]> Albert Einstein's Unified Field Theory

Albert Einstein's Unified Field Theory

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the unified field?

As Albert Einstein visualised it through his thought experiments and later decided to encapsulate it mathematically into his unified field equations, radiation is essentially the unified field. Whether we call radiation an electromagnetic field, electromagnetic waves, photons, or light in its most general sense, basically any form of oscillating electromagnetic energy (where the energy swings from positive to negative and back again around a mean or central position we describe as zero energy, not unlike the string of a plucked guitar vibrates from a central position) creates a gravitational field.

It is the linking together of the electromagnetic field with the gravitational field in his unified field equation is what Einstein means by unified.

So what is the Unified Field Theory?

It is a theory to mathematically establish (and based on a solid and logical picture seen by Einstein of radiation) the link between the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field. Since we know that the electromagnetic field must be oscillating for this link to become apparent, we can now say that radiation not just creates a gravitational field of its own, but can also affect the gravitational fields of other matter to create the "gravitational effects" we see, such as matter clumping together.

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

No. When radiation creates a gravitational field of its own and interacts with other matter, it behaves like 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.

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

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

  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.
  2. The neutron is constantly charged.
  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, there is no such thing as a perfectly uncharged object at all times. Not even an atom with equal numbers of electrons and protons can be considered totally and consistently uncharged at every instant in time. The same is true of radiation and the neutron.

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

What is the gravitational wave?

Upon closer inspection on how the universe comes together to form the matter we see, a simple thought experiment has discovered there is no way we can separate the gravitational field from the electromagnetic field. The two fields have to be seen as one and the same force. Therefore, a gravitational wave is an electromagnetic wave. A gravitational wave is simply a higher energy density electromagnetic wave compared to the surrounding universal background radiation. 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.

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 same speed, which is the speed of light.

Back in Albert Einstein's days, the speed of a gravitational wave was also seen as the speed of light. However, without any clear reason as to why two separate forces of nature should travel at the same speed, it was generally seen as quite extraordinary. Some physicists have wondered what is so special about the two waves having the exact same speed. Well, here lies an important clue to revealing the true nature of the gravitational field. No wave travelling at the speed of light can be considered a separate and unrelated entity to the electromagnetic wave. There has to be a connection. The fact that the gravitational wave and the electromagnetic wave travel at the same speed is really nature's way of telling us that there is a connection between the two types of waves. At last, we can now understand why. Einstein realised that both waves are one and the same thing.

Can the speed of light change?

It has been assumed by scientists that radiation (and, therefore, gravitational waves) travels at constant speed and never varies no matter what the energy density of space might be. 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 to the standard speed.

In one 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 that the radiation needs to travel through (i.e., place other radiation in its path) to a high enough level and you can compress and bend light back on itself, or make it move at walking speeds. 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 applied, the mathematical universe created by Newton's equations is always described as a perfect vacuum. If radiation could be confined to a small spherical volume within a perfect vacuum, 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 represents a perfect vacuum for light (the messenger of the information) to transmit energy at infinite speeds.

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

If a perfect vacuum could ever exist in the real universe (in fact, 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. 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 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. In different energy density environments, you can have ordinary matter moving at or exceeding this speed of light value. This is certainly feasible and achievable. However, even though the speed of light can vary in a different energy density environment, 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?

Energy and matter are never created out of nothing, nor are they destroyed. Energy is only converted to matter and vice versa. Whether energy becomes a particle or not will depend on the energy density of the space reached in certain regions. 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) 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 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 push the energy together, but the loss in energy from the synchrotron radiation can be replenished from the environment by some unknown mechanism.

Could this mechanism be similar to the way tornadoes work by requiring some external force to keep pushing against the energy and mass 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 and replenish the energy as it gets processed by some means to help it rotate at high speeds?

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 only truly fundamental and stable particles made of this ring-like energy structure in our real 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.

What is inertia?

You know the feeling when you are accelerating or decelerating, even when spinning or turning in a different direction, 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 inertia. Traditionally, this was seen as a gravitational field moving uncharged matter. However, according to the Unified Field Theory, this is caused by radiation from the charged particles making up your body. For example, when you spin, something wants to stretch your body out the further away you are from the centre. This is the radiation coming out of your body. And the radiation from outside moves in from another direction to replace the energy that was lost and to keep everything in balance. Keep spinning, and the flow of radiation becomes continuous.

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. If another person could pick up this extra energy emitted by the ball as it swings past him/her, there would be a heightened energy density region coming off it and travelling through space at the speed of light. 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.

It is radiation that is controlling the inertial effect.

Is there such a thing as uncharged matter?

No. According to the Unified Field Theory, anything that looks uncharged always carries charge. And the charge is coming from electrons and protons. 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 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 its crystalline structure. Electrons and protons naturally emit radiation because they perform accelerating motions, such as spinning and orbiting one another, and the atoms as a whole vibrate ever so slightly in all directions. It is this radiation that gives rise to the so-called "gravitational effect" of matter being able to clump together, and it does so through the process known as radiation shielding and the imbalance in radiation pressure exerted around the surface of solid matter.

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 the neutron 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.

At first, physicists have measure as best they can the charge of a neutron. Their conclusion: the neutron has no charge. As a result, physicists have to resort to some complicated and exotic particles 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.

