305 views

Uploaded by dgE

General Relativity states that matter generates “curvature” within the vacuum of space surrounding it, and that this curvature gives rise to inertial force and gravitational attraction amongst objects. The Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM) method, described in the Quinta Essentia series, greatly enhances our understanding of the phenomenon of curvature. EGM is an engineering tool which systematically reveals the common thread connecting GR, Quantum Mechanics and Electromagnetism. Via this connection, one may represent space-time curvature in quantitative terms. The unique “universality” of EGM makes it a highly valuable and versatile tool for use in varied fields of physics. It also provides a practical framework for investigating “space-time metric engineering” concepts such as the artificial modification of gravitational fields and faster-than-light propulsion mechanisms. Part One of the Quinta Essentia series presents the layman reader with a conceptual introduction to the EGM method.

save

- Bart Leplae- Magnetism-Gravity: Working Model
- motionmountain-volume1
- Quinta Essentia - Part 2
- 72 as of 10-28-13
- euclid.bams.1183422263
- Ether Detect
- Tombe - The Aether and the Electric Sea (2006)
- Quinta Essentia - Part 4
- Biofield Harmonic Energizer
- Action at a Distance in Classical Physics - Mary B Hesse
- Tesla_vs_Einstein
- Appendix b - Classical Doppler Shift From a Moving Source in the Presence of a Moving Ether
- Antigravity Propulsion
- Quinta Essentia - Part 3
- Encyclopaedia Britannica Fourteenth Edition (1937), Volume 8, Pages 751-755 ETHER (in Physics).pdf
- Metaphysics Books
- tranophysintlab2reportfinal
- Chapter 1.pdf
- exam1sol.pdf
- Reassessment of the Elenin Affair – Hubert_Luns
- Science Curriculumgzfgf
- Science Curriculum Guide Grades 3-10 December 2013.pdf
- Complete Physics for Cambridge Secondary 1 Oxford
- Chap 4 Notes
- Principles of Einstein-Finsler Gravity and Perspectives in Modern Cosmology
- Optics01 Intro
- Philippine Science Curriculum Guide
- Four Charge
- The Nature of the Past
- THE LAST PROYEK PRINT.docx
- The Natural Philosophy of the Cosmos (C)
- SPIE 2011
- Derivation of ElectroMagnetic Radii
- The Natural Philosophy of the Cosmos (A)
- Polarizable Vacuum (PV) and the Schwarzschild Solution
- The Natural Philosophy of the Cosmos (Graphs) (C)
- Polarizable Vacuum (PV) and the Reissner-Nordstrom Solution
- Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM); Practical modelling methods of the polarizable vacuum - VII
- Derivation of Fundamental Particle Radii: Electron, Proton & Neutron
- The Natural Philosophy of Fundamental Particles
- Derivation of the Photon & Graviton Mass-Energies & Radii
- The Extraterrestrial Casimir Effect
- Derivation of the Photon Mass-Energy Threshold
- The Natural Philosophy of the Cosmos (B)
- Particle Physics & Cosmology Posters
- Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM); Practical modelling methods of the polarizable vacuum - VI
- Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM); Practical modelling methods of the polarizable vacuum - IV
- Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM); Practical modelling methods of the polarizable vacuum - I
- SPIE 2007
- SPIE 2005
- Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM); Practical modelling methods of the polarizable vacuum - II
- EGM Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM); Practical modelling methods of the polarizable vacuum - V
- Quinta Essentia - Part 4
- Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM); Practical modelling methods of the polarizable vacuum - III
- Quinta Essentia - Part 3
- SPIE 2009

You are on page 1of 215

A Practical Guide to Space-Time Engineering

PART 1

“Alpha to Omega”

For Mike

2nd Edition

Project Initiated: December 4, 2007

Project Completed: June 6, 2008

Revised: Thursday, 24 November 2011

GEOFFREY S. DIEMER

Edited by Riccardo C. Storti1

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1

rstorti@gmail.com

© Copyright 2011: Delta Group Engineering (dgE): All rights

reserved.

2

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Preface

“One does not find gold prospecting in a field filled with miners. One

must break new ground, not perpetually overturn familiar soil.”

• Riccardo C. Storti

We experience gravity every moment of our lives, yet most

people rarely, if ever, pause to consider what the force of gravity

actually is. To others, this question borders on obsession. Gravity is a

mystery that has plagued scientists for hundreds of years. Although

Newton and Einstein formulated ingenious tools for depicting

precisely how objects will behave due to the effects of gravity on

Earth and in the heavens, it may surprise many people to learn that

their work does not actually reveal the root cause of gravity. In other

words, we know that all material objects both generate and respond to

gravitational fields, but science has absolutely no idea how objects

cause gravity -- until now, that is.

The answer that has recently been uncovered, as described in

the Quinta Essentia series, extends the work of Newton and Einstein

using a mathematical framework commonly employed in the field of

thermodynamics. The physics is exactly the same; the only difference

is in the way we choose to depict the gravitational model.

In Sir Isaac Newton’s time, some three hundred years ago,

people depicted gravity as being a “pulling” force which attracted

objects to one another in the heavens, and invariably caused objects to

fall to earth. It was also believed that gravity was transmitted across

great distances of space and that when it reached a distant object a

pulling force would be imparted upon it; thus this transmission of

gravitational force was referred to as “action-at-a-distance”. Newton

and his contemporaries surmised that a fluid-like substance of some

kind must fill all of space, acting as the medium via which the force of

gravity was transmitted. This mysterious substance was referred to as

the “aether”. Even though Newton implicated the aether as the

medium which transmitted the force of gravity, he could not logically

reconcile how a “fluid-like” description of the aether could allow

objects in the heavens to move as they do, simply because fluids act to

impede the motion of objects. If the aether was in fact fluid in nature,

its viscosity should cause the stars and planets to slow and fall out of

their regular, seemingly perpetual orbits.

The formulas Newton derived in his monumental work

entitled The Principia have been used not only to predict the orbital

motions of the planets; they are still used to this day to plan our

www.deltagroupengineering.com

3

**spacecraft missions to the Moon, Mars and other planets. However,
**

the triumph of Newtonian Mechanics overshadowed another more

speculative theory of gravity posited by Newton, which has gone

virtually ignored ever since. In his treatise entitled Opticks, Newton

develops the mathematics describing optical principles of refraction,

reflection and light spectra. This profound body of work is still

fundamental to science today, and has brought about phenomenal

technological advancements since the time of its development. In this

work Newton briefly speculates on the notion that gravity is caused by

optical characteristics of the aether. Newton surmised that just like a

lens, gradual changes in the density of the aether (whatever it may be)

in the presence of matter should cause light and the movements of

objects passing through it to follow curved trajectories characteristic

of gravitational attraction.

A full two hundred years later, Einstein introduced his theory

of gravitation called “General Relativity” (GR). Very much like

Newton’s optical model for gravity, GR is essentially a geometric

interpretation of gravity, derived from the way in which light

propagates through space in curved trajectories in the presence of

gravitational fields. The curved path of light in a gravitational field, in

turn, defines whether the space an object moves through appears

“flat” or “curved”. This curvature of space-time defines how objects

behave gravitationally.

Not only was Einstein’s GR found to be highly accurate and

useful, it also removed the problem of action-at-a-distance. According

to GR, objects aren’t being “pulled” by some mysterious force

towards each other; rather, it is the curvature of the space-time fabric,

if you will, which guides the gravitational motions of objects, hence

no “force” is required. Since no force is necessary to keep a planet in

orbit, the action-at-a-distance problem which plagued Newton

vanished along with the aether.

However, Einstein’s GR theory didn’t vanquish the aether

completely; it merely replaced it with something even more abstract

called “curved space-time”. And the problem of “action-at-a-distance”

was only supplanted by a much thornier question of what, exactly, is

being curved? In other words, how does a beam of light or an object

“know” whether the empty vacuum of space it moves through

happens to be “curved” or “flat”, and respond accordingly? Is matter

actually curving space, and in so doing causing rays of light to bend

as they propagate along a curved manifold? In this context, “spacetime curvature” is a completely ambiguous term because space is not

considered to be a physical thing. In other words, how can “nothing”

posses a curved “shape”? It is crucial that physicists take to heart the

4

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**fact that curvature is merely a mathematical contrivance acting to
**

describe (not explain) the physical phenomenon we call gravity. Thus

we are still left to wonder what physical process might be responsible

for conveying information about the gravitational field to the beam of

light or the object passing through it.

In 2002, physicist Hal Puthoff introduced an alternative

optical interpretation of GR, referred to as “the Polarizable Vacuum

Representation of GR”, which sought to answer such questions. Here,

Puthoff substitutes the concept of “space-time curvature” with a

“variable index of refraction” in space surrounding matter, which

yields a congruent yet mathematically simplified interpretation of

gravity to that of GR.

According to GR the space-time geometry of a gravitational

field surrounding a massive object is depicted as a depression in the

fabric of space-time. As an object passes through curved depressions

in space enveloping a planet or star, its path is caused to bend as it

follows the natural slope of the curve, ultimately resulting in a

gravitational effect. The key distinction between GR and the

polarizable vacuum (PV) interpretation is that the PV model explicitly

describes a physical manner in which space-time may, in effect, be

“curved” and how an object might be able to sense the gravitational

field it passes through.

The PV model asserts that matter polarizes the vacuum

surrounding it, generating gradients in the refractive index of space so

that as a beam of light passes through, its trajectory will be refracted

(i.e., bent) towards the object. However, if we follow Puthoff’s model

and assume that a beam of light is bent due to refractive properties of

the vacuum of space, rather than curvature, we are still left to wonder

how matter causes the refractive index to change, and why polarized

space (a “refractive index” within the fabric of space-time) should

cause a gravitational force. These questions are answerable by first

understanding how the vacuum of space becomes refractive, and how

material objects act on, and react to a refractive space-time

environment.

Quantum Mechanics (QM) tells us that the “vacuum of

empty space” is, in fact, quite the opposite. If you switch your

television to an unutilized channel you’ll see thousands of dots of

static buzzing about like bees in a hive. This imagery is physically

reminiscent of what is occurring at the quantum level in the vacuum

of space; a chaotic jumble of quantum energy fluctuations at all points

in the Universe, whether in the inter-galactic voids of deep space or in

the impossibly small spaces between sub-atomic particles! In this

way, the Universe may be thought of as a container replete with

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5

**energy which may never be emptied. When we consider the vacuum
**

to be “something” rather than “nothing”, it suggests that the vacuum

itself may provide the matrix supporting the indefinable “curvature”

of space-time and the more physical “refractive index” of the PV

model. But we are still left pondering the question of why objects

produce and respond to gravitational forces.

To solve this problem, we must look to other examples of

such forces in Nature. The only other similar force in Nature is

“inertia”. If you wish to change from one velocity to another, you

need a push to overcome the acceleration reaction force of inertia. The

force of inertia is only experienced upon acceleration, which simply

refers to a change in motion. When we move at a constant rate of

speed we don’t feel any force (other than gravity) even if we are

moving incredibly fast. Yet once we change our rate or direction of

motion, we suddenly feel a force pushing on us in the opposite

direction of our acceleration. Nature tells us that uniform motion is

relative but acceleration, in a manner of speaking, is absolute because

you can feel it. But where does this strange force come from? Strange

and mysterious as it may seem, this powerful force arises (like

gravity) instantaneously out of the vacuum of space, as if by magic, to

inhibit changes in motion. But how is it that objects feel the force of

inertia and gravity even while separated from other objects by vast

expanses of nothingness?

This question hints at a deep connection between the forces

we have labeled “gravity” and “inertia”, and their indissoluble

connection to the quantum vacuum of space. In making this link, we

take the first steps towards profound discoveries and unparalleled

technological advancements; all based upon a fresh understanding of

the quantum origins of inertia and gravity.

This book presents an alternative model to that of GR, which

presumes that matter must do “work” on the quantum vacuum

manifold of space in order to generate so-called ‘”curvature” within it,

and that the energy expended on the space-time manifold is

electromagnetic (EM) in nature. The EM energy exerted on the

manifold changes its configuration such that instead of being

“curved”, space-time becomes “refractive” in the presence of matter.

In this way, gravity may be definitively shown to be the byproduct of

EM exchange2 between matter and the vacuum of space surrounding

it. Objects and light passing through such regions of space behave in

precisely the same manner as predicted by GR, except that they are

guided according to “optical” principles of action (i.e., refraction)

2

6

**In accordance with the principles of QM.
**

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**rather than by metaphysical geometric imperatives. This new
**

approach also eliminates the terms “gravity” and “inertia” from our

vernacular, in that they are both shown to be byproducts of

electromagnetism and not actual forces in their own right.

Quinta Essentia: A Practical Guide to Space-Time

Engineering (the series) describes the development of a mathematical

method termed “Electro-Gravi-Magnetics” (EGM); so named because

it facilitates the representation of gravitational fields solely in

electromagnetic terms. One of the most valuable aspects of EGM is

that it demonstrates how GR and QM are interrelated. In this regard,

EGM is a unique method which reveals a single universal principle

applicable from the subatomic scale to the cosmological. For example,

the EGM method, originally designed to calculate the energy

distribution of gravitational fields, has uncovered not only the

framework underpinning the stability, order and coherent inner

structure of the atom; it also reveals how this order and stability arises

in Nature.

EGM is an engineering tool, and as such it may seem

somewhat unorthodox to many physicists. However, no “new

physics” has been conjured in order to develop the EGM method. It is

simply a novel application of time-tested engineering principles,

physics and mathematics. The principal reason it may seem

unorthodox has to do with the way in which problems are approached

in physics and engineering. The physicist’s natural ally is reduction;

where a “generalized phenomenon” is deconstructed into its basic

constituents. An engineer’s ally, on the other hand, is an inductive

approach; integrating basic principles and formulating a systemic

solution congruent with experimental observation such that a

phenomenon may be “reverse-engineered”.

Based upon engineering methodology, EGM represents a

new way of looking at an age-old problem. It employs conventional,

well-founded engineering principles which have never been

previously applied to the problem of gravity. Again, EGM treats

gravity in terms of thermodynamic principles; i.e., as being the result

of matter (mass-energy) establishing energetic equilibrium within the

space-time manifold (as defined by QM) surrounding it. Modeling the

dynamics of gravitation in this manner yields profoundly accurate and

comprehensive results because EGM successfully reveals the common

ground underlying GR and QM.

Part One of the Quinta Essentia series provides the layman

with a summarized presentation of the key results and findings in

Quinta Essentia parts Two, Three and Four; furnishing the reader with

the derivational details required to test one’s own theories, to make

www.deltagroupengineering.com

7

**predictions, and to scrutinize EGM. It is the authors’ sincere hope and
**

intention that the material presented in the Quinta Essentia series will

convey the scope and utility of the EGM method and inspire new

ideas and experiments dealing directly with space-time manifold

modification, by either applying EGM methods or through the

development of one’s own approach.

