enough for scientists to be quietly confident that it is approaching us using the Doppler effect. And as such, the light is not redhsifted, it is actually blue-shifted. For more distant galaxies, however, you cannot rely on the Doppler effect for this kind of information. It is much less reliable.

The real explanation for why the more distant the galaxies are redshifting the light and increases the further away the galaxies are is because the radiation experiences energy loss as it travels through the natural energy density of the universal background radiation. The greater the distances this radiation must travel through space, the more the radiation redshifts. For evidence of this, you only need to investigate the Compton effect of photons colliding with another solid matter, such as an electron, to see this redshifting effect with the light.

In Einstein's Unified field Theory, photons are no different from ordinary matter. Photons are high density regions like beads on a necklace. It is essentially radiation. Whether you use radiation or photons, the same effect of energy loss will take place between one photon and another. The effect might be weaker, but it is there all the time. even at the lowest frequencies. At higher frequencies, the photons loss energy more quickly and substantially. Irrespective of the frequencies of the photons or radiation, in the vastness of space and time, the effect is cumulative with each collision, no matter how miniscule the loss might seem.

The only way to prove this is through computer simulations.

What is the speed of light?

One person commented about our video presentation on the Unified Field Theory:

"Your SUNRISE video on the Unified Field Theory says the speed of light is "300,000 kilometers per second". But that would be 1000 times the speed of light, because it's meters, not kilometers, right?"

To be precise, the speed of light in metres per second is 299,792,458 m/s. Using kilometres as the unit of measure for distances, this would be 299,792 km/s. We have chosen 300,000 km/s in our video presentation for this research work mainly to keep things simple. However, as you have quite rightly pointed out, some viewers may want to see greater accuracy in our video. With this in mind, we will update the video soon to reflect the level of accuracy demanded by our viewers. Thank you for bringing this up.

What causes ageing in living cells?

People are correct to think that the Unified Field Theory will have an impact in the world of biology. As one person commented:

"In the aging process, it seems very hard to tell if we age because of cell damage. Another argument is that the aging process is programmed into our cells, like with the Hayflick limit. But who really knows, right?"

On the one hand, there is a concept in gerontology called the Hayflick limit. Discovered by some dedicated scientists working in this field, it discusses whether a limit exists for the number of times a cell can replicate before things go haywire in the DNA and eventually the cell dies or turns cancerous. There is some controversy here, but it has been noted that when the cells are observed outside the body and watched very carefully by scientists in a laboratory (apparently using the natural available light in the environment to help them observe the cells and determine how many times they replicate), it seems that the cells do have a limit. Eventually the cells either stop replicating, or they replicate uncontrollably and turn into cancerous cells. However, certain types of cells (e.g., stem cells) when protected inside the bone (which just so happens to be made of calcium and phosphorus — both are metals) or other areas of the body, are able to replicate far more than the Hayflick limit suggests. Indeed, scientists are still trying to accurately determine where the limit is for these cells. Does this mean that technically cells can live forever when protected properly from whatever is in the environment that affect the cells?

The DNA could be controlling this limit, but at the same time it seems there is something in the environment to control this limit as well. What could this environmental factor be?

The Unified Field Theory, with its reliance on radiation given its ubiquitous nature and presence everywhere, proposes that the thing that is likely to be controlling this aging process for all "unprotected" cells is radiation. We know that radiation is relentless and has the quality (or frequency) to penetrate to the very deepest levels of the cells where it can disrupt the replication of DNA in an accurate manner. Cosmic and gamma rays constantly bombard the Earth and penetrate our bodies. We should expect radiation to play an important role on the lifespan of living cells. The question we need to know is how much of a contribution does radiation play in the aging process? The Unified Field Theory suggests that it could be quite a lot. Experimental testing and careful mathematical analysis may be the only way to find out for sure if this ends up being true.

At the same time, any genetic mutations already present in the DNA of the cells can shorten the life of the cell. Remove the mutations, and the only thing to contend with is the radiation. But if we protect ourselves from the radiation, does this mean we can live forever? Scientists are not sure yet. One thing is certain, there is no reason why living things cannot live extremely long lifespans, far more than we can observe among humans today. For example, turtles use their thick shells to reduce radiation internally to protect the organs and keep their heads protected and this allows the species to live for 200 years or more. Swimming in deep water can also help to reduce the levels of radiation penetrating the body compared to land-based animals (and probably minimise mutations in the DNA to allow for more ancient and diverse species to exist in the deepest parts of the ocean).

Whatever the truth, more research is taking place in this field to find all the factors that are likely to extend lifespan.

What do you think of the time compression theory as a way to link electromagnetism with gravity?

You must be referring to a YouTube comment we received in September 2018 where a paper titled Time Compression Theory was written by John Bozac and Daniel Innes discussing:

"In the absence of space, the notion of spacetime curvature in the presence of mass and energy is replaced by the compression of time."


"Time is viewed as an electromagnetic wave resulting in a causality between electromagnetism and gravity."

Time compression is synonymous with energy (or space) compression. Compress space time and you also affect time for a signal passing through this high energy density region (generally to speed up time, but as it emerges into a lower energy density and having lost some energy to redshift, the time will not return to normal, but will appear to slow down compared to original time when the signal first emerged). Both approaches should provide the same results so long as the mathematics are done correctly, including any links to the gravitational field. As for linking time compression to the electromagnetic field, this is perfectly understandable. Well, how else can information be carried to tell us what is happening, or appears to have happened, at the moment a signal is transmitted from a moving object? The electromagnetic field of the radio signal must be present. From the signal, we get a perception of time according to the moving reference frame that sent the signal, as well as other information.

For readers trying to grapple with this time compression concept, it is probably better to look at it in terms of energy compression (i.e., a density issue).

Imagine that a person is sitting inside a stationary spacecraft. A radio signal is sent from the spacecraft in the direction of Earth. The signal emerges from the spacecraft's antenna into the electromagnetic medium of space.

As you know, space has energy. This energy is naturally distributed and kept at a certain "constant" energy density.

Now if the natural background energy density remains unchanged at all points along the path taken by the radio signal all the way to an observer on the Earth's surface and we keep the distance relatively short (say, from the Moon), the frequency (or wavelength) would hardly change at all. The 0's and 1's representing the zero amplitude and above zero amplitude of the electromagnetic energy, respectively, arrive at the same rate per second. This means that if the signal contains video information, you can watch what was happening inside the spacecraft at a normal rate, in the sense that each passing second onboard the spacecraft will be measured as essentially the same as on Earth.

Fair enough. So, what happens when the energy in a region of space between the spacecraft and the Earth is compressed? Naturally, the energy density must increase. If the signal enters this higher density region of space, it will also get compressed, causing the frequency of the signal to go up (or a shortening of the wavelength). If you could be inside this compressed energy density region receiving the signal, you will be receiving the zeros and ones at a faster rate. Therefore, watching what is going on inside the spacecraft will reveal a form of time compression where the observer will appear to move in a highly energetic manner. The person onboard the spacecraft will appear to be doing things much faster. It would be almost like he had a great big glass of Berocca vitamin shot and his energy levels have suddenly boosted and is running around like he has super human strength. But if you look more closely, even the hourly and minute dials on the clock on the wall inside the spacecraft is moving fast too. Everything has sped up inside the spacecraft. Yet the person in the spacecraft continues to experience time at a normal rate, oblivious to how the other observer (i.e., yourself on Earth) is seeing the situation.

Now the signal emerges from the high energy density region and into the normal energy density of space. The signal stretches out, but the frequency has not gone back up to exactly the same amount as when it emerged from the antenna. The signal has lost a little bit of energy as it passed through the high energy density region. The frequency is slightly lower (or wavelength is slightly longer).

Depending on how high the energy density was at the time the signal had passed through it, a change in the frequency might be noticed. It could be significant, or it could be minor. To make the energy loss more significant, you could increase the distance that the signal has to travel in space to help with the photon-to-photon collisions. At distances of millions of light years, there is likely to be a measurable redshifting (or stretching of the light). But there is another way: increasing the speed of the spacecraft to nearly the speed of light will also compress significantly the energy density along the direction of motion around the spacecraft (a bit like a snow plough accumulating extra snow in front, but this snow also extends right back to behind the object). So, as the signal emerges from the antenna, there is an immediate and quite significant energy loss as it passes through this high-density region. By the time the signal emerges into the normal and natural energy density of space, it has stretched out again, but not at the same frequency as it emerged from the antenna of the moving spacecraft. It has redshifted significantly. By the time this signal eventually reaches Earth, you can watch the effect of time dilation onboard the spacecraft where everything appears to be in slow motion because of how significantly the redshifting effect of the signal has occurred. Everything in the signal has been stretched out and so it takes longer to receive all the 0's and 1's to create the picture and see what is happening. So naturally the picture, when played back, will appear to be running in slow motion. And then we might be tempted to call the person in the spacecraft a "lazy bastard" and not doing enough work. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The only way to make things look normal again is to give it more time to receive all the information and for playback to be sped up.

As for the time it takes to reach a destination in the moving object, this will be dramatically shortened. This is because an imbalance has taken place in the energy density of space-time as created by the moving object. Spacetime has been compressed (or folded/bent) along the direction of motion, creating a kind of stretched rubber band effect (from a gravitational field perspective). The energy in space-time is displaced and brought closer to the spacecraft, leaving a region of lower energy density further ahead. However, the rest of space-time does not like to be stretched and have a different density. The Universe will even it out very quickly. To compensate, the rest of space will have to pull in a gravitational sense (or push in the electromagnetic sense) the spacecraft more significantly forward at a speed that is faster than what the observer perceives it to be. This is achievable because of the lower energy density of space in front of the spacecraft where the energy was displaced and brought closer to the spacecraft. So the Universe pulls on all this energy and mass to fill the low energy density region as quickly as you are able to draw in the energy to the spacecraft at the speed attained. The moving observer cannot tell exactly how fast this is happening. The only indication he will have of a shorter time to get to his destination is the optical illusion of the gravitational/electromagnetic lens effect in front of the spacecraft which is helping to makef the destination look closer than it really is. A measurement of distance to the destination will be much less through this gravitational and electromagnetic lens. However, the object has not jolted from its position in the universe to be closer to the spacecraft (as confirmed by you on Earth looking at this destination object). It is the fact that the higher energy density is magnifying the light in front and making it seem much closer. And yet you will reach the destination faster than you expect. The only way it is possible to reach the destination so quickly is for the spacecraft to be travelling faster than the speed of light. The observer can't tell if this is true. He can only rely on a signal from Earth telling him from the perspective of another person sitting on the Earth how fast the spacecraft is, and this is very close to the speed of light. But from the perspective of the moving spacecraft, the illusion of shorter distances is observed. So when you use the speed and suggested distance, it will give a short time frame to reach the destination. But if you knew the true speed of the spacecraft being pulled through space by the Universe and utilise the distance figure from your outside observer on Earth, the same time frame to get to your destination will be calculated.

In conclusion, whether you use time compression, or space compression, both should have the same answer.

The religious insights

What areas of religion are likely to be challenged by Einstein's Unified Field Theory?

As the Unified Field Theory teaches us the importance of balance between opposite paradoxical answers and extremes, just like radiation oscillates between extremes in the energy around a central balanced position, there are a number of areas in religion that can benefit from this concept of balance. Our research indicates that religion will almost certainly face two main fallacies in its current knowledge:

  1. God is a man (or woman) or any creature of a localised form that visits the Earth and watches over us or influences human affairs (usually with the help of old wise men).
  2. The leaders of any religion must be invariably male-dominated and should be maintained for all times because of a "tradition" that we must presumably follow.
  3. The people of the religion can promote a one-sided view or personal agenda of what they think things should be and the actions other people should take.