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.

According to the Unified Field Theory, 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.

As you know, 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, but also by the neutrons themselves. The question is, how does the neutron do this?

Previously, physicists assumed that the neutron is constantly uncharged at all times. Given what we now know about uncharged matter, it may be wise to reconsider this notion. Why? For the very reason that a neutron can 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. The electron can be bounded to some additional energy to form a W-Boson, but quickly decays into the electron and anti-neutrino. At any rate, we can already see 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 to get this charge neutralized? Or do the particles completely transform themselves into different and more exotic uncharged particles?

The consensus is that the neutron appears to have no charge based on measurements. Without a charge, scientists are forced to build a model that requires the electron and proton and some additional energy to transform into two up quarks and one down quark. Support for this is based on neutrons smashed up inside particle accelerators and noting the appearance of three structures. However, what if this view of the neutron is not true?

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, there has to be two opposite charges of equal magnitude being maintained and doing something 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. Is this possible?

Well, certainly there is no reason to believe the neutron could not be charged. The problem for scientists is finding a sensitive enough instrument to measure the charge. All of our imperfect machines are designed to take an average result by sampling an environment over a given timeframe and displaying the average result on a screen. This timeframe can be very short, but in the case of measuring the charge of neutrons, it may not be short enough. As a result, scientists rely on these imprecise instruments to tell them what the charge is, and if the instruments say "zero charge", scientists assume that this must be the case.

Think again. 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? 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. What is more important is the electron in each neutron—it helps to bind or act as the "electromagnetic glue" the protons in the atomic nuclei.

Another implication of a charged neutron is what it means for the gravitational field and what is controlling it. One of the thought experiments Einstein would have performed was what happens when all charges in the universe disappear in our hypothetical universe? Would there be anything left to explain how the gravitational field exists and control it?

After removing all charges and the neutron, our final focus is on the last remaining energy: the anti-neutrino. But already we see a problem here. 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. 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. 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.

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.

Will quantum physics have classical Newtonian explanations?

Yes, even the quantum world will have classical Newtonian explanations based on the laws of electromagnetism for why quantum particles do what they do. 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 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.

What are probability waves in quantum mechanics?

Radiation. It is as simple as that. 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.

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. To make the link more palatable to traditional 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. Once a theory is developed to explain how gravity might work using electromagnetic fields, physicists should apply mathematics 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 when the physicists must decide which field to use to explain virtually everything of what is happening in the Universe. According to our research, the choice of field that we recommend physicists to keep is the electromagnetic field.

So what is gravity?

Experiments have determined the "force of gravity" on the Earth's surface to an accurate numerical figure. If one wanted to use the curvature of space-time in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, the results will be the same. However, the Unified Field Theory is an extension of the General Theory of Relativity. The scale of the force is the same. What changes is the explanation we give to gravity. 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 will control the strength of the gravitational field.

In Sir Isaac Newton's days, he did not consider the possibility of mass containing charged particles. Ever since Newton first established the gravitational field, scientists have continued to assume that the mass must be uncharged for the gravitational field to exert a force on uncharged matter. As for the electromagnetic field, we have always been indoctrinated to believe that the electromagnetic field should only affect charged particles, and the gravitational field should only affect uncharged particles (the neutron is said to be an example of this). But after experiments have shown how the oscillating electromagnetic field can move uncharged matter, the explanation given for this is to assume that the energy can be converted into mass and Newtonian mechanics can be applied to this mass to explain uncharged matter moving in the presence of radiation. This is no longer being seen as true. A new picture has emerged to show how the electromagnetic field moves the charged particles making up the uncharged matter.

The new explanation for gravity and universal gravitation goes like this: Radiation is everywhere. The planets and stars move through an ocean of radiation. The new electromagnetic theory of gravity relies on radiation shielding and reduction in the frequency of the radiation being emitted by matter to create an imbalance in the forces exerted on matter by radiation.

Looking at it from a radiation shielding perspective, we need at least one other body to be present near another body for there to be a certain amount of radiation shielding. Both bodies contain a certain amount of mass to help reduce the amount of radiation reaching one side of each body — the side facing each other. The effectiveness of the shielding depends on the separation distance and on the amount of mass 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 on the inner surfaces. Some of this radiation will try to travel through the body. 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 that we haven't considered. 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. 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. 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.

With respect to people standing on the Earth's surface, the radiation from space has to be coming down at a higher energy density and, therefore, exerting greater radiation pressure (or force) on top of us. This radiation is what's pushing us down to the surface of the Earth compared to what is coming out of the ground.

Without the second body present, a molten object will simply 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, slowly at first, and later accelerated as the radiation shielding effects becomes more effective 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. Not even on the neutrons.

Also, if you add more charged particles to the bodies, it is possible to increase or decrease the strength of this radiation force so as to repel or attract the bodies in a more dramatic way. That is how gravity and electromagnetism are linked through this interpretation.

Our scientific understanding of gravity and universal gravitation is 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 does 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 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 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). Somehow the radiation pressure of space pressing down on all of us to keep us on the surface of the Earth must equal the force of gravity.

Is this true?

Computer simulations should test the new idea. 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. He did it because the picture he saw of the two fields were virtually the same when it came to moving solid matter, charged or otherwise. The fields required to be mathematically cemented together to confirm the picture he saw of the two fields.

