Three spatial dimensions are visible all around us--up/down, left/right, forward/backward. Add time to the mix, and the result is a four-dimensional blending of space and time known as spacetime. Thus, we live in a four-dimensional universe. Or do we?
Amazingly, some new theories of physics predict that one of the three dimensions of space could be a kind of an illusion--that in actuality all the particles and fields that make up reality are moving about in a two-dimensional realm like the Flatland of Edwin A. Abbott. Gravity, too, would be part of the illusion: a force that is not present in the two-dimensional world but that materializes along with the emergence of the illusory third dimension.
This article was originally published with the title The Illusion of Gravity.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
9 Comments
Add CommentThis is probably one of the most important papers ever published in Scientific American in the field of theoretical physics and cosmology. You can imagine my astonishment to see that there is not a single comment lodged on this site which is three years old. My conclusion is that the paper is too demanding and theoretical for the non-specialized public although there is not a single equation in it. I could also not advise the Author Prof. Juan Maldacena what he could possibly have done to make his paper more accessible to non-specialists. And neither is it possible to make better graphics and art work than what the excellent artist of Scientific American has done. Never the less I will attempt to illustrate the point and even expand it a little bit more using numerics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet us start with the beautiful Escher circle made out of fishes representing a hyperbolic space. If you forget about the fishes and cut everything down to triangles and ignore the boundary, you will find that you have exactly 336 triangles. These are the degrees of freedom of the picture of Escher. If we ignore the boundary which we cannot ever reach theoretically, as is well known from hyperbolic projection, then that is all what we have. This is essentially what was invented many years ago by Felix Klein. It is called Kleins modular curve or modular space. It obeys an SL(2,7) Lie symmetry group. It is easy to calculate the dimension of this symmetry group. It is the product of 7 multiplied with 7 to the power of 2 minus 1. This is 7 multiplied with 48 equal 336. When we take into account all the infinitely many triangles at the infinitely far circular boundary but give them a weight appropriate for how small they have become progressively as we head to the boundary, then we can increase the number from 336 to 339. Now Prof. Maldecena explains in the Escher figure on p. 35 as well as in the figures on pg 36 and 37 that the holographic boundary which is a marvelous theory invented by Suskind, tHooft and himself is the circular line surrounding the Escher figure which we can never reach. However if we walk with closed eyes far enough on the figure until we theoretically reach the boundary and then open our eyes, then we will be surprised because we will think we have not moved at all. We will find ourselves standing somewhere on the figure surrounded by the same figure. In other words the holographic boundary is in a magical way the entire Escher drawing. Things would be less confusing in higher spaces than in the squashed two dimensional drawing but then we human beings cannot envisage anything easily in three dimensions and we have no real means of perceiving four and higher dimensions so there is a price to pay. The whole thing is really highly interesting and I found many papers published on the subject citing the work of Prof. Maldacena on Elseviers Science Direct. One recent paper on this subject which drew my attention is a paper by Ayman Elokaby Exceptional Lie groups, E-infinity theory and Higgs boson published in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 38, (2008) p. 1305-1317. In this paper Elokaby makes the following observation. If we set the degrees of freedom of the holographic boundary to be 339 as reasoned above and if we consider the entire bulk of the entire space comprising all fundamental interactions to be the space of E8E8 exceptional Lie symmetry group, then we would notice the following. The whole is represented by the 496 dimensions of E8E8. The parts on the other hand are first the 339 of the holographic boundary plus electromagnetism plus gravity. For Einsteins gravity we can put 20 as representing not only the classical symmetry but they also represent the independent components of the Riemannian tensor in 4 dimensions. Now subtracting 339 and 20 from 496 gives exactly 137. If that does not ring a bell, then I have never had anything to do with science. Everybody knows this enigmatic prime number being the inverse value of the electromagnetic fine structure constant which puzzled all theoretical physicists as well as chemists since its inception by Sommerfeld a hundred or so years ago. I found this result incredible but it is only but a trivial consequence of the far more general principle of Maldacena and his colleagues.