8

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Table of Contents

Preface ................................................................................................ 3

Preface ................................................................................................ 3

1

2

3

4

5

Nothing is Everything ............................................................ 13

1.1

The void.......................................................................... 13

1.2

The Platonic solids.......................................................... 15

1.3

The laws of motion ......................................................... 18

1.4

The luminiferous aether .................................................. 21

1.5

Michelson and Morely.................................................... 24

1.6

Space-Time..................................................................... 26

1.7

The Casimir Effect.......................................................... 30

**All Things Being Equal .......................................................... 35
**

2.1

The cosmic counter-balance ........................................... 35

2.2

Expansion and compression ........................................... 38

2.3

The principle of equivalence .......................................... 43

2.4

Mass-Energy equivalence ............................................... 49

**The Glass That is Always Full............................................... 53
**

3.1

Symmetry and unity........................................................ 53

3.2

Exploring the microcosmos ............................................ 54

3.3

The Quinta Essentia........................................................ 58

3.4

Quantum uncertainty ...................................................... 69

3.5

The substantive Universe................................................ 71

**Making Something of Nothing .............................................. 79
**

4.1

Virtual reality.................................................................. 79

4.2

Mutually assured construction ........................................ 83

Mass Illusion ........................................................................... 87

www.deltagroupengineering.com

9

6

7

8

9

10

5.1

A matter of terms ............................................................ 87

5.2

Intrinsic inertia................................................................ 88

5.3

Extrinsic inertia............................................................... 94

5.4

Bridging the gaps............................................................ 98

**The Polarizable Vacuum ..................................................... 107
**

6.1

Blind-sighted ................................................................ 107

6.2

Optical gravity .............................................................. 109

6.3

Shaping the lens............................................................ 111

6.4

Conflux ......................................................................... 113

**The Harmony of Nature ...................................................... 121
**

7.1

Ancient wisdom............................................................ 121

7.2

Music of the spheres ..................................................... 123

7.3

The quantum-harmonic axiom...................................... 126

7.4

Fourier’s legacy ............................................................ 128

**Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM) ........................................ 135
**

8.1

Introduction .................................................................. 135

8.2

Similitude ..................................................................... 136

8.3

Precepts and principles ................................................. 140

8.4

Space-time engineering ................................................ 142

8.5

Gravity.......................................................................... 145

8.6

Elementary particles ..................................................... 157

8.7

Cosmology.................................................................... 164

**EGM Technical Summary................................................... 179
**

9.1

Overview ...................................................................... 179

9.2

The QV spectrum.......................................................... 185

9.3

The EGM spectrum ...................................................... 185

9.4

**The ZPF spectrum ........................................................ 186
**

www.deltagroupengineering.com

9.5

The PV spectrum .......................................................... 186

9.6

The EGM, PV and ZPF spectra .................................... 189

9.7

The Casimir Effect........................................................ 189

9.8

Comparative spectra ..................................................... 190

9.9

Characterization of the gravitational spectrum ............. 193

9.10

“Planck-Particle” characteristics................................... 193

9.11

Cosmology.................................................................... 194

9.11.1

Fundamental........................................................ 194

9.11.2

Advanced ............................................................ 195

9.11.3

Gravitational........................................................ 195

9.11.4

Particle ................................................................ 196

9.12

10

Key point summary ...................................................... 196

**EGM Results Summary ....................................................... 201
**

10.1

Harmonic representation of fundamental particles ....... 201

10.2

Periodic table of fundamental particles......................... 202

10.3

EGM vs. SMoC ............................................................ 203

10.4

Cosmological evolution process ................................... 203

**Periodic Table of the Elements ..................................................... 211
**

Image: Spiral Galaxy..................................................................... 212

Bibliography 1................................................................................ 213

www.deltagroupengineering.com

11

12

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1

Nothing is Everything

“Among the great things which are found among us, the existence

of Nothing is the greatest.”

• Leonardo da Vincii

1.1

The void

**The Sun, the Earth and all the planets of our solar system
**

float in the vast expanse of space, effortlessly, almost magically

suspended in a mystical, indefinable void. It may easily be assumed

that few people today ever give a moment of thought to the question

of what space actually is. To others, this question is an obsession.

The nature of space has been a source of philosophical and

scientific debate for thousands of years, beginning as a rational

argument to substantiate the existence of “nothing”. Before humanity

had any experiential knowledge of space, the debate raged over

whether a three-dimensional volume could be completely devoid of

all substance. If there was in fact a true void, could it even be thought

to exist? Over the centuries, “the void” eventually gained acceptance

as a truism, shifting the debate to questions concerning the physical

nature of nothingness. Was the void truly nothing, or is it composed

of an ethereal substance of some kind?

The question posed by philosophers throughout the ages is:

how can “nothing” exist as part of our reality, that is, since “nothing”

represents a state of non-existence? This is a paradox and a

contradiction in terms. Some ancient Greek philosophers expressly

opposed the existence of the void for this reason. But the precise

definition of the void at that time was considered to be a true and

complete nothingness. One interpretation of the vacuum was related

to the idea of “zero”, which is in many ways just as unfathomable as

the concept of “infinity”.

The Roman poet Lucretius is well known for the phrase: “ex

nihilo nihil fit”, meaning, “nothing comes from nothing” – an idea

originally expressed by the Greek philosopher Empedocles (495-435

BC). Empedocles’ view was that everything in our material Universe

had to be born of something else, something tangible. Something

cannot be created from nothing, nor could anything simply disappear

into nothingness. To the Greek philosophers in this particular camp,

everything that is, is and forever will be, so there was no rational way

to include the idea of nothing or the state of non-existence into

arguments regarding the nature of matter.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

13

**This overlying concept marks the birth of “conservation of
**

energy” in contemporary physics; meaning that energy can neither be

created nor destroyed, but only transformed or exchanged. It’s like

accounting, or balancing your bank account. Although we all may

wish that money could magically appear in our bank account, or that

we could just tack on an extra zero to the end of our balance, we can’t.

The money has to come from somewhere. The same is true of energy

– the currency of the Universe.

Leucippus (5th century BC) and his student Democritus (460370 BC) are referred to as being “Atomists” because they introduced

the notion that matter is composed of eternal, indivisible, fundamental

units. A pure substance, the Atomists would say, could be divided and

subdivided again and again until at some point it could be divided no

further. The end-point of matter was called “atomos”; meaning

“without parts”. But the philosophical and logical invention of the

atom required something special – namely, a void. All of those unseen

atoms which make up matter would need some free space to move

around in – to rearrange themselves and form structures within. If

there were no space, then there would be no movement and no

transformation of matter witnessed in our commonplace experience.

There would likewise be no cause-and-effect and the ever-dynamic

motions of the Universe would cease. The Cosmos would be frozen

solid without time. The Pythagoreans, as Aristotle wrote, believed

that: “It is the void which keeps things distinct, being a separation and

division of things”ii

Aristotle (384-322 BC), however, didn’t completely agree

with the Atomists. In fact, it was Aristotle himself who maintained

that “Nature abhors a vacuum”. However, he didn’t necessarily

disagree with them either, because his argument wasn’t actually

rooted in a denial of the void. Hence, the argument became an issue of

defining terms.

When we speak of a vacuum, what do we mean? Aristotle

would contend that if one tried to create new space where there wasn’t

space before, something would always immediately rush in to fill that

space. To use an example based in our own time, if one were to take a

zip-sealed plastic sandwich bag, flatten it completely to remove all the

air and then zip it shut, one will find that it isn’t possible to pull the

sides apart in any way that could create a new space inside. Indeed, if

one were to construct a similar experiment utilizing something more

rigid like glass or metal, we know that it is possible to create a

vacuum largely free of air and matter, but the creation of that vacuum

doesn’t encapsulate a zone of “non-existence” which has been

substituted in its place.

14

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**This point is indicative of the direction the void would take
**

in philosophical terms. The void was a necessity in the Atomists’

view; however, its existence remained impossible because a true void

(as “nothingness”) could never be created by any natural process.

Something, whatever it may be, must occupy newly created spaces.

But what was it, exactly, that was “rushing in” to fill the space if it

wasn’t some form of matter? The spaces that permeate objects and

separate them from one another must be composed of something for

this line of reasoning to be compatible with experience and

observation. When a vacuum is created, that vacuum may be devoid

of all matter, but according to Aristotle, it must still be something.

It was the Hellenistic philosopher, Zeno of Citium (333-264

BC), whose teachings mark the beginnings of “Stoicism”3, so named

because of the Painted Porch from which he taught. Like Aristotle, the

Stoics also believed in a continuum of matter, or at least an absence of

a true void in the presence of matter. They believed that there must be

“some kind” of substance occupying the spaces surrounding objects

and completely permeating them, as if to say that all matter was

imbibed with a spirit imparting purpose of being. They called this

substance “pneuma”, which was thought to be a mixture of fire and air

– an energizing fluid.

But unlike Aristotle, whose void-substance was somewhat

static and eternal, the Stoics’ pneuma was dynamic and protected

matter from dissolving into nothingness. It is this concept of nothing

which has its roots in what Empedocles termed the “aether” – a

mysterious and ubiquitous medium which surrounded and permeated

matter. This so-called aether, supremely rarefied and quintessential,

became the substance giving form to the void.

The debate over nothingness (i.e., non-existence), became a

futile endeavor beyond the realm of empirical study or solution.

However, the nature and composition of the vacuum as a real

substance termed “the aether” would be the focus of debate evermore.

1.2

The Platonic solids

**Plato (427-347 BC) derived a mathematical interpretation of
**

the aether in a similar manner to the Atomists by reducing matter into

its quintessential, elemental constituents. Study of Pythagorean and

Euclidian mathematics quite possibly provided the inspiration for his

development of a rather poetic model of the Universe based on

3

**“Stoa” is Greek for “porch”.
**

www.deltagroupengineering.com

15

**geometric symmetry. In his treatise called “Timaeus”, Plato describes
**

a complete theory of matter based on what he called the “five perfect

solids”. These solids represent the only perfectly symmetrical

polyhedrons4 whose outer surfaces are entirely composed of a single

type of regular polygon such as an equilateral triangle, a square or a

pentagon. Other shapes, such as the hexagon for example, cannot

form a polyhedron with a surface comprised only of hexagons.

The first of these perfect polyhedrons is known as the

“tetrahedron”; a three-dimensional shape consisting of four (4)

equilateral triangles connected along their edges to form a threelegged pyramid structure. The next order of polyhedron is the

“octahedron”; composed of two standard four-sided pyramids

sandwiched together by sharing the square base of each pyramid,

forming a diamond shape from eight (8) triangles. Even though the

center of the diamond shape is a square on the inside, the surface is

entirely composed of triangles. The third solid is the hexahedron (i.e.

a simple cube). The fourth perfect solid, composed of twenty (20)

equilateral triangles, is the “icosahedron”. The fifth and most unique

solid, the “dodecahedron”, is composed of twelve (12) identical

pentagons, forming a shape approximating a soccer ball.

**Each of these five solids formed Plato’s version of a
**

“periodic table of elements”. These elemental shapes were thought to

form all material objects in the Universe5, forming the basis of

alchemy practiced over the next few thousand years. Empedocles,

before Plato, held the belief that only four elements existed, not

including the aether, which formed the basic atomic constituents of all

matter. Various concoctions of these four elements were thought to

create all substances. The four elements themselves were Earth, Air,

Fire and Water.

The existence of five Platonic solids implied that an

additional “fifth element” of matter must exist, called “Quinta

Essentia”, which represented the aether. Plato’s Quinta Essentia was

the substance that the heavens were made of. It was considered to be

4

5

**Three-dimensional shapes.
**

Each solid represented one of “the five” elements.

16

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**eternal, immutable and the source of all things. In fact, ancient
**

philosophers considered the fifth element, symbolized by the

dodecahedron, to be so important that its existence was kept secret

from the general population6. The belief that the aether was a

substance made from the fifth perfect solid marked a different manner

of viewing the aether, transforming the formerly featureless void into

the quintessential origin of all things.

The Quinta Essentia didn’t infuse matter with spirit in the

way that the pneuma was believed to, rather, it was considered to be

the fabric of the void and the basis of matter. Plato surmised that these

five elements, unlike Empedocles’ four elements, could split and

merge into entirely new and larger atoms and thus form different

substances, whereas the four fundamental elements of Empedocles

were combined in various recipes to form substances with unique

characteristics.

In Plato’s model, the five elements correspond to each of the

five perfect solids,

Element

Earth

Air

Fire

Water

Aether

Geometry

Hexahedron

Octahedron

Tetrahedron

Icosahedron

Dodecahedron

**Plato describes how the first four elements could recombine
**

to form new elements; however, the dodecahedron was unique. The

aether could not be broken up into more fundamental subunits or

recombined with other elements like the others could. This is due to

the fact that the surfaces of the other four solids may be further

subdivided into two types of right triangles. One of these is formed by

slicing a square diagonally through its center. The other is produced

by dividing an equilateral triangle by drawing a line from one tip

through to the center of the base, thus dividing it in half. What makes

the dodecahedron unique in this case is that it is not possible to build a

pentagon from just these two types of right triangles, as it is for the

other shapes. The other elements were malleable, whereas the aether

was eternal. The Quinta Essentia thus became the fabric of the

Cosmos upon which all matter was thought to be embroidered.

Oddly enough, triangular symmetry is mirrored in the

subatomic particles and quarks comprising the atoms as we have

come to understand them today. Our contemporary atomic model is

6

**Carl Sagan, “Cosmos” television series.
**

www.deltagroupengineering.com

17

**composed of three subatomic units; protons, neutrons and electrons.
**

Moreover, the proton is composed of two “Up” quarks and one

“Down” quark; whereas the neutron is composed of one “Up” quark

and two “Down” quarks.

These quark triplicates

(and the triplicate subatomic

components of the atom) can be

likened to Plato’s sub-elemental

triangles! Even though we now

know that Plato’s conjectures were

nothing more than philosophical

representations of reality, it is quite

surprising that the basic tenets of

his theory display such prescience.

One is forced to consider the

possibility of a deeper order in

Nature which Plato was able to

illuminate through his careful study

of mathematical symmetry.

1.3

The laws of motion

**Fast forward to Sir Isaac Newton a full two-thousand years
**

later and the aether remains. From Roman times, to the dark ages,

through the middle ages and the Renaissance, the Platonic solids

formed the basis of physics and alchemy. The Quinta Essentia

remained a key ingredient in the many concoctions of alchemical

practice. Furthermore, it was the practice of alchemy, in the western

world at least, that would contribute greatly to the development of the

Scientific Method and the field of chemistry; in effect, generating the

disciplines of science we know today. For the sake of brevity

however, it will suffice to mention that the wealth of information

available from over two thousand years of world history relating to

alchemy shall be delegated to the reader for further investigation.

However, what cannot go unmentioned, in at least some detail, is

Newton’s philosophical and scientific stance regarding the aether.

In his writings, Newton’s stance concerning the aether was

rather two-sided. On one hand, in his treatise called Opticks written in

1704, he employs the aether as the basis for most of his observations

related to the nature of light and optical phenomena. In his Principia,

in which he develops the laws of motion and gravitation, the aether is

also present as the medium by which force is transmitted to objects

18

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**separated by some distance in space. On the other hand, in his
**

writings7 Newton was very careful to remind his readers that he would

“feign no hypotheses” for what the aether could physically be, even

though the aether remained the basis for his reasoning throughout.

Newton felt that the aether should remain in the realm of the occult

and metaphysics, even though he consistently relied upon the aether

as a physical justification for his mathematical theories.

In Newton’s laws of motion, gravity was thought to be a

“force” which attracted bodies to each other in the heavens, just as it

seemed to do here on Earth. Objects invariably fall to the Earth and it

was thought that an actual, physical force pulled everything to the

surface. It was the force of gravity that pulled the legendary apple

from the tree that fell on Newton’s head, inspiring him to eventually

decipher the laws of gravitation. Even to this day, this colloquial

notion of what gravity is persists in our language. We still call gravity

a “force”, and we still, erroneously, talk about it as though it has the

ability to reach out and pull in objects from afar. Gravity in Newton’s

time was thought to be transmitted instantaneously through space via

the aether, imparting a “pulling” force on other objects.

Even though Newton implicated the aether as the medium

transmitting the force of gravity, he could not logically reconcile how

a “fluid-like” description of the aether could allow objects in the

heavens to move as they do, simply because fluids act to impede the

movements of objects. The planets moved eternally and without

resistance through the aether, so how could objects move in a fluid

without any resistance to slow their motion? If the aether was some

kind of substance, it should induce resistance to the orbital motion of

planets and cause them to spiral into the Sun. Newton writes in his

work, Opticks:

p.528 Qu.28.

“A dense fluid can be of no use for explaining the

phenomena of Nature, the motions of the planets

and comets being better explained without it. It

serves only to disturb and retard the motions of

those great bodies, and make the frame of Nature

languish; . . . so there is no evidence for its

existence; and, therefore, it ought to be rejected. . .

. the main business of natural philosophy is to

argue from phenomena without feigning

hypotheses, and to deduce causes from effects, till

7

**“Principia” (1687) and “Opticks” (1704).
**

www.deltagroupengineering.com

19

**we come to the very first cause, which certainly is
**

not mechanical and not only to unfold the

mechanism of the world, but chiefly to resolve these

and such like questions. What is there in places

almost empty of matter, and whence is it that the

Sun and planets gravitate towards one another,

without dense matter between them? Whence is it

that Nature doth nothing in vain; and whence arises

all that order and beauty which we see in the

world?”

Thus, Newton recognized that “something” occupying the

spaces between objects accounted for transmission of gravitational

force (it just couldn’t be fluid-like). Otherwise, how could one object

like the Earth affect the motion of the Moon so far away with just

empty space between them?

In Newton’s time, this strange, disconnected cause-and-effect

relationship was referred to as “action-at-a-distance”, sparking

another great debate in physics that raged until Albert Einstein’s

development of General Relativity (GR) approximately two hundred

years later. Newton’s work, however, was immune from this

argument even though it remained a point of great contention that

pestered and haunted him ceaselessly.

