Cosmic Powerhouse of Einstein and Grand Unified Theory

[Chandrakanth]

 

 

Abstract: The following article 'Cosmic Powerhouse of Einstein and Grand Unified Theory', reveals Einstein's most famous scientific equation, E = mc2, and explicates the inner puzzles of Einstein's state of mind. Particularly, it focuses on Einstein's postulations connected with his own theory, 'cosmological constant'. Even though Einstein was very near to the immeasurable scientific ocean of relativity, he created a block to further discovery and understanding with his assumptions of a 'static universe' connected with the 'cosmological constant', hindering the science of cosmology from proving wonders after wonders like E = mc2. This article explores the human limitations of the static way of thinking and reveals the perpetual scientific need of grand unification of the particle motion and the science of the cosmos. The article then progresses toward the practicability of the grand unification of quantum mechanics and the space-time Truth of cosmology, ending with the declaration 'Wave/particle Duality vs. Wave-particle Integrity' as a soul searching lamp of 'Grand Unification'.

 

(Note: This article is an extract from the ninth chapter of my forthcoming book, Nucleus of the Absolute.)

 

 

Cosmic Powerhouse of Einstein and Grand Unified Theory

 

 

"How EINSTEIN Arrived at E = MC2"

 

http://www.stresscure.com/hrn/einstein.html

 

Out Popped E=MC2!!

 

In 1905, Einstein published his argument, including his conclusion that E=MC2, in a three-page paper entitled "Does The Inertia Of A Body Depend On It's Energy Content?" The paper had no footnotes and not one single reference to support it.

 

The scientific establishment went absolutely bonkers.

 

"Who does this Einstein think he is? How dare he contradict the fundamental principles of Newtonian physics? Where is his scientific evidence? What are his credentials for making such an assertion? This is preposterous....we can't allow people just to say things like this without proof! How dare he...this idea should be given no credence at all!"

 

What was Einstein's response? How did he deal with all the negative criticism coming his way? His response was simple and direct. Basically, he told the scientific community...

 

Check it out--you'll see that it's true!

 

As it turned out, Einstein was right. Twenty years later, when the technology became available to put Einstein's assumption to a rigorous scientific test, his theory was validated. Eventually, the whole world had to agree that Einstein's original "hunch" was correct. The truth (at least as far as we know it today) eventually won out, although it took a long, long time before it was fully embraced. [/i]

 

Was the inclusion of the cosmological constant Einstein's "biggest blunder"?

 

http://super.colorado.edu/~michaele/Lambda/blund.htm

 

When Einstein introduced the cosmological constant in his theory of general relativity he did so because he was guided by the paradigm of the day that the universe was static (i.e. neither contracting nor expanding.) The cosmological constant provided a way of balancing the gravitational contraction caused by matter. It was latter discovered by Edwin Hubble that other galaxies appear to be receding away from us, that the universe was actually expanding. When Einstein heard and fully appreciated these observations, he declared that the inclusion of the cosmological constant was his "biggest blunder."

 

Einstein's mistake was not a mathematical one but rather a philosophical one made many times over the history of thought. Einstein held too strongly to the belief that the universe was static and thus was unable to appreciate the power of his theory's predictions of a dynamic universe. His error serves as a lesson to all thinkers, that we should never close our minds to new possibilities, even if the thought of the day is that they are impossible. Imagine how history would have been changed had Copernicus refused to accept his belief that the sun was actually the centre of the solar system, or had Columbus thought he would have fallen off the edge of the Earth. It is hard to know where the next paradigm shift will come from!

 

=====

 

After powerful exploration of the most famous scientific equation E= mc2, Einstein’s mind started oscillating between two extremes: nature’s spectacular theory of relativity; and, his own uncertain conclusion associated with the static universe. In General Relativity, Einstein assumed that space-time becomes curved in response to the effects of matter and this curvature in turn affects the behaviour of matter. But Einstein assumed the behaviour pattern of space-time curvature in the surroundings of every matter by subtracting the super spinning motion.