Now, it is looking strongly like the following is taking place:

  1. The true indiscriminate unnamed entity of the Universe loosely named God by Western religious leaders (but remains unnameable to Eastern mystics as a way of avoiding any localisation of the thing through words) is embedded into the framework of the Universe at a fundamental level. Whatever this is, we know Eastern mystics describe the entity in a paradoxical way. Well, it just so happens in science there is a paradoxical entity lying at the heart of the Unified Field Theory. We call it radiation, or light in its most general sense. When given enough time, light or God has a way of balancing things in the Universe, including a recycling of all matter. However, any claim by humans of a God coming down from the sky in some physical and localised form to influence humanity, as allegedly occurred in the past according to certain religious texts (most notably in Christian and Jewish scriptures), if seen as real events in human history, it is likely to represent a lesser "god" with highly sophisticated abilities (i.e., advanced knowledge and technology). It is a god that has understood the concept of balance and the principle of love and wishes to teach humanity this knowledge. Indeed, any discussion of a localised God in the past trying to influence human affairs could be the earliest evidence of the first contact of humans with advanced extraterrestrial life in official recorded history.
  2. A true understanding of God requires a balance in all aspects of the knowledge and practices of a religion. A true religion of God always follow this concept of balance and the principle of love by ensuring that there is no discrimination among all living things and that all are treated the same and with kindness, including the gender roles in leadership positions of a religion.
  3. While there is no reason why anyone cannot attempt to reach for this level and realise they can achieve significant things in life with enough knowledge acquired, it is important not to use this knowledge to abuse one's position of power to affect others in negative ways or try to fulfil some personal agenda that is not in keeping with promoting love to everyone. Everyone deserves the same love, and that means allowing people to become their own gods and decide on the actions they believe truly represents and promotes love. Should those actions coincide with the decisions of others, it is the closest thing to how a true entity called God would apply itself in the real world. If it is genuine love, it should be seen by everyone as love, and that includes the so-called "enemies" some people may identify. In reality, everyone is our brothers and sisters and we should treat one another as family members.

Does God exist?

It will depend on how you define God. Otherwise, you must choose what you want to believe.

If God is more like the thing described by Christian and Jewish religious scholars as something coming down to Earth in a giant cloud to influence human affairs, and speaks personally or through voices and imagery, this is not the true God. It is a lesser "god" with sophisticated technological abilities, but fortunately one that seems to fully understand the concept of God (i.e., in terms of absolute balance and, with it, a very good insight into the principle of love) and tries to implement it in certain interesting ways with humans in the Middle East. This is a separate entity of unknown origin. On the other hand, Eastern mystics state (and is supported by the Unified Field Theory through the properties of light) that the true God is more an ubiquitous and paradoxical entity that permeates the Universe and exists in each one of us and in all things we see both at the subatomic and grandest scales and is designed to link all things together. Just as the mystics speak of this ultimate unnameable entity in a paradoxical manner, we can appreciate this concept using light or radiation. For example, we can see it, and not see it at the same time. It is kind of here, but also everywhere. It exists in the past, is present today, and will be here in the future. Many of the statements made by mystics to describe the true God can be used to describe light in a remarkably similar way.

In science, scientists have a name for this God, and they call it light (or radiation). It is a term that best describes the properties behind the true God according to Eastern mysticism. But whether light is actually God is probably like asking whether a piece of a hologram is the total picture. There exists a representation of the total picture in the piece, but until all the pieces are gathered and combined properly, we cannot know for sure exactly what the total picture is in order to see the true God.

What all this means is that you do not need to be a religious person to believe in God. To those who claim not to believe in God, they are either not aware of this fact, or are indirectly supporting God through their work. Whether these people will ever accept the concept depends on how we define it in a scientific sense. And even then, each person must decide for themselves what they wish to accept and believe.

There is nothing inherently wrong with believing in God, or not believe in God. God is always with us even when some might deny its existence. Certainly religious people can believe in it all they like. It is not a crime to do so, and if done properly can be beneficial in improving ourselves and how we think in order to be more balanced and loving. But at last we have reached a time in our history where there is scientific support for the concept at the fundamental level of physics using radiation as the fundamental and quiet force of nature working away behind the scenes in kind of holding the Universe together and allowing life to exist.

Can mathematics show God in its equations?

The answer depends on how accurate the physicists want to apply their mathematics when describing the Universe. Make it really accurate and detailed and eventually you must include the oscillating paradoxical behaviour of light in the equations. Then you will have the equations to cover all areas of quantum theory right up to the grandest scale of the Universe, or the true unified field theory. And only then can we say that we have God in the equations.

However, there is a limitation in accepting this level of accuracy and detail: it is to do with the complexity of the equations. It means the amount of calculations need to be solved the equations will be immense, even for relatively simple real-life events using the available mathematical tools we have to get to a solution. In such circumstances, you are better off using your imagination or apply computer modelling to get a reasonable approximation or idea of what is happening.

Or you can always simplify the equations. However, too much simplification can have the effect of removing this paradoxical nature of light and the Universe. For simple things we are trying to understand, and to develop a technology, it is okay to simplify things. The only thing is, being too simple can lose the accuracy and ability to describe the Universe in reasonable detail, as well as to predict what is likely to happen. Then it becomes harder to relate mathematics to reality. As Einstein understood in trying to simplify his mathematics and find simple solutions, Einstein said:

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

In which case, you could say that God is not present in the simplified equations. Whether the equations actually has God in them is dependent on the physicist and mathematicians to decide how much detail and accuracy they should have in the equations.

The one thing you must be careful of saying is the idea that mathematicians and other scientists do not support God in science. For example, you cannot say that Hermann Minkowski, the man who provided Einstein with the mathematical framework for the General and Unified Field Theories, was "deftly omitting God as the Architect or Prime Mover from all considerations”. How do you know this for sure? The mathematics employed to achieve this work is not meant to spell out God, but maybe he has. It is up to humans to decide the level of accuracy and detail that the mathematics should display when representing the real universe. If it is done right, the paradoxical nature of the universe should reveal itself in the equations, and scientists could explicitly say that the concept of God exists.

It is up to us to decide whether God should appear in an equation.

Some mystics believe that science can never show the dualistic view of God in its work. Is this true?

There is nothing inherently wrong in considering light in both monotheistic and dualistic forms, and using mathematics to reveal these forms. It just depends on how much work a scientist is willing to do when calculating solutions from the equations. The dualistic form makes the equations more complicated, whereas the monotheistic form is easier to implement. But it doesn't mean science cannot incorporate this God-like concept of dualism into the fabric of mathematics if we so choose.

For example, scientists already know that light displays its famous paradoxical behaviours (either as a wave or a particle, for instance) while still existing in what can essentially be seen as a single entity (when looked at from a distance or when scientists use simplified mathematics). The same is true of its energy as it oscillates from negative to positive over time, which can be mapped mathematically in a very accurate form, or simplified by taking a single maximum energy figure and using it in any equation. If light is used to unify all the fundamental forces of nature into one force (i.e., the electromagnetic one), it does not make it inconsistent with the mystics' view of dualism if scientists choose to be accurate in representing light and its dualistic properties. Indeed, as we learn more about the effects of radiation on our ability to observe things at the smallest and largest scales, we should expect to see more of this dualism coming out of the light. We have already seen this paradoxical nature emerge in the quantum world or when looking at the opposite extreme in relation to the size and age of the Universe thanks to the way radiation behaves at these extremes. Light can reveal two possible answers, and mathematics should show this if scientists want to be absolutely accurate in their work, so long as they are happy to solve more complicated equations. And as mystics have said, God is a single entity of dualistic properties. Certainly physicists had to learn this dualistic fact from their study into quantum theory in the 1920s. Soon they will learn the same thing for the Universe at the grandest scale. Only everything in between can be seen in either a simplistic monotheistic form of a linear sense by science and, hence, show only one answer because scientists constantly look for simplifications (such as seeing things from a distance). And it can also help to create a technology by doing so. Or, if scientists choose to do so, it could be seen in a dualistic form and in a non-linear form (when the details are revealed). It depends on how accurate you want the answers to be and how many equations you are willing to solve.

The unified field equations is very much like this. Einstein wanted to be accurate and reveal the oscillating behaviour of light and show it can generate a gravitational field. Unfortunately, the equations are horrendously complex to solve due to this choice of being non-linear and revealing this dualism of light. But scientists can simplify the equations. It may result in single answers that is not in keeping with the God concept, but so long as scientists are aware of the limitations in simplifying equations, then it is okay to make approximations and rough, educated solutions that might be enough to paint a picture of what's happening in reality.

With radiation in the picture, scientists can go both monotheistic and dualistic in its equations. By choosing, say, to take the maximum energy of radiation to help simplify their mathematics, the results are more single answers that are usually appropriate and adequate for most situations. However, Eastern mystics always know that everything comes in pairs, and so do well-educated scientists when they see things in detail and with great accuracy. Scientists can do the same by choosing to be more accurate and complex in the equations by including the oscillating nature of radiation. Scientists know that radiation comes in negative and positive energies, or opposite pairs of energy. It is just a question of how much mathematics the scientists are willing to perform when getting to either an accurate answer or an approximate one. The approximate and simplistic tends to be the monotheistic model. Whereas the more accurate tends to be the dualistic model (and the most complex)

Why did you include the appendix on "Mary Magdalene and a Balanced Christianity"? What has this to do with Einstein's Unified Field Theory?

We have considered this very carefully prior to publishing the book. After thinking long and hard about it, we had decided to include it only because we can see the connection between science and religion through the concept of light, and how light itself is connected with God. So we wanted to apply the concept to a religious problem. But to keep this application of balance separate from the chapters (which are more science related), we have decided to put it into an appendix.

But, as some highly rational scientists might say, "Why mention God at all? Surely God has no connection to science?"

Are you sure about this? We know that Einstein had his own views about God. He wanted to understand God when peeking into the mathematical and physical laws of the Universe. The following quotes speak volumes of his ability to broaden his mind on the idea and to find out if it is true:

"I want to know how God created this world."

"Science without religion is lame."

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

Einstein was not alone. There are plenty of people, among them some notable scientists, who question the God issue. It makes sense to apply our insights into light and its paradoxical behaviour to the concept of God, knowing it too is also a paradoxical entity. It is only when we realised the true unnameable entity loosely defined by Western religious leaders as God represents a kind of absolute balance between two opposites according to Eastern mystics, did we decide to apply this balance concept to a religious and social problem. In this case, we have chosen the religion of Christianity and to determine how balanced this religion is.

Sure, we could have chosen any other religion to write about. Perhaps we might still do one for Islam in the future just to see how balanced this religion is. It just so happens that Christianity was making itself slightly more prominent at the time we wrote the appendix, given the amount of coverage on the news the religion was getting, whether good or bad. It turned out it was more bad than good, with talk of why women could not be ordained as religious leaders in the Church in Rome and even become the Pope, as well as problems of sexual abuse of children within the religion. The question was why all this was taking place?

However, because it is a religious (and hence a social and psychological) problem, we had a choice of whether to place this additional research into an appendix or write a separate book. We decided to go with the former.

The point of the appendix was to show this balancing act in action and why it has its place not just in science, but also in religion. We see it in science (mainly through quantum mechanics) and through the concept of light. We also see it in religions that have thought deeply about the concept of God. And because there is a stronger link between science and religion than ever before (at least since the time Fritjof Capra wrote his Book, The Tao of Physics) thanks to this God concept and its relationship to light, we thought we would mention it and apply the concept to one social and religious problem. By keeping it in the appendix, people can easily ignore it if they wish.

We understand that not everyone will agree with its inclusion. Perhaps in the future we will have two books.

I would like to pick you up on some points in the appendix. Firstly, in the Adam and Eve story, wasn't Eve a woman?

It is interesting how a discussion on religion can bring out some fascinating comments on the topic. The most unusual is the question whether Eve was a woman.

In summary, and relying on the religious text according to Genesis in the Bible, we see the evidence is not conclusive in the early stages of the story. But eventually the answer has to be "Yes" because Eve was pregnant with a child and how Adam was shocked by this observation.

Our aim in mentioning the story is to get an understanding of where the imbalance in the genders and leadership roles in Christianity began.

It would appear that a number of Bible versions are prepared to see Eve as a "woman", or "wife" of Adam (the logical extension to the "woman" argument). The only problem with taking on this view is that the Bible gives no details on how this marriage allegedly took place or whether sex had occurred within the garden. We do know Eve eventually became a woman at a later stage, but no evidence of this while the couple were in the garden. But if the couple did have sex and was not mentioned in the story, this raises some issues. For a start, why was it necessary for the couple to cover their nakedness with at least one fig leaf for Adam, and presumably up to three leaves for Eve? The exact number, of course, is not revealed in the Bible. However, if one is trying to cover one's nakedness, would it not seem reasonable to consider the absolute minimum? Even if some males can cope with the sight of naked breasts, there are enough males in society who can't especially after a period of not seeing them. So they end up feeling like they have to gawk on a pair if they were on show. Therefore, it seems logical to assume anywhere between one and three fig leaves. As for the size of the leaves, most likely they would have to be large to cover enough of their nakedness to avoid initiating some kind of embarrassing situation. But again, the Bible gives no details on the size we are talking about here. Just the fact that the two individuals had to cover enough of their nakedness to avoid behaving in a certain way.