However, as with all things, you can't stand on the shoulders of other great men forever. Depending on what you discover along the way, sometimes you may have to decide to ignore the explanations given by other great scientist.

For instance, when Einstein unified the two fields, the hard part he had to contend with was coming up with mathematical solutions from his unified field equations to help Einstein discover something in nature that would prove his idea and secure the link beyond a shadow of a doubt. Given the complex mathematical structure of the Unified Field Theory, finding solutions even for a moderately simple and familiar real-life case requires tremendous effort. In terms of new observations and discoveries, usually a more complex, non-static field case (in which radiation is an example) would be required and this will result in a lot of calculations needing to be performed before a solution is found. Even if a solution could be found, there is the unenviable task of interpreting the solution and seeing how it might relate to reality. A tough task, indeed, even for the seasoned mathematician. Even for a physicist whose job it is to somehow relate the mathematics to reality in some way, this is quite hard to do.

This is the problem. Of all people, Einstein had a good grasp of physics and mathematics to do it. And to some extent, he did have enough of a picture in his mind to realise what the truth is. However, as history tells us, he was bogged down by the mathematics. Why? He thought that mathematics was the only way to convince other scientists to see that his approach was the right way. That is why Einstein spent so many years on it and required the help of people like Dr Leopold Infeld to perform a number of his calculations. Even then, Einstein still needed to see how they relate to reality.

Does this mean his mathematics was wrong? No. We know there is absolutely nothing inherently flawed about the unified field equations. Everything Einstein did to his equations is correct. The problem is in the amount of time needed to solve the equations and find suitable interpretations for any solutions he can find. Unfortunately, Einstein's decision to rely on mathematics turned out to be his undoing in the end. Time was short, and a lot of work was required to find reasonable solutions that could hopefully be tested experimentally in order to show the veracity of his theory.

Never mind. There is still hope for all of us. Mathematics is just one beast. There is, of course, the concept behind the reason that led Einstein to unify the two fundamental fields of electromagnetism and gravity in the first place and, with it, the picture that we can apply through our imagination. The picture associated with this concept is actually quite sound, and very simple. Just like his mathematics, there is nothing inherently wrong with the concept that ultimately led him to make the ambitious decision to marry the two fields. The picture he found and ruminated over for many years is correct because he could not find anything to distinguish the properties of the gravitational field from the oscillating electromagnetic field in any realistic manner. This includes the fact that the oscillating electromagnetic field can move uncharged matter. In which case, how can any scientist distinguish this observation from a gravitational field? You can't. The two fields must be linked together.

But what if Einstein late in his life decided to put down his pen and dispense with the idea of solving equations and did more visualisation? There is no reason to suspect that he didn't. Indeed, there was a time when he did re-evaluate his own work and spent more time thinking in his mind about the "picture" he created. Eventually we must have discovered something. Perhaps this has the time when it is rumoured that he had decided to destroy a number of papers he was working on in relation to the Unified Field Theory. He also became more withdrawn from society and did not want to say anything more about his work. With two world wars and a growing tension between the USA and Russia leading to the Cold War, this was not surprising.

If one took the picture to its logical and ultimate conclusion, we would discover another interesting fact about the universe. The presence of any so-called "uncharged" matter is in fact composed of charges and are contributing radiation through their accelerating movements. Not even the neutron can be considered totally uncharged in the strictest sense of the term. If Einstein really wanted to explain the gravitational field, he had to separate this field from the electromagnetic field by imagining the universe was devoid of electric charges. If he had conducted this important thought experiment, he would have realised that the two fields cannot be separated. The removal of all electric charges results in the collapse of the universe, with all solid matter disappearing and the radiation with it as well. There is no way we can separate the fields in our minds no matter what Einstein or ourselves can do to imagine a different situation.

This leaves us with one sobering thought: what does this mean for the gravitational field? Should we keep the concept? Or do we let it drop from our scientific vocabulary in favour of the correct term of "electromagnetic field"?

There is no reason to believe that Einstein had not realised this fact. 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 the 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. Sorry Newton, but someone has to make the giant leap of faith and apply some good mathematics and/or solid rational imagination to find out.

Good science is not about staying on the shoulders of great men in the past forever. 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 and not really getting to the source of the bleeding problem. In fact, all you are doing is allowing the infection to persist and even spread. You think that putting on more bandaids to support what already exists will make a difference and will lead us to a solution (and, so, hold up the current scientific knowledge, flawed as it is) or at least stemming the flow of blood from the wound. But what some people do not realise is that it simply makes the whole thing more fragile and ready to fall down. Should it collapse, it will pull off the scab and reveal a bigger wound that we had not addressed properly in the first place by figuring out why we have this wound (i.e., why scientists are still figuring out what the gravitational field is to this day and still unable to unify it with other forces of nature), only to have to re-apply more bandaids (from the work of other great men) to the open wound and still not properly heal it.

In our opinion, our research suggests that it is far better to get to the source of the wound and ensure that the foundations are right, clean and doing the job of properly healing (or solving the mysteries of science) if the organism (i.e., science) is going to answer and help us develop the technology to take us where we want to go, and see things we can only imagine (and perhaps solve even more problems).