 

Nevertheless, when we subtract super spinning motion, naturally we will give importance to the illusory assumptions of the mind and will travel apart from the zone of Truth. First, we must know that from minute sub-atomic particles to vast cosmos, everything is spinning and every spinning motion must generate curvature in space-time.

 

After Edwin Hubble’s discovery, though Einstein then rejected his own theory of static universe, his theory had not completely vanished from his unconscious mind. The vacuum created by the rejected theory had unknowingly taken root in Einstein’s mental cabinet, thwarting his journey to master the relative principles of the infinite universe.

 

Space-time curvature is a natural outcome of the super spinning motion where the surrounding atmosphere of every particle and object will also spin along with the spinning velocity of the particular object or particle; the earth is not exceptional from this universal phenomenon. Only when we consider that the universe is flat, static or stationary will an illusory picture be generated in our retina where the false assumptions of the mind will dominate the reality and move apart from the natural truth of the cosmos.

 

When our mind is not entirely convinced about the mythological root that exists behind Ptolemy and the theory of ‘static universe’, often we will become slave to our mind’s meaningless assumptions. In this context, naturally ‘known’ will become dominant in our mind and prevent our mental organisms from mastering some of the simple Truths of nature. Instead of witnessing the effects of the super spinning motion, we will witness an illusory curvature in every space-time. If one observes the reality, without any preoccupied mental illusions, then one will realize the universal phenomenon of the spinning atmospheres that has originated from the super spinning motion of the particular particle and object, extending from stars to atoms.

 

The day when science realizes this natural phenomenon of the cosmos the world will witness the axiomatic leap in every field of humanity and will become capable of decoding the underlying secret that governs the universe. Otherwise, science will continue to be paralysed within the zone of illusions and consequent assumptions of the mind where only self-projected discovery can continue, not invention.

 

If Einstein could have freed himself from his assumptions of the ‘static universe’ and the meaningless postulation of gravity, then he could have proven wonders after wonders like E = mc2 in the science of cosmology.

 

Einstein’s greatest blunder is not the theory of cosmological constant, but trying to relate the scientific ocean of relativity with the illusions and assumptions of the static universe and the law of gravity.

 

Einstein’s theory, associated with cosmological relativity, was a newborn baby for Einstein himself where he represented a moving character in the beginning. Slowly, he become slave to the static character and used the word ‘constant’ and ‘static’ instead of using the word ‘dynamic’. Here, Einstein deviated from the immeasurable scientific ocean of relativity and seized himself in the static clutches of the finite mind.

 

Everything in this universe is in a moving and spinning state; there is no static point for any object or particle.

 

In every moving state there will be contraction and expansion, but static behaviour pattern is impossible for both matter and mind since everything represents super spinning motion. If something is above becoming static, the invisible internal motion of that particular object or particle (the weak force) will come out and explode, crossing the threshold of chaos. Finally, this will make every exploded object and particle spin and move inside the magnetic boundary of the particular. This natural phenomenon exists everywhere from the minute sub-atomic particle to vast cosmos.

 

Every form of contracting state represents chaotic behaviour pattern in the first phase. In the meantime, it is the contracting state and its highly volatile behaviour pattern of chaos that explores the way to the particular particle, object or mind resulting in an expanding state necessary to maintain equilibrium between the particular and the universal energy levels.

 

‘Universe is Dynamic, not static’ is misunderstood to mean that the universe is expanding or will expand forever. There is a myth that Hubble’s universe is expanding; Hubble discovered that particular individual entities within the universe are expanding, not the whole universe. If any individual entity is expanding or contracting, we cannot come to a conclusion that the universe is expanding or contracting as a whole.

 

The universe is not a separate entity to expand or contract. Every individual entity in the universe will contract or expand based on the need of the particular space-time, but it does not mean that universe will go on expanding or contracting.

 

Universe is a living and moving unit within space-time as a whole, not in particular. It is filled with different entities such as the magnetospheres of the sub-atomic particles, atoms, matters, natural satellites, planets, stellar systems, galaxies, cluster of galaxies, super clusters, etc.