We will assume the leaves must have been large.

Yet despite all this, we know today that married couples get use to seeing each other naked without feeling embarrassed. Nor do they get into a spontaneous sexual orgy every time they see each other naked. It is always controlled and relaxed until such time as they decide together to experience sex in whatever way they wish. Therefore, it is not surprising to hear of married couples walking around naked within their own home. And if they could walk around naked outside, as in nudist camps, they will.

This feeling of "shame" experienced by Adam and Eve that led to their decision to partially cover themselves is highly revealing. Although the Bible does not tell us why the couple covered themselves and instead left it to our imagination as if the reason is meant to be obvious, taking this logically and based on the common behaviours of children as they enter adulthood, it is not likely to be because they were married, or even had sex. Adam and Eve were more innocent and simple in their knowledge to the point where they were like two children discovering themselves for the first time after eating the forbidden fruit. Not that they were children. It is possible for young adults to be child-like in their thinking, and hence act in an innocent way. But even if we are dealing with young adults that are sexually ready for reproduction, there is no indication the couple had a desire to have sex with each other. As the Bible indicates, we do not hear God saying to Adam that he could have Eve for his sexual pleasure (and hopefully Eve will too eventually). Eve's presence in the garden was to provide companionship, not a sex slave or even a wife. Just a friend and someone to talk to, as Adam was probably lonely being on his own in the garden.

Perfectly understandable.

Also, the Bible does not tell us the couple had a child in the garden of Eden if they were married (as some people assume and believe only married couples have sex and children), but Eve did eventually become a woman. Still no evidence that the couple got married through a ceremony with God being present. Furthermore, without the knowledge of contraception and no indication God was controlling this aspect, it is highly unlikely two fairly innocent individuals would be thinking about sex and choosing unilateral withdrawal because they knew what would happens if they didn't. In all probability, if sex did occur in the garden, we should expect a mention of at least one child running around in the garden. Apparently we do not. With no child in the garden, it is unlikely they had sex. And knowledge of contraception would be too much for the couple and defeats the purpose of the story. We have this story because it is essential to show a fundamental flaw in humans to explain why we are in the Universe and what we must do in our lives to be seen as perfect to God (or at least get back into God's good books), which is to get an understanding of the opposites of life and to experience them. Then we can see a balanced path for reaching our ultimate destination (which is to be closer to God). In essence, we all have to go through a kind of continuous improvement with ourselves (and often we have to help others to do the same in order to benefit from their contributions) and become a more balanced person capable of solving any problem before us. But in order to see this clearly, there has to be a fundamental flaw or serious shortfall in being human (and, by implications, for any living thing in the real Universe). That flaw for Adam and Eve was a lack of knowledge in at least one area — that is, how to deal with their own nakedness. Once the knowledge of the purposes of the reproductive organs were revealed, the story tells us indirectly how difficult it was to get their minds off of it because of the obvious benefits to themselves. Until then, it can be frightening. What can the couple do? Should they explore each other's bodies and discover where to insert the penis and how to receive certain pleasures of sex? And perhaps any knowledge of the purposes of sex must also be frightening too. So maybe they should not have sex. But in order to prevent any action that would lead to sex and pregnancy, something had to be done to get the thought and that knowledge out of the couples mind. Must be a case of, "Out of sight, out of mind" as the couple decided to cover their modesty.

If all this is untrue, what is the point of covering themselves with fig leaves if the couple were "married" or already had sex?

It is only after the couple was banished from the Garden of Eden do we hear of the presence of offsprings (named Cain, Abel, Seth and “other sons and daughters”). It looks like they threw out the fig leaves and went for it like it was no tomorrow.

While a naked male and female can walk together perfectly fine without being married or having sex, it is unlikely the childless couple of Adam and Eve were married or had sex of any sort while they were walking in the garden. even if they were sexually mature and ready for sex. It required some form of an injection of knowledge to tell them of the benefits the sex organs could bring to them.

Any suggestion that they were already married in the garden because of the choice by some translators to use the word "woman" was either an incorrect translation from original religious texts, or based on a biased interpretation written by the translator because he/she was already married or had assumed that all naked females walking with males had to be married.

Didn't Adam change the name for Eve?

As one reader mentioned, "..anytime someone goes through a psychological and physical change his or her name is changed..."

There are indeed examples of the Bible to show certain individuals do have their names changed when an important milestone or level of personal development is reached. As the reader have quite rightly noticed, "Abram to Abraham, Serai to Sara and Saul to Paul".

For Adam, he seems to be an exception. Nothing special to note from him other than the fact that he appeared out of nothing thanks to God's help.

For Eve, you have identified a second important event. The first event was obviously the moment Eve appeared out of a stem-cell-rich piece of rib bone. The second event is the claim that Eve had a sudden and unexpected acquisition of fertility to justify the name change from "Eve" to "Eve, Mother of All Living". Then again, this could have been Adam's way of looking surprised to see his wife pregnant and creating life. Whilst this name change might be considered significant from a religious point-of-view, from a scientific standpoint it is essentially the same name and certainly not in the same league as you have mentioned in your earlier examples.

We will assume the names are Adam and Eve.

So what have you learned from religion, Christianity and the concept of balance?

Here is a brief summary of what we have learned:

  1. It has become clear from our research that there are two different views about the nature of God. The first view if that of an unnameable entity existent everywhere and in each one of us and achieves absolute balance by going through a constant switching between two opposites to help show its paradoxical behaviour (and the difficulty scientists and religious people have in pinpointing exactly what God is in reality). At the same time this thing or entity in attaining the absolute sense of balance or unity is what creates the reality of the Universe and ourselves. The other view, as noted by Western religious leaders, is a localised god that emerges from the sky, usually enveloped and hidden inside a large cloud, to influence events on the ground and/or meet certain people in history.
  2. Christianity tends to support the latter god according to the stories in the Bible. Eastern mystics support the former entity (called God by western religious leaders).
  3. It is unclear whether Jesus Christ had direct experience of this localised god in his early life and through his resurrection prior to returning to his disciples later for a meal. The Gnostic texts and the officially-accepted Bible would suggest that he eventually did after he imparted his final knowledge to the disciples with extra quiet teachings to one of them (i.e., a woman named Mary Magdalene), made them apostles, and appointed Mary and John to become the principal leaders of the group. When it was time for the charismatic young leader to leave the group at some unspecified location in the desert, he left the Earth in a spectacular event as witnessed by the apostles (again in the presence of the large cloud in the sky). Various angels looking like bright lights appeared and at least one of them descended to pick up the man and got whisked away. Now if God is meant to be a localised form, one could be forgiven into thinking Jesus had believed in this type of God. However, there are enough snippets of information in the Bible (and more clearly in the Gnostic texts) to support a much broader understanding of the concept of God by the young man. For example, in defiance of other religious men, Jesus would have close associations with certain women (e.g., prostitutes) in society in direct defiance of the traditional views of males as well as his attempts to restore balance among the people (mainly the poor and the sick) through his healing powers and ability to increase the amount of fish collected from the sea in the nets and in baskets distributing the fish, and so on. The man saw an imbalance in society leading to social problems, and he wanted to restore balance through his actions and knowledge. Did Jesus also believe in the true God of absolute balance (and in providing abundance to treat all people the same and with love) as Eastern mystics do?
  4. As God is described as a paradox that achieves absolute balance through a switching effect between two opposite extremes, for living things that cannot be God, we have been given important insights into how we can approach God to help us see this balance in action and with it the solutions to many problems, as well as get us closer to the ultimate balance of the Universe to see why it exists and why we are here. Following the dream of one Western religious painter, he depicted in one important painting the process of getting to God as a spiralling staircase approaching over time this ultimate pinnacle or goal in the sky, which is purportedly God itself and is represented by a bright light at the top. What this light is precisely is something we must figure out. We don't know yet. Whatever it is, it is said to represent the ultimate true balance we are reaching for, and will give us the answer to everything we can ever ask. The painting tells us we must all go through a similar switching between extreme experiences in order to see where the balance lies and the right solution to provide when solving problems. Even if we do not solve problems, nature has a way of forcing the issue of change and getting us to experience the opposites over time. The evidence for this switching effect can be seen all around us and within us. For example, the L- and R-hemispherical brains must work together to shuttle information back and forth through the bundle of nerves known as the corpus callosum during problem solving. The solution we obtain from this switching effect is meant to represent our best and most balanced solution (assuming we have taken into account all the information from our sensors), and can be considered a kind of glimpse into the nature of God.
  5. We have heard of claims of people being close to God, but never God itself. This is in stark contrast to modern Christianity where the male leaders in the Church have chosen to elevate the status of one principal human in the New testament (i.e., Jesus) to God. However, this creates its own controversies for the people of Islam and other religions.
  6. In elevating Jesus to the highest level, the Roman Catholic Church and all churches who follow the rules and teachings of the Vatican in Rome have to treat people who isn’t Jesus to a lower level. This results in certain imbalances in the way we treat and develop the full potential of human beings. It can make people feel incapable of solving world problems because they are not able to influence and create change. This is in contrast to a statement from Jesus in the Bible in which he expected others to do better than he did. In other words, his efforts to help the poor, heal the sick, create wine out of water and any other seemingly miraculous things can apparently be achieved by anyone and even he thinks other people will do more and better than what he did. Why? How can anyone do better than God if Jesus is meant to be God? It is as if an imbalance has been inadvertently created by male religious leaders. By leaving out all other living things from this God concept and making them less important, it probably comes at a huge cost and detriment to our proper human development and social advancement in all facets of life.
  7. By forcing religious male leaders into celibacy just to maintain a deeply held Jewish “tradition” that only males can become religious leaders and discuss religious matters to each other, another imbalance has developed. Due to the problems of the human flesh, the mind, and how God has created a body that is expected to be used for procreation purposes, or at least experience greater balance by having a healthy sexual relationship with someone, it has resulted in some males within the traditional Christian church having difficulties in controlling their sexual urges. As a result, some of the more vulnerable younger members of society who have not reached the age of sexual consent have been affected.
  8. The main religious leader in the New testament — Jesus Christ — tried to balance the gender situation by allowing women to become religious teachers. He took this in stages. At first we see glimpses of this in the Bible by allowing women to be part of his group and help with various things needed by the group, and later Jesus taught one woman to "think like a male" according to the Gnostic texts for the purposes of showing to his male disciples that anyone can be a religious teacher and, therefore, the Jewish tradition does not need to be upheld with such rigour, as needed to be more balanced and closer to God.
  9. Jesus was prepared to ignore certain stories in the Old Testament (the Jewish scriptures), including the Adam and Eve story, if it helped him to restore balance to the gender debate. As part of this different treatment of people who are told they are not Jesus and hence God, women have been singled out for a long time as requiring differential treatment by men in Christianity thanks to the original Adam and Eve story. The story has been pivotal in explaining why women can never be allowed to reach leadership positions within the traditional Catholic Church, and has kind of rubbed off on the rest of society in one form or another.
  10. Despite the presence of these Jewish traditions as dictated by certain stories from the Old Testament and efforts by Jewish men to maintain them, Jesus appeared to have wanted to change this situation as he felt this was affecting the way people were being treated, including women and the sick/poor.
  11. As a religious leader who was told to refrain from meeting women, especially on his own, and to only discuss religious matters with other men, Jesus seemed to do the opposite. Quietly at first and later more overtly in front of his male disciples when he chose to teach a woman to "think like a male" and eventually become a religious teacher and leader despite disagreed by some male disciples.
  12. Firstly, Jesus had no problems associating himself with sick people, probably in stark contrast to many Jewish people who thought the sick were God's punishment and should be shamed or ignored. He was prepared to go out of his way to secretly bath sick people at night in the fresh and clean mineralised springs bubbling out in the Jewish temple, and later on a Sunday when other Jewish priests were not around. Secondly, he did not see a problem associating himself with women, not just those of his immediate family member, but also with the more controversial females in society that were thought to be involved in prostitution much to the dismay of some of his male disciples who unexpectedly discovered what Jesus was doing on one occasion.
  13. Yet despite Jesus teaching a woman to think like a male and become a religious teacher, the Gnostic texts reveal a continued disagreement from at least one Jewish male disciple who vocalised his concern over the decision by Jesus to teach the woman in this way.
  14. Despite successfully transforming a woman to think and argue logically the religious knowledge of the day with males according to the Gnostic texts, some of the disciples still could not accept the woman at that position. But due to the reverence of their leader at the time, the men kept quiet.
  15. As if testing the male disciples, the Gnostic texts show a moment when Jesus allegedly kissed Mary Magdalene on her lips in front of the male disciples inside a room of the house. There was some uncomfortable tension among some male disciples. Apparently this situation was needed to be mentioned in the texts as if this was a pivotal moment within the group. Was Jesus testing the males to see if they were ready? Kissing on the lips was understood in those times to mean either a married couple or a very close relationship that is likely to lead to marriage if the couple were not family members. It is unclear from the texts whether Jesus and Mary had a more intimate relationship behind the scenes. What we do know is that Jesus would bring in Mary into a quiet room on occasions with the door closed, presumably for quiet discussions or teachings. Well, that seemed to be the perception given to the male disciples.
  16. However, the simmering gender concerns eventually boiled over once again. It happened after Jesus’ departed from the Earth. It would appear that Jesus had left another test to see how the males would react and how much they have really learned from the man. This time imparting some additional religious insights and knowledge to Mary behind closed doors. The male disciples were not aware of this. When one of the alpha male apostles spoke up following their grief in the leader's departure, he asked Mary if she received any other teachings from the leader. Mary, who learned to be honest, was prepared to mention the extra teachings. She spoke of the extra teaching she received. Unfortunately, this caused a major rift to develop in the group. At least a couple of the males felt like they were left out of those secret discussions with Mary. They were unhappy to hear a woman had received such special treatment from Jesus without their awareness. All manner of calming the situation was attempted (including some other male apostles who could not see a problem with it), but eventually a decision was made to disband the group. Instead of forgiving and understand the test from Jesus was there to see whether the male apostles had learned from their lesson to balance the gender debate and to forgive the woman and Jesus, at least a couple of male apostles took a different path. No longer would Mary and John be seen as the joint leaders of the group as Jesus had wanted it.