There are very good reasons why to put E8E8 into the picture. First 336 could be found as the kissing number of sphere packing in 10 dimensions. When the spheres are changed to fractal spheres, the number rises to 339. The 10 dimensions are those needed for super strings and super strings obey E8E8. Second the number of symmetries or equivalently independent components of the Riemann tensor in 8 dimensions is also 336. Eight is one plus seven which makes our Escher picture a true boundary of the eight dimensional space being related to the heptagon and the seven dimensional sphere of Klein. So I hope this can explain the wonderful paper of Maldacena a little bit more to the educated but not specialized reader. There are a great deal of number theories involved. But the beauty of number theory is that it is both deep and accessible to almost everyone. There is another last point which I want to explain here. You remember that we could walk as much as we want on the Escher figure without reaching the boundary. There is another great scientist who thought deeply about this kind of tiling and followed the intuitive work of the pharaohs of Egypt and the Arabs of Spain and invented the fractal Penrose tiling. Conway as well as Penrose worked on this problem which is very closely related to the work of Prof. Maldacena. In the meantime it is well known and was discussed in popular form by Martin Gardner that in a Penrose universe we have a local isomorphism theorem. This theorem says that you need to walk a maximum of 2.118033989 times the circle around yourself to find yourself home again and you can do that indefinitely. You could find yourself earlier home again. The value I gave you is only an upper bound. When you look closely at this value you find that it is half of 4.236067989. If you look even more carefully at this value you find it is the inverse of the golden mean to the power of three. Incredible as this may sound, this is the exact Hausdorff dimension of something called fractal spacetime. Fractal spacetime is supposed to be our real spacetime. We only do not see the fractals at the low energy scale of our world but the quantum world is dominated by these fractal effects. This is the subject of another highly interesting paper published recently in Scientific American by Ambjorn and Loll (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-self-organizing-quantum-universe). You will find there a great deal of discussion about this point and the work done in this field by people like Goldfain, Crnjac, El Naschie and many other names which I never heard before and I would never had heard about them if it would not be for the many highly interesting papers which appeared in accessible form in Scientific American.
Gravity and Matters of Matter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy: Sirvivan
INTRODUCTION:
It was only yesterday, that our imaginations had not even imagined today’s technology. We have been very fortunate to have the great mathematicians and scientists to improve our lives and life expectancies. Hope has never been greater than it is now. Technology is advancing faster than it can be applied. However, is it possible that we may have overlooked a key component of the universe—something so small and simple that we would find it hard to believe? After all, those brilliant minds with all of their education, intelligence, and budgets could not possibly miss something so simple—or could they? Even Einstein was willing to admit, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
I have been very fortunate to work around some of the world’s greatest minds. Most of these minds have one thing in common—a traditional education. Could such tradition have stifled the discovery of a simple answer to the questions that have remained for hundreds of years?
Such great minds do not all think alike. Each has a personality. Each has a slightly different approach to problem solving. I have seen that the most successful problem solvers look first to the simplest explanation, before reaching for extremes. In contrast, it seems that we measure a person’s intelligence by determining how much information his mind can hold and how quickly he can apply the information to solve the problem at hand. The academic machine is well grounded in history, tradition, and mathematical logic. Even still, this machine has its flaws.
When approaching a problem in science, mathematical equilibrium is the final word of validation. Some scientists have successfully manipulated math to measure and describe unexplainable circumstances in the universe. Perhaps, this is a good way to deal with a problem at hand, but this method does not explain why the solution works.
All of the above is to say: maybe we have let things become too difficult for us. Maybe, we’ve bypassed some of the truly simple solutions. I wish for you to see one possibility. My idea may seem a bit complicated at first, but I believe it will actually simplify our understanding of the universe. “All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them,” (Galileo). I am itching to apply this reasoning to real-world applications. Eventually, I believe it will draw more people into scientific careers by simplifying or enabling more people to visualize how the universe works.
I expect doubts and questions, but I ask that you lower your defenses and carefully think through the possibilities I am suggesting with an open mind. You may even learn something that changes your outlook on life. Galileo said, “I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn’t learn something from him.” With this in mind, what have you got to lose? By letting your guard down, I mean that you must allow yourself the freedom to doubt. "Doubt is the father of invention,” (Galileo). That doubt that might bloom into an idea that may save lives, solve global warming, provide cheap, green fuel, or even alleviate world hunger.
1. Gravity
2. Magnetism
3. Light
4. Vacuum
5. Electricity
6. Muons, quarks, neutrinos, and such
7. Black holes
8. Acceleration
9. More questions
1. Gravity
How does a planet manage to pull everything within affected proximity to the surface? How does gravity really do that? For years, we have taught that there is some kind of force reaching through even the vacuum of space to pull heavenly bodies together. We envision some force pulling on us to keep us from floating away from this spinning earth. Moreover, we teach that space is made of nothing and thus friction does not exist within it. Hence (action at a distance) I would propose that space must be made of something, or it would not be there. The distance between two objects in space must be made of something, or it simply does not exist and is imaginary. Sound too simple?