 

When all entities in the universe are in active spinning motion, a static universe is impossible. This applies not only for the universe, but even to human mind where the static behaviour pattern is impossible. There will be motion whether negative or positive, order or disorder, contraction or expansion, destruction or construction, attachment or detachment. Even time cannot exist without motion.

 

If the mind or matter is immobilized or becomes static, there will be destruction; yet every destruction results in construction. Thus, destruction and construction, order and disorder, contraction and expansion, attachment and detachment are momentary and appropriate. The everlasting Truth is that everything is dynamic and in motion, not static.

 

In other words, there will be destruction only to the individual consciousness, matter and systems (stellar families, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, super clusters), not to the collective unconsciousness or the universe. As human beings, we are tuned with the individual consciousness; in every perceived destruction, disorder, contraction or detachment, the wonders of resulting construction are not visible or perceptible for us.

 

The Grand Unified Truth

 

In the entire universe, ‘Super Spinning Motion’ is the underlying source for the existence of all forms of macroscopic and microscopic objects and particles. The grand unified forces of nature are omnipresent, but not omnipotent; the omnipotent force is the ‘super spinning motion’. What we see as the fundamental force today has also originated from the Super spinning: the law Eternal.

 

The repulsive force of the spinning atmosphere originated from the super spinning motion of the particular particle, object, planet, star, stellar system, galaxy, cluster of galaxies and super clusters should generate spiral motion similar to super strings since it is an result of the super spinning motion.

 

Quantum scientists identified the spiral motion similar to super strings that exist in the surroundings of every particle and named it ‘wave/particle duality’. Meanwhile, the science of cosmology identified the same duality and named it ‘space-time curvature'. The perception of ‘wave/particle duality’ and ‘space-time curvature’ explores the basic behaviour patterns that exist within the environment of every moving and spinning particle and system. In turn, this exposes their possible magnetic boundaries extending from stars to atoms and termed ‘magnetosphere’.

 

Therefore, there is no probability for a ‘super string theory’ to unify the quantum mechanics and the science of the cosmos as one integrated unit. Quantum science has identified the ‘curvature’ in the space-time surroundings of every particle and unknowingly unified it with the science of cosmology by developing a method to calculate the ‘wave-particle duality’. Now, there is a need to develop a model to analyse the space-time behaviour patterns of spinning particles and systems in order to unify the science of cosmology and the ground-breaking innovations of quantum mechanics as one integrated unit.

 

 

Wave/particle Duality vs. Wave-particle Integrity

 

When the science of cosmology and quantum mechanics subtracts the super spinning quality of the particle from the particular particle motion, it seems like wave/particle duality or space-time curvature. When we realizes that super spinning is the underlying source of every particle motion, then we will easily understand that waves or space-time curvatures are the natural outcome of super spinning. In every particle motion, waves or curvature must exist and should move along with the particle since it is the result of the super spinning motion of the particular particle. When a particle changes its position in connection with its spinning and moving velocity, there will be a background effect of waves or curvatures where sometimes we cannot see individual particles, but we can see their waves.

 

This background effect of waves (where a particle is absent) will generate confusion in our minds only when we subtract the underlying source (super spinning) from the particle motion.

 

Waves and space-time curvature are natural characteristics of super spinning that exists and moves along with the particle. After realizing this universal phenomenon of nature that exists from the minute sub-atomic particle to vast cosmos, we cannot term this infinite activity as wave/particle duality because it is not duality; it is integrity. Hereafter, it is the duty of quantum mechanics to observe the science of wave/particle duality as wave-particle integrity; the duality exists only within our minds and not within nature.

 

Sri Krishna says, “All things static and dynamic, conscious and unconscious arise from the interaction of entity and its nature”.

 

 

For more details read 'Some Fundamental Questions to Science': http://science-community.sciam.com/blog-entry/Chandrakanths-Blog/Fundamental-Questions-Science/570003001msg570005551

[Klaynos]

I didn't get very far into it, for a few reasons...