Newton was immune from the action-at-a-distance debate

because he eloquently demonstrated how simply understanding the

regular, predictable behavior of Nature can often suffice, i.e., it is

sometimes adequate to formulate a mathematical description of

Nature’s laws “without feigning hypotheses” for why they occur. He

formulated a mathematical structure describing the motions of the

planets without espousing a mechanical, physical manifestation of its

behavior. If it works, so be it; thus, it became possible to discuss the

aether in purely philosophical terms without invoking it as a necessity

for the laws of gravitation and mechanics.

Newton’s equations have allowed us to design rockets and

enabled planetary exploration in our solar system. It is also Newton’s

principles of optics which enabled the invention of the photographic

equipment used to document these great adventures. All of this

technology has been made possible without ever having to understand

the mechanics of the aether. Thus the need for the aether evaporated,

even though its existence could still be debated; its precise nature

remaining as mysterious and indefinable as ever.

20

www.deltagroupengineering.com

1.4

The luminiferous aether

**One of the most triumphant and influential discoveries in
**

human and scientific history was James Clerck Maxwell’s

development of the four equations for electromagnetism in 1864.

Based upon earlier work by Michael Faraday, the introduction of the

laws of electromagnetism would provide the spark that would

transform the world forever. In much the same way that Newton

derived the laws of motion and gravitation from first principles, by

feigning no hypotheses, and through uncorrupted observation of

Nature, Maxwell was also able to successfully merge the forces of

electricity (E) and magnetism (B) into a system of interactions he

called “electromagnetism”. His set of equations describes the behavior

of electric and magnetic fields and how they interact with matter. He

was also the first to show that light itself was simply an oscillating

wave composed of intertwined electric and magnetic fields.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

21

**The development of electromagnetic theory hailed the
**

development of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (QM). Maxwell’s

equations were a monumental achievement, not only because of their

elegance, or because of their immense usefulness for technological

purposes, but because they proved that a deep connection between

electricity and magnetism existed. Electricity and magnetism were

once thought of as entirely disparate phenomena. This was one of the

first so-called “unification” theories, illustrating that forces once

thought to be unique were, in actuality, one-and-the-same.

During the latter part of the 19th century, British physicists

(particularly those following Maxwell’s lead in the search to explain

the inner workings of electromagnetism) tended to continually turn

back to the notion of the luminiferous aether in order to help prove or

disprove emergent theories. This embodiment of the aether was sonamed because it was believed to be the medium that carried light,

i.e., electromagnetic waves, and was thus called “luminiferous”.

During the Victorian period, technological advancements

that spawned the industrial revolution contributed to the rapid

development of a mechanistic world-view. British society was bearing

witness to the triumph of the machine, and the machine rapidly and

drastically transformed the social and cultural landscape. The new

technological developments of the age would shape the spectacles

through which British scientists would view the Universe as well.

These new lenses skewed the vision of theorists at the time, causing

them to view the fabric of space in terms of cogs and wheels — an

invisible yet intricately and seamlessly connected clockwork of

interactions via which objects and light travelled through space. This

emerging industrial revolution gave physicists cause to try and explain

electromagnetism in terms of this new mechanical language of the

day.

Light itself was discovered by Maxwell to simply be an

electromagnetic wave propagating through space. But what did this

actually mean? What were these waves of light propagating in? What

were they made of? We can easily imagine waves of light propagating

through space like waves on the surface of the ocean, which emanate

from a source and roll in towards the shore. But the very idea of a

wave implies movement through a fluid, or some kind of medium. So

the question was: what kind of substance carried these waves of light?

The aether was an attempt to provide a physical explanation

for a rather abstract mathematical representation of Maxwell’s

equations for electromagnetism. The form of this physical substance

was modeled after the most prevalent mechanistic imagery of the

time. Even today in our own era, some theorists argue for an

22

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**“information” philosophy as the basis for conceptualizing elementary
**

particle phenomenon, so that matter itself could be thought of in terms

of binary bits of information. The fundamental constituent of our

Universe, according to information theory, is not really bits of “stuff”

but rather bytes of informationiii. In our contemporary society, this

being the “information and computing age”, we are naturally tempted

to create philosophical models reflecting our own zeitgeist in

precisely the same way that the Maxwellian physicists did in their

quest for a mechanical interpretation of physical reality.

If nothing else, the aether provided scientists at the time with

a convenient pedagogical tool for describing the way in which electric

and magnetic forces interacted. However, there was a driving desire to

actually prove the physical existence of the aether, and in doing so

provide a physical description of the seemingly magical effects of

electromagnetism. The Maxwellian cohort was envisioning a poetic

and monumental concept that could unify physical phenomenon as

purely mechanical movements of the aether, and thus provide a new

paradigm that was fully in-line with the late 19th century’s mechanical

view of the Universe. If the problem of the aether could eventually be

solved it would certainly be a scientific triumph to rival all others, and

provide instant fame and glory for those who developed it. Any

mechanical proof of the aether’s structure would also be the perfect

way to eliminate the nagging problem of action-at-a-distance, which

was a source of debate since Newton’s time.

The Maxwellians wanted a complete theory that would

finally quiet metaphysical questions regarding exactly how not only

electromagnetic signals were propagated, but also how planets

separated by vast distances in space could interact with one another

gravitationally. Following the lead of Descartes, theorists even

developed models to try and show how matter itself might be

understood as a manifestation of the aether in the form of “vortex

rings”. In this model, atoms could be thought of as tiny stable vortices

within the aether “fluid”.

But why hold on to these purely hypothetical models of

space if one could successfully predict and harness the phenomenon

of electromagnetism through pure mathematical reasoning alone? The

fact of the matter was that for some time, the aether models simply

supported the theories being put forth. They held up mathematically

as a framework for theories that were often too abstract to make any

real sense to the average person, or to the average physicist for that

matter. The classical physicist could present a working hypothesis to

explain electromagnetic waves and demonstrate how they might be

mechanically propagated through the aether.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

23

**Physicists at the time wrestled with this conundrum between
**

the concepts of “theory” and “method”. If the method works

beautifully, is there any real need to provide a concrete theory to

explain why the method works? Is it not enough to simply provide an

elegant set of formulae which can be used to describe how Nature

works even if we still don’t understand why it works that way?

The fervor with which the Maxwellians sought to solve the

structure of the aether was largely motivated by a desire to unify

physics in its entirety. This desire remains just as strong today as it

did in Maxwell’s time. Born of a desire to provide an allencompassing theory of electromagnetism, the aether was invoked

because it was convenient, manageable and contemporary. It seemed

that a working theory was not only attainable, but almost within reach.

Unlocking the inner-workings of the aether became the Holy Grail for

the British Maxwellians, not only to make their work on

electromagnetism credible, but to also render it immune to doubt and

criticism. Even more persuasive was the tantalizing hint that by

defining the aether, they would also finally unveil the mysterious

inner structure of the Cosmos.

This idea of the aether actually had great philosophical value

overall, but only in its use as a tool. Eventually, with a greater reliance

on purely mathematical approaches to the problems of

electromagnetism, and due to the results of the Michelson-Morely

experiment, the aether was eventually abandoned. As the 19th century

began to ebb away into the 20th, Einstein later explained that:

“mechanics as the basis of physics was being abandoned, almost

unnoticeably, because its adaptability to the facts presented itself

finally as hopeless”iv.

1.5

Michelson and Morely

**The final nail in the coffin for the luminiferous aether came
**

in the form of a famed experiment performed by Albert Michelson

and Edward Morley in 1887v. The experiment itself was formulated

on the premise that if the Earth was actually moving through a fluidlike medium, we should be able to detect our movement through it.

Imagine you are traveling on a train. Let’s say you decide to

walk to the diner located two cars ahead of you to have lunch. As you

walk along the aisle in the direction the train is traveling, and you

walk at a rate of 4 kilometers per hour (k.p.h), your speed relative to

the ground outside will be 4 (k.p.h), plus the train’s velocity which is

100 (k.p.h), yielding a total combined velocity of 104 (k.p.h). When

24

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**you walk back to your seat after lunch, your velocity relative to the
**

ground would be the train’s speed minus your walking speed.

If the aether existed in the form envisioned by the

Maxwellians, then the speed of light through the aether should be

shown to have a velocity relative to some “ground speed” of the

aether. Michelson and Morley tested for the presence of the aether by

sending out two perpendicular beams of light from a single point

source, which were reflected by mirrors back to a single detector. The

design of their experiment relied on the wave-like nature of light.

**In 1803, Thomas Young demonstrated that when light was
**

directed at an opaque screen with two slits cut in it, the two beams of

light that came through each slit would interfere with one another to

form a pattern on the wall behind the screen. Known as the “two-slit”

experiment, Young discovered that light was “wave-like”; waves of

light could interfere with each other just like waves on the surface of a

pond, creating peaks and troughs of interference. But these results

also spawned great debate and fascination about the mysterious nature

of light which continues to this day. Paradoxes raised by variations of

www.deltagroupengineering.com

25

**the two-slit experiment continue to baffle scientists and have brought
**

to light some of the most perplexing and bizarre behavior ever to be

found in Nature.

**Because of Young’s pioneering two-slit experiment,
**

Michelson and Morley knew that if they directed two perpendicular

beams outwards and then reflected them back to a detector, the two

beams would generate an interference pattern indicating whether the

beams of light travelled at different rates due to variance in “ground

speed” relative to the aether. Taking into account the rotation and

relative motions of the Earth around the Sun, they demonstrated that

no matter what relative direction the beams of light were traveling in,

no interference pattern was generated indicating a preferred direction,

or flow of the aether.

This experiment silenced the debate over the notion that

there could be a mechanical, fluid-like aether filling space, or one that

acted as the medium through which light propagated. But Michelson

and Morley more accurately demonstrated that there is no preferred

reference frame from which to measure the propagation of light

signals. It is this idea that became the spring-board for Einstein’s

Relativity theory, where light speed is constant and everything else,

including time, is observed relative to the speed of light.

1.6

Space-Time

**Michelson and Morley may have disproved the existence of
**

the mechanical, luminiferous aether, in such form as it was thought to

exist in Maxwell’s era, but this didn’t stop another more

contemporary version of the aether from emerging with a vengeance.

26

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**Einstein is at least partially responsible for both destroying the rusty,
**

mechanical aether of old and replacing it with a brand new aether all

his own. Although this time, unlike the Maxwellians, Einstein feigned

no hypotheses for what physical manifestation the aether might take.

Einstein’s development of Relativity and the notion of a new aether

termed “curved space-time” removed the idea that gravity was a force

mediated by the ill-defined aether of Newton’s time, and thrust a

revamped version of the aether into the limelight.

Einstein’s equations show how an object’s motion in a

gravitational field will be determined by its “geodesic” path, or

shortest path in units of time between two points in a curved spacetime manifold. This means that as an asteroid, for example, enters the

gravitational field of the Earth, it will be bent into a path which makes

it appear as though some kind of attraction towards the Earth is taking

place. The asteroid may even enter into an elliptical orbit due to this

changing trajectory. But this is not to say, as Newton implied, that

some mysterious force is at work, acting from a distance on the

asteroid and pulling it closer to the Earth.

Einstein introduced

the concept of curved spacetime to remove the notion that

a “force” pulls the asteroid into

a new trajectory. The most

common example of how a

planet or a star produces this

curved space-time effect is

often depicted by the analogy

of setting a cannon ball on a

taut rubber sheet. The cannon

ball will sink down into a

depression produced in the

flexible sheet. If a marble is

rolled in from the edge (here

representing the asteroid) the

marble’s path will be changed

due to the curved topology of the rubber surface it rolls upon. It will

accelerate as it rolls downward in a direction towards the cannon ball

and then curve around it. If we weren’t able to see the rubber sheet,

we might conclude that the marble was somehow being attracted to

the cannon ball.

This analogy of curved space-time works brilliantly to

describe precisely how objects behave in gravitational fields! There is

no real force required to change the trajectory of the asteroid, it

www.deltagroupengineering.com

27

**merely follows a path of least (or zero) resistance through a curved
**

space-time manifold induced by the presence of the Earth.

The geodesic motions of objects in curved space-time may

be likened to the flight path an aircraft takes when it travels between

cities. If one were to take a direct flight from San Francisco to Paris

for example, it might come as a surprise to some passengers that the

flight doesn’t travel directly from west to east, over Denver, then New

York, across the Atlantic and on to Paris. It flies north in the direction

of Seattle, over Canada and Hudson Bay, then past the tip of

Greenland and finally southward towards Paris. At first glance, this

route seems very odd and inefficient, but if you were to use a piece of

string to try and find the shortest length that will connect San

Francisco and Paris on the globe, you will notice that the polar route

is indeed the shortest and thus, most efficient path.

This path is considered to be the most direct “straight line”

route on any curved three-dimensional surface. In the case of

Relativity, the curvature of space-time is four-dimensional: including

the three dimensions of volume and the fourth dimension of time.

Thus if we consider the asteroid again, it isn’t being pulled by any

magical force towards the Earth, it is simply following a straight-line

path of zero resistance, characterized by its shortest time-interval

distance between two points in the curved manifold.

This notion of curved space-time provides the basis for

Einstein’s GR. The equations describing gravitational fields work by

modeling this four-dimensional curvature mathematically. This

geometric contrivance has led to the theoretical predictions for “black

holes” and other strange phenomenon in the Universe. But the

problem is this: just what, exactly, is being curved? And if the

vacuum of space is indeed a formless void, then how can “nothing”

have a shape? GR not only invokes, it requires the existence of some

kind of medium or manifold to form the basis of this curvature, and

this medium must be capable of conveying information indicating

whether the space-time an object travels through is curved or not.

On May 5th, 1920 at the University of Leiden in the

Netherlands, Einstein gave an address on the issue of the aether and

said:

“According to the general theory of relativity space

without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there

not only would be no propagation of light, but also no

possibility of existence for standards of space and time

(measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any spacetime intervals in the physical sense.”

28

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**The physicality of the space-time fabric was as undeniable as
**

it was indefinable. GR still works beautifully to this day and has

extended the classical framework of Newton’s laws of gravitation and

motion into the modern age. However, it is extremely important to

remember that GR is simply another method we have at our disposal

for making calculations predicting the behavior of objects in the

Universe, particularly in extreme gravitational fields or when

traveling at velocities near the speed of light. Curvature should not be

misinterpreted as an actual, physical interpretation of space itself. It is

commonplace today to substitute the GR model for the real thing,

instead of the other way around. In this regard, Relativity should be

regarded as being a word which may be utilized to express an idea or

describe an object; in language, we would rarely confuse the word for

the real thing.

Scientists of this era wish to formulate a true and complete

explanation of gravity, in much the same way that the Maxwellians

needed to interpret the physical meaning of electromagnetism through

an understanding of the luminiferous aether. Newton, like Maxwell,

feigned no hypotheses in his explanation for why his equations were

true, he only demonstrated that they were. Einstein did the same with

Relativity. However, we must not take this notion of curvature too

literally, and we must keep our minds open to other, potentially more

complete interpretations of Nature. But alas, even with Relativity, we

are still left wrestling with the “imponderable” demon that is the

aether.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

29

1.7

The Casimir Effect

**If we look to water as a source of inspiration, in all of its
**

whorls and spirals, waves and currents, one can see a microcosm of

the Universe. In each spiral whirlpool one sees the same form as a

typhoon as viewed from space, and looking out into the Cosmos, one

sees spiral formations in the many billions of galaxies inhabiting our

visible Universe.

Waves and ripples moving across the surface of water may

be likened to sound waves in the air, or waves of light traversing the

vast distances of space. The sea is indeed a mirror of the Universe.

Simply by observing the elemental forms the ocean creates, and by

30

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**studying its movements and behaviors, one may observe the
**

fundamental shapes of Nature — the language of Nature itself. The

writing is on the wall, so to speak. All we need to do is learn how to

read.

One way to read the language of Nature is through the simple

act of observation. Our understanding of Nature is instinctive and

innate, but sometimes we lose our ability to observe objectively. Our

innate reflex to analyze counters our equally intrinsic ability to

understand. We may become so clouded by our preconceived beliefs

about the world that we begin to see only what we expect to see, as if

our minds are lenses that have been warped by the weight of rules and

expectations.