    Eventually the scene was set to establish, quietly at first and later more overtly, the Church in Rome. Here, males would be the only gender permitted to reach the positions of power and leadership in Christianity.

    Various reasons were given by Christian leaders over the centuries for keeping women out of religious leadership positions, but in modern times it came down to maintaining “traditions” first established by the Jewish faith. The gender inequality would continue because of the story of Adam and Eve that determined how men and women should be treated.

  17. In modern times, women and some men have questioned why females are unable to hold positions of religious power at the Vatican, let alone become priests and archbishops in the traditional Roman Catholic Church. Some further breakaways from the traditional religion would take place and later would allow women to become religious leaders.
  18. If we take the time to look broadly across many different religions, we can see this concept of balance being talked about (and hopefully is being applied) in the understanding of God. Therefore, it makes sense for a renegade religion such as Christianity from the Jewish form to promulgate a similar balance in its teachings. No matter what people may think of the Gnostic texts, it is remarkable that the central figure in Christianity was apparently doing things in his times to bring a sense of balance. Whether to help the poor, the sick, and empowering people to make change for themselves, but also though this gender debate.
  19. Even if people do not believe they are religious or think God does not exist, the presence of some kind of balancing act in the Universe and representing a perfect understanding of the opposites of life is repeated in many areas of our lives and throughout the Universe. For example, we breathe in to help us stay alive briefly. However, it is clear we can never maintain this action unless we reverse it. Otherwise, keep breathing in and you will die. Likewise, keep breathing out and you will also die. There has to be a balance in order to stay alive the longest. Similarly, you have to eat some foods for sustenance and to maintain the body and mind to operate optimally, but you cannot eat all the time. If you do, you will die. So you must cease eating at some point and go without it for a while. But you can’t go the opposite extreme or you will die too. A balance is needed. The balanced approach is to go without food for a bit longer than usual at certain times when you are fasting because this has the benefit of forcing the body to rely more on its own fat reserves and to remove old cells that could become cancerous. But then you balance this with eating at the right time, resulting in new cells being formed to replace what was removed (often using the protein in fish), and this extends lifespan considerably more (assuming the new cells have been well-preserved from the ravages of radiation in the environment as well as eating a simple, clean and organic diet).
  20. The law of balance naturally pervades the Universe in a way that should be teaching all of us why it is important to apply it in all aspects of our lives. If anyone should know this well, it would have to be the leaders of all the religions of the world.
  21. Religions should be teaching and practising the law of balance (or God) all the time. Christianity is no different.

A Reader's View that Jesus was Gay

Bible quotes and personal experiences of one reader

In an attempt to be as balanced as possible in our discussions with the religious aspects, it is important to look at diverse views from our readers. In this section, we look at a claim from a reader that Jesus could have been gay. The question is, is there evidence to support this?

You mentioned that "...since Woman [Eve]...was incapable of conceiving in the Garden [of Eden], she, was, in essence, 'Steve'. It was only after being driven out of Eden did she become "Eve".

Going from your earlier statement that Adam changed the woman's name from "Eve" to "Eve, the Mother of All Living", your argument is not exactly supporting the existence of another man. In other words, Adam did not make a name change for the sake of Eve suddenly becoming re-manipulated at the genetic level by God to become a woman. Adam always recognised his companion as the same person. No sudden appearances of breasts and the loss of a penis in Eve to make her become a female. He was not surprised by any kind of gender transformation of his partner to warrant a name change as you say or anything else. What he may have been surprised was the ability of Eve to conceive and bring a new life into the world. That would be an astonishment for Adam.

Thus to say a female did not have a child in the Garden of Eden is not proof that she was a man and, therefore, Adam and "Steve" were gay.

We can safely assume Eve was female, and Adam was male according to the story in the Bible.

The Bible's quote of "....and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him?" could be interpreted in many different ways.

Interesting that you have considered one possible interpretation, which is that Jesus was gay because of the desire by other men in his beauty.

Or for the sake of balance, wasn't Jesus bi-sexual?

The thing is, translators of the original religious text have to make decisions every day on the choice of English words to use when determining whether the words have the same or very similar meaning to what was written and intended to its readers. For example, the word "desire" could also have been substituted by:

long for
hunger to have
enthusiastically have
aspire to have

Similarly for the word "beauty", we could use words such as:


Thus instead of "...there is no beauty that we should desire him", the translator could have easily said, "...there is no splendour that we should aspire to have". Then your interpretation of Jesus and/or other men being gay because of this "desire" and alleged "physical beauty" would not work.

This is not to say that homosexuality never existed in Jesus' time. It probably did. However, the Bible shows Jesus to be more a womaniser and had associations with some prostitutes. Now we cannot be sure what this means exactly. Are we to infer from this that Jesus was a heterosexual and has defiled some women and, therefore, cannot be God? We don't really know for sure. Maybe he was trying to understand some women's predicament of becoming a prostitute and what was stopping them from trying something different. From this, the young man could develop his own argument to deal with the hypocritical men in the town who were prepared to sin themselves and later stone some women to death under Jewish law for allegedly being unfaithful or showing temptation by openly providing personal services to married men (especially the ones who weren't prepared to say anything of what they were doing to benefit from it). Jesus probably realised from his discussions with the women that they were the ones being treated poorly and have to find ways to survive while men were not prepared to look after them properly, especially when women find themselves on their own.

Maybe Jesus was a social researcher in gathering information for which he had no direct experience with and he wanted to listen and learn from the experts (i.e., women), as well as the poor and sick people and what they were suffering from. But because of how a number of his male disciples were keen to keep Jesus away from women, possibly to avoid tainting his religious insights and knowledge which could lead the men astray and away from the "balanced" path to God (as well as maintain their view of Jesus being "the Messiah" and quite possibly God in the flesh form), Jesus had to find ways to quietly sneak out and meet the women personally.

One thing is reasonably clear from the Bible passages is the decision by Jesus to have women (not more men) in his group. Then we find in the Gnostic texts some interesting and controversial actions by Jesus with a woman named Mary Magdalene, which was to teach her to "think like a male" when becoming a religious teacher like himself, and to kiss her on the lips in front of the male disciples. The latter action is particularly telling as it is unlikely Jesus would have been gay in front of the men if he wanted to kiss the woman on the lips. Kissing on the lips had a well-known interpretation in society at the time and in this part of the world.

You wrote that "...the Messiah [Jesus] is married to His Church" and "For the maker [God] is thine husband..." therefore, isn't Jesus gay?

Not necessarily. Again this could be another poor choice of words, not to mention the fact that male religious leaders want to call God a man. This hasn't been helped by the way God has appeared in the past to speak to some wise old men using what appears to have been a male voice just to give more authority and a greater chance of influencing a male-dominated human society. An unfortunate decision (i.e., God is not perfect, so shouldn't we call this a god?) given that Eastern mystics expect balance to prevail in the true unnameable God. As mystics point out, we must expect God to have a feminine side as well. So why not call God, "the Mother" or "wife"? These are just as valid terms we could have used in the Bible. But as the Bible has been written based on the interpretations and possible experiences of God by certain men in history (and only a very few women, usually in the presence of a male friend or husband, as the Bible can vouch for), it seems God has "chosen" to speak in a male voice to confuse the matter for everyone.

So if the true God can have feminine qualities, what does this mean for your argument that Jesus must be gay? It is too difficult at this stage to say anything to suggest this possibility based on this information alone. If anything, the person who originally wrote this was properly confused about the true nature of God. Probably not his fault because of how a mysterious god has probably come down to influence humanity along the right path.

It would be interesting to see one day who this god of the sky is in reality.

You mentioned this quote: "The first prophecy is that the person will have no children of his own". The quote from the Bible to support this is:

"Sing, o barren, tough that dist not bear; break forth into singing and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate, than the children of the married wife." (Isaiah 54:1 according to your version of the Bible).

If this quote is correct, then it may suggest that Jesus had no children. If this is true, it is dubious to then say that Jesus must be gay. A heterosexual man can choose not to have children if he so wishes. Indeed, there are men in the modern world who have the power to visualise and imagine themselves and the situation they are in in a different way to the point where they can develop no sexual urges even if a naked woman was to sit on top of them. There are ways to prevent a sexual response in men when trained properly that would not lead to sex and eventually having children. If you need evidence of this, refer to some of the methods females employ in femdom to control men's desire for sex and in prolonging ejaculation and even eventually stopping ejaculation altogether. Mind over matter is technically feasible and can be used to change one's behavioural response to a given situation.

However, on closer inspection of Isaiah 54:1, we note there are variations in how this is written. Here is another version:

"Sing, barren woman, you who never bore a child; burst into song, shout for joy, you who were never in labor; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband," says the LORD.

This quote now suggests it is not referring to Jesus, but rather to women in general.

Getting the more complete picture, we have:

"Sing, barren woman, you who never bore a child; burst into song, shout for joy, you who were never in labor; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband," says the LORD. 2 Enlarge the place of your tent, stretch your tent curtains wide, do not hold back; lengthen your cords, strengthen your stakes. 3 For you will spread out to the right and to the left; your descendants will dispossess nations and settle in their desolate cities. 4 Do not be afraid; you will not be put to shame. Do not fear disgrace; you will not be humiliated. You will forget the shame of your youth and remember no more the reproach of your widowhood. 5 For your Maker is your husband- the LORD Almighty is his name- the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer; he is called the God of all the earth. (Isaiah 54:1-5)

It is now looking fairly clear that the quote refers to women, especially those devoid of their own children with the help of a male partner. It seems women of the desolate already have children, but of a different kind. And their numbers will be the ones to make changes and will inhabit formerly desolate cities.


You mentioned "St John was a virgin. But what kind of virgin?" You then gave a personal experience of your late husband, a gay person like yourself, how you have consummated the marriage many times over the more than 50 years you have been together and still the Church describes you and your partner as "virgins". By the way, congratulations on making the brave move to marry at a time when many people were less forgiving of this type of relationship. As wonderful as this sounds, it is true that the Church would not recognise the union and the relationship as the love of two people. The traditional Church in Rome has its own interpretation based on the scriptures. The way the stories are told have made the leaders of the Church believe it must be between a man and a woman. However, in making this statement clear to the public and on numerous occasions, the Church is effectively saying gay and lesbian couples do not deserve the same love from God as everyone else. Of course not. Science and the copious statements from people who have reached this important crossroad and realised their genetic makeup is different from others is telling us that the sexual orientation is set in stone by genetics at a young age. It is a situation of people caught in the "wrong body" because of their genetic makeup. It should be understandable that people may need help to make the transition over to the opposite gender by medical means, or else allow them to be gay.