If anyone can do this work properly, it would have to be the physicists, but only if they open they minds to new possibilities. As for the world of physics, it is a discipline that has the power to do all this fundamental work underpinning all of science. As long as physicists ask the right questions and are always curious and willing to challenge scientific knowledge, there is no reason why we cannot test the new electromagnetic approach to solving problems in physics (sometimes with our imagination more so than simply relying on mathematics for all the answers).

First question to ask is, "Could there be a link between the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field?"

We might as well conduct an experiment to find out. For example, what would happen if we eliminated the electromagnetic field inside a near-perfect symmetrical, metal “Faraday” box? What would this mean for the gravitational field? How can we test the effect of reduction in the gravitational field inside the box prior to opening it up and checking the results?

Second question to ask is, "Why should the electromagnetic field behave like the gravitational field?"

No one knows, unless, of course, there never has been a gravitational field. In other words, the electromagnetic field has always been the fundamental energy for moving solid matter. Not sure about this? Maybe it is time we apply “some mathematics” and use a bit of imagination to consider situations involving the gravitational field and find out how possible it is for the electromagnetic field to perform the same kind of work. What can our simplified mathematics tell us in terms of the scale of the electromagnetic forces being applied on solid matter and other radiation, and can they match closely to the forces exerted by the gravitational field through Newton’s laws? And can it be tested through an experiment?

There are more questions you can ask in this area. This is only the beginning.

Is it, or is it not, possible for electromagnetism to do away with the theoretical scaffolding of the gravitational field erected by Newton (other than as a legacy of his brilliant early start thinking into the problem of gravity) and, thereby, show the true electromagnetic masterpiece underlying the entire Universe as we know it? The answer may already have arrived thanks to our understanding of the Unified Field Theory.

Didn't Einstein express doubt about his work?

Yes, Einstein did express some 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 was one example where Einstein did express some doubts. Whilst 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, and the accelerating motion of astronomical objects causing a dragging of space-time, to name a few, it is still not quite a complete theory. Of major concern for Einstein at the time 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.

As you can see, Einstein would express doubt in his work. But the critical thing is that he always went ahead to improve on what he did whenever he saw a solution. This is what led him to create his Unified Field Theory. It is all because he discovered something special about radiation. He felt certain that a better understanding of the nature of radiation and its hidden properties was the key to appreciating how the curvature of spacetime could affect the strength of the gravitational field. Yet even when he did include radiation into his General Theory of Relativity to create his Unified Field Theory, 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 was contributing to the creation of the gravitational field. He could not deny it. Therefore, it made sense for Einstein to question this link and determine whether the electromagnetic field is the source of the gravitational field. ven if he could take the next step of saying that the two fields are the same after conducting a thought experiment to analyse the nature of uncharged matter and the source of the gravitational field, Einstein question this picture, again and again. He still wanted to know how he could prove it. Should he use more mathematics considering the difficulty in proving his idea through experiments? Can we come up with a suggestion for an experiment to test the idea?

It is likely that Einstein was bogged down with the problem of having to separate the gravitational field from the electromagnetic field in order to see what was going on. He may have relied on mathematics to find a solution. 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.

We think imagination is the way to break through the complex mathematics and get to the heart of the problem regarding the gravitational field. Instead of coming up with non-static solutions (a crucial step to understanding the nature of light and its interactions with solid matter) as required to represent so much of our reality and make predictions that other scientists could test for, why not use our imagination to find new electromagnetic explanations for the biggest mysteries of science? How much can radiation explain everything we see by creating our own rational pictures of how radiation might achieve certain things?

One thing is certain, Einstein never gave up on his final theory. Far from it. He may have doubted some aspects of his work, but in the end, he never doubted his final theory. Indeed, he wanted 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 or needed further improvement. 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. He had 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 that this real-life phenomenon is called radiation, or light in its most general sense.

Thus, the only major problem for Einstein was trying to figure out late in his life how to separate the fields in reality so that he could see exactly what was producing the gravitational field. He understood that the electromagnetic field was somehow linked to the gravitational field, acting as if it is the source of the gravitational field. Or was it merely contributing to the formation of the gravitational field? How can he be sure which one is closer to the truth?

It would seem reasonable to consider the possibility of Einstein having conducted more thought experiment and realising something about the nature of uncharged matter. Maybe he did realise that matter is constantly charged and there is quite likely no gravitational field to consider. Only radiation is the fundamental force of nature to explain everything.

In the end, for Einstein, he only wanted to know how to prove it. And he probably did solve it, which would explain his confidence on his final day on Earth to stick to his final theory.

Now in the 21st century, we have a chance to figure all of this out. To see why Einstein was confident, it is really up to us to use our imagination to see through the situation and get to the ultimate and logical conclusion. Don't rely entirely on mathematics entirely for the answer. 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 the probable holy grail of physics.

Can we find out?

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

All you have to do is use 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 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. Only problem is, once you have the solutions, you must somehow relate them back to reality. 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.
  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 tests, of course. But to keep things simple, we recommend trying 2 or 3, which are much easier. Then we should be able to observe some level of a link between the two fields (hopefully it will be a direct link in the sense that one cannot exist without the other, and vice versa).