We rush to make sense of an observation within the context

of our own consensual reality, culture and value system. Because of

this, it is important that we remember to hone our objective

observational skills. Great personal and scientific discoveries are

made when we clear away the flotsam and jetsam of preconceived

beliefs and simply observe a process in Nature.

We may also draw analogies from what we observe in the

natural world to foster a better understanding of complex theoretical

predictions that seem to defy common logic. With the advent of QM

and QED our understanding of the inner sanctum of matter has

increased exponentially, and as our understanding of such highly

complex and un-seen phenomena expands it becomes increasingly

difficult to find commonplace examples enabling us to make sense of

these strange new concepts. Instead of inventing culturally subjective

mechanisms to explain the physical world, like the British

Maxwellians did in an attempt to explain electromagnetism, we

should cite examples from our direct and unfettered experience of

Nature. Max Born, one of the fathers of QM said: “My advice to those

who wish to learn the art of scientific prophesy is not to rely on

abstract reason, but to decipher the secret language of Nature from

Nature’s documents: the facts of experience”.

As we come to learn more about QM, we also begin to

understand more about space. We assume that the vacuum of deep

space is a true and complete void, and that material objects occupy a

three-dimensional volume within it. Space, in this view, is really

nothing more than a dimensional matrix containing matter, and when

the matter is removed, we are left with a volume of empty space equal

to the volume of matter that was removed.

Quantum Field Theory (QFT) models the vacuum of space as

being something quite different than what most of us imagine it to be.

Quantum theory tells us that if we were to take a volume of space here

www.deltagroupengineering.com

31

**at the surface of the Earth for example, pump out every last molecule
**

of air, and shield all thermal radiation so that the vacuum was at

absolute zero temperature, we would still be left with a vacuum of

space filled with energy fluctuations. Energy, therefore, can never be

completely “pumped out” of a given volume like air can. Energy will

always be propagating throughout the volume of the vacuum because

the vacuum is, in a sense, composed of energy.

This is due to the fact that energy, as it propagates as an

undulating sine wave, can never fully come to rest. Even at its lowest

energy state the energy must cycle about its ground state; in other

words, energy never flat-lines, it must always cycle. When all the

quantum states of lowest energy are summed across a given volume of

space, it adds up to form what may be considered to be a sea of

quantum energy, with waves propagating and fluctuating about with

random direction and intensity. This model suggests that the vacuum

is actually composed of electromagnetic waves (i.e. photons of light),

that together form an ocean of energy termed the Quantum Vacuum

(QV).

A ball floating on the surface of a roiling sea will be jostled

about by the waves; it wouldn’t just sit there motionless. Likewise,

when we think of the vacuum as being an undulating sea of quantum

energy fluctuations, it is no longer possible to disregard the effect that

the vacuum has on matter, and likewise, the effect matter has on the

vacuum.

Building upon this conceptual framework the Dutch

physicist, Hendrik Casimir, predicted that the vacuum should have a

rather strange effect on matter.vi The phenomenon he predicted has

since been dubbed the “Casimir Effect”.

The QV is composed of a near-infinite spectrum of

electromagnetic waves of different frequencies8 (cycles per second),

amplitudes (wave “heights”) and direction. The QV is somewhat like

quantum “white noise”, analogous to the random static seen on a dead

television channel9. In free space, far from the presence of any matter,

the quantum static of the QV is uniformly random.

The Casimir Effect emerges when matter is placed within

this finely rippled terrain of the QV. The effect is observed when two

flat metal plates are placed parallel to one another in a vacuum. Here,

a “boundary condition” is established in this otherwise uniform space,

changing the nature of the wave conditions existing in the QV. Each

plate establishes a boundary, physically separating the region between

8

9

Termed “modes”.

Entirely random and incoherent.

32

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**the plates from everything else outside them. This simple point may
**

seem ludicrously obvious, but the importance of boundary conditions

cannot be overstated. They are the essential hallmark of all dynamic

systems.

Surrounding the plates, and in the space between them,

energy fluctuations exist within the QV as waves, each moving in a

random direction and impacting the surfaces of each plate from all

sides. However, the waves between the plates will begin to “calm”

(figuratively speaking) as the plates are drawn closer together. The

calming effect the plates have on the QV between them is due to the

fundamental quantum nature of photons.

Each photon comprising the QV is a wave and QM states

that, it is impossible for a “half-photon”, or any fraction of a photon,

to exist. Each photon can only exist as a whole wave represented by a

complete 360° cycle10. Thus, no QV modes11 with wavelengths wider

than the gap can exist between the plates! There cannot be one-third

of a wave between the plates, for example. If the distance between the

plates is one micrometer, for instance, then only modes with a

complete wavelength less than one micrometer may physically exist

within that space.

As the plates are drawn very close together, more and more

energy modes become excluded from existence between the plates,

and conversely, more energy modes exist outside the plates than in

between them. Thus, a net difference in energy density between the

outside and inside the boundary is established by the plates. Because

there is, in effect, more energy on the outside than the inside,

“pressure” builds on the outside of the plates, pushing the plates

together with a force inversely proportional to the separation distance

between them. That is to say, as the gap between the plates gets

smaller and smaller, the force pushing on them becomes greater.

However, this “Casimir Force” is only observed when the distance

between the plates is exceedingly small. Likewise, the magnitude of

the force pushing them together is equally minute.

10

11

**A “quantum” bit of energy.
**

Electromagnetic waves.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

33

**It wasn’t until 1997 that the attractive force that Casimir
**

predicted was actually confirmed by two independent experiments.

The first measurement was made by Steve Lamoreaux, then at the

University of Washington in Seattlevii. The measurement was taken

utilizing a slightly curved gold-plated lens mounted on the arm of a

torsion balance. The lens was gradually moved towards a flat plate,

and as the lens face attached to a balance arm was brought within

fractions of a millimeter of the plate, the torque produced by the

attractive Casimir Force between the lens and plate was measured by

the change in electrical force required to compensate for the torque

being produced. Umar Mohideen and Anushree Royviii independently

confirmed the Casimir Force measurement just a year after

Lamoreaux published his results. In an experiment similar to that of

Lamoreaux, Mohideen and Roy used an atomic force microscope to

measure the Casimir Force.

The Casimir Effect marked a key turning point in the

philosophical debate on the true nature of the vacuum. Casimir’s

discovery provided strong evidence, in the form of a physical,

measurable force, that the so-called “empty” vacuum of space is in

fact, something more resembling a plenum of energy. Just as a boat is

moved by the waves of the ocean, matter suspended in the QV sea

affects, and is affected by, the vacuum surrounding it. From this sea of

energy, an ocean of possibilities emerges. For when we consider the

vacuum to be “something” rather than “nothing”, it suggests that the

vacuum itself holds the key to understanding the concrete physics

behind the abstract interpretation of GR.

34

www.deltagroupengineering.com

2

**All Things Being Equal
**

“Give me a firm place to stand and I will move the earth.”

• Archimedes (287-212 BC)

2.1

The cosmic counter-balance

**For thousands of years the aether has been invoked as a
**

means of explaining various physical phenomena. But all attempts to

explain the aether have been relegated to the realm of speculation and

philosophical exercise. There is nothing shameful about conjuring up

the aether to make sense of the world, however. Our understanding of

Nature seems to require “some kind” of medium acting as a

background for the exertion of force and movement. Birds in the sky

fly by manipulating the air, fish swim by manipulating the water

surrounding them and human beings walk by pushing off the solid

ground beneath our feet. All these natural actions are brought about

through the action and reaction of forces, and we observe this

balancing of forces in every moment of our existence, whether we are

consciously aware of it or not.

Sir Isaac Newton learned

from Galileo that the nature of

gravity was to cause objects to

always fall at the same rate of

acceleration regardless of their mass.

He applied this observation to

objects that not only fell, but to

objects that were thrown as well.

Newton found that it was indeed

possible to mathematically predict

how far an object could go and

where it would land if thrown or

ejected with a given amount of force.

For example, if one fires a cannon,

the distance the cannon ball travels

before it falls to the ground is dependent upon the angle at which it is

shot, the mass of the ball itself, the force with which it is shot and the

constant acceleration of gravity acting on it (not taking into account

friction from air, etc.). The same is true for a bullet for that matter, or

any object one might wish to launch, throw or shoot.

The revelation enabling Newton to demonstrate that it was

gravity keeping the planets in orbit, and not some mysterious or

www.deltagroupengineering.com

35

**divine structure of the heavens, was born of his ability to predict the
**

precise behavior of falling objects. Newton wondered what would

happen if a cannon atop an enormous mountain reaching high into the

sky fired a cannon ball with any amount of force he wished. He

demonstrated mathematically that firing the cannon ball straight ahead

with sufficient force, the ball wouldn’t land until it reached half way

around the globe, or with even more force, fully around the globe. If

the cannon ball could be shot with sufficient force, Newton imagined,

the ball might never land! Instead it would enter into orbit around the

Earth, perpetually falling around the globe.

**In a flash of brilliant insight, he likened this to the motions of
**

the planets as they orbit the Sun, and to the motions of the Moon

about the Earth! We take this knowledge for granted, but in Newton’s

time this was an absolutely monumental discovery. The planets and

the objects in the heavens were all behaving according to a single,

fundamental law of gravity pertaining to cannon balls and planets just

the same. Gravity was found to be just as ubiquitous and ever-present

across the vast distances of space as it is here on Earth.

In Newton’s time, gravity was regarded to be a literal force.

We continue to colloquially use the expression, “the force of gravity”

but we now know that this is not an accurate description. The

argument raised by Newton’s gravitational model of planetary motion

supposed a constant force existed, always pulling on the planets in

order to keep them in motion. The force of gravity had to act on a

planet even at great distance from the Sun, which was also the source

of that force, and had to do so with nothing but empty space in

between. This was a real conundrum for many physicists at the time

36

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**because it was unclear how the force of gravity was transmitted across
**

such vast distances of emptiness. However, the concept of “force”

remained the central focus in Newton’s laws of motion and would

remain an inescapable conclusion of Newton’s thinking despite its

thorny point of contention.

In order for an object to change from one velocity to another,

it needs a push to overcome the acceleration reaction force termed

“inertia”. Objects in uniform motion, or at rest, will remain in uniform

motion unless otherwise acted upon by an outside force; this is

Newton’s first law. Of course, if one considers common earth-bound

examples such as the acceleration of a boat or car, there are other

factors at play like friction between the object and the surface it

travels upon, adding to the complexity of this relationship. However,

in simplest terms, Newton’s first law states that it is fundamentally

necessary to supply energy to an object to alter its uniform motion.

Let’s suppose you are riding inside a rocket, traveling at

constant velocity through interstellar space, and you suddenly spot an

asteroid in your path. You would immediately power the thrusters in

an attempt to avoid the collision. If your seatbelt did not happen to be

properly fastened at the time you fire the thrusters, you would be

abruptly slammed up against the opposing side of the ship. By firing

the thrusters you are using chemical energy to impart a force on the

exterior surface of your rocket, pushing the rocket into a new

trajectory and allowing you to successfully dodge the oncoming

asteroid. But when traveling inside the ship, without a seatbelt, you

are really only moving with the same relative uniform motion as the

ship. So for a moment, when the ship suddenly veers to one side, your

inertial mass wants to maintain its straight-line path of motion. The Gforce you feel as you are slammed to one side of the cockpit is a result

of your being squeezed between the side of the cockpit pushing you in

a new direction, and the inertial reaction force countering your change

in motion, impinging on you from the opposite direction. The energy

from the thrusters is really only necessary to counter the inertial

reaction force experienced when changing direction; however, this

isn’t only true in free space.

We feel inertial forces all the time. In a car, you feel inertial

force when you accelerate, make a sharp turn or slam on the brakes.

It’s the same inertial force which makes you sink into your seat in an

airplane when you are about to take off. Imagine for a moment that

you are riding in a car and feeling the force of inertia pushing you into

your seat when you accelerate. Now, imagine that everything

disappears aside from you in your seat – no car, no road, no landscape

outside the window, nothing – just you being pushed into your seat as

www.deltagroupengineering.com

37

**you speed up. Moreover, let’s say you take your foot off the
**

accelerator and you resume a constant rate of speed. Suddenly, the

force you had felt pushing you into the seat subsides and you feel no

force, other than gravity holding you in your seat. Since nothing else

exists that you know of in the Universe – no road, no other cars or

trees going by as you look to your left or right; how do you know if

you are moving? The only way you can really tell if you’re moving is

if you accelerate or change your motion and thus, feel the force of

inertia.

Let us also assume that even though you can’t actually see

the steering wheel, you can still feel it in your hands. If you were to

suddenly rotate the steering wheel to make a sharp turn, an invisible

force would abruptly push you in the opposite direction of your turn.

The turn itself merely marks a change in the otherwise constant

motion you were in before you turned the wheel. Whether you are

traveling in empty space or on Earth, inertial force is felt when

accelerating or change in motion occurs. The force felt is immediate

and local to you, wherever you might happen to be in the Universe.

Trying to escape the force of inertia would be like trying to out-run

your own shadow. It can’t be done. It is the inescapable nature of

matter itself.

But where does this strange force come from? Strange and

mysterious as it may seem, this powerful force arises instantaneously

out of the vacuum of space, as if by magic, to physically inhibit

changes in motion.

2.2

Expansion and compression

**How is the Universe arranged so that we feel no force when
**

we are stationary or in a uniform state of motion, but we suddenly

experience a force when changing from one state to another, no matter

where we may happen to be? Why does matter resist acceleration if

there is nothing in the way to impede it? And how is it that objects

feel the force of gravity in space, separated from other objects by vast

expanses of nothingness? These questions hint at a connection

between the forces we have labeled “gravity” and “inertia”. This

connection is, in many respects, responsible for the development of

modern physics.

The Czech-Austrian physicist, Ernst Mach, proposed a

possible mechanism for inertial force and its connection to gravitation

in the late 1800’s, while Einstein was only in his teens beginning to

explore the frame of thought that would lead to the development of

Relativity a decade or so later. In fact, it was Einstein himself, who in

38

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**describing Mach’s ideas on the subject of inertia, coined the term
**

“Mach’s Principle”.

Mach’s Principle is based on the notion that all matter in the

Universe is connected by an invisible bond. Mach surmised that

objects felt forces countering their acceleration because all objects

were linked together by a web of gravitational interactions. If one

imagines an infinite Universe with matter in the form of stars and

planets peppered throughout space, one may assume a fairly uniform

average distribution of matter throughout the Cosmos.

All of these planets and stars, Mach reasoned, would radiate

gravitational fields into the space surrounding them. Mach figured

that if all the gravitational fields from all the matter in the Universe

were averaged across space, then at every place in the Universe one

should feel the effects of this unified field. No matter where one might

find oneself in the Universe, one would always feel a gravitational

resistance opposing any change in motion. It is as though matter is

locked in a gravitational web and when an object attempts to change

its position within it, the web compresses in the direction of

acceleration and is stretched out behind it.

Mach is historically noted primarily for his development of

the “Mach Numbers” (i.e. the “Mach Scale”12), and he predicted what

we understand today as being the “sonic boom”. Mach also studied

the work of Christian Andreas Doppler in great detail. Doppler,

another Austrian physicist, is noted for the “Doppler Effect”.

As an ambulance races along, its siren emits waves of

compression in the air. These waves rush at high speed to our ears,

and we detect and interpret these compression waves as sound. The

rate at which the sound waves travel through the air is generally

constant, so the additive motion of the ambulance causes the waves to

be compressed in its direction of motion. As the ambulance

approaches, the siren sounds higher in pitch13 than it does as it passes

by. As the ambulance rushes past, the sound of the siren will quickly

bend down to a lower pitch. Because the sound waves are compressed

in the direction of motion, the waves are squeezed together, raising

their frequency14. The more sound waves heard per second, the higher

the pitch will be. As the ambulance drives past, the sound waves left

behind are stretched out and reduced in frequency, thus we hear the

pitch bend down to a lower register.

12

**The ratio of an object’s speed to the speed of sound in the fluid the
**

object is traveling in.

13

An indication of sound wave frequency.

14

The number of sound waves heard per second.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

39

**Mach’s Principle for the origin of inertia may be likened to a
**

gravitational Doppler Effect. According to the principle, objects are

pulled uniformly in all directions by the average gravitational field in

space, acting like the air through which sound travels. When an object

accelerates, it feels an immediate opposing force – as if the field was

being compressed in the direction of acceleration. Energy input is

required to counter inertial resistance, or in the case of Mach’s

Principle, to compress or decompress the static gravitational energy in

the direction of acceleration or deceleration.