We may try to do things to minimise these ambiguities by ensuring the mother is given the best help and quality foods to produce the healthiest baby. However, should differences occur, we cannot force people to be what they are not. Too many people have committed suicide from the actions of other people trying to change them to become something they are not. No electrical shocks is going to permanently change the sexual orientation of people. We have to accept them for who they are as worthy people deserving of the same love from God.

But since the Church can't do this, we can understand your point that you will always be seen as "a virgin" as was your husband.

On the same token, we must be careful not to assume that because St John and Jesus did not have children, they both must be gay, and may even have had a homosexual relationship with each other given that John was the disciple that "Jesus loved". We do not know this for sure. Yes, Jesus did have a special fondness for John. But we think it is not because of any sexual feelings for the man. Rather, it is because John was a strong lad and a loveable simpleton. He had a bit of larrikinism in his younger years. Together with James, his brother of similar build, the two would look out for each other and deal with trouble makers in the town. Both fishermen who had to haul in large nets to catch fish to give them their more muscular and larger bodies. But once John (and James) came under the care of Jesus, he saw another way of treating people to create change through the principle of love. And his simple mind meant that he accepted practically everything Jesus said and was willing to listen and change himself. Together with Mary Magdalene, Jesus saw the most progress in these two individuals. He felt the two were ready to be the new leaders of the group once Jesus left the Earth, even if other members of his disciples were more persuasive and eloquent in their public speaking and social skills.

The quote you have identified is not enough to say that Jesus is gay.

You have noted of the special bond between John and Jesus with statements like "[John] is the disciple whom Jesus loved."

We can't say for sure whether this was because Jesus was a lover to John and vice versa. Even though the term "...whom Jesus loved" has been mentioned a few times in the Bible and Gnostic texts and understood to refer to John, it was because other male disciples felt left out of not becoming the leader of the group. Even though John was the most faithful and open-minded of all the male disciples, his simple mind and average communication skills made it look like he was the least likely to become a leader compared to other disciples. However, when some of the males disciples saw Jesus make John a leader, it must have felt like John was special to Jesus, so he must have loved John more than anyone else. Nothing could be further from the truth. Jesus loved everyone. This is more a perception other male disciples had to explain the choice made by Jesus to have John as the leader. He obviously "loved" John, but it need not be anything sexual. What makes the statement slightly confusing is the use of the word "love". Like the word "desire" when linked to the word "beauty" can potentially have a sexual connotation, "love" is another particularly strong word that could be interpreted in a similar way. However, it should be understood over the millennia that to "love" someone need not have to involve anything sexual. Rather, it is more like the love one shows between siblings and the siblings with their parent. You are happy to cuddle and embrace a stranger just as you would a friend or family member, as well as help the person with their fundamental needs — primarily to feed, clothe, give a roof over their heads, and just be a friend willing to listen and provide support, if they need it. For most people, doing these things is equivalent to feeling "loved". But it doesn't mean the love is sexual. Far from it. Nevertheless, we do take note of the number of times the disciple is mentioned as being the one Jesus loved.

Or perhaps John was particularly helpful and comforting to Jesus' mother and other family friends? He was like a very close family member himself.

However, if one is trying to approach God through one's work, it should always be balanced with a love for all other disciples, and the people in society. Whether it is the poorest of the poor, the sickest of the sick, or anyone else. Everyone is part of Jesus' family, at least for those who believed in his teachings and understood the principle of love. The male disciples should have known this, and Jesus would have been fully aware of the need to maintain balance in his dealings with people. What seems to be the problem is that some of the male disciples were not fully opening up their minds and not re-evaluating their own Jewish traditions and religious knowledge that they seem to be maintaining in order to reach a more balanced position as needed to solve world problems.

Perhaps Jesus knew this and was willing to test his male disciples.

For John, Jesus had a soft spot for him because he was like an empty vessel ready to be filled without constantly questioning him all the time and trying to find angles to show the Jewish traditions have to be right if God had appeared and spoken to certain old wise men in the past. Other men were probably trying to reconcile these new teachings from this strange young man having all the right words to say and an excellent understanding of the old Jewish scriptures and found it hard to fully accept the new teachings of Jesus.

"Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved" (John 13:23)

We note the underlining of the words you have made on "whom Jesus loved". We must refer to our earlier point that love is not a sexual thing. Also the choice of words to make up this statement does vary with different translations. No matter how certain your Bible version is the most accurate, translators have come up with different variations on the same idea. For example, we can find the following quote:

"One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him." (John 13:23)

And the definition of "reclining" from the Webster's College Dictionary in 2010 is:

"Reclining: to lean back or lie; rest in a recumbent position."

When combined with the words "next to him", it is not immediately apparent that John was resting his body on Jesus. It sounds more like he was next to Jesus as he leaned back on a chair or on some cushions on the floor. We are not immediately visualising anything more into this statement.

You wrote "This disciple [John] was so close to Jesus that when He declared who was going to betray Him only that disciple knew. Picture this: 12 men around the table and only St John could hear him. They must have been awfully close."

Amusing thought. Does this mean the men were literally clamouring on top of each other to hear the words of Jesus when he spoke as if they were all gay people? No. The homes in those days (except for the richest people) were not filled with curtains and carpets, with large pictures on the stone walls to absorb the sounds. It just wouldn't be Jesus to stay in a room filled with such ostentatious display of items (and potential wealth) that he may or may not agree to see. Not that these sorts of things would have bothered him. But it would look more appropriate to keep the room simple. It is likely the men and Jesus were in a simple small room, possibly a wooden door to keep everyone in. Like you would hear sounds travel far inside a cave, the stone walls would echo sounds and make it easier to hear everyone else. This would allow some people to listen in on some conversations and join in. or else ignore it and listen to the person next to them or across the table. Jesus probably knew the acoustics of the room were pretty good. So he probably used it to his advantage. He needed to give the betrayer some kind of an indication that he was aware of what was going to happen. Whether or not Jesus wanted it to happen or knew secretly of the betrayal, the voice travelled far enough for the person who would betray Jesus to hear and he became uncomfortable. That was enough of a clue for him to leave the room and do his thing.

You wrote, "When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple [John} whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, 'Woman, here is your son,' and to the disciple, 'Here is your mother.' From that time on, this disciple took her into his home." (John 19:26-27)

Is this evidence of the homosexual love Jesus had for John? Well, that's is the view you have come up with in association with this quote. Jesus was reminded of how much he loved John and John as well by being close to Jesus. We agree that there have been a number of statements supporting John as the "loved disciple" of Jesus, but nothing to state that there was a sexual relationship of any sort between them as far as we can tell from any religious text. If anything, one could argue more convincingly that there was a chance for a sexual relationship to develop between Jesus and Mary Magdalene than with John, if the Gnostic texts are anything to go by.

The environment in which this quote was made and looking at any other variations from other disciples in their own gospels of what transpired on that fateful day when Jesus fell unconscious, presumed dead and so avoid feeling the Roman sword piercing his rib cage, John was physically closer to Jesus compared to the other male disciples. Basically, John was in the position he was because he was giving support to the principal and closest women in Jesus' life. Three other disciples — Mark, Luke and Matthew — were present, but further away and closer to the Centurion to pick up an important statement from this soldier along the lines of why a good man who was not causing trouble to the Romans had to be condemned to die on the cross. Despite the greater distance, Jesus spoke loudly and clearly enough for all the disciples to confirm what was said to John and his mother Mary while the other women looked on. It is probably that level of concern for Jesus' mother and being there to hold her and comfort her in this most difficult and trying times and seeing her son tortured and slowly dying that probably reminded Jesus why he loved John so much. He was there comforting the mother. It is not because of any sexual relationship with John. It was the fact that John learned the principle of love very well and was willing to show love in an unconditional way for anyone, including the women in the group. That love was not sexual. It was just being supportive and helpful to them. He had nothing against women. He wasn't going to deny some women to learn the teachings from Jesus. He was willing to learn and accept the teachings from this strange young man.

Thus for you to state that "Here we see Jesus' raising his beloved St John to the level of his biological family, thus sanctifying his Gay marriage to the disciple" is too controversial at this stage and not quite conclusive enough from the available quotes to state this. Perhaps if another copy of the full Gnostic texts is uncovered in another tomb or cave somewhere in the Middle East to help fill the gaps in these unpublished texts, maybe there might be something to support this. At the moment, there is nothing really to give clear credence to this "gay claim". Nevertheless, it is worth suggesting it as you have just to see how likely it stacks up with the available quotes and our understanding of the charismatic leader.

Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the LORD!" As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, "It is the LORD," he wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water. John 21:7

As John was more accepting of Jesus' teachings by using his whole mind to remember what he was taught, his ability to look at things more broadly, as well as his skills as a young lad to keep an eye out for trouble to protect himself and his brother James allowed him a better chance to observe something out-of-the-ordinary. The other disciples seemed more focused on specific tasks and to ignore the surroundings as they learned to accept Jesus was gone forever as a matter of fact and not show the faith that he could potentially still be alive despite his crucifixion. They could not believe or have the faith that Jesus might one day return. With John, a simple man who believed in everything Jesus said and saw many of his miracles in action, he was more willing to look around and learn from his surroundings and possibly with good eyesight for his age, he probably was able to observe Jesus first before anyone else.

It isn't necessarily because the two were lovers or anything like that.

You also said, "St John out raced St Peter and arrives at the empty tomb first. But he dare not go in. Did his lover actually come back from the grave?"

We know John and his brother were two tough lads in their younger days, hauling in heavy fishing nets every week and pushing the boat offshore or back to shore, and to deal with trouble-makers with their physical prowess. Because of this, John was probably fitter than Peter in getting to the tomb. It is not because it reminded John of the sexual encounters he allegedly had with Jesus and wanted to see him first.

You wrote, "Was Jesus married to Mary Magdalene? I doubt it."

Well, let us put it this way: Jesus was paying more attention to Mary Magdalene than with the other male disciples towards the end of his life, presumably because he wanted to teach her how to "think like a male" and give her his religious teachings according to the Gnostic texts, as well as prove a point with his other disciples that women could become religious leaders if they so choose. In another aspect part of the texts, we learn Jesus kissed Mary Magdalene on the lips in front of the male disciples. Does this mean Jesus had a "thing" with Mary as if the two were married or had a very close sexual relationship? We don't know that as yet. What we do know is that Jesus wanted Mary to become his closest disciple, together with John. Not because Jesus was bi-sexual and was into Mary and John. It was probably because those two individuals showed the most self-improvement compared to other disciples, had learned the most from Jesus, and was willing to learn more and find out. They were being open-minded to all of his teachings. Hence the reason for choosing Mary and John to become the new leaders of the group after his departure. As for thinking Jesus married Mary, unfortunately enough of the Gnostic texts were lost to prevent us from finding out for sure. So we don't really know.

If one were to choose who was more likely to marry Jesus based on the available religious texts and quotes, the lack of any kissing on the lips or even a hug by Jesus with John is not putting those two in the same league as Jesus and Mary Magdalene. If Jesus did marry anyone, you would have a safer bet of putting it on Mary Magdalene than anyone else.

We understand the quote in the Bible that stated:

"These are they which were not defiled with women, for they are virgins. These were redeemed from among men, being the first fruits unto God and to the Lamb."

It may seem unfathomable to imagine a man like Jesus ever having sex with Mary Magdalene (not that it would make him a lesser man if he did especially if he obtained consent and showed the required love and care for the woman in her intimate moment; only the Jewish priests and those running the Vatican in Rome would shiver in their boots if this could be a possibility). But do we know for sure? We know Jesus would meet with other women in the town privately and do it quietly to avoid alerting the male disciples. On one occasion, Jesus was found talking to a controversial woman involved in prostitution. And with Mary Magdalene behind a closed door presumably being given extra teachings from the leader, who are we to say for sure that there was no sexual relationship? Perhaps that was part of the reason for Jesus hiding and keeping the male disciples guessing or unaware because he felt the males were not ready for the next revelation. He may have given more clues later when he kissed Mary on the lips, but does it really say he was married or had some kind of sexual relationship with Mary? We simply don't know.

And if Jesus was gay and the principle of love and the law of balance were applied properly, any sexual activity with other men would also not go down well with the above quote.

Maybe Jesus was always a virgin.

At the end of the day, no one can be absolutely certain of the truth about the man and his life. Unless Jesus makes a triumphant return to earth in the near future (if a localised god has taken away the man and the home planet is at least a thousand light years away, and hence would take a little over 2,000 years for the round trip to make his return to Earth) and is happy to give the full story to everyone, we can only speculate at the moment on what may have happened.