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 (http://eventhorizontelescope.org/) 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. 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. Therefore, the way to view the unified field equations is essentially like the famous Einstein equation linking mass and energy. As we can see in the famous equation, one side of the equation (either energy or mass) can be transformed into the other and vice versa under the right conditions (e.g., in nuclear explosions or near the event horizon of black holes). In the case of the unified field equations, the same mass-energy question is present, except the transformation of the energy is allegedly between the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field. Just as physicists see mass and energy as one and the same thing, both the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field are really one and the same thing. The unified field equations devised by Einstein is just a mathematically glorified and complicated way of espousing the same famous equation linking mass and energy, but this time using gravitational and electromagnetic fields.

Or to put it simply, the General Theory of Relativity is the same as the Unified Field Theory except that the latter now encourages physicists to look at the universe in a purely electromagnetic way. Instead of gravitational fields, we eliminate them and see the fundamental force of nature as oscillating electromagnetic fields interacting with charged matter, even within so called uncharged matter. There is no need to have a gravitational field. Why have this field if

Better to ignore the gravitational field altogether. Let us stick to the electromagnetic field as Einstein wanted it and imagine what the field might be doing near a black hole, and its influence on matter to determine if there are likely to be any new predictions from the Unified Field Theory.

Predictions mean that there must be some differences in what we expect from current scientific knowledge. Something original.

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. 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.

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 sensible solutions. It becomes impossible to predict whether a star is still there or if it becomes what some people like to imagine is 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. As it rotates, radiation in space is dragged around it. It is really the rotation that creates the phenomenal gravitational field strength. 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. Then, you will notice that a black hole is just another star. What all this means is that there should be no 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, and hence the mathematical concept of a singularity. We can understand why. 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. 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. The star does not rotate around its equator at exactly the speed of light. Some energy will get through, albeit 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. And it is this energy that will try to push out to keep the star from imploding on itself. 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 a solid matter. And if this is not enough, 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 zero because no other radiation exists, the energy 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. 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 natural mathematical outcome we should expect in a perfect vacuum environment).

The same must also be happening to the 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 will depend on the following:

  1. The amount of matter in the universe:
    To estimate this, we can only rely on what we can 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). It can only be seen as an estimate 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.
  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 that determines if the universe is closed (and thus likely to be finite) or open (and thus likely to be infinite, but either expanding or in a steady state).
  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. Fortunately, scientists are in general agreement that it seems to be the former with all mass distributed evenly throughout the visible universe.
  4. The interpretation of the redshifting of light of distant galaxies and other evidence:
    The Unified Field Theory reveals two different ways to interpret the redshifting effect of light from distant galaxies and other observational evidence gathered so far by the scientists. Similarly, the solutions provided by the gravitational field equations can provide two different answers depending on how we set up the equations (as controlled by the cosmological constant). Most scientists involved in cosmology are taking on the view that the universe is probably finite and expanding. The Unified Field Theory supports a two-prong answer. The problem for scientists today will be to prove which picture in this paradoxical situation is correct. While scientists remain stuck on Earth and relying on observations from this vantage point, it will be impossible to determine which picture is correct.

Leaving aside how we should interpret the redshifting effect of light from distance galaxies and other evidence in point 3. we know the universe must have a certain amount of mass distributed in a way that ensures the density is about right. If not, the universe will either be closed (and thus finite) or open and possibly still expanding. If it is the former, we can never prove it directly. Any attempt to reach the edge of the visible universe at a high enough speed will cause the path taken to bend and be influenced by other matter in space, including spacetime itself. At he same time if we try to travel at a high enough speed to reach where we think is the edge of the universe, everything outside, including time, will move very quickly as stars and galaxies move from their positions — making it extremely difficult to see where we are going (just like the experiment of a blindfolded man who is asked to walk in a straight line and discovers he can't no matter how hard he tries). However, if it is the latter, we could say that the universe is flat and in a steady state (and hence an infinite and perfectly balanced Universe). Which picture is correct will depend on how we interpret the redshifting effect of light from distance galaxies and other observational evidence. The only way to prove which picture is correct in the end is to measure the energy density of space over time and different regions of the universe. The aim here is to show that, in an expanding universe, we should expect to see the energy density of space go down over time from any vantage point in the universe. Otherwise it has to be a very large (quite likely infinite) and very old "steady-state" Universe. It has to be one or the other. The only problem about performing such a massive experiment is how far we need to travel to get consistent and reliable results, and how much time do we need to wait to see any differences. Because if we cannot pick up any differences, we cannot disprove the infinite Universe idea.

Whether or not the universe is expanding, according to the information 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 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.

More observational evidence is still 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.

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 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 is. As a result of these limitations, scientists believe the visible universe to be 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 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 (see this as like the radius of a sphere and we are somewhere near the centre) because this is how far light travels at 300,000 km/s in the time the universe came to exist and evolve to this day (or as far as we can observe with our instruments). Could light travel further? Sure it can. But so far scientists are having trouble resolving the presence of any light emerging at distances beyond 13.82 billion light years away using any telescope on Earth or in space. There is a limit to how far we can observe. Any attempts to observe the edge of the universe will reveal "blobs" or regions where it seems the temperature of space rises slightly, but it is 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. Scientists are not expecting, say, the glowing gases surrounding superclusters of fully formed galaxies beyond the edge of the visible universe to be creating these "blobs".