The Doppler Effect doesn’t only apply to sound waves; it

also applies to light waves. This is most commonly known in

astronomy and cosmology as “red-shift”. “Blue-shifts” and other

frequency shifts exist as well – it all depends on a light-emitting

object’s motion relative to an observer.

**Our modern-day cosmological creation story begins with the
**

“Big Bang”, as it has come to be known. This paradigm states that the

Universe was born of a single, unfathomably powerful explosion

which gave rise to not only all the matter and energy in the Universe,

but the Universe itself! According to the Big Bang theory, everything

was packed into a single, infinitesimal speck before the Universe was

born. This “singularity” was the seed of our Universe from which all

things grew. Even time emerged as a result of the Big Bang; but how

is it that we have come to this profound, albeit, bizarre-sounding

conclusion? All one has to do is listen for the answer in the changing

pitch of the ambulance siren as it passes by, for our Big Bang creation

story owes its origin to the Doppler Effect.

High in the mountains east of Los Angeles, the famed

astronomer Edwin Hubble spent many a night throughout the 1920’s

observing nebulous smudges in the night sky from the Mount Wilson

Observatory. These fuzzy points of light, on much closer observation,

40

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**were found to be whole other galaxies much like our own. This
**

discovery expanded the scale of the known Universe by several orders

of magnitude. Before Hubble’s time, the Universe was thought to be

only slightly larger than our15 galaxy. At that time, the Milky Way

was the Universe and when Hubble demonstrated that these fuzzy

nebulae, once thought to be part of our own galaxy, were in fact

distant galaxies themselves, the range of the Cosmos expanded

beyond all comprehension.

Along with his colleague, Milton Humason, Hubble set out

to measure the distances of these galaxies by studying the Cepheid

variable stars within them. Cepheid stars fluctuate in brightness and

possess a narrow range of intrinsic luminosity. Because these stars

possess such similar luminosity, their relative brightness may be

applied as a standard by which to measure the distance of the galaxies

containing them – the dimmer the Cepheid, the more distant the

galaxy. However, this isn’t what Hubble is historically noted for

discovering.

Hubble is famous for having combined his Cepheid data with

measurements taken by Keeler, Campbell and Slipher, which measure

the red-shifts associated with the same galaxies Hubble was

observing. What he discovered, as a result of this marriage of

observations, would come to be known as “Hubble’s Law”; which

brought about the Big Bang history of the Universe we are so familiar

with today.

Here’s how he did it: Light waves, like sound waves, can

Doppler shift. As a light-emitting object moves through space, the

light waves emanating in the direction of movement are compressed

in frequency. Hence, light waves compressed to a higher frequency

are thus shifted towards the blue end of the visible spectrum.

Similarly, light emitted in the trailing direction of the object’s motion

is decompressed and shifted towards the red end of the visible

spectrum.

Hubble noticed that the light coming from the most distant

galaxies, based on his Cepheid data, were more red-shifted than ones

close by and the magnitude of red-shift was directly related to the

galaxy’s distance from us; implying that all the galaxies in the

heavens were moving away from us. However, the implication was

not that the galaxies are moving away from us per se, but that space

itself, in which we reside, is expanding in all directions.

Strangely, this requires that every point in the Universe

represents the point of origin of the Big Bang! Thus, all matter in the

15

Milky Way.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

41

**Universe was not ejected from a central point into a pre-existing
**

expanse of space such that it moves away from an origin; instead, the

fabric of space is expanding, carrying along the matter forming stars,

planets and us. Distant galaxies appear to be the most red-shifted

because the space between them and us has expanded more than

galaxies closer to us.

Mach’s view of inertia implies that an object’s motion

relative to the fabric of space (i.e. a pan-universal gravitational

matrix), is the root cause of inertial forces. However, this view

continues to sound, walk and talk a lot like the aether model of old, as

if to say that an object’s movement through space induces a wake to

form through it, and would thus require energy input to counter the

opposing force as it moves along. This presents a problem because we

know that objects traveling with uniform motion do not experience

inertial forces. If Mach’s Principle were true, then objects should

experience an inertial force at all times, whether they are moving

uniformly or accelerating.

The force of inertia, however, is only experienced upon

acceleration, which simply refers to a constant rate of change in

motion. But how is this so? What strange property of the vacuum

could cause this peculiar physical phenomenon? When we move at

constant speed we don’t feel anything, even if we are moving

incredibly fast. Yet once we change our rate or direction of motion,

we suddenly feel a force.

**When a ship cruises through water, the engine must be
**

constantly running, providing the force that pushes the water out of

the way and keeps the ship moving; but adding energy to keep an

object in uniform motion simply isn’t necessary in space. Once you

give an object a push in space, it will maintain that rate of speed (in

open, flat space) indefinitely without needing a constant force behind

it to keep it moving. However, if you want to speed up, slow down, or

change direction, energy will be required to counter the physical,

powerful force of inertia we feel, arising as if out of nowhere.

“Uniform motion” is defined based upon one’s motion relative to

external points of reference, such as the position of nearby stars.

However, acceleration is fundamentally distinct; it wouldn’t matter if

42

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**you were the sole object in the Universe, if you accelerate, you will
**

know it immediately because you will feel the force of inertia.

The physical nature of inertia has remained a mystery for

eons. Historically, inertia is considered to be an intrinsic “property of

matter”, full-stop, no explanation required. However inertia, with its

uncanny nature, holds the key to understanding the physicality of

space itself! Elucidating the inner workings of inertia will lead

directly to the most complete generalized understanding of the

Universe ever to be gained by humanity.

Although Mach’s Principle of inertia was never formally

developed into a quantitative, physical theory, there is a strongly

compelling aspect to it which cannot be disregarded. Despite its

inadequacies, Mach’s conceptualization was at least partially correct

in its premise that inertia was a manifestation of the same force we

experience as gravity.

2.3

The principle of equivalence

**The primary basis for this idea of self-consistency between
**

inertial and gravitational force has a long-standing history and has a

very solid foundation. So solid in fact, that this connection provided

the basis for Einstein’s theory of General Relativity (GR). The

concept is termed the “Equivalence Principle” and states that the

inertial force of acceleration in free space is the same as the

gravitational force experienced on the surface of the Earth.

The origins of this idea go all the way back to Galileo, who

showed that if you drop a very heavy object like a large stone, and a

light object like a pebble at the same instant, they will hit the ground

simultaneously. This observation seems counter-intuitive because one

might naturally expect that the heavier object would fall faster and hit

the ground earlier than the pebble. On the Earth of course, the air

provides resistance to falling objects and we observe that a piece of

paper or a feather falls slower than a boulder. However, this isn’t due

to gravity or the relative mass of the objects; it only has to do with the

air having to be pushed out of the way as objects fall through it. On

the Moon however, no atmosphere exists to impede the acceleration

of falling objects.

During the Apollo 15 Moon landing, the astronaut David

Scott tested Galileo’s conclusion by dropping a falcon feather and a

geology hammer at the same time, and was able to reassure any

skeptical viewers that light and heavy objects fall at the same rate due

to gravity; the hammer and the feather landed at precisely the same

time.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

43

**Gravity’s affect on mass is what we call weight, but weight is
**

not synonymous with mass. David Scott, although he was the same

size and composed of the same quantity of matter on the Moon as he

was on Earth, he weighed less on the Moon. This is due to the fact that

on the Moon, gravity is weaker than it is on Earth – “weaker”

meaning that the acceleration of gravity on the Moon is less than on

Earth.

Weight is a measure of the force required to counter the

apparent acceleration of gravity. This is Newton’s “Second Law”,

expressed by the equation16 “F = ma”, which can either be caused by

inertial acceleration in free space, or the acceleration of gravity. For

example, as the Apollo 15 rocket was launched, all the astronauts

experienced intense G-forces and were much heavier than when the

rocket sat on the launch pad. The rocket’s acceleration during launch

is added to the acceleration of gravity. Therefore, the total combined

acceleration impinging on the astronaut’s means that the force

required to counter the total acceleration is greater. This larger

counter-force is felt as weight; so, the greater the rate of acceleration,

the heavier a given mass appears.

When we talk about gravity, we’re talking about

acceleration. When you drop a ball, it doesn’t fall at 9.8 meters per

second, it falls at 9.8 meters per second, per second. Let’s say you are

standing next to a long, straight stretch of road lined with reflector

posts spaced 10 meters apart. A car driving along at uniform velocity

might be covering a distance of 10 meters between each reflector post,

per second, based on your stopwatch. The car’s speed would then be

measured to be 10 meters per second or 36 kilometers per hour

(k.p.h). Then you watch another car start from a stationary position

and accelerate at a constant rate. You might measure that; in the first

second the car travels only one meter, 10 meters in the next second,

20 meters in the “3rd” second, 40 meters in the “4th” second and so on.

The car would therefore be accelerating at a rate of 10 meters per

second, per second or 10 meters per second squared [i.e. 10(m/s2)].

Acceleration can be measured in reverse as well. This occurs

when one applies the brakes in a car to slow down. A constant rate of

change applies to both cases, and is called “acceleration” whether the

car is speeding up or slowing down. The same magnitude of inertial

force will be experienced when the driver accelerates to speed up, or

puts on the brakes to slow down. The only difference is the direction

with which the force pushes on the driver. However, no forces will be

16

**i.e. force (F) is equal to an object’s mass (m) multiplied by its
**

acceleration (a).

44

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**felt in the direction of, or against, motion when the car is traveling at a
**

uniform speed.

Gravity is synonymous with inertia because it is a sensation

of being accelerated even though you may be sitting stationary in a

chair; and because gravity is acceleration, the feeling of force one

experiences while being held stationary at the surface of the Earth is

the same force one would feel due to inertia if one were to accelerate

at the same rate in free space! Einstein imagined a similar “thought

experiment” to illustrate the Equivalence Principle, and in so doing,

developed the framework for what would come to be known as GR.

Imagine you are in a large box, like an elevator, without

windows, and you can’t look outside to determine anything about

your movement within the environment. All you know about your

movement is based on what you can feel from inside the box. While

standing inside a stationary box at the surface of the Earth, you feel

the acceleration of gravity pushing you to the floor at 9.8 meters per

second, per second [i.e. 9.8(m/s2)].

Now imagine that you are floating around weightless inside

the box, which itself is floating in empty space. Then suddenly the

box begins to accelerate in one direction so that the opposing side of

the box moves up to touch your feet. Let’s say the box begins

accelerating through space at a rate of 9.8 meters per second, per

second. Without knowing anything about your environment, you are

quickly able to stand up on the floor. What you would feel in that

instance would be indistinguishable from what you would feel

standing stationary on the surface of the Earth! The inertial force of

acceleration is the same, whether you are accelerating through free

space, or sitting stationary in a gravitational field.

When Einstein applied the Equivalence Principle to his

geometric interpretation of curved space-time, he was able to

demonstrate in a very elegant manner why gravity is, in effect, the

same force as inertia. Let’s go back to the explanation of curved

space-time and geodesic motion mentioned earlier. As an asteroid

enters the Earth’s gravitational well, its path will be bent around the

Earth according to the most direct geodesic path possible within the

curved space-time manifold. The asteroid, however, doesn’t actually

experience a force as its trajectory is altered. To the asteroid, it is

simply following the path of zero resistance in a curved topology.

Let’s also imagine that the asteroid enters into orbit around the Earth.

Even though it travels in an ellipse circling the Earth, it still feels no

force keeping it in that path. If the asteroid approached the Earth on

an impact trajectory, heading directly towards the Earth, even though

it is being accelerated by gravity it would still not feel any force!

www.deltagroupengineering.com

45

**The asteroid is simply falling along with the acceleration of
**

gravity, like a feather floating on water, pulled along by the swift

current in a river. If you held the feather stationary so that the current

rushed along underneath it, the feather would then feel the resistance

of the current, and a force would be required17 to resist the feather’s

natural tendency to move with the current. Similarly, the asteroid

would require some counter-force to push it away from an impact

trajectory. An impact trajectory is a geodesic path, just like an orbital

path, and a force would be necessary in order to push the asteroid into

another orbit or out of orbit all together.

Einstein demonstrated that any diversion from an object’s

geodesic path of motion in a curved space-time manifold results in an

inertial reaction force. If you are traveling through free space18 and

you decide to change your direction, you will feel an inertial reaction

force. Simply put, if you don’t “go with the flow” of the space-time

topology surrounding you, you’re going to feel an inertial reaction

force; and any time you want to change your path, you will need to

expend some energy to do so.

Think of space-time as a landscape of hills and valleys. An

object’s geodesic path through that landscape is like the path of a river

following the lowest possible elevation within that landscape. The

river, or a feather floating on the river, will naturally want to flow

from high to low with the current. If you decide that you want to push

the water up and over a hill, it’s going to require some effort to do so.

When gravity is considered to be a well in space-time and

not a force in its own right, an object “floating” in a gravitational

current of least resistance will only require energy input in order to

move itself out of its natural path of least resistance. Einstein tells us

that gravity is nothing more than space-time curvature. Inertia is felt

when changing the path of motion against the natural path of least

resistance within the landscape of space-time.

It is even possible to describe the strange predictions made

by GR using this kind of imagery. No doubt, one of the strangest

predictions made by GR is the existence of the “black hole”. Black

holes are the result of the gravitational collapse of the most

enormously massive stars. As a massive star pulls in more and more

matter from its surroundings, it can eventually reach a point when it

can no longer hold itself up against the gravitational field it generates.

At this point, the star will collapse under its own gravity to form a

warp within the fabric of space-time so deep that nothing entering this

17

18

**In this case, the force of your fingers holding the feather in place.
**

i.e. in a straight line in flat space-time.

46

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**gravitational well can escape – not even light. As matter or light falls
**

towards the black hole, it will be forced to follow such a steeply

curved, inwardly-bent topology in space that it could never acquire

sufficient energy to escape the well.

Perhaps an easier or more intuitive way to describe what is

going on here is by way of fluid-dynamics19. Sound waves travel

much more quickly in water than they do in air because the molecular

density of water is higher than air. This simply means that molecules

of water are much more closely packed together per unit volume than

air molecules. The speed of sound in water is approximately 1,500

meters per secondix – roughly three times faster than in air.

**Let’s assume for the sake of argument that we may substitute
**

the idea of space-time curvature for an accelerated flow of water from

left to right towards the central “drain pipe” of a fluid-model black

hole. Let’s also substitute the light waves traveling through space for

sound waves in the fluid. Now let’s imagine that we are traveling in a

submarine suspended in the water and that we are sending out sonic

pings which allow us to echolocate objects in our vicinity. Each of

these sonic pings (sound waves) will radiate outwards in concentric

rings away from our ship. But what will happen to the sound waves

19

**William Unruh of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver
**

is credited with the original concept described by this thought

experiment.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

47

**we emit as we pass by a black hole and travel through its gravitational
**

“current”?

As we move closer and closer to the drain (the black hole),

we reach a point where the flow rate of the water around us starts to

surpass the speed of sound in water. If an observer in a boat on the

surface of the water happens to be listening to our ping signals, far

from any gravitational current generated by the black hole, the

observer will hear the pings get progressively lower and lower in pitch

(i.e. lower in frequency), until they eventually come to a stop. Even

though our submarine is still sending out pings, the flow rate of the

fluid we are immersed in has surpassed the speed of sound and the

signal can no longer escape to the surface. The boundary point at

which this occurs is called the “event horizon” of the black hole, and

refers to the point of no return where the black hole becomes black –

the point which light can no longer be detected by outside observers.

In the case of a real black hole, the event horizon marks the boundary

at which the acceleration of gravity surpasses the speed of light.

In this case, using fluid-dynamics to describe the more

bizarre predictions of GR yields the same results as the curved spacetime analogy. Einstein’s GR describes the link between gravity and

inertia, and how objects behave in inertial reference frames according

to gravity. However, Einstein’s GR is nothing more than a geometric

interpretation of gravity, just like our sound wave analogy. It is

important to remember that GR is just that – an analogy.

In the GR analogy, space-time is represented by fourdimensional geometry, yielding a topological map of space in the

presence of matter. Even though Einstein admitted the necessity for

some manifestation of the aether as the basis for his space-time

manifold, many physicists today insist that space is indeed a complete

vacuum. If this is in fact the case, then the obvious question remains:

what mysterious property of the vacuum is capable of being “curved”,

and how does an object “know” whether the space it travels through is

curved or flat?