 

Firstly the scientific community tends not to "go bonkers" when people put forward ground breaking theories like this relativity at the time was relatively unnoticed compared to his papers on brownian motion and most importantly light quantum.

 

If you read the paper you mention,

"Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on It's Energy Content?" - http://lorentz.phl.jhu.edu/AnnusMira...cles/e_mc2.pdf

 

You'll notice it has alot of maths on which it is based and the first line of it is a reference to a paper that was published earlier that year:

"On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" - http://lorentz.phl.jhu.edu/AnnusMira...es/specrel.pdf

 

Which it is basically a continuation of.

 

You then go on to talk about cosmological constant with occation jumps back to E=mc2 why? Your opening chat and this seem unrelated.

 

I believe static universe was talking about the lack of expansion, not that nothing is moving.

 

"Super Spinning Motion" what's that?

 

The day when science realizes this natural phenomenon of the cosmos the world will witness the axiomatic leap in every field of humanity and will become capable of decoding the underlying secret that governs the universe. Otherwise, science will continue to be paralysed within the zone of illusions and consequent assumptions of the mind where only self-projected discovery can continue, not invention.

 

Science goes where the evidence takes it...

 

 

 

 

‘Universe is Dynamic, not static’ is misunderstood to mean that the universe is expanding or will expand forever. There is a myth that Hubble’s universe is expanding; Hubble discovered that particular individual entities within the universe are expanding, not the whole universe. If any individual entity is expanding or contracting, we cannot come to a conclusion that the universe is expanding or contracting as a whole.

 

There is MASSIVE amounts of evidence that not only is the universe expanding but the expansion is getting faster! To say other wise you need evidence

 

The repulsive force of the spinning atmosphere originated from the super spinning motion of the particular particle, object, planet, star, stellar system, galaxy, cluster of galaxies and super clusters should generate spiral motion similar to super strings since it is an result of the super spinning motion.

 

Care to define what you mean here, how does it work mathematically?

 

Quantum scientists identified the spiral motion similar to super strings that exist in the surroundings of every particle and named it ‘wave/particle duality’.

 

Spiral motion = wave particle duality, how does that work?

 

Meanwhile, the science of cosmology identified the same duality and named it ‘space-time curvature'.

 

Care to show how they're equivalent? Shockingly astrophysicists do learn quantum mechanics and vis versa.

 

The perception of ‘wave/particle duality’ and ‘space-time curvature’ explores the basic behaviour patterns that exist within the environment of every moving and spinning particle and system. In turn, this exposes their possible magnetic boundaries extending from stars to atoms and termed ‘magnetosphere’.

 

"from stars to atoms"?

 

Therefore, there is no probability for a ‘super string theory’ to unify the quantum mechanics and the science of the cosmos as one integrated unit. Quantum science has identified the ‘curvature’ in the space-time surroundings of every particle and unknowingly unified it with the science of cosmology by developing a method to calculate the ‘wave-particle duality’.

 

But our problem is we've NOT unified to two, they break down when you try to do that kind of thing....

 

Now, there is a need to develop a model to analyse the space-time behaviour patterns of spinning particles

 

Spin in subatomic particles tends to be intrinsic, not physical spinning.

 

I think I'll leave it there for now...

[Chandrakanth]

Quote from Caver Mead

"It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the twentieth century will be characterized in history as the dark ages of theoretical physics. ... The quantum world is a world of waves, not particles."

 

(Caver Mead, Professor Emeritus at Caltech. Received $500,000 Lemelson-MIT Prize in 1999)

 

Rigidness of Math and the metaphysical beauty of Einstein

"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. ... Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended ... thus the concept of particles cannot play a fundamental part, ... and can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or energy density are particularly high."