The fairly precise numerical figure that scientists have come up with for the age of the universe was construed when American astronomer Dr Edwin Hubble observed redshifting in the light from distant galaxies and related this evidence to one area of physics accepted as true by all physicists. As a result of making this link, a theory was developed on what he thought was happening in 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 person to coin the phrase for the start of the universe, known as the Big Bang.

Today, this interpretation has been supported by most scientists because of the following:

  1. Scientists believe that we should stand on the shoulders of great men in the past, thinking they must 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.
  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 — he could quite easily have interpreted the same observational evidence in the following way:

  1. Light naturally redshifts (i.e., loses energy) as it travels through space due to the collisions with other light. This is because 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, not the receding of the galaxies via the Doppler Effect.
  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. Indeed, if Dr Hubble had been aware of this situation, we might 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. 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, the visible universe could be a very big place (too big to contemplate). Maybe even infinite for all intents and purposes, except we may never be able to prove it. But if not, at the very least, the size and age of the universe is much bigger than we can see, and could well be the Universe. Should the Universe be infinite, it is likely to be in a steady-state, and has always been like this for longer than we can dare imagine.

Whether the universe is 13.82 billion years old or is much older and bigger than we can imagine still remains a matter of debate. It will require further gathering of evidence, and more careful attempts at interpreting the evidence based on a wider range of scientific knowledge we have gathered so far before scientists can give a definitive answer on this area of cosmology.

Or else, the alternative is to 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, the universe will change so drastically that we may never know for sure if the universe was finite or infinite. Certainly, if you could 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 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 as mere speculation.

Do wormholes exist?

Wormholes are mathematical regions of space where a perfect vacuum exists. 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 it, technically, can be accelerated to any speed and allowed to 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, 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 (i.e., Stars Wars) if it helps humans to use their imagination a little more (something we may be lacking in certain areas of our lives and at work).

What is dark energy?

According to an analysis of the light from supernova explosions appearing suddenly 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, the density of radiation in space must be at a higher level to create the extra red-shifting effect. Perhaps this is what 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 continues at a slower rate until the light reaches the Earth. Here, scientists observe the light and start making an interpretation of the red-shifting effect as a receding instance of the galaxy at a rate that is considered faster than expected. However, in reality, all this may be nothing more than indicating the natural energy loss in space and from the explosions that has helped with the extra energy loss we see in the ancient light.

What is dark matter?

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 of radiation caused by dark matter's own radiation shielding effect) will naturally influence light and the path of visible matter (known as bright matter) depending on how much dark matter is present.

However, 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 (called Hawkings radiation).

A wormhole is an 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 and depending on how astronomical objects are distributed and whether they are emitting extra radiation (i.e., stars), these two types of dark matter can control the rate of rotation of stars around a galaxy and show it is the same the further away you get from the centre of the galaxy.

In conclusion, dark matter can be either ordinary matter not emitting its own light, or a region of radiation (or a lack thereof).

What is causing the redshifting effect of light emitted by distant galaxies, and how should scientists interpret this observation?

At close range, the Doppler effect can be used to a reasonable level of reliability to determine whether galaxies are approaching or moving away from us. This is adequate for astronomical objects that are reasonably close to Earth. For example. 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. For more distant galaxies, however, you cannot rely on the Doppler effect for any reasonably reliable results. Not even the gravitational field equations showing a stretching of spacetime can be used to support the Doppler theory (as the solution can have a different interpretation).

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 natural energy loss as it travels through the energy density of the universal background radiation at greater distances.

What is the speed of light?

As one person commented about our video:

"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 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?

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?"

Correct. There is a concept called the Hayflick limit discovered by some dedicated scientists in the field of gerontology. Our book discusses this limit, including the controversy surrounding it. In particular, 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?

One thing seems certain. There appears to be something else in the environment that controls the aging process for cells. The Unified Field Theory, with its reliance on radiation given its ubiquitous nature and presence everywhere, proposes that what 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. Clearly radiation will have an impact on living cells. The question would be to understand how much of a contribution radiation plays 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.

Apart from that, if there are any genetic mutations already present in the DNA of the cells, it is likely that these could shorten the life of the cell. Remove the mutations, and the only thing to contend with is the radiation. Then, extremely long lifespans could be possible.

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."

and

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

Time compression is synonymous with energy (or space) compression. 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 on the 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 densityremains 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 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.

Okay. 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. 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. 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. The moving observer cannot tell exactly how fast that would be other than the gravitational lens effect in front of the spacecraft which is helping to create the illusion of the destination object being much closer. A measurement of distance will be much less. 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 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, you assume that the length along the direction of motion has contracted. In reality, it is just the fact that spacetime is pulling the spacecraft through space much faster.

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

What is likely happening in the Universe today?

For the visible universe, there appears to be a paradox. Scientists can create two pictures for the same evidence gathered about our visible universe using the light from distant galaxies. In other words:

  1. Both the visible and invisible parts of the Universe could be merged into a single entity, and is in a steady state at the present time. From the Unified Field Theory perspective, it is likely to be infinite, or at the very least extremely large and very old, but at the same time we cannot disprove the finite universe theory. There is a paradox we cannot as yet break free and see the ultimate truth of this Universe.
  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. Choose what you will.