I have an idea. All we really know about friction in space is that we cannot detect it. Without further investigation and research, the “Pioneer Anomaly” could be evidence of friction in space.
Imagine that space is actually densely packed with an absolutely fundamental particle—an ether. This is not a new idea, but I would propose that there exists specific properties of this particle that may validate its existence once and for all. Imagine these particles that make up the dense ether of space are cold, clear, and magnetic spheres with distinct north and south poles. As I explain, you may find that these particles would not have to be clear or necessarily cold, but they must be magnetic and spherical (or appear in such a shape so as to hinder friction). When considering friction between magnetic particles, we must keep in mind that the force necessary to enter an opposing magnetic field is conversely returned upon exiting that field.
I would suggest that these particles just happen to be the approximate size (volume) of an electron, allowing them to squeeze into the tiniest places. These tiny places would include the space around those comparatively gigantic protons, all around the electrons, and into space as we know it everywhere. Everything, from the tiny electron, to the largest mass in the universe is being squeezed into shape by the alignment of these tiny magnetic spheres. It is this vast sea of particles that supports our universe. They are the very fabric suspended within all that we see.
To test this hypothesis, I would like to acquire a few thousand quarter inch spherical magnets with color coded north and south poles. Carefully consider how fifty of these spheres would string together pole to pole. Then consider how several strings would fit together forming a cubic volume of spheres. Taking note of the pattern of colors, how would the pattern change if a larger object of nonmagnetic material were placed within this cube? Perhaps, this would offer a picture of a proton. With more nonmagnetic objects added, it may offer a picture of a molecule, and so on.
I believe that this sea of electron-sized magnetic particles envelopes any and all mass as we know it. These particles are squeezing with all their magnetic might to hold every galaxy, star, planet, moon, molecule, and atom together. I believe this magnetic ether is the cause of gravity. The larger the circumference of a planet, the more magnetic spheres are present to fill the space around it, and when magnets come together, their strength is combined, thus increasing the gravitational pull. Also, the more dense an object, the less ether particles within to align with those outside the mass to lessen the gravity at the surface. Despite the drastic nature of what I am suggesting, the laws of mathematics can be applied with ease to authenticate my hypothesis. Gravity is a push from above.
2. Magnetism
A magnetic field is an area in which a magnet has enough strength to reach out, retrieve, and hold on to a piece of material of magnetic base. Actually, this field extends far beyond the point described, but this explanation will work for now.
I believe that magnetic material does not magically reach through nothing to pull another magnetic material. Instead, I propose that the only true magnets in the universe are the small, clear, and cold particles that fill all the space between all objects of mass.
In a dense sea of these particles, any object larger than the tiny magnetic particles will distort the natural order or arrangement of the polarities of the polarities of the immediately surrounding tiny particles. This distortion lessens with distance.
The magnet that we know today is not a magnet at all. The nuclei of what we call a magnetic material, is surrounded by the magnetic ether described in the previous section. In this respect, it is no different from any other material. The difference between what we know as a magnet and any other material is it’s ability to arrange the polarity of the particles that make up this ether. When two magnetic materials get close enough to attract each other (due to this uniform alignment), the magnetic particles between them simply roll out of the way for the two masses to come together.
3. Light
Is light really a wave and a particle? One of the most common light experiments in science is the double-slit demonstration. After cutting a tiny slit in a piece of paper with a razor blade, light is shown through the slit onto a background a few inches behind it. The pattern of light displayed on this background shows to be consistent with the one slit. When, however, two slits are made very close side by side, the light shown through produces multiple illuminated spots. This procedure is used to demonstrate that light behaves sometimes as a particle, and other times as a wave. While this seems to be the only accepted explanation, another possibility seems to explain this phenomenon just as well.
The light from the Sun takes over eight minutes to reach the earth. The light starts at a point it travels in the direction that it is aimed and arrives, and in a matter of time, it reaches its destination to illuminate an area. At this point, the light either stops or at least slows down. Light is traditionally explained as an electromagnetic wave with a frequency or wavelength that makes it visible to the human eye. With absolutely nothing between the source and destination of light, one must question the behavior of light in this way. If, however, one would imagine a sea of tiny magnetic particles between the source and destination, this behavior makes much more sense. Once again, these tiny particles would make up most of the volume of lesser dense masses. The source would oscillate the polarities of the tiny magnetic particles which would initiate a wave of oscillation that would travel through the particles. Upon reaching an observer, the wave of oscillating polarities would excite receptors in the eye. The intensity of light would be directly proportional to the magnitude of the shift in polarity. In essence, this theory suggests that light is solely made up of electromagnetic waves.