But on the basis of probability, it is unlikely Jesus was gay. Of course, we will always keep on open mind if further evidence comes to light to support this controversial view.

Responses Uploaded to Other Web Sites


1. If light has no mass, why is it affected by gravity?

Our comment

A very good question. When a mathematician is asked to explain this, we often hear a lot about geodesic lines and the bending of spacetime as if this is the only way to understand gravity. To be truthful, the problem with the General Theory of Relativity is that it is too mathematical. Even by Einstein’s standards, he was allergic to pure mathematics when he developed this theory because he was departing from his childhood skills of visualising and seeing the cause and effect behind gravity until a friend convinced him to accept the mathematics as a way to unify certain equations. But in so doing, the theory effectively hides the mechanics behind what is going on. It is easy to use mathematics to combine equations to help rationally cover a swathe of different observations. It can result in a slightly more complicated set of equations that allows one to more accurately determine, for instance, how much a photon or ordinary matter bends in this "thing” we call spacetime. Fortunately for Einstein, it turned out to be slightly more accurate compared to Newton’s equations and so his theory was validated and taken seriously by other scientists. But does this mean we have solved the problem of gravity? Of course not. At the end of the day, the theory says nothing about what this "thing” is and why it should bend the path taken by light, or what exactly is gravity. Like the quantum theoretical scientist, we are still unable to understand precisely what is gravity. For if we did, we would have merged gravity with all the other forces of nature by now.

If we look more closely at the theory, physicists know that this "thing" has energy and depending on its density, can control how strong the gravitational field is (i.e., how much something bends in this "thing"). In other words, it is an energy density issue rather than a bunch of geodesic lines described mathematically to tell matter how to move.

Question is, what is this mysterious energy of space? What is actually in space to create this bending of a photon and other matter?

This was the thing to have perplexed Einstein for quite some time after he developed his General Theory of Relativity. Between 1915 and 1919 (and more so after 1919 when the light bending effect was proven experimentally by Sir Arthur Eddington), he was forced to look at the photon once again and to understand it more closely. Why? Because of the way it bends in space, as well as the fact that photons (or light, in a general sense) exists in reasonable amounts in space. Apart from the gravitational field in space which is what we are trying to solve, the only other thing that has a hope of "controlling” the gravitational field must be light, or the electromagnetic field. No exotic particles have been discovered at the time. Does this mean there is a connection between a photon and gravity?

Well, in understanding how light bends in a gravitational field, the first thing Einstein had to do was ask himself, What is the difference between this light bending effect and that of ordinary matter bending in the same gravitational field? After much careful thinking, he came to the conclusion that there is no difference. Light bending cannot be described as anything different other than the fact that it must be a "gravitational effect" much like the way, say, a moving tennis ball bends down to the ground. It is just like his elevator thought experiment where he couldn't see the difference either. If you are oblivious to your surroundings, you wouldn't know if you are accelerating or standing on the ground. Gravity feels the same. Consequently, he had to merge the two concepts together to create his General Theory of Relativity. Now, Einstein made the second decision to merge the two concepts of the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field to create his Unified Field Theory because he felt a photon is no different from ordinary matter and/or the gravitational field. The photon is somehow influenced by gravity just as surely as a tennis ball is. One must assume that this is because the photon either has an imperceptible amount of mass generated by the electromagnetic field, or we must assume no mass but somehow it creates a gravitational field of its own to interact with the gravity externally. If it is the latter (the assumption Einstein initially used), then it must be the way that the two gravitational fields combine to change the energy density of this "thing" in space. Perhaps it is affecting the energy between the two objects? Or could it be the energy on the outside? Or is it both? Whatever the truth, what we do know is that both the Earth and the photon are compelled to move towards each other. Something is pulling or pushing the two objects together. One possible explanation is that there is some kind of destructive interference in the energy of space (or even a simple shielding effect of the mass) such that there is a reduction in the energy density between the two objects for this "thing" in space to effectively push the two bodies closer together. Either that or it is a form of constructive interference with the energy outside the two objects to make the density increase compared to what is between the two objects. Either way, there has to be an imbalance in the forces exerted by this mysterious energy of space on the two objects. Still, whatever this energy is, even if we accept the photon has a gravitational field, we are again unable to explain what this "thing" is and what the gravitational field actually is. The only way to solve this is to look at all the energy in space to see what is likely to be controlling the gravitational field, and would it be sufficient in the amount and density to cause planets, tennis balls, and photons to bend in the way that they do in space?

Einstein thinks it is the photons, or light (radiation or whatever) that is controlling the gravitational field. Indeed, one could ask whether there is a gravitational field. In other words, could radiation do all the work of the gravitational field? Well, there is certainly plenty of it in space. And radiation can move ordinary matter, both charged and uncharged. So could gravity be moire a "pushing" force?

Until we work this one out, there is probably no need to resort to exotic particles and the like to try to explain gravity. Apart from the fact that many of those particles don't actually exist in space in the quantity needed to create the "gravitational" effects, the only thing these particles do is complicate the matter and make it harder to reach a conclusion. Similarly with the application of mathematics. All this work is not getting us closer to an answer. Seriously, if we still don't know what gravity is as yet, why complicate it? We can go back to the simple picture of seeing a photon as like ordinary matter at least for now. Later, we can ask whether a gravitational field does exist. Or could it be possible for the electromagnetic field to do all the pushing around of photons and ordinary matter to create the so-called "gravitational effects"?

But this is the thing. Seeing photons are like ordinary matter can still confuse physicists. In particular, we have this view that photons are "massless". So how can matter be massless and yet somehow perform these "gravitational effects" we see of ordinary matter with mass?

I understand that people will describe photons as massless (therefore, it must be a mysterious gravitational field that is being generated by the photon and affecting the space around it according to the Unified Field Theory). But when scientists say something is massless it is probably because they haven't been able to find a way to put it on a scale and let gravity pull on it to exert a force on the scale in order to register a weight and with it a mass. A photon moving through this "thing" in space is not unlike the way a whale "swims" through the ocean. A whale swimming in the water may look like it is massless by the way it kind of "floats" in the water, but if there was a way to stop this swimming action and let gravity pull on this whale onto a scale, then we would register mass. Until there is a strong enough gravitational field to bend the light significantly and make it hit something so as to register a mass, we could be assuming photons have no mass when in reality it is just the way this "thing" in space is giving the impression of a photon being "massless".

Perhaps all we can say about photons is that it can give the impression of being "massless" as it moves through space, but it could have a tiny amount of mass generated by the electromagnetic field that physicists have not yet been able to detect until we can bend the photons sufficiently to hit something for physicists to detect the mass.


2. How do you explain the Pilot Wave Theory in quantum mechanics to a layman?

Our comment

Actually the De Broglie–Bohm pilot-wave theory (, is meant to be intuitive and simpler. It is the only theory of quantum mechanics that people should be able to understand. Even the layperson could comprehend it.

In the current “wacky world” of quantum theory as we have it, physicists don’t really explain things like how particles passing through two slits in the double-slit experiment manages to organise themselves to form those famous bright bands on a screen to show where most of the particles went. If we used waves, such as light, quantum physicists can say the waves are “interfering” with each other, thereby causing waves to constructively interfere and so amplify the wave energy, and in other regions causes destructive interference. In other words, physicists can see the energy spreading and “interfering” with itself to form intensified and stationary light ripples to create the pattern on the screen (see The One Theory of Quantum Mechanics That Actually Kind of Makes Sense ( But with particles—that is, the quantum ones because they are lightweight enough to create the pattern on the screen and are not travelling at relativistic speeds—quantum physicists using the current quantum theory can’t explain how particles interfere with each other to create the pattern. This includes the photon, even though it too is a wave, It is just that it is localised wave and, therefore, at sufficient distances, two photons don’t appear to interfere with each other.

Thus the implications of quantum theory are quite disturbing, especially if you are comfortable with the way classical electrodynamics and Newtonian physics work. In the current form of quantum theory as accepted by the physicists, there is a sense that the particles have a mind of their own to know precisely where to land on the screen.

But, as Einstein once said, “God does not play dice!” Even he believed there had to be a logical explanation.

Welcome to the “wacky world” of quantum mechanics in its current form. So instead of explaining how the particles achieve their seemingly miraculous behaviour, physicists just rely on mathematics and say there is a certain probability of where the particles will land on the screen. So, somehow, we have a mysterious and imaginary probability wave sitting in the experiment that can “control” where the particles go. How it does this in reality is unknown.

But here is the question: What is this probability wave in reality?

The pilot theory goes a little further by accepting that there is a real wave still present in the double slit experiment. This wave is interfering to create regions where it can control any particles that enter these regions and push them to the right positions on the screen. Now, if this is true, then technically speaking there is no reason why we cannot bring back determinism into quantum theory. Because if we do, everything will start to make sense. The so-called unintuitive can suddenly become the intuitive in this new quantum theory. Even the most bizarre quantum observations will have a simple cause-and-effect explanation.

The biggest problem is working out exactly what this wave (or invisible energy) is that is seeping into the experiment and controlling the particles.

One possible explanation is to use Einstein’s Unified Field Theory that relates the electromagnetic field with the gravitational field. More specifically, an oscillating electromagnetic field (or radiation) naturally generates its own gravitational field, and with it the ability to move “matter” (whether or not it is charged).

Well, in the double-slit experiment, we haven’t completely eliminated all the radiation entering the experiment. We might be able to create a vacuum to reduce the air pressure and any other particles, but the experiment has never been put inside a perfect Faraday cage to eliminate the radiation. So what happens with this radiation? It too can be quietly interfering with itself as it passes through the double slit experiment. We use a screen to detect the particles, but not the radiation. So we assume there is no radiation. Yet somehow the particles bahave like they were waves. How?

Let’s suppose the radiation is still creating these regions of extra energy amplified through constructive interference. Technically any particle can be gravitationally attracted to those regions and once it enters one of the regions, it can be pushed by the intensified light ripples to the final destination point on the screen. Simple classical physics in action.

So, you could say radiation is “controlling” the particles to make them land in such an orderly fashion reminiscent of a wave.

Hence a probability wave is probable a gravitational wave generated by the intensified radiation through constructive interference. Or, to put it simply, radiation is the probability wave.

And so we have a real-life wave that one could potentially use to explain this seemingly unexplainable quantum observation. But it is up to the current breed of quantum physicists to think more broadly and to consider these kinds of new pictures of how the quantum world probably works.



User going by the name of Darin Gumucio

Question 1

I have read the book and watched the video series and have some pointed questions to either confirm / deny some of your claims or to gain more information....I am not a formal scientist. However, I would like to lobby university physics departments to do some of the experiments which you recommended to confirm or deny the validity of the Unified Field Equations....

Does the addition of the Maxwell / EM Tensor to the General Relativity (GR) equation alter the values of any of the other Tensors in the equation?

  1. Does it raise the potential value of the Einstein / Gravitational Tensor from its General Relativity maximum value to a higher threshold or limit in the Unified Field Equation because now we are factoring in EM?
  2. Or, does adding the Maxwell / EM Tensor to the constant k and Energy tensor side of the equation alter or decrease their values in the Unified Field Equation vs. their original thresholds in General Relativity? I would think it would since E must be conserved but perhaps this is illustrating my lack of understanding.
  3. Or, are my questions above in error and irrelevant because there are no maximum values for these Tensors? If so, forgive my lack of understanding...

Thank you.

Our comment

What you are doing to lobby universities to conduct these experiments on the Unified Field Theory is a great idea. It is about time that we find out....

The unified field equations are essentially an energy equation. Both sides of the equations with an equal sign in the middle must always be balanced to be relevant to the real world. As scientists say, energy cannot be destroyed or created out of nothing. But energy can be transformed to another, as we are told, based on our limited understanding of what this energy actually is. At the time the unified field equations were created, physicists assumed the gravitational and electromagnetic energy were distinct forms of energy. Einstein, in the later life, probably thought otherwise.

Fortunately for Einstein, he has discovered one source of energy that does contribute to the gravitational field.

Okay., So let us imagine the unified field equations as looking like Einstein's famous equation relating mass m and energy E. To help bring this famous equation a little closer to how the unified field equations are structured, you can divide the constant consisting of the speed of light c squared such that it appears on the energy side of the equation. This leaves mass on its own on the other side. Next, you break up the energy E term into two components. Call one of them E1, and the other as E2.