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.

How did the visible universe and invisible Universe begin?

This might be a moot question to ask. Seriously, how would we know, especially with regard to the invisible and grander Universe? Was there a beginning? Or maybe not? Either the entire Universe, both visible and invisible, started from a Big Bang, or it was the visible universe that began from a Big Bang-like event.

If it was the Universe that started from a point (or region) in space, that means everything in the Universe, including radiation itself, was wrapped up in a ball of energy. But that would require such phenomenal energy density at the centre of this object that we might as well describe it as infinite density. We call this a singularity. And an infinite density creates an infinitely strong gravitational field 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 problematic. Apart from the fact that a perfect vacuum is impossible to create 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. 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 based on opposite new interpretations for the evidence gathered. In the case of the Universe, it is impossible for the mass and energy to be initially locked up in a ball or point of energy.

If there was ever a Big Bang of some sort, this may be nothing more than an isolated event in a certain region of space that could have created our visible universe, but never for the grander Universe. The Universe probably already existed and always had a natural energy density of space present way before the visible universe appeared. If this is true, any kind of Big Bang that formed the visible universe would not be an explosion. It would have been more of a gentle expansion, which should slow down and merge with the rest of the grander Universe. Otherwise, we must still be in the expansion phase of the visible universe to explain the observation of a redshifting effect and other evidence, or our interpretation of an expanding visible universe based on the evidence is completely wrong.

If this is true, there could be many mini-Big Bangs taking place to this day (and we may not be able to see it if they are occurring beyond the visible edge of the universe). Or maybe, Big Bangs are just very big supernova explosions that have led to the creation of new fundamental particles and new matter? Or else, there has never been a Big Bang at all.

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

The only way to prove the 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 and the invisible 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 the speed of light is, on average, constant everywhere for the given average energy density we are living in and at al times, we will have reached a steady-state of the Universe. It is the state of true balance.

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

There are a number of areas. Our research indicates that religion will almost certainly face two main fallacies in its current knowledge:

  1. God is a man (or woman) that visits the Earth in some shape or form and watches over us or influences human affairs with the help of old wise men. More specifically, God can come and go as a localised entity in the real universe.
  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.

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

  1. The true indiscriminate God (technically speaking, it should be seen as unnameable according to Eastern mysticism as a way of avoiding any localisation of the thing through words) is embedded into the framework of the universe at a fundamental level through whatever lies at the heart of the Unified Field Theory (i.e., radiation). This is described as a paradoxical entity (just as Eastern mystics describe the one true God), which we know to be light when scientists observe its particle and wave-like properties. Additionally, through adequate time scales, light (or God) has the ability to restore balance in the Universe. Therefore, 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 its concepts. 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. In other words, a true religion of God must always respect and support this concept of balance and the principle of love by ensuring that no discrimination takes place and all are treated the same and with kindness, including the gender roles in leadership positions of a religion.

Does God exist?

It will depend on how you define God. If it is more like the thing described in Christianity and the Jewish community as something coming down to Earth to influence human affairs, this is not the true God. It is a lesser "god" that understands the concept of God and tries to implement it in its own thinking and actions. But it is not the true God. According to the Unified Field Theory, the true God is an ubiquitous and paradoxical entity that exists in each one of us at the subatomic level, as well as throughout the universe linking all things together. We can kind of 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. Scientists finally have a name for this God, and it is called light (or radiation). It is a term that can best describe the properties of the concept of the one true God according to Eastern mysticism.

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.

There is nothing inherently wrong with believing in God. Certainly religious people can believe in it all they like. There is scientific support for the concept at the fundamental level. In the SUNRISE book, we see the connection between the paradoxical behaviour of light and its connection to much of physics and Einstein’s Unified Field Theory and the paradoxical concept described by Eastern mysticism on the concept of the one true God. Not the God of Christianity that shows an old man on a throne in a cloud watching over its Earthly dominion of people and presumably the rest of the Universe. This is probably more a metaphor for the idea that God is everywhere and in each one of us as mystics say, so it seems like God is always watching us. And if the universe was created by God and it resembled a person, it seems reasonable to imagine an infinitely wise old man having some authority on things in the Universe. But this is a mental construct created by humans for simple-minded folks. The likely truth to the matter is that God could be much simpler and more awe-inspiring.

So, if you want to believe God exists, it is perfectly fine to do so. God in Eastern mysticism is described in a paradoxical manner through poems or any other tools available to the mystics to help communicate the concept. In science, we have a thing called light that behaves very much like God.

Can mathematics show God in its equations?

The answer depends on how accurate and detailed the physicists want to apply their mathematics in describing the universe and of light. Simplify the mathematics too much and the paradoxical nature of light and the universe may not appear. In which case, you could say that God is not present in the equations. However, get the mathematics to include the paradoxical behaviour of light and the universe, and you can say God lies in the equations. It is all up to you.

The one thing you must be careful of saying is that mathematicians and other scientists do not support the idea of God. 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 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.

About the only problem in making things accurate is the sheer complexity of the equations that need to be solved, and scientists prefer to simplify the equations if they could just to get to an answer. And when they do attempt to simplify, this can easily "omit God" from the equations.