To test this theory, one could emulate the one/two slit experiment using spherical magnets, a clear plastic container, and a bar magnet. The magnets could be one quarter inch in diameter neodymium magnets centered in one inch plastic spheres, and should have the north and south hemispheres painted with contrasting colors in order to distinguish the poles easily. The pattern of paint should be longitude stripes from the poles to the equators allowing detection of rotation around polar axis. The clear plastic container could be thirty-six inches long, twelve inches wide, and twelve inches deep. This container would be filled with the magnets and then water would be added to decrease friction between magnets and make them close to neutrally buoyant.
The bar magnet must have equal north and south pole faces, and the face of each pole should be at least ten inches by ten inches. It would be held between two bearings that would allow it to rotate at the center. Maybe a large diameter electromagnet would be easier. It must have variable frequency sinusoidal and strength variability. To begin the experiment, the rotating bar magnet would be placed so that the faces of the magnet would rotate in close proximity of the thirty-six inch side of the container. Upon spinning the rotating magnet, one would observe patterns in the shifting polarity (noted by color) as the spherical magnets are affected by the larger rotating magnet.
Next, one would place a sheet of iron between the rotating magnet and the container. The iron should be just thick enough to block the magnetic waves from affecting the spherical magnets in the container. When this desired thickness is found, a "slit" measuring three inches tall by two inches would be cut into the iron sheet. After replacing the iron with the slit between the rotating magnet and the container, the rotating magnet would be spun, and one would once again observe the patterns in the shifting polarity of the spherical magnets. The patterns on the opposite edge of the container will mimic particle behavior as in the one-slit light experiment (I have observed this action on a smaller scale). The frequency of shift varying also affects the degree of pattern shift on the side opposite the actuating magnet. After making this observation, a second slit of the same size would be made parallel to the first. This second slit should be made three inches from the first. After replacing the sheet and spinning the rotating magnet, would the patterns observed mimic wave behavior as in the two slit light experiment? If the results of this experiment prove similar to the one/two slit light experiment, then it would provide evidence for the existence of an ether made of cold, clear, magnetic particles. Light could be explained entirely as waves of polarity changes in the ether that binds the universe. It is possible that a longer tank or slit size and spacing needs to increase for desired results. Our eyes would still be analogous to radar receivers sensitive to visible light wavelengths.
Redefining light energy as purely electromagnetic waves seems borderline heretical considering the volume of scientific theories that hinge on our current theory of light. For instance, Einstein's theory of time dilation would not be feasible in a world where light exists entirely as a wave.
Another experiment would be to place two separate objects larger than the plastic spheres of nonmagnetic material deep in the tank but touching each other. One object should have a string attached and be pulled through the magnetic soup. Will the unattached object follow the object being dragged?
4. A Vacuum:
The nature of the particles in question would redefine the nature of what we know as a vacuum. The minute size of the particles in question would allow them to penetrate any known material. Pumping any container to what is known as a vacuum would simply remove all of the mass of atomic size or larger. As anything of atomic size is pumped out, the ether particles would penetrate the container and fill, while still applying an atmospheric pressure of zero. These particles cannot be captured or held in any mechanical container. The only feasible way to hold such particles would be with a field of energy. As more is understood about what an atom is, beyond the Periodic Table description, more will be understood about how such ether particles fit within the structure of atoms.
5. Electricity
Electricity is known as the flow of electrons. Whatever electrons may be, they must maintain a continuous flow, however briefly, from one point to another to create electricity.
Coincidentally, the flow of electricity creates a magnetic field with polarity that circles the conductor through which electrons are flowing. Furthermore, when the direction of the electric current is reversed, the polarity of the magnetic field is likewise reversed. This would imply that electric current flow has the power to align these tiny, cold, clear, magnetic particles surrounding the conductor. Moreover, the strength of the magnetic field around the conductor is exclusively determined by current flow. Voltage has no effect. In theory, a very powerful magnetic field could be produced from a small amount of power (voltage multiplied by current flow determines wattage).
Likewise, the passing of a conductor through a magnetic field will cause electricity to flow through the conductor. In addition, the collapsing of a magnetic field surrounding a conductor can potentially increase the voltage, or pressure of electricity, until all of the electrons finish traveling to their final destination.