Define E2 as the electromagnetic energy that Einstein understood does produce a gravitational field (or gravitational energy). If the aim of the equation is to have a more complete understanding of how this energy affects the strength of a gravitational field and the way regions of high gravitational fields (the usual places to find mass) change over time, you need to add all the sources of energy that can contribute to generating this gravitational field. Luckily for Einstein, he understood that radiation is definitely one source.

The remaining term E1 represents all other energy whose source lies in what is considered by physicists as "uncharged matter". It is generally thought that the presence of uncharged matter somehow generates an energy of its own that spreads out from the matter and permeates throughout space to affect other matter. Whatever this energy is, it is somehow able to be transformed or create this gravitational energy leading to the formation of the universe with its multitude of galaxies, stars, planets, and life.

The lonely looking mass term on the other side of the equation should not be seen as solid "uncompressible" matter with an infinitely sharp boundary for where matter begins and where it ends. That side of the equation attempts to represent mass in a mathematical sense as a field and to have it mapped geometrically over any distance and time in a more continuous manner. The mathematical gradients used by the gravitational field tensor gives an indication of the presence of solid mass, which may be very high for solid matter, but never is the gradient a perfect 90 degree angle to help define an infinitely thin boundary for mass. The field acts as a mathematically continuous entity forming a kind of invisible blanket throughout space if we considered a two dimensional universe (known as space-time). The bumps that appear on this flexible, rubber-like fabric gives a sense of the energy density (or field intensity). Or course, as we all know, the universe is not two-dimensional (even if you might have heard some people express a belief in the flat earth theory — yes, these people do exist). In 3D space, you have to imagine this energy as increasing or decreasing its density in a three-dimensional way. A photon, for example, is not a perfect two dimensional sinusoidal wave as suggested by the mathematics. It is more a kind of three-dimensional fuzzy ball of changing energy density moving through space (the quantum picture).

To help the public visualise this concept better, some science educators in the 20th century tried to simplify the universe into two-dimensions. Once you do that, you can look at the surface from above. Then it will be like getting out a map and seeing the contours of hills and mountains where mass tends to reside. Earlier explanations using this two-dimensional flexible fabric of space-time also tended to identify regions where mass is located by the way the fabric "bends". Using balls placed on a rubber sheet, the bending would go downwards. Otherwise a flat surface would represent the relatively smooth and unchanging gravitational energy of the vacuum of space (which is not a true vacuum; a true vacuum would have no fabric). The presence of any energy in space is what creates this fabric representing the strength of a gravitational field.

To be more accurate, this bending does not actually go down like depressions or holes. If the gravitational field is increased in a certain region, the fabric is described mathematically as bending upwards to show the hills that help to represent the mass.

You may also have heard about the Cosmological Constant that Einstein added to the General Theory of Relativity. Well, this was used to help bring the gravitational field equations of the General Theory of Relativity (but equally applicable in the unified field equations of the Unified Field Theory) closer to reality assuming we know what the universe is doing. Is it an expanding universe? Or are we in a steady state? On hearing about Hubble's work and in accepting his explanation for the universe, Einstein decided to remove this extra constant. The use of the constant is only to set the energy density of space to a level that can stop the expansion of spacetime over time to match a steady-state universe. Or else, it can be used to reverse the expansion of the universe.

However, does adding energy on one side of the equation result in an increase in the strength of the gravitational field? Yes, but not always. Depending on the energy itself, there may be ways to combine energy such that there could be a destructive interference effect leading to a reduction in that energy within a region of space. If that happens, it is possible for the strength of the gravitational field in that region to go down as well.

We hope this gives you another approach to understanding how the unified field equations work.


Question 2

Albert Einstein's Unified Field Theory - Is it only the E [electric] energy component of the cosmic background radiation that increases the perceived effect of gravitation? I.e. the increased mass / energy density of space due to energy / mass? Does the magnetic field component of electromagnetic radiation have any effect? Magnetic fields have zero effect regarding the ability to bend light from what I have been able to determine from online research. Please clarify or correct me if I’m wrong. Thanks.

Our comment

There have been people in the past who will over analyse the radiation to a level where they start to question the possibility that one field component or the other could be the "gravitational field" (or the thing that creates "gravitation").

For example, Dr Wilbert B. Smith, a Canadian radio engineer for the Department of Transport wrote a three page paper looking at the possibility that the electric (E) field component could be "the gravitational component".

But then one could argue that the magnetic (B) field, with its ability to move charges (but in a different direction described as perpendicular to the E field), could be described as "gravitation".

On closer examination of the way radiation interacts with solid matter, there is a new picture forming in the 21st century to suggest that radiation only moves the charges composing solid matter, not the so-called uncharged mass component of electrons and protons. So if radiation really does move charges, does this mean that either E or B fields (or why not both?) is ":gravitation:?

We think we are going too deep into this.

The only thing that Einstein could say is that a static electromagnetic field does not create a gravitational field. However, an oscillating electromagnetic field generates a gravitational field. How precisely it does this is still a mystery, other than the fact that radiation as a whole can act in a "gravitational" way on solid matter. If we are to explain this gravitational effect logically and accept the mathematics of the unified field equations and while still retaining the concept of a "gravitational field", we must include the gravitational field with the radiation as a third field generated by radiation.

This is the approach taken by American scientists, Dr J. Manson Valentine and Dr Morris K. Jessup, who looked at the Unified Field Theory and possible applications in an independent way. They were only prepared to state the presence of a third field, allegedly independent of the electric and magnetic field in a mathematical sense but in a physical sense there may be no difference. Never did they try to isolate the third field to any one or the other EM field components.

Even Einstein himself could not separate the gravitational field from the oscillating EM fields. The fields are inseparable as soon as the time-varying nature of the fields apply.

Einstein made no conclusions regarding what specifically is within radiation that causes "gravitation" per se. It just is. Just like scientists accept the fact that radiation can move so-called uncharged matter, as well as charged matter, due to its inherent ability to act like "mass" when it hits the solid matter. We don't question it further (although we may have to question it further when we are trying to understand what the difference is between a gravitational field and an oscillating electromagnetic field as well as the discovery that perhaps "uncharged" matter may not be so "uncharged" as previously thought). What mass is precisely is just as mysterious as what the gravitational field is, assuming we want to retain this traditional concept of a "gravitational field".

Indeed, should we retain this "gravitational field" concept? We think this is going to be the next great debate in physics later this century.

Question 3

Albert Einstein's Unified Field Theory How do they know that the "Doppler Red Shift" is not the Einstein GR Red Shift? The author of the excellent book "The Mathematics of Relativity for the Rest of Us" states such mid-way through his book. How do they know? Are they using the conclusion to justify the question in a circular argument? "There was a Big Bang as explained by the Doppler Red Shift therefor the observed Red Shift MUST be from Doppler expansion"? How do they know that the Red Shift isn’t from GR EM Radiation density and NOT Doppler effect? Which of course would question the entire universe expansion idea and even the Big Bang hypothesis. I don’t think they do. Your thoughts....

Our comment

An interesting point. We haven't read the book you mentioned (and we may check it out), but we have written a chapter looking at the redshifting effect of light from distant galaxies.

Based on our interpretation of the Unified Field Theory—and from the way Einstein has understood the properties of light in his times — the behaviour of light when it collides with other light should be the same as ordinary matter colliding with other ordinary matter. If this is true, then there will have to be a re-evaluation of existing cosmological ideas once physicists take into account of Einstein's unifying efforts.

The redshifting effect of light from distant galaxies is going to be one of those areas to face a challenge later this century.

For example, as radiation punches its way through the energy of space, the Unified field Theory claims the radiation must behave like ordinary matter. Just as a tennis ball colliding with the air molecules causes its kinetic energy to diminish over time and slow it down, so too does radiation lose energy through its countless collisions with other photons making up the energy density of space. Like throwing a stone in a body of water and seeing the stone lose its energy and get dissipated to the surroundings to help slow it down through the water, radiation must be doing something similar. The only difference is that radiation does not slow down, especially in the same energy density region. Rather, it loses energy by lengthening its wavelength. This is the familiar redshifting effect.

Then we have the other redshifting effect that scientists have seen when a solid mass emitting radiation is moving away from us. The radiation does stretch out in what is commonly called the Doppler effect. A kind of perceived energy loss.

For solid moving objects at close range to an observer, it may be reasonable to think that that Doppler effect is the dominant player for a large percentage of the perceived energy loss in the radiation. However, the Unified Field Theory is indicating that this percentage of the energy loss due to the Doppler effect should diminish with greater distance.

If this is true and scientists find, through calculations or computer simulation, at sufficient distances that this percentage due to the Doppler effect is quite small or imperceptible, it will make it less likely for us to know precisely what the galaxies are doing. We may face a situation where the further we look, the less we know. Similar to quantum mechanics in the sense that the further we look at the smallest scale, the less we can see (and the more we have to use our imagination to see what is going on). And if that ends up being true, we would have no way of knowing for sure what has occurred in the past, is happening today, or is going to happen in the future, for the Universe.

How do we know for sure whether a Big Bang had occurred? How do we know for sure the Universe is expanding and galaxies will eventually disappear and disintegrate in the very far future?

Perhaps the most we can say is that the apparently paradoxical nature of the real Universe is throwing us two possibilities: either we had a Big Bang and hence we are living in a finite universe, or the Universe is infinite. Depending on how we interpret the observational evidence, it could support either possibilities. But to know which one is true may require us to perform the biggest and longest running scientific experiment to measure the energy density of space and see if there is any consistent and reproducible change in this density value in different parts of the universe and over vast time frames.

Until we do the experiment, perhaps the best compromise is to say that the Universe is a very large place. Either it is infinite in size and age, or a very large finite universe whose energy density varies so slightly over vast distances and time frames that for all purpose it might be imperceptible. Either way, the Universe has to be seen as a very big place.

The answer to the origin of the Universe and how big and old it is could end up being a pointless one. Why bother asking the question if we are not God to know the true answer? And if we try to find out, we may discover that the further we look into space or at the smallest scale may reveal the Vivarium world we live in. As for everything else between these extremes, we can make more reliable observations. Among those observations is the fact that there is a cumulative impact of so many collisions with radiation, whether it is with other radiation or solid matter.

But how much of a contribution will this collision theory make to the redshifting effect of light from distant galaxies?

We have spoken to a couple of scientists about this collision theory of radiation with itself in space. We gave a quote in the Evolution of Life section of our web site for one of the scientists. As you will note, he was quick to dismiss any possibility of collisions contributing enough to the redshifting effect for any distance. He does acknowledge, however, that the redshifting from collisions is more significant with high-frequency radiation. And there have been some studies done on this very aspect to show its significance. But he thinks in the midst of space that not only does the red-shifting effect diminish with lower frequency, but there is a cut-off point. A kind of imaginary boundary below which a frequency that is too low will not experience any further energy loss due to the collision theory. Either that, or it is negligible no matter how far radiation has travelled through space. So if we can assume the Universe is infinite in size, the radiation at a certain low enough frequency will always exist forever and travel the infinite distances given enough time (which in an infinite Universe would have to be infinite). There is no possibility of further collisions taking place to further diminish the energy of radiation to zero even at infinite distances and time frames. There is always radiation in the universe that will never drop to zero, and nothing in nature can ever "top up" this energy in space to maintain the energy density.

But without an actual analysis of this claim just to be certain, scientists could be assuming once again, just as many scientists are still assuming the universe began from a Big Bang.

Question 4

Stevens Slate asked, "Any concrete ideas HOW to do one of these tests? And have these been done?"

Our comment

There are numerous studies done to calculate the gravity along a cross section of various different shapes of an object having uniform density in the type of material used to make the object. Among the shapes analysed included the sphere. For example, you can see one example of calculations and graphs done for different shapes from this PDF document from the University of Berkeley, but all this assumes the shapes are solid and made of any material.

When it comes to a hollow sphere of any material having uniform density, we know the gravitational field acting on a body sitting anywhere inside this region is cancelled out. In other words, the body will be floating inside the sphere. Check out this link: As Frederic Rachford, PhD Physics said:

"If you’re located anywhere inside a hollow sphere, then the gravitational forces from the sphere cancel out.

This is surprising. From intuitive symmetry considerations, it might seem that the cancelling should only happen at the centre of the hollow sphere. But no, it happens everywhere inside it. Newton proved this 330 years ago: it’s called his 'shell theorem'.