From the SUNRISE perspective, we think that if the mathematics truly supports a paradoxical behaviour in matter and the universe, it can be described as supporting a paradoxical God of Eastern mysticism. As long as the mathematics relates to reality, then it is perfectly fine to imagine God as existing in the mathematics and in reality too. What is not clear, is whether someone like Minkowski was ever consciously thinking along the lines of “omitting God” from his mathematical framework. And even if he was, how do you know the equations were not already supporting the idea of God indirectly? In fact, why is it important for scientists to believe in God or not? It does not matter. For all we know, Minkowski was probably an atheist. Fair enough. It does not mean he did not indirectly support God in his work. Nor does it make him less of a scientist if he didn't. Likewise, there are scientists who believe in God, but they need not have to be thinking about putting in God into the mathematics, nor do they perform scientific work any less than an atheist. Mathematics on its own cares nothing for a Creator. Mathematics must be set up in such a manner to help support the existence of a God-like entity. In the case of the Unified Field Theory and the nature of light, this paradoxical behaviour of light can be represented mathematically. And as such, one could say mathematics can support God. But at the time Minkowski created his mathematical tools, it is highly unlikely that he was thinking, “Now I must include God in these equations. How will I do this?”. The tools are merely stepping stones towards the ultimate goal of perhaps supporting God. Minkowski’s work is a tool to help Einstein as well as his friend who was stronger on the mathematical concepts to help fine tune Einstein’s ideas in a mathematical sense. Later, Einstein may have eventually understood this concept of God. Prior to this, it was more a case of Einstein seeing the relative power in unifying physical concepts (he was initially allergic to pure mathematics and was not comfortable with the Minkowski’s mathematical framework, until his friend explained the tool more clearly). Once he saw the formal power of mathematics in consolidating his ideas in a unified way, he decided to extend the mathematics that combined time and space in his special theory of relativity to include the gravitational field. This led to his next masterpiece, the General Theory of Relativity.

Later, Einstein saw something interesting in light. Eventually he had to combine light with his previous work to create his Unified Field Theory.

Then came the effort to prove to other scientists the picture that he was seeing. And the only language scientists understood was mathematics. Unfortunately Einstein became too bogged down by the mathematics. Eventually, he must have realised a problem with this approach.

Sure, Einstein knew he was departing from his childhood skills of visualising and seeing the reality of things in his mind. In his early life, he was more a practical physicist. Later, he became more of a mathematical physicist. Did he decide to reverse this later in his life?

It is likely that Einstein did realise the folly in his purely mathematical ways after he completed his Unified Field Theory and had the daunting task of coming up with solutions that he hoped could be related to reality. In a famous quote of his, 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."

Perhaps Einstein eventually learned that he needed to concentrate less on mathematics and put in more efforts to visualise the fundamental picture in order to later simplify the maths and get to a more unified solution. Maybe this was the point that Einstein finally saw the mind of God?

Going back to Minkowski’s work and the issue of God, one could easily argue that Minkowski was already indirectly supporting God through his work and that he just did not realise it. Remember, the mathematical framework is meant to represent an energy flowing through space. If that energy is oscillating and creating paradoxical effects, you could say that Minkowski had indirectly supported God through his work. Again we have to emphasise that there is no evidence that Minkowski did think along those lines. Neither did Einstein in the initial stages other than to say that his work was to get closer to the mind of God.

Einstein was not a deeply religious man. He had religious influences from his parents, but he did not religiously go to church or a synagogue to pray. He believed in himself, his mind as a thinking tool to visualise things, and later the maths that helped him to unify his concepts. Mathematics is a tool to help scientists get to a destination. That destination could be to predict things we observe with reasonable accuracy, but they could also act as a “bridge” for science to get to what religious leaders call “God”. It all depends on whether the mathematics is applied to the Universe with accuracy and details or not, or have a different aim. Should the aim be to create a technology, the simplistic approach is better. If the aim is to find God, then being accurate is better.

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. Scientists already know that light displays its famous paradoxical behaviours (either as a wave or a particle) while still existing in what can essentially be seen as a single entity (when looked at from a distance or when scientists use mathematics simplistically). If light is used to unify all the fundamental forces of nature into one force (the electromagnetic one), it does not make it inconsistent with the mystics' view of dualism. 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 to reveal this paradoxical nature of the quantum world as well as the size and age of the Universe. And as mystics have said, God is a single entity of dualistic properties. Certainly physicists had to learn this dualistic fact for 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 a simplistic linear sense by science and, hence, show only one answer because scientists constantly look for simplifications or see things from a distance. However, as soon as scientists choose to be more accurate by looking at things more closely, they discover this dualism.

Take, for instance, radiation. Scientists are happy to average out the total energy being carried by radiation through space to help simplify their mathematics. This is fine for most situations (especially where a technology is required), and there is little harm in doing so. When we look at the results upon applying this approach, we get just a single answer. However, Eastern mystics always know that everything comes in pairs, and so do scientists when they see the oscillating nature of radiation in its most accurate form. Scientists know that radiation comes in negative and positive energies, or opposite pairs of energy. It is just a question of how much mathematics that 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 (or potentially a dog’s breakfast model when scientists have not yet simplified and understood what they are seeing to the fundamental level and, so, need more time to analyse and visualise the results).