Science has proven that electricity can flow through what is known as a vacuum. It has also show that we can guide a beam of electrons through a vacuum with magnetic field energy. Thirdly, science has shown that magnetic fields do not cross. If the universe is in fact saturated with ether of tiny magnetic particles, then the most logical reason that these fields do not cross would be due to a division of the control of the polarities of these particles. It seems logical that two or more fields could share a region of these particles and amplify the strength of the field they share or destabilize the particles between them.
One question left unanswered would be: Why do certain materials allow easy electron flow, and others do not?
6. Quarks, Muons, Neutrinos, etc.
What is a particle? Current scientific thought seems to assume that a particle must reflect light unless it is dark matter. Despite the amount of money spent on supercollider technology, dark matter particles seem ever elusive and at the very best, short lived. If space is filled with tiny, clear, cold, magnetic particles, then almost any object interrupting the natural order of the magnetic spheres would distort the path of light. Perhaps, some of these dark particles could be collisions of two or more magnetic waves. Maybe, what is being seen is a tiny space or absence of ether particles measuring just smaller than the volume of one these tiny magnetic particles. Such a void could reflect or inhibit light waves.
7. Black Holes
Considering the proposed ether of tiny magnetic particles, a black hole could be a void of even these particles. Such a void would have to be of astronomical size and collapsing if it would cause the appearance of the void swallowing everything in the neighborhood. It could be that our galaxy is spinning around a black hole. If these particles exist, centrifugal forces exerted by the spin of the galaxy could decrease gravity forces or even create a void of all matter, light, dark, etc. at the center of the galaxy.
8. Acceleration
Why does acceleration feel so much like gravity? In an accelerating vehicle we get the sensation of being pushed by the back of our seats even in the vacuum of space. The idea of distortion of the gravitational field around an accelerating object in space adds credibility to the ether particle theory. Direction change of an object in uniform motion distorts the field surrounding the object actually changing its gravity field from uniformly surrounding the object until acceleration ceases.
9. Remaining Questions: The Atom, Molecule, and Electron
Based on the theory of an existing ether composed of tiny magnetic particles, the current view of atomic structure would surely be affected. Below are only questions and possibilities to be offered to the collective imaginations of the readers.
First of all, what is an electron? An electron could be the mass/energy necessary to displace one of the cold, clear, magnetic particles. Imagine a volume of these particles clinging together. If one could remove one of the particles from the middle of this volume, all of the remaining particles would change position slightly to occupy the void. Could the shift of a string of these particles be electricity?
Could an electron be two ether particles squeezed into the volume of one and a positron a void of volume the same as one ether particle? The annihilation of the two oppositely charged particles emitting two photons when they collide leave the imagination to consider the possibility. Could electricity actually be the flow of ether particles? Or maybe it is circuit of spinning ether particles.
Secondly, what is an atom or a proton? What would happen if these cold, clear magnetic particles could be provided enough energy to somehow expand like a popcorn kernel? Would each expanded particle take the same shape? Would these particles maintain any of their magnetic properties? With respect to fission and fusion, what form would these particles need to assume to account for the amount of energy needed to combine them and the amount of energy released when they are divided? Could such a particle ever be restored to original form? Could a proton be an entity of a completely different origin? Could the colliding waves of electromagnetic energy cause such an entanglement of the tiny, cold, clear, and magnetic particles that they form a proton? Could a proton be the absolute smallest tornado made from these whirling particles? Perhaps, the electron would then be the tail end of that tornado, or perhaps the electron is the actual energy twisting such a tornado of particles to appear as a proton. I believe an electron may be two of these ether particles compressed to the volume of one. To do that would require a hole to appear as an absence of a ether particle. Perhaps that is a positron. The coincidence that when an electron and a positron collide to annihilate each other or if this ether exist, the release of the pressure containing the two particles as the electron.
Thirdly, what is a neutron? Could it be an entanglement of these tiny magnetic particles surrounding a proton in such a way that they behave as a part of the total mass of the atom?
More questions: What would cause two protons to defy the laws of physics and bind together? What is a molecule? What is the mass/energy of an electron made of? Can one of these cold, clear, magnetic particles be frozen? What is the absolute zero temperature of hydrogen? Can you freeze a pair of hydrogen atoms to allow three dimensional observations? How well has our best observation equipment microscopes defined an atom? Are the ether particles flexible?