But if you want to accelerate anything inside while reducing the inertial forces exerted on it by the gravitational field, a perfectly symmetrical metal sphere is the key. If gravity is electromagnetic as the Unified Field Theory is strongly indicating, any reduction in the electromagnetic field inside this Faraday cage must affect the strength of the gravitational field as well. So it isn't just equal forces acting on anything sitting inside a hollow non-metal ball that can make it float around. The forces inside a metal ball are actually reduced. In a perfect metal sphere, the Unified Field Theory claims the gravitational forces should drop to zero as the electromagnetic field drops to zero as well.

Thus, it will not be bell-shaped as in the graph shown in the PDF from Berkeley University with the gravitational field strongest right in the middle of a solid sphere, or even looking the same everywhere in the region inside a hollow sphere. The sphere will have its own reference frame inside independent of what's happening externally. It means the gravitational field must go down inside the metal sphere.

The question is how much of a reduction will occur?

If all you want to do is prove an oscillating electromagnetic field does carry a gravitational field of its own, it is a simple matter of getting together some coils connected to oscillating electrical generators and arrange the coils such that the oscillating electromagnetic field generated by each one are in resonance to help constructively interfere and so amplify the strength of the electromagnetic field strength in a certain region of space, and with it the gravitational field strength as well. Then you should have a situation as you see in a black hole in which the light emitted by any object placed inside this region will start to bend back on itself and any light from behind the object can bend around the object. In other words, you can observe the object become invisible periodically at the moment of maximum energy density is reached as set by the frequency of the oscillating electromagnetic field. This is something that allegedly the US Navy had achieved in the 1940s using degaussing equipment (mainly used in war time efforts to prevent setting off mines in the oceans should they become magnetically attracted to the ships' metal hull). Whether or not this is true, there is no reason why we cannot do the same thing today just to find out. However, if you want to prove whether the electromagnetic field is the gravitational field and no other mechanism exists in the universe, not even exotic particles, then you have to go the other way.

We know in the 1990s, the US Army took on the ballsy move of creating metal hollow spheres in space with the help of NASA as part of a secret military experiment. The spheres were created out of a molten metal and allowed to solidify and cool down. The spheres were then provided to the military for their own research, and no details on the outcome of this work were ever revealed to the public. it was only lucky that some news outlets got hold of the work from some NASA employees. Unfortunately, this was the only time the public learned about the work.

Whether or not this had to do with secret gravity research by the military, for us, we can do the same. We have the international space station that can carry out this experiment.

However, here on Earth, creating a near perfect sphere is no easy task as this New Scientist article shows. As you can see, it can take months of grinding away to create the closest thing to a perfect sphere. And this is just for a solid sphere, not a hollow one.

When it comes to a hollow metal sphere, a molten metal will have to be suspended in the air using strong electromagnetic fields. For a perfect sphere, the metal would also have to be rotated in a way that will help to offset the slight flattening of the sphere by the gravitational field of the Earth. But technically speaking, even an oblate spheroid-shaped hollow metal object should serve the same purpose. It is a symmetrical metal box to reduce the electromagnetic field inside. So it probably does not have to be a perfect sphere; it can be a perfect spheroidal shaped object.

Once the metal has solidified and cooled down, a high precision laser cutting tool can cut out an opening, We recommend at an angle such that when we do close the opening, it should provide an almost perfect fit. If necessary the metal can be heated slightly for thermal expansion to close any gaps and seal up electromagnetically by the atoms in the metal for a firm fit. Or if the precision is not quite there, we could use a vacuum chamber to pump out air on the outside of the sphere and allow the air pressure inside the sphere to push against the "door" to properly press against the wall of the sphere for a firm seal — hence the importance of cutting at an angle.

With the opening now provided, we can place instruments inside to measure certain things. For example, we want to measure the temperature inside the sphere. If the sphere is constructed to be a near perfect shape, the temperature must drop dramatically as soon as the door is closed. The other instrument we can include is a gravimeter, to measure the strength of the gravitational field. The instruments should be modified such that when it reaches the lowest measurement, it can lock in the value so we can see the result when we take out the instruments. Or, you can use an electronic version to continuously measure and record the conditions inside over time.

If Einstein is correct with his final theory and our precision in creating a hollow metal box is sufficient, then we should see a dramatic result. Indeed, we should be able to prove whether gravity is a purely electromagnetic phenomenon or not. And that would be all that is needed to prove the Unified Field Theory is valid and should be part of our greatest scientific achievements in the world of physics.

Question 5

If I'm moving at the speed of light, then I throw a stone in front of me, wouldn't that stone have moved faster than the speed of light?

Our comment

There is something in space to stop your arm moving faster than the speed of light. It is known as radiation pressure.

Radiation (which creates its own gravitational field and can exert a force on uncharged and charged matter) is not only attracted to ordinary mass, the radiation coming into the spacecraft from in front can penetrate the hull and increase the “gravity” on your arms and body. If, in the unlikelihood, you could reach this impossible speed, radiation will effectively stop your body from moving (and potentially crush you to death).

If the spacecraft is designed as a perfect Faraday-cage, you can reduce the energy density of the radiation inside the spacecraft so that you can move your arm and, technically, you should be able to exceed the speed of light according to an outside observer looking in. But you won’t have sufficient time to observe this. At such an impossible speed for a solid mass, it also means the length contraction along the direction of motion will be measured inside the spacecraft to be zero metres to any destination in the universe. In other words, any object that will be ahead of you will be much closer. Kind of like right in your face in an instant, and that means you reach the destination in an instant. Indeed, you can reach any part of the universe, but you won’t know this as your spacecraft will collide with whatever is in front of you and you will be destroyed.

Needless to say, there are advantages in not travelling at exactly the speed of light. A fraction of a percent below the speed of light is feasible and advisable for your safety. But you will still benefit from short journey times. It is just that you will have slightly more time to adjust the path of the spacecraft to avoid hitting something you can observe ahead of you that shouldn’t be there.

But if you are wondering whether the spacecraft can ever travel faster than the speed of light, bear in mind that as you approach the speed of light, the apparent shortening of the distance to reach your destination in a much quicker timeframe according to your observations from inside the spacecraft is in fact an optical illusion created by the intensified energy density of the radiation attracted to the higher mass of the spacecraft and arriving faster and kind of bunching up in front of the spacecraft like snow scrapped up by a snow plough. So there is going to be a displacement of the energy in space such that a higher energy density region exists just in front of the spacecraft acting as the “gravitational and electromagnetic lens” to make objects directly in front appear much closer than they really are. And since this extra energy must have come from somewhere, the spacecraft has gravitationally drawn on this energy from further in front to create a lower energy density region. But here is the catch: space/universe will not allow for this lower density to exist. It has to be balanced and so filled in quickly enough to return the density to a normal level. So what happens is that this distorted space-time created by the moving spacecraft will behave like a rubber-band in pulling the spacecraft to fill this lower energy density region at a speed that will move the spacecraft beyond the speed of light. That is why you reach your destiny very quickly compared to the many years an outside observer on a planet will measure it. If you didn’t know this, you might use your measurement of the distance to the destination from inside the spacecraft, which looks much shorter, and your measurement of how long it takes to get there and calculate the speed. You divide the distance by the time and can see how the speed is very close to the speed of light, thereby confirming the speed as measured by the outside observer. But if you think about it carefully, you know the universe with its objects could not have been jolted from their positions to be closer to the spacecraft. This is confirmed by the outside observer. Therefore, you must know that what you are seeing up ahead is an optical illusion. The distance is the same as for the outside observer. Yet you somehow got to your destination far quicker than estimated by the outside observer. The only way you can explain this is to say the spacecraft has been pushed or pulled by space-time much faster to cover the distance. For the time you have measured it, it means the spacecraft must have travelled faster than the speed of light.

It is all about energy density of space, of which the predominant energy is electromagnetic, or radiation to be more precise. Reduce the energy density and anything, even solid matter, can travel faster then the normal expected speed of light in the standard density of space. But in the same energy density region, it still remains true that no solid mass can equal or exceed the speed of light for that region. No laws of physics are broken as a result.

So there is nothing wrong in not going at the speed of light. What you want is to get very close to it, and for you to participate in the flight to benefit from short journey times.

Harley Raven Nygma provided the following comment on YouTube on 3 February 2021:

Einstein's Unified Field Theory was proven. He was just forced to keep it secret, (the fact it was proven) because during that time if Russia, etc. Got hold of that information, then they would have been in big trouble, due to the fact that it provides anti grav technology along with many other things.. Also like how Victor Grebennikov was shut down when he made his unique flying machine. And he had to keep it secret, the fact this is true is corroborated by what Einstien himself said "I don't know what world war 3 will be fought with, but world war 4 will be fought with sticks and stones". He had implied, if he gave that information and the other countries got hold of his work, that there would be a 'war' and therefore once the war had destroyed everything. There will only be sticks and stones left to fight WW4 with. He was inclined and told not to publish his Unified Field Theory.

Response 1

Thanks for your thought. We will certainly look at Victor Grebennikov's work to see if he was on the right track.

On further reading, we do see a slight flaw with what you have said. Did you know Einstein has already let the cat out of the bag? He has published his Unified Field Theory — the final and corrected version — in 1929. Bummer! Whoever told him to keep quiet hasn't exactly worked. It really comes down to interpretation of the theory nowadays.

But now that everyone knows an oscillating electromagnetic field is likely to be the gravitational field (and experiments can be done to prove this), does this mean World War III will start according to your logic?

We have the technology of a car, and the technology of nuclear energy. We can use the car and nuclear energy to cause carnage (e.g., an atomic bomb), or we can use the technology to transport people and provide energy for peaceful purposes.

The same is true of the Unified Field Theory. There is a good side and a bad side. What we choose to do with the theory is up to us.

The Unified Field Theory tells us we can use the electromagnetic field to create a strong gravitational field to help exert a force on solid matter and make it recoil in the opposite direction to the electromagnetic field emissions. Put an oscillating electrical charge on the metal surface and the acceleration will be grreater and follow the exponential solution of the Abraham-Lorentz formula of classical electrodynamics. Use the unified field coincept to reduce the gravitational field inside a perfectly symmetrical metal box (i.e., the Faraday cage), and you can reduce the inertial forces, allowing you to withstand higher acceleration.

There you have it. A peaceful use of the theory. Just another transportation vehicle that can travel faster.

Or you can use it to carry bombs very quickly around the world.

Oops! There you go. We have accidentally blurted out the secret, and no one has told us to keep it secret.

And yet here we are with no evidence of World War III starting as yet.

We think the problem of any technology is the people themselves. If you don't treat people well and cause them to struggle to survive (often using money to control who gets what), we have no one else to blame but ourselves should violence (and hence war) commence.

It's really the people who are the problem. Not Einstein and his theory.

Response 2

Assuming the oscillating electromagnetic field is the gravitational field, there are two ways to create the effect of "anti-gravity":

  1. Create destructive interference of the radiation. You can do this inside a perfectly symmetrical Faraday's cage because of the way the radiation reflecting off the inner metal wall is out-of-phase which when combined with the original incident radiation causes annihilation of the energy. According to the Unified Field Theory, if you get rid of the radiation in this way, you get rid of the gravitational field as well. Now what happens when no gravitational field exists? Nothing to pull you down in any direction means you can float in space with no energy required to keep you levitating.
  2. Create constructive interference of the radiation. Since the Unified Field Theory is suggesting a possible electromagnetic force pushing us down to the ground (i.e., excess and/or higher frequency radiation above our heads compared to what is coming out of the ground and reflected off the ground), we can counteract this pushing force by emitting excess and/or higher frequency radiation between your feet and the ground. The recoiling effect on your feet and any movement causing you to go up against the "force of gravity" is what is known as the effect of "anti-gravity".

Looking at Victor Grebennikov's work, it would appear that he discovered a positive charge of the vibrating wings of bees (see Vibrating wings can emit radiation at high frequency. If there is a way to reflect this energy downwards through the right cavity design, the radiation emission can exert a force to help recoil against the cavity wall.

However, the question remains: was there enough force from the emitted radiation to achieve Victor's alleged levitation with his platform?

But there is a way to achieve the same thing using technology. We can emit high frequency radiation and make it emit predominantly in one direction. Add a charged surface for the radiation to emit from, and it follows the Abraham-Lorentz formula.

Is it true?

The Abraham-Lorentz formula is a poorly understood area of physics. The few physicists who have seen it either think it is an electromagnetic anomaly having no bearing on the real world, while others think it is too good to be true so why bother trying to find out through an experiment?

But there is a way we can experimentally test the formula. Your support can make this happen.