 

(Albert Einstein, Metaphysics of Relativity, 1950)

 

Some of the important declarations of Stephen Hawking from the book,

“STEPHEN HAWKING — Quest for a Theory of Everything”

 

In the Cockcroft Lecture Room here, on April 29, 1980, scientists and university dignitaries gathered in steep tiers of seats, facing a two-story wall of chalkboard and slide screen. The title of the lecture was a question: “Is the End in Sight for Theoretical Physics?” and Hawking startled his listeners by announcing that he thought it was. It was typical Hawking audacity to begin this distinguished professorship by predicting the end of his own field. He said he thought there was a good chance the so-called Theory of Everything would be found before the close of the century, leaving little for theoretical physicists like himself to do. (Reference from introduction page 10-11)

 

We and everything we know about (and much we do not know) are in the thick of the play. If there is Theory of Everything, we and everything in the universe must be obeying its principles, even while we try to discover what they are. (Reference from chapter 2, page 1)

 

Imagine you have never seen our universe. Is there a set of rules so complete that by studying them you could discover exactly what our universe is like? Could you read through those rules in a lifetime? Many physicists believe it would take you much less time than that. They think the rule of book is short and that it contains a set of fairly simple principles, perhaps even just one principle that lies behind everything that has happened, is happening, and ever will happen in our universe. Stephen Hawking says that set of rules—that Theory of Everything—may be within our reach. (Reference from chapter 2, page 13)

 

“if somebody find the Theory of Everything, what then? According to Hawking, doing physics after that would be like mountaineering after Mount Everest has been conquered. However, Hawking has also said that for humanity as a whole it would be only the beginning, because although the a Theory of Everything would tell us how the universe works and why it is the way it is, it won’t tell us why it exist at all.” (Reference from chapter 10, page 160)

Edited July 3, 2008 by Chandrakanth
multiple post merged

[swansont]

Do you have a point with all this? It's a discussion forum.

[lawsinium]

It is funny that we were both placed here in this section, which for me is just fine, rather being banned just like what happened to me next door. And I love the way you articulately presented your concept. If I could only be a man of words most probably I could present my thoughts with flowery words just like you. But I am not, since most of my life I am surrounded with numbers.

 

Anyways, you said that Einstein was a genius and was widely believed that he used superior intellect and complex mathematical reasoning to finally arrive at E = mc². And even today, some scientists are so amazed by this formula E = mc², that they praised it like a holy grail. And because they have proven that the formula is right, some of them have even that grand illusion that they also belong to a breed of geniuses too. But you are right; he didn't arrive at his famous equation by complex scientific reasoning. He was intellectually smart just like us; he knows the tricks of the trade. And simply because he spend a lot of time thinking, weighing, analyzing and rethinking 20/7 he does not need to rigorously do all the scientific methodology. (I am not against methodology since people evolved with different levels of intelligence). He has all the facts that are just simply right in front of him that can be perceived by his senses. So why bother to test it. Just like our own theories which are being classified as pseudoscience, does society has the right to do so? Who we are to judge the intelligence of others? Because society sets up certain scientific norms and rules that individual must follow, we need to adhere to these standards and if not we are "punished" by seclusion. Is that fair? Maybe what we need to do is try to test these pseudoscience theories in your own scientific methodology first, since some are used to this drill, and pass your judgment afterwards when you come up with concrete conclusive results. I think this human behavior will be fair enough!

 

One professor distinguishes science from pseudoscience on the basis of the final product, the laws and theories. He said that if the results (1) cannot be tested in any way, (2) have been tested and always failed the test, or (3) predict results that are contradictory to well established and well tested science, then that is pseudoscience. Fascinating! So my new theory about the creation of the universe will still be labeled a pseudoscience for the fact that in order for me to test and have the end results of my theory, I have to wait for another 12 to 14 billion years. Just teasing, lolz!

 

Hmmmm, well let us go back to Einstein E = mc². I do not know if scientists have figured out how Einstein arrived at this famous formula. I have read a lot of physics books since I started to learn how to count, but never in my entire life did I encounter a book that will describe how Einstein formulated his formula. And I thought Dr Chandrakanth has figured it out. You got me there, Sir. Hahaha.And for those readers who have encountered how the formula was derived, please correct my claims if I am wrong.