NASA has announced that the northern lights could be the Earth’s magnetic field flux lines being stretched and snapping back to produce the light. Could a line stretching of ether particles until a hole(maybe a volume less than a positron) is produced and collapsing in wavelengths of light are reflected? The phenomenon of northern lights occurs 80,000 miles above the earth according to NASA., ether wind?
Scientists have recently discovered a ribbon circling the outer edge of our solar system. They believe it is composed of atom sized particles that are not dangerous to spacecraft. I would propose it to possibly be ether shear creating lumination.
From nanotechnology, to electromagnetic space propulsion, to repairing damaged cells, the applications of this theory could prove endless.
Aristotle
“The search for truth is in one way hard and in another way easy, for it is evident that no one can master it fully or miss it wholly. But each adds a little to our knowledge of nature, and from all the facts assembled there arises a certain grandeur.”
If these tiny electron-sized ether particles are spherical and do exist...what fills the space between the spheres? Even if we pack a huge amount of these particles together, there will always be empty space between them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf these electron sized, spherical ether particles do exist, what fills the space between them? If I were to arrange these particles in a cube such as you suggest, the total volume of the spheres would be less than the cube. What accounts for the lost volume? You could use smaller particles, but the same result would occur, as long as they were spherical. There has top be a "nothing" or total vacuum at some point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuantum physics is all about Newtons theory of motion in momentum ,spin,coupling etc etc . New un particle spherical coordinate quantum spherical vibration gravitoetherton theory in changing frequency pattern as per mass around which may be a replica of string theory without time as dimension is being proposed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is the problem in accepting my ether=gravity=dark energy theory of gravitoethertons and balloon inside balloon theory of cyclic matter and antimatter twin universes on entropical cyclic dance for eternity published inASTRONOMY.NET in year 2002 and links available in --durgadas datta facebook-- for your perusal and comments. Read the theories and make your vision different from relativity approach as my theories are proved to be more near to present astronomical observations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince I am a subscriber to the hardcoy version, it would be nice if I could read the same information online. This must be an executive compensation issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe spheres could be soft and when they are at rest they are cubic filling all the space. A lack of matter or these particles would be the true black hole. If you could create a black hole next to a vehicle it along with the hole would travel from the center of the vehicle mass toward the hole. The g-forces of acceleration would not be felt because the field of gravity would be absent in the direction toward the hole.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe whole concept of our universe and mega universe requires a revision to understand present cosmic observations like accelerating universe,, dark flow etc etc. We live in a infinite ,eternal MEGA UNIVERSE where small pockets of expanding universes exist which though very very big but finite and re cyclic. DURGADAS DATTA published a few revolutionary papers in ASTRONOMY.NET in year 2002. The papers are MISJUDGEMENTS BY NEWTON ,,--ETHER=GRAVITY=DARK ENERGY THEORY OF GRAVITOETHERTONS ,,--AND ,, BALLOON INSIDE BALLOON THEORY OF MATTER AND ANTIMATTER UNIVERSE ON OPPOSITE ENTROPY PATH PRODUCING GRAVITOETHERTONS AT COMMON BOUNDARY BY ANNIHILATION OF MATTER AND ANTIMATTER . This ENERGY is known as DARK ENERGY and injected into our universe which we use to call ETHER also. GRAVITY is the manifestation of ether by mono magnetic coupling on MOLECULES OF MATTER ---Gravitoethertons are in non uniform field densisty as per mass formation nearby --so we see the gravity effect as per revised NEWTONS LAW F=P.G.M.m/R.R Where P is factor of permeability of gravitoethertons density at that location. THEREFORE it is not surprising why universal constants are varying from place to place or the laws of nature as EINSTEIN thought are also place dependent and not UNIVERSAL AS THOUGHT IN RELATIVITY THEORY. Once we read the articles of DURGADAS DATTA PUBLISHED IN ASTRONOMY.NET IN YEAR 2002 and try to modify our theories of EINSTEIN AND NEWTON ,then we may have a fair idea of our balloon inside balloon universe of matter and antimatter on opposite entropy path producing five GOD PARTICLES as DARK ENERGY at common boundary and our matter universe is on accelerated expansion due to inflow of this energy and our laws and gravity is the manifestation of this DARK ENERGY and due to opposite entropy path --ETERNAL RE CYCLIC and again and again due to CP VIOLATION principles and so on --can be explained in mathematical local formulas instead of theory of everything as we have thought earlier DUE TO DYNAMISM AND NON UNIFORMITY.--durgadas.ddatta@gmail.com.----ALSO SEE --DURGADAS DATTA FACEBOOK FOR THE PUBLISHED THEORIES.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this