Alas, we are left with the mystery of the force we call inertia

– a physical force we feel, arising as if by magic out of the vacuum of

space. And we are still left with the force we call gravity, which

somehow causes objects to directly affect one another from afar with

nothing between them aside from “nothing” itself. In this regard, it is

important to remember that GR is merely a highly effective

descriptive tool, but not a literal, physical explanation of Nature.

48

www.deltagroupengineering.com

2.4

Mass-Energy equivalence

**Shedding light on the fact that GR is merely a descriptive
**

tool is not meant as a criticism or denial of either Special or General

Relativity. Indeed, Einstein’s theories have proven themselves to be

some of the most magnificent predictive tools ever constructed, and

are directly responsible for revealing some of the most mysterious and

compelling aspects of the Universe ever to be imagined. The most farreaching of these, and arguably the most famous in the history of

physics, is the notion of mass-energy equivalence described by the

equation “E = mc2”.

The expression “E = mc2” is misunderstood by many people

to mean mass-energy “conversion” – that is to say, when one form of

stuff we call matter is converted into another form of stuff we call

energy. We have become well acquainted with this erroneous idea

because of the atomic bomb. We have witnessed first-hand that a

staggering amount of energy may be unleashed from a mere handful

of matter in an intensely violent explosion. However, the expression

“E = mc2” literally, or more properly, refers to mass-energy

equivalence. In much the same way that the Equivalence Principle

implies that inertial and gravitational forces are one-and-the-same, so

are mass and energy. It is important to begin on this semantic point,

with this conceptualization firmly in mind: that matter may be

described, expressed and calculated in terms of its energy alone.

One of the most difficult concepts to grasp in relativistic

physics, however, is the notion of mass-energy equivalence as a literal

expression. “E = mc2” is without a doubt the most famous equation in

history, but very few people actually know what it truly means. And

even now, after having seen with our own eyes the horrifying truth of

mass-energy equivalence through the development of nuclear

weapons, it seems that very few people fully, intellectually accept the

notion of mass-energy equivalence as a literal statement.

Even though we have lived with and utilized the “E = mc2”

equation, we seem unable to accept that mass is energy and energy is

mass. We demand that the explanation for this statement be consistent

with our everyday experience and intuition. We inhabit a material

world and live-out a material existence. We observe with our senses

that we and all objects around us have substance. Objects have weight

and form, are solids, liquids, gasses, and material things are ascribed a

three-dimensional volume in space. It is no surprise, therefore, that a

literal understanding of mass-energy equivalence is not an easy thing

for us to grasp or accept. Our minds are constructed around and have

adapted to the immutability of our material Universe.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

49

**Einstein realized the connection between mass and energy
**

while considering inertia; in that energy is required to accelerate an

object or to alter its geodesic path through curved space-time. For

example, if we want to accelerate a spaceship through empty space,

we find that the faster we accelerate it, the more inertia the ship will

feel. This means that the energy required to change the motion of

mass is directly proportional to the mass itself. So, by that logic, mass

and energy are equivalent! In a sense, the only literal modeling of

nature arising via the interpretation of space-time geometry is that

mass is a measure of energy. Relativity states that if you were able to

accelerate an object to light-speed (which according to Relativity can

never be reached) an infinite amount of energy, in the form of thrust,

must be applied to the object. Mass, or weight as we commonly think

of it, is defined by an object’s resistance to acceleration – its inertia.

This is why mass is relative, and one of the reasons why GR is termed

“relativity”.

**The mass of an object also appears to change based on your
**

motion relative to it. If all of our measurements are relative to our

own apparent speed or position then what, exactly, can we measure

with any certainty? In this relativistic reality, the only parameter

physicists and engineers can actually measure is force. So when we

speak of mass, we are actually referring to an object’s inertia because

mass scales according to the force required to accelerate it.

For example, if you were to travel in interstellar space at

uniform velocity there is no way to discern, other than by observing

external objects, whether you were stationary or moving. In fact, you

wouldn’t even be able to determine whether you were stationary and

objects were moving past you, or if you were moving past stationary

objects. The only way you could know for certain whether you are

moving or not is if you accelerate; acceleration is absolute (in the

sense that you can feel its effect on your body) and is typified by a

constant rate of change in motion.

50

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**Mass is like a bank account for the currency of energy. When
**

we push an object like a car or a rocket, we are adding energy to the

system. However, because energy and mass are equivalent, the energy

we add causes an increase in the mass of the object. This may initially

seem very odd, but it is a completely natural consequence of the way

our Universe works. The Universe is a closed system. Energy and

matter are neither created nor destroyed in physical processes, but

merely transformed. In this respect, “mass” is an energy input-output

system. The energy being added to the system to accelerate it gets

“banked” as mass.

Energy is associated with all processes in the Universe and is

inextricably linked to the fabric of space itself. We are all made aware

of this connection and indivisibility of mass and energy every time we

accelerate. We feel it hundreds of times per day. We experience the

sensation so often that that we have almost become unaware of its

omnipresence. However, in becoming so desensitized to it, we subject

ourselves to the risk that we might not learn from its subtle innuendo

and never uncover the most fundamental and important truths about

our Universe.

Understanding the nature of inertia allows us to understand

the true nature of space and matter. If we come to understand the

cause of inertia, we might understand how to manipulate it as well,

and in turn, manipulate the fabric of space. What would happen if we

could somehow block or negate inertial forces? We could perhaps

accelerate freely without being subject to relativistic constraints, and

avoid being crushed by intense G-forces when accelerating at

incredible rates. The Equivalence Principle necessitates that if we can

affect, modify or negate inertial force, then we would also be able to

manipulate gravity! Imagine for a moment we could somehow harness

the powerful force of inertia, and give ourselves that “firm place to

stand” in Archimedes’ challenge. Could we, in fact, “move the

Earth”?

www.deltagroupengineering.com

51

52

www.deltagroupengineering.com

3

The Glass That is Always Full

3.1

Symmetry and unity

**As if by some serendipitous logic, the deeper we penetrate
**

into the mystery of matter, the more we learn about space. This

connection seems almost mystical. Many popular science books

written in the latter decades of the 20th century have sought to link the

discoveries made by Quantum Mechanics (QM) to Eastern

philosophies20. Whether a basis in fact exists for these conclusions or

not, it comes as no surprise that it has proven useful to draw upon

forms of human understanding which are based upon philosophical

ideas. QM has uncovered truths about the inner sanctum of matter that

are so strange, they sound more like magic than reality. No matter

how we may choose to interpret the data, QM reveals deep

connections between matter and space.

Plato developed his group of five perfect solids as a way to

explain a much deeper and intrinsic symmetry in Nature. We now

realize that his model has no real basis in fact, but we still respond to

it nevertheless through an innate human faculty appreciative of the

aesthetics of symmetry. Even today, an uncanny semblance of truth

remains in Plato’s model of matter. This raises the question of

whether we respond to symmetry because it is the nature of our

Universe, and thus in our nature as well, or perhaps that our

appreciation of symmetry is a synthetic product of the human mind

which we consistently attempt to impose upon Nature. Whether we

are making objective observations or are just seeing what we want to

see, much has been discovered and predicted through analysis of

symmetry and unity in Nature.

Plato’s perfect solids, based upon geometric symmetry alone,

hint at the true nature of the subatomic world which we have come to

better understand in the last century. Likewise, the “holy grail” many

physicists seek today is a single formula describing the elemental

symmetry of the Universe – a single “Grand Unification Theory”

(GUT) or “Theory of Everything” (ToE) explaining all physical

phenomena we observe, and one that will allow us to predict what we

have not yet observed. Natural symmetry has spawned the legend of

the GUT; it is not known whether it will ever be possible to formulate

such a theory, but there is quite a lot of justification for thinking that it

will be.

20

**e.g. Fritjof Capra’s, The Tao of physics. (Boston: Shambala, 1975).
**

www.deltagroupengineering.com

53

**We understand that mass and energy are equivalent, just as
**

gravitational mass and inertial mass are equivalent. Faraday coined

the term “electromagnetism” as a result of having unified electricity

and magnetism, formerly thought to be distinct forces of Nature. It is

this discovery, however, that marked the birth of our modern

civilization. The modern world is literally built upon the foundation of

electromagnetism and it is manifest in virtually every aspect of our

modern lives. It was Faraday’s successor, James Clerck Maxwell,

who discovered that light is an exquisitely intertwined pair of electric

and magnetic waves. Richard Feynman and Murray Gell-Mann

further demonstrated that an interaction involving “the weak field”,

which helps hold atoms together, was simply another aspect of

electromagnetism; now referred to as the “electro-weak interaction”.

Feynman and Gell-Mann’s discovery was born of the belief

that because the mathematics of their theory was so elegant and

beautiful, and based upon symmetry, that it should be correct – even

though they lacked key experimental evidence at the time the theory

was being developed to prove it. Feynman’s theory, as it turns out, has

since proven to be one of the most precise and accurate theories ever

developed! And all this is due to what was originally a “faith-based”

approach to physics, reliant solely on principles of symmetry.

Science will often yield, without much resistance, as

theoretical physicists make new claims which are initially, or at least

partially, based on mere aesthetic appeal. The favorable compatibility

of prediction and observation, based upon symmetry, has proven itself

to be an arrangement worthy of trust and is continually reinforced as

we grow closer to achieving unity.

3.2

Exploring the microcosmos

**If mass is so inextricably linked to the fabric of space, then
**

similarly, shouldn’t space lend itself somehow to the nature of mass

as well? Our bias as material beings in a material Universe has given

us the somewhat erroneous impression that our investigation into the

nature of matter is a one-way street ending in the foggy cul-de-sac of

QM. But what have our deep investigations into matter revealed about

space? Let’s start with the atom and work our way down.

Let’s pretend that we are in a spacecraft that can change in

size from the scale we live in, down to infinitely small dimensions. As

we shrink ourselves down to millionths, then billionths of a meter in

size, and zoom in on a tiny fragment of matter, we begin to see the

vague outlines of individual atoms. The atoms themselves would

likely appear to have a fuzzy or hazy surface because the “surface” of

54

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**an atom is nothing more than a cloud of electrons buzzing around a
**

nucleus centered deep within the interior of each atom. We may

imagine that the electrons themselves are tiny pinpoints of negative

charge encircling the massive nucleus.

If we measured the electron fog we just travelled through at

the surface of the atom to be one kilometer (km) thick, we would have

to travel another 50,000(km) until we reach the nucleus! One of the

most startling aspects of the atom, and matter itself, is that it is largely

composed of empty space! The nucleus is comprised of positively

charged protons, clumped together with generally equal numbers of

neutrons, which carry no charge. The proton and neutron are roughly

equal in mass and are each far more massive than the electron. But

unlike the electron, which is a fundamental subatomic particle,

protons and neutrons may be further deconstructed into more

fundamental particles called “quarks”. Protons are composed of two

“Up” quarks and one “Down” quark, and neutrons are composed of

one “Up” quark and two “Down” quarks.

A remarkable symmetry emerges allowing physicists to

predict the existence of many other particles. Firstly, simple symmetry

exists in the arrangement of charge within the atom21. A balanced

symmetry also exists in the configuration of quarks within the protons

and neutrons22.

Many subatomic particles like quarks, for example, cannot

exist in the standard energy conditions of our everyday environment.

In order to detect or measure subatomic particles like quarks, protons

must be smashed together at extremely high energies. This is rather

like crashing two cars together at great speed. Crash them together at

a slow speed and they may just bounce off one another with minor

damage, but crash them at enormous speeds and they will explode

into bits. Higher-order particles like quarks are generated as a result of

such collisions, existing for fractions of a second, and only in the

high-energy conditions created by colliding particles at velocities

approaching the speed of light. As the energy is turned up on these

collisions, the array of particles produced becomes more varied and

bewildering.

21

**A negatively charged electron cloud encases the positively charged
**

protons of the nucleus.

22

Quarks are arranged in balanced triplicates.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

55

**We have learned that force-carrying particles exist as well.
**

These particles, called “gauge bosons”, in effect, help to hold the

atom together. The boson carrying the electromagnetic force keeping

the electron in place around the nucleus is termed the “photon”. This

is the very same photon we commonly describe as “light”. The force

carrier boson mediating the “strong nuclear force”, which holds the

positive charges of protons densely packed together with neutrons in

the nucleus, are called “gluons”. Although it has never been

experimentally measured, the Standard Model of particle physics

predicts the existence of the “graviton” as well, which is much like a

photon except that instead of mediating EM force, the graviton is

thought to mediate gravitational attraction.

Particles are categorized based upon certain characteristics

like mass, charge and spin, as well as other traits like direction

(termed “flavor”) and handedness (termed “chirality”), etc. These

characteristics are based upon various forms of symmetry. For

instance, in our everyday experience we know that if an “up” exists,

then a “down” should exist; if a “left” exists, a “right” should exist

and so forth. According to theory, symmetry suggests that particles

possess equally yet oppositely charged counterparts termed

56

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**“antiparticles”. For example, the electron’s antiparticle is the
**

“positron”. The Standard Model also maintains that theoretical objects

composed entirely of antiparticles may exist, behaving as normal

matter. However, if pieces of matter and anti-matter collide, the two

will annihilate each other in a burst of energy. In fact, all the particles

in the subatomic particle “zoo”, as it is called, are expected to have

corresponding antiparticles based upon this principle of symmetry.

But most importantly, symmetry allows particle physicists to predict,

or presume the existence of particles before they are directly

observed.

As elementary particle physicists probe ever deeper into the

atom, and smash particles together at higher and higher energies into

smaller and smaller bits, the details become increasingly coarse and

ill-defined. The characteristics of matter which we can easily describe

in our macro-reality begin to lose all meaning in the abstract

landscapes of the microcosmos. We seem to be approaching the

terminal limit of how far we can travel inwardly into matter, and

strangely, what we find at the end of the line tells us more about the

structure of space than it does about matter.

This new world of quantum-space is a very strange and alien

place indeed. As we venture into the scale of the subatomic particle,

we may no longer count on the predictable, mechanical clockwork

rules governing our reality. This is a realm of probability and

indeterminate outcome, where even consciousness sometimes appears

to affect quantum events. It is a reality standing in stark contrast to the

cold, indifferent, cause-and-effect nature of the Universe we know.

The notion that the fundamental nature of the Cosmos is

probabilistic and random was initially quite unsettling to physicists

like Einstein, who “[could not] believe that God would choose to play

dice with the Universe”23. An ordered, elegant Universe seems to be

the one our sense of aesthetics, symmetry and beauty favors above the

chaotic, topsy-turvy game of chance proposed by QM. Like it or not

the rules of QM, however strange, reflect the truth of things. But this

quantum world of the microcosmos is nothing to be afraid of. In fact,

the more we dispassionately embrace what we are shown in the

quantum realm, the more we stand to discover about the Universe we

inhabit.

By delving ever deeper into the depths of matter, further

subdividing and slicing it into thinner sections, a point is reached

23

**Often paraphrased as “God doesn’t play dice with the Universe”, In
**

a letter to Max Born dated the 12th of December, 1926; quoted in

Einstein: The Life and Times, Wings Books, (1995) Ronald W. Clark.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

57

**where matter and space finally converge. It has only been through
**

such investigations into matter that the fine threads and fibers

weaving the proverbial “fabric” of space-time have begun to be

revealed. The true, quantum nature of space is uniquely strange and

wonderful – so strange, in fact, that it is doubtful whether we could

have deduced its curious characteristics based on symmetry alone.

3.3

The Quinta Essentia

**Coming to know the inner workings of the atom spurred
**

scientists to make a critical and drastic shift in perspective. This shift

in perspective brought us out of the purely classical, mechanistic view

of the Cosmos and into the quantum realm. This, in turn, allowed us

to view the Universe from an elevated perspective, from where we

could observe space and matter coexisting in a reciprocal relationship

– contrary to the prior notion that matter floated inertly within an

unknowable “void”.

The most accepted model

of the atom prior to the

development of QM was an object

resembling our solar system, in

which electrons were depicted as

tiny planets orbiting the massive

Sun-like nucleus at the center.

Every atom had a massive nucleus

at the center, composed of protons

and neutrons, orbited by much less

massive electrons. But if we were

able to travel in our subatomic

spacecraft, and fly amongst

individual atoms, we would not see

individual, spherical electrons in orbit around the nucleus. Instead, we

might find something akin to fog, vaguely defining the outer surface

of the atom – if we were able to see anything at all, that is.

An imaginary dividing line exists separating our macro

reality from the subatomic realm. We might not be able to see

electrons buzzing around an atom because at this scale, matter no

longer exists in the solid, objective form we are familiar with in our

commonplace experience. When we describe how matter behaves, it

is convenient to use analogies pertaining to solid objects like billiard

balls bouncing off one another and such. And when we use the term

“particle” to describe elemental structures of the atom, our minds

immediately draw upon imagery of equally solid and objective bits of

58

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**stuff. At the subatomic level, however, matter doesn’t actually exist in
**

this form. It is really only convenient and practical to talk about

subatomic particles in terms of their energy alone.

We know that light possesses wave-like characteristics which

may be likened to a wave propagating through a fluid. Waves of light

interact and interfere with one another, forming interference patterns

like ripples on the surface of a pond. Yet light also carries momentum,

behaving as though it were composed of individual objects, like tiny

grains of sand. These so-called particles of light are termed

“photons”. It is this particle-wave duality conundrum which spawned

the development of QM, and fostered an entirely new understanding

of matter.

If one shines light on metal, and the light is of just the right

frequency, an electric current may be produced in the metal. A simple,

yet somewhat dangerous proof of this is to put a crumbled piece of

aluminum foil in a microwave oven. The microwave radiation induces

an electric current in the metal, which will arc and spark between the

creases and folds in the foil. In 1887, Heinrich Hertz first observed

this effect as he shined a beam of UV light on a metallic coil

separated from a conducting electrode by a small spark gap, in a

configuration very much like a common “spark plug”. The UV light

caused sparks to jump between the electrode and the coil. Hertz also

found that if he placed a pane of glass between the spark gap and the

UV source, the glass blocked much of the UV light and the sparks

decreased in intensity. When he replaced the glass with quartz, which

doesn’t block UV radiation, the sparks resumed with their standard

intensity.

However, Hertz never developed a working theory which

could adequately explain this observation. It wasn’t until Einstein

published a paper in 1905 titled “On a Heuristic Viewpoint

Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light”x that a

description was finally offered explaining this strange effect. In this

paper, Einstein referred to the phenomenon as the “Photoelectric

Effect”. When light energy impacts electrons in the atoms of metal,

some of those electrons are knocked off the atom and begin to flow

through the metal producing an electric current. But this only happens

if the light has enough energy (i.e. momentum) to knock them out of

place.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

59

**Einstein’s Photoelectric Effect is based on the supposition
**

that light is particulate in nature, as if the light was composed of tiny

grains. These grains of light could be ejected from their source with

great force, as if from a sand-blaster, to etch away the electrons from

the surface of metals. It was this brilliant insight which earned

Einstein the Nobel Prize in 1921. Brilliant as his explanation was, it

still invoked a very classical way of thinking that flew in the face of

convention.

Light was previously experimentally demonstrated to be

wave-like. Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism were rooted in

the notion that light propagated as waves. In the context of

electromagnetism, light itself was understood to be nothing more than

a braided pair of electric and magnetic waves propagating through

space. The famous two-slit experiment demonstrated unequivocally

that light could interact to produce interference patterns, just like

waves on the surface of water. The other concern was that if photons

had no mass, how could they have momentum?

Momentum is a measure of an object’s mass multiplied by its

velocity. Light is known to have a velocity, of course, but if a

photon’s mass is zero then where does the momentum come from that

allows a photon to blast the more massive electrons away from their

respective atoms? The reason that mass-less photons may be

considered to possess “momentum” is due to the fact that they have

inherent energy; “E = mc2” states that energy is equivalent to mass.

60

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**Einstein’s explanation for the Photoelectric Effect was
**

profound because it adequately predicted experimental observations

utilizing a particulate basis for light. However, the key discovery in

this instance was that it is not the intensity of light which produced a

stronger electric current in metals; it was the frequency of the light

that mattered.

Spanning the EM spectrum are radio waves at the low

frequency end, then as the EM spectrum increases to higher

frequencies we find microwaves and infrared radiation, then visible

light, then ultraviolet (UV) light. Even higher in frequency still are Xrays and Gamma rays. As the frequency increases along the spectrum,

so does the energy associated with each of these kinds of EM

radiation. The higher in energy (i.e. frequency) the photons are, the

more particle-like they begin to behave.

**X-ray light is composed of photons of very high frequency –
**

much higher than visible light, for example. We know this empirically

because X-ray light can pass right through materials visible light

cannot, like soft tissues of the human body. The wavelengths of X-ray

light are much smaller than visible light, or microwaves, or even radio

waves for that matter, which may be meters in length. The

photoelectric effect demonstrates that if higher frequency radiation,

such as X-ray light is directed at a metal, the current produced will be

proportionally greater than if UV light or any other lower-frequency

radiation is used. This means that unlike water or sound waves for

which energy is measured based on the amplitude (the height of the

wave), the strength of an EM wave of light is based on its frequency.

X-rays can pass through materials which visible light cannot, not only

because the wave is physically smaller, but also because X-rays are

www.deltagroupengineering.com

61

**also much higher in energy than visible light, and thus carry greater
**

momentum.

It’s like the difference between firing a football and a bullet

at the same speed. The football would likely bounce off an object or

explode on contact, but a bullet has a much better chance of

penetrating most materials if shot with sufficient force. X-ray photons

may also cause physical damage to the cells they pass through,

specifically to the DNA, in very much the same way that a bullet

causes damage when it strikes an object. X-rays actually tear right

through DNA and potentially have the ability to cause harmful

mutations in genes, which may result in cancer. This is why your

doctor or dentist wants to know the last time you had an X-ray taken.

It’s important not to let your average X-ray radiation dose exceed a

given damage tolerance threshold of the cell, in order to minimize the

risk of diseases caused by genetic mutations.

Max Planck derived a mathematical relationship for light

momentum and energy in the form of his equation “E = hv”, which

states that the energy (E) of light is equal to its frequency (v),

sometimes denoted (f), multiplied by Planck ’s constant (h). Planck’s

constant is a measure of light energy as a function of frequency, but

more importantly, it describes how the energy is “packaged”.

For example, a volume of

water may be divided and divided

again until one is left with a single

water molecule composed of one

oxygen and two hydrogen atoms.

However, it is not possible to

further sub-divide that molecule

and still have water. You can have

one molecule, or two, or how ever

many you like, but it isn’t possible

to have “two and three-fourths”

molecules of water. Planck’s

constant effectively describes the

notion that light energy, as related

to frequency, comes in whole

increments (i.e. quanta) per whole

cycle of the wave. Wavelength is

measured from crest to crest, or

trough to trough, so the cyclic

quality of a wave must be factored into the equation, and this is served

by including Planck’s constant. The most important point to

remember is that the frequency of light is synonymous with its

62

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**energy, just as mass is synonymous with energy in Einstein’s massenergy relationship.
**

Armed with this understanding it is now possible to

appreciate how Nature has constructed the atom. Materials, composed

of atoms, absorb and emit light-energy. Heat up a piece of iron and it

glows orange and red. A key factor leading to the development of QM

was the observation that light was absorbed and emitted by various

substances in discrete and specific wavelengths, and that these

wavelengths were, in turn, always characteristic of the kind of matter

they were absorbed by or emitted from. The spectral characteristic of

light emitted by matter can thus be used as a signature, allowing us to

identify the composition of distant objects in space, and the

composition of matter in the laboratory just the same24. But how and

why is this true?

This observation was in direct conflict with the pre-quantum

“solar-system” model of the atom. When we look at our solar system,

the planets are in orbit at specific distances around the Sun, but this

doesn’t mean that each planet has to maintain any specific orbital

distance. An object can orbit the Sun at any distance chance might

allow. It’s not as if the Earth, because of its mass or some other

physical factor, has to inhabit a certain orbital distance from the Sun,

it just happens to be so. Also, if an object in the solar system decays

from one orbit to another nearer to the Sun, it may change position in

a gradual manner as it spirals inward from point A to point B.

This, however, isn’t the case for electrons surrounding the

atomic nucleus. Electrons only “orbit” at discrete, quantized levels –

they cannot exist at any “in-between” distance from the nucleus. If the

orbit of an electron decays and changes from one orbit to another, no

intermediate position exists that an electron may occupy during that

transition. It has one position at one moment, and then instantaneously

shifts to a different position. It is as if at one moment you might be

sitting at home reading the newspaper, and then suddenly find

yourself at the café down the street! All this sounds truly bizarre, that

is, unless the notion of particle-wave duality is considered.

24

**This method is termed “spectroscopy”.
**

www.deltagroupengineering.com

63

**When Louis de Broglie was a
**

student at the University of Paris in the

early 1920’s, Relativity and the

Photoelectric Effect were new concepts

beginning to take root in science. Based

upon Relativity he learned that “E =

mc2”, which states that mass-less

photons possess momentum because

they possess intrinsic energy. He also

learned that “E = hv” from the

Photoelectric Effect, and that a photon’s

frequency was a measure of its energy.

De Broglie astutely realized that E was

equal to these two, apparently different

things – namely frequency and mass. So if photons of light possess

frequency, could things with mass, like electrons, also have

characteristics of waves? Or greater still, could perhaps all forms of

matter, from particles to pebbles to planets, all have wave-like

characteristics as well? The answer, de Broglie discovered, was yes!

Three years after de Broglie derived his hypothesis25 it was

experimentally verified by Clinton Davisson and Lester Germer at

Bell Labs. Experimental confirmation of de Broglie’s hypothesis

earned him the Nobel Prize in 1929. Here’s how they did it. X-rays

cause current to flow in metals, and the X-ray light may also be

reflected and refracted as it bounces off the atomic lattice forming the

regular structure of metals and other crystals. The diffraction patterns

reflected may be utilized to deduce the molecular lattice structure26 of

the atoms comprising metals and crystals.

Davisson and Germer decided to turn this idea on its head by

directing a “beam” of electrons at a piece of nickel. They found that

the electron beam was refracted in the same way one expects to find

with X-rays. The electrons forming the beam were behaving much

like photons of light traveling as waves and were being reflected and

refracted off the metal’s surface, forming diffraction patterns on a

detector. From these interference patterns, the wavelength of the

electrons was precisely calculated in the same manner as one

calculates the wavelength of X-ray light! Based on what was learned

in this experiment, electrons surrounding the atomic nucleus could no

longer be considered as little particles in orbit around the nucleus.

25

26

**That matter possesses wave-like attributes.
**

The three-dimensional arrangement of atoms.

64

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**Electrons not only appeared to move in waves, they could be
**

considered to be waves.

One might ask how a pebble, or a planet for that matter, may

be represented as a wave. We observe objects to be solid and they

don’t appear to quiver with wave-like ripples, or move along in a

serpentine manner. This is because as an object increases in mass, its

wavelength becomes exceedingly and undetectably small. It is only

when matter reaches the subatomic scale that its matter-wavelength

becomes physically important or detectable.

The de Broglie wavelength denotes the basis by which the

macro and quantum realms are divided; matter becomes subject to its

wave nature below a certain scale and the fine topological details of

quantum-space become apparent. To us, space appears completely

smooth and featureless, but to an electron, or any other subatomic

particle, space is a roiling, rough landscape. By analogy, it’s similar to

viewing something smooth under a microscope. To the naked eye a

substance may appear to be quite smooth, but place it under a

microscope and it might look pitted and rough. As the magnification

gets finer and finer, matter also loses its tangible, objective

characteristics and enters a state of duality – being simultaneously

particle and wave-like.

As we transform our perspective and view the electron as a

wave rather than a single particle orbiting the nucleus of the atom,

suddenly things start making sense. If the atom was really like a

miniature solar-system, we would expect the electrons to crash into

the nucleus almost instantaneously due to the mutual attraction

between the negative electron charge and the positive proton charge

of the nucleus. But the electrons never crash into the nucleus. Why is

this so?

The Danish physicist Niels Bohr

was the first to apply the wave nature of

the electron to the orbital model of the

atom. Bohr reasoned that the wave nature

of matter explains how and why atomic

electrons maintain stable orbits. If we

consider Planck’s constant, we recall that

energy comes in bits (i.e. quanta) based

upon the cyclic nature of the wave. Bohr

found that electrons occupied discrete

atomic orbitals directly corresponding to

complete cycles of the electron

wavelength. Moreover, the electron

wavelength of each orbital was associated

www.deltagroupengineering.com

65

**with a specific amount of energy.
**

Imagine the classical model of the atom once again, with its

electrons orbiting in circular paths around the nucleus. If one cuts a

circular path at a specific location, unwinding it into a straight line of

precise length, the orbital path becomes analogous to a guitar string

held fixed at both ends. When a string of length “λ” is plucked, it

vibrates at specific frequencies which represent harmonic divisions of

its length (as depicted below).

**Between the fixed end-points of the string, fractions of waves
**

cannot exist. It’s like our collection of water molecules. Three-and-ahalf molecules of water cannot exist; they may only exist in wholes.

In this case, only whole harmonic multiples (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc.) of

the fundamental frequency27, defined by the orbital circumference can

exist. In this way, the electron is treated as a “standing wave”

27

**The “½λ” condition depicted in the diagram; also termed the “1st”
**

harmonic.

66

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**wrapped around the nucleus; the only maintainable orbits are the
**

harmonic frequencies physically fitting the circumference.

This quantum, harmonic model explains the stability of

electrons in the atom, and why “in-between” states of electrons don’t

exist. With this new perspective, the “orbital” model of electrons was

replaced by “energy levels” – a harmonic model as a result of QM.

Bohr also realized that the energy levels associated with the

electrons in atoms describe the absorption and emission spectrum of

the hydrogen atom. The hydrogen atom was used to model this effect

because of its simple configuration – having one electron circling a

single proton. As the electron jumps from a lower harmonic state to a

higher one, the frequency and energy of the electron increases.

However, in order to alter the energy level of the electron, energy

needs to be added or subtracted.

The law of conservation of energy ensures that energy cannot

“magically” appear out of, or disappear into nothing; it must come

from somewhere. When an electron jumps from a higher to lower

energy level, it is also jumping from a higher to lower frequency.

When this occurs, energy is released as light.

The phenomenon of photon emission from atoms was

actually quite well understood even before Bohr fully developed his

theory describing why it occurs. Atomic photon emission wavelengths

obey a precise harmonic pattern, which was determined by the

Swedish physicist, Johannes Rydberg. In the Rydberg formula, the

wavelengths of the photons radiated from atoms as electrons jump

between energy levels can be accurately predicted by simply

substituting whole-number harmonic intervals into an equation, along

with the Rydberg constant for a given atomic element.

Rydberg’s formula, used to predict the frequencies of light

emitted from atoms, was subsequently explained by Bohr’s model of

the atom. Bohr demonstrated that the harmonic pattern derived by

Rydberg and others28 works because the frequency of the photons

released from the atom directly corresponds to the frequency

difference between electron energy levels! It is as if the atom is a

musical instrument which may be strummed with light to produce a

musical scale of colors.

On a musical instrument, each sound-wave is produced at a

particular frequency, differing from others based upon the harmonic

interval between the notes. Instead of sound waves, an atom emits

28

**Ritz, Lyman, Balmer, Paschen, Brackett, Pfund and Humphreys all
**

contributed to and further developed the original formula to apply to

other atoms.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

67

**specific frequencies of light based upon harmonic intervals. The
**

frequency of light is, of course, what defines the attribute of color.

The atoms of any element absorb photons at exact frequencies

because a “perfect fit” is required to boost the electron to a new

energy level. Similarly, when the electron drops to a lower energy

level, a photon is released with a frequency precisely equal to the

difference between the frequency shifts in the electron’s energy level.

These differences in energy levels are governed by the permissible

harmonic states of the electron in the atomic system.

When a blacksmith heats a piece of iron in the furnace, heat

energy is absorbed, boosting the energy levels of electrons in the

metal. Similarly, when the metal is removed from the fire it glows

orange-red in color. As the metal cools, electrons in the iron atom fall

to lower energy levels, releasing a cognate spectrum of photons in the

transition, observed as orange and red light; color is the hallmark of

this energy exchange. In fact, all the colors in the material world are

born of this indissoluble interaction between energy and matter29.

This model of the atom is truly beautiful in its elegance; all

matter is locked in a ceaseless dance with light. Thus, Einstein’s

mass-energy equivalence relationship becomes easier to comprehend

because matter is not separated from its energy environment – it is

uniquely dependent upon it. Attributes such as wavelength and

frequency are the characteristics by which we describe subatomic

matter and energy. Although macro-scale matter may be described in

mechanical language, the subatomic world can only be adequately

described in the language of energy.

The concept of wave-particle duality exists in the quantum

realm, providing the basis for mass-energy equivalence. This matterenergy relationship is revealed at the subatomic level because

subatomic matter may only be adequately described in terms of

energy relationships. Energy is the currency of the Cosmos, and

energy is constantly being shared and exchanged in a perpetual

dynamic interaction with matter. So if we consider the fabric of space

as being filled with energy, it becomes clear how space may be

perceived as being the basis for all matter, and the foundation upon

which the ever-changing dynamic reality we experience in the

material world plays out.

This is why Plato had it right, even if the particular model he

used was incomplete. According to Plato, the fifth element (the

“Quinta Essentia”) was reasoned to be the ethereal substance of the

void, but it was also the substance upon which matter was

29

Based upon the theory of Quantum-Electro-Dynamics (QED).

68

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**constructed. If we think of the Quinta Essentia as being energy itself,
**

then this purest substance of the Universe is indeed the basis for all

matter.

3.4

Quantum uncertainty

**Erwin Schrödinger was instrumental in sailing this new
**

harmonic model of the atom into uncharted territory, and in so doing,

established the field of Quantum Mechanics. In 1925, Schrödinger

defined the many configurations wave-like electrons may take in

different atoms. Atoms come in much more complex and flavorful

varieties than just the hydrogen atom, and these atoms have not just

one, but many electrons, existing at various energy levels.

Schrödinger was able to unravel the complexities of the atomic animal

by demonstrating that electrons didn’t always have to occupy the

same “orbital distance” from the nucleus, i.e., based upon the outdated

solar-system model. He determined, rather, that the electron could

exist in a variety of shapes and configurations based upon its

“quantum state”.

A quantum state defines

the characteristics of an electron’s

energy level, which includes its

placement hierarchy (energy),

magnetic torque and orbital

configuration. The quantum state

may also be defined by what

Schrödinger termed its “wavefunction”. Schrödinger’s wavefunction interpretation implies that

the electron itself is a continuous

wave-form and that, for all

practical purposes, it is in all places

at once (within its quantum state)

around the nucleus! Schrödinger’s

wave is not so much a physical

wave, like those found on the

ocean, but is instead a representation of a statistical probability for

where an electron is likely to be detected around the nucleus at any

given moment.

In the laboratory, certain properties of the electron and other

elementary particles may be readily detected and measured. The

particulate nature of subatomic matter remains, and is just as valid as

our notions of wave-functions and so forth. However, if particles may

www.deltagroupengineering.com

69

**be accurately represented by their wave nature, then why is it that we
**

are still able to measure them as distinct particles? The particle

attribute that we detect, as it turns out, may be explained through

Schrödinger’s wave-function and the “Heisenberg Uncertainty

Principle”.

When a particle is physically measured, its wave-function is

said to have collapsed; the act of measurement reduces the state of the

“potential” into a single point of “being”30. It’s a bit like popping a

balloon. You may prick a balloon with a pin anywhere on the surface

you wish, but the effect will be the same – no more balloon. But

unlike a balloon which has a surface, the “surface” of a quantum state

is a transitory illusion.

Consider a propeller driven aircraft or a helicopter. As the

propeller blades spin faster and faster, the detail blurs and we end up

seeing a ghostly, translucent shape representing the full range of

motion the propeller blade traverses as it spins. Now, if you tried to

throw a dart in hopes of hitting the propeller blade as it spins around,

just by throwing the dart within the range of the propeller’s

movement, there are going to be instances when the dart passes right

through and times when the dart hits the blade dead-on. It’s really just

a statistical game of chance.

A similar effect is at play when attempting to detect electrons

in an atom. Areas exist where we might expect an electron to be, but

sometimes it isn’t detected. For example, although it might be

possible to accurately measure the propeller’s rate of rotation, it

would also be very difficult to guess the

exact position of a single propeller blade

at any specific moment.

Werner Heisenberg discovered

that mutually exclusive bits of

information may only be determined

independently in a quantum system, as

with the spinning propeller. When

dealing with quantum systems, one may

only accurately determine either position

or momentum, but information about

both of these characteristics cannot be

determined simultaneously. Because of

this, an inherent uncertainty exists in

30

**This concept originates from the “Copenhagen Interpretation” of
**

Quantum Mechanics:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/

70

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**quantum measurements. This is referred to as “Heisenberg’s
**

Uncertainty Principle”; it is not possible to know how a particle is

moving and precisely where it is simultaneously, because the act of

measurement changes the system.

So when a wave-function is measured, its characteristics are

particle-like; a specific point contains well-defined information about

some aspect of the system. Once the system is measured, the

information gained is only representative of a single state of being.

Consider a balloon again, only this time we are trying to

prick an oddly shaped, asymmetric balloon in the dark, having not

seen it before. If we randomly stab at the air until we happen to hit

any surface of the balloon it will pop, and we may state with certainty

that one part of the surface was located where we jabbed it with the

pin. However, we will not have complete information about the shape

of the entire balloon before it was popped just by touching one point

on its surface. Information about other surfaces once existing on the

balloon vanishes at the moment we pop it. Popping the balloon in this

case is analogous to “collapsing the wave-function”.

The singular identity of quantum information results in the

measurement of particle-like qualities. It’s a yes-or-no answer. The

balloon either popped or it didn’t. Prior to the measurement being

performed (before the balloon is popped) the system is defined as a

set of probabilities. Upon measurement, one coordinate from many is

“selected” and thus the information retrieved is one-dimensional,

distinct and singular, i.e., “particle-like”.

3.5

The substantive Universe

**At the commencement of this chapter, it was stated that
**

much may be learned about the nature of space by delving deeply into

the depths of matter. In so doing, we may travel full-circle to find that

matter and energy are inextricably locked in a dynamic interplay

which, in turn, defines the physical reality of our Universe. The

wonders of the quantum world are breathtaking and bewildering.

However, the most astonishing achievement of QM is not what it

teaches us about matter; it’s what it teaches us about the vacuum of

space. It tells a tale so strange that we would likely never have

imagined it otherwise. It speaks of a mystery so deep and shadowy

that science is only now beginning to grasp the full significance of

what a quantum interpretation of space implies.

The chronicle of a quantum interpretation of space begins

with Max Planck in the year 1900, who discovered a deep connection

between matter and light. In order to better elaborate on the

www.deltagroupengineering.com

71

**importance of his contribution, a more detailed explanation of the
**

thermodynamic property of matter we call “temperature” is necessary.

All material objects are subject to the attribute of temperature, which

is a measure of the average kinetic energy (motion) of all the

molecules contained in a substance. All the molecules comprising any

material object are jostling about and banging into one another. The

intensity with which the molecules impact one another is a measure of

the object’s temperature. The more energetic the collisions, the higher

the temperature will be. Similarly, the less energetic the motion, the

lower the temperature will be.

At any given temperature however, not all molecules

comprising a given material possess identical kinetic energy. It is the

average kinetic energy of all the molecules in the system which

defines the temperature of the substance. If one were able to plot the

energies of all molecules in the system individually, they would form

a kinetic energy distribution fitting a statistical bell-shaped curve. The

ends of the curve would be representative of the small number of the

least and most energetic molecules, but the greatest proportion of

molecules will have energies clustered around the average value at the

center of the bell curve.

Max Planck discovered that radiated energy may be modeled

in a similar manner to temperature. The thermal energy radiated into

space by any material object, like the Sun for example, is distributed

throughout the space surrounding it. The Sun emits infrared radiation

(part of the EM spectrum) comprised of frequencies below the color

red that the human eye cannot see, but that we can feel as heat. The

Sun, of course, also emits frequencies we can see like red, yellow and

orange, and much higher frequencies like ultra-violet and X-rays that

we cannot see. However, the peak energy emitted by the Sun spans

the visible and infrared bands of the EM spectrum31. Planck

discovered that the distribution of energy in the EM spectrum

surrounding any material object is solely dependent upon the object’s

temperature. This collection of energy is termed “blackbody

radiation”.

If we took an empty metal box out into space and somehow

trapped the Sun’s radiation inside, we would be, in effect, taking a

survey of the photons emitted by the Sun. In this regard, the

blackbody radiation spectrum is analogous to a telephone survey. In a

standard survey, the interviewer attempts to achieve a statistical

representation of the whole population by measuring the opinions of a

31

**The sun, with a temperature of “5,780(Kelvin)”, yields a peak
**

radiation spectrum of roughly “500(nm)” [the visible light range].

72

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**smaller, randomly selected group of individuals. People have vastly
**

varying opinions, but most people surveyed will tend towards a

general consensus; few individuals adopt an extreme stance. When the

surveyor plots the answers on a graph, the shape of the curve is

typically bell-shaped, with most of the people sharing the same

answer to a question, and fewer people strongly agreeing or

disagreeing. The larger and more random the survey population, the

better it represents the entire population.

Planck determined that the radiant energy distribution from

an object is dependent upon the object’s temperature. In other words,

the collection of photons constituting the blackbody energy

distribution surrounding any object changes in a very particular way.

The composition of the object is irrelevant; temperature is the sole

factor defining the prevalence of frequencies that are present. Planck

demonstrated how this occurs using an ingenious modeling system.

He treated an energy-sampling box as being filled with millions of

individual bits of energy termed “harmonic oscillators”. This is

analogous to considering the box to be filled with billions of water

molecules.

In this case, let’s pretend that energy may be decomposed

into imaginary fundamental energy “molecules”; analogous to a set of

tiny strings of equal length32. The kinetic energy of water molecules

causes them to bounce around and impact one another, and this is a

measure of the water’s temperature. However, the energy of each

oscillator is measured by the frequency with which the “string”

vibrates. Each imaginary energy string is the same length, so the

frequencies with which the strings vibrate may only be quantized

harmonics of the fundamental frequency.

In a volume of water, most of the molecules possess values

of kinetic energy near the population average. However, some will

have much higher and others will have lower kinetic energy.

Similarly, in the case of blackbody radiation, most of the oscillators

filling the volume of the sample box will be vibrating with a

frequency representative of the average energy of the whole, but some

strings vibrate at very high or low frequencies. If high and low

frequency strings “collide”, the energy is shared between them.

However, the energy exchange isn’t a transfer of kinetic energy; it

transfers energy in the form of frequency. For example, a collision

between two oscillators might cause a high-frequency string to drop to

a lower harmonic, and cause the low-frequency string to jump to a

higher harmonic via the energy transaction.

32

**All water molecules are the same size and configuration.
**

www.deltagroupengineering.com

73

**We may imagine that when a fast moving water molecule
**

collides with a slower one, energy is transferred in the same manner

as when a cue ball impacts a stationary billiard ball. The fast-moving

molecule recoils with a reduced velocity because it loses kinetic

energy as it transfers momentum to the other molecule. In the case of

blackbody radiation, a similar situation arises. The energy of

oscillators inside the box is based upon the frequency of oscillation (E

= hν) and not the kinetic energy as occurs for water molecules.

Blackbody radiation, like temperature, can dissipate or

increase in intensity. For example, if boiling water is poured into a

cool container, the water’s temperature slowly decreases as the kinetic

energy of the water molecules is transferred to the cooler molecules of

the container. The water continues to cool until the container and the

water reach thermal equilibrium. The same is true if you were to add

an ice-cube to a hot container. The heat-energy from the container

transfers to the ice, causing the ice to melt and heat up until the

container and water reach the same temperature.

Blackbody radiation behaves in a similar manner. If we

deposited a closed, empty metal box heated to 100°C into deep space,

approaching absolute zero temperature, energy in the form of thermal

photons radiate away from the metal (some into the interior of the

empty box) until energetic equilibrium is attained.

Energy emitted by matter into the space surrounding it

(outside and inside) is distributed in a regular and predictable manner.

The population of radiated photons appears as one might expect to see

in a temperature distribution curve if the momentum of each

individual molecule was sampled and plotted on a graph. A peak

forms around the average frequency in the spectrum of photons and

relatively fewer photons have very high or very low-frequencies. The

peak value in the distribution varies according to the temperature of

the object. Actual measurements of blackbody energy distributions are

shown to precisely fit the curve Planck’s theory predicts.

74

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**(Above): Blackbody radiation curves for stars of different temperature
**

(T). The X-axis represents the wavelength of EM radiation and the Yaxis represents the relative density of photons according to frequency

in the EM spectrum.

The most innovative aspect of Planck’s theory is that it

works on the basis of quantum increments of energy. This is to say

that, just like water molecules, fractional increments of energy cannot

exist. Rather, the energy distribution is composed of harmonic

integers (i.e. whole quanta of energy). The incorporation of Planck’s

constant (h) entails that the imaginary energy “oscillators” possess

energies of “hv”, “2hv”, “3hv” etc; a condition where a string has

“1/5thhv” energy, for example, cannot exist.

All this seems quite straightforward and easy to

conceptualize until one considers the effects of a single oscillator in a

metal box at absolute zero temperature. This is where things get a bit

strange and the temperature analogy becomes inapplicable; however,

amazing new conclusions emerge by way of this consideration. In a

blackbody system the single oscillator spreads out to “fill” the entire

box, and does not bounce around inside like a single water molecule

would. Remember, photons are also waves and a wave is, by its

fundamental nature, required to cycle – otherwise it would cease to

be. This point is of vital importance. The photon inside the box is not

a “particle” bouncing around, it is a wave. It can never fully come to

www.deltagroupengineering.com

75

**rest because that would imply that the photon had been “destroyed”.
**

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; hence, the photon

perpetually fluctuates around its lowest permissible energy state

inside the box.

The inevitable emergent conclusion from what we know

about QM and Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle is that any physical

system in the Universe must possess some minimum intrinsic energy

which cannot be removed. This perpetual fluctuation of photonic

energy in space is termed Quantum-Vacuum-Energy (QVE). QVE

exists even when all thermal motions between atoms and molecules

has completely ceased. For this reason, QVE is also termed ZeroPoint-Energy (ZPE), emphasizing that the energy comprising the

vacuum is present at absolute zero temperature. Throughout this book,

we shall refer to the sub-thermal ZPE as Quantum-Vacuum-Energy

(QVE) to emphasize its derivation from QM and its reference to the

vacuum.

Planck’s blackbody radiation principle entails that vacuum

energy is intimately tied to mass energy, and that the vacuum energy

filling space surrounding matter is just as important as the matter

residing within it. All systems possess a ground state of energy

attained by equilibration with its environment. For example, many

possible sizes of energy-trapping “boxes” may exist in space and

many minimum energy states may exist within those boxes. A solitary

photon inside each variation of box possesses different QVE

parameters defined by the box it occupies. Thus, different vacuum

states (i.e. “vacua”) must exist, associated with specific classifications

of matter. A single atom, for example, interacts with the vacuum by

establishing “its own” boundary condition by equilibration, analogous

to the manner in which an empty box floating in space establishes an

interactive boundary condition within the QVE33.

The prediction of QVE leads to a “foamy” description of

space, saturated with frenetic, evanescent fluctuations. If you switch

your television to an unutilized channel, you’ll see thousands of dots

of static buzzing about like bees in a hive. This imagery is physically

reminiscent of what’s occurring at the quantum level in the vacuum of

space; a chaotic jumble of fluctuations at all points in the Universe,

whether within inter-galactic voids or within the space between subatomic particles!

Stranger still, vacuum energy exhibits particle-like attributes,

with “virtual particles” instantaneously crackling into existence and

33

**This partitioning of space becomes particularly important at the
**

level of subatomic particles.

76

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**abruptly vanishing back into the vacuum. QM permits the creation of
**

virtual particles from pure energy by briefly “borrowing” energy from

vacuum fluctuations.

Virtual particles34 are invoked to explain the conservation of

energy and momentum occurring in particle lifetimes and decay

processes. Moreover, they are also applied to explain the electro-weak

and strong nuclear forces within atoms via a virtual particle “catch

game” between subatomic particles. The mechanism of the electroweak force is generally explained as the result of a subatomic transfer

of “virtual photons”. Virtual particles are also utilized to plot the

formation and annihilation of intermediate particles that are generated

during collisions in accelerators. At research laboratories like CERN

and SLAC, particles are smashed together at enormous speeds and the

resulting high-energy subatomic particles produced in these collisions

are analyzed using a mapping process that often requires the use of

accessory virtual particles. Virtual