 

In my book, Creation by Laws, I presented the famous equation: E = mc², which I believe was probably derived from Isaac Newton F= m x a and Giovanni Coriolis’ W = F x d, and analyzing both scientists’ equations by dimension and units of measurements, we have.

 

FORMULA >>STATEMENT

W = F x D >>Eq1 – Coriolis equation

F = (M x A) >>Eq2 – Newton’s equation

W = (M x A) x D >>replace F from eq1 with eq2

W = (kg x m/s²) x m >>substitute dimensions w/units

W = (kg x m x m) / s² >>apply laws of exponents

W = ( kg x m² ) / s² >>( X)^A x (X)^B = (X)^A+B

W = kg x (m²/s²) >>combining

W = kg x (m/s)² >>simplifying

W = M x V². >>subsitute Kg for M, m/s for V

W = m x c². >>c = velocity of light, m=mass

E = m x c² >>since Work(W) = Energy(E)

 

So for the thinkers: Is it correct if i say that work = mass times acceleration times distance (W=MAD)? Do you think I have to follow the scientific methodology to prove that this formula is right?

 

Creation by Laws: A Journal of a Creative Mind;

(ISBN: 978-1-60047-217-6).

Edited July 16, 2008 by lawsinium

[ajb]

 

And even today, some scientists are so amazed by this formula E = mc², that they praised it like a holy grail.

 

Really? I have not met any, so care to name names?

 

Hmmmm, well let us go back to Einstein E = mc². I do not know if scientists have figured out how Einstein arrived at this famous formula.

 

I don't know how Einstein did it, basically, it comes from combining the energy and 3-momentum of a particle into a 4-vector and then examining the magnitude of this in the rest frame. It should also be understood as coming from the conserved current associated with the energy-momentum tensor. That is the energy-momentum 4-vector is conserved under time and space displacements.

 

I have read a lot of physics books since I started to learn how to count, but never in my entire life did I encounter a book that will describe how Einstein formulated his formula. And I thought Dr Chandrakanth has figured it out. You got me there, Sir. Hahaha.And for those readers who have encountered how the formula was derived, please correct my claims if I am wrong.

 

I honistly don't know exactly how Einstein did it, but from a modern perspective it is known. See above.

 

 

In my book, Creation by Laws, I presented the famous equation: E = mc², which I believe was probably derived from Isaac Newton F= m x a and Giovanni Coriolis’ W = F x d, and analyzing both scientists’ equations by dimension and units of measurements, we have.

 

FORMULA >>STATEMENT

W = F x D >>Eq1 – Coriolis equation

F = (M x A) >>Eq2 – Newton’s equation

W = (M x A) x D >>replace F from eq1 with eq2

W = (kg x m/s²) x m >>substitute dimensions w/units

W = (kg x m x m) / s² >>apply laws of exponents

W = ( kg x m² ) / s² >>( X)^A x (X)^B = (X)^A+B

W = kg x (m²/s²) >>combining

W = kg x (m/s)² >>simplifying

W = M x V². >>subsitute Kg for M, m/s for V

W = m x c². >>c = velocity of light, m=mass

E = m x c² >>since Work(W) = Energy(E)

 

So for the thinkers: Is it correct if i say that work = mass times acceleration times distance (W=MAD)? Do you think I have to follow the scientific methodology to prove that this formula is right?

 

Creation by Laws: A Journal of a Creative Mind;

(ISBN: 978-1-60047-217-6).

 

See what I have said already.

[swansont]

I don't know how Einstein did it, basically, it comes from combining the energy and 3-momentum of a particle into a 4-vector and then examining the magnitude of this in the rest frame. It should also be understood as coming from the conserved current associated with the energy-momentum tensor. That is the energy-momentum 4-vector is conserved under time and space displacements.

 

It's hinted at in his original relativity paper. He comes up with the energy of a slowly accelerated electron. One only needs to look at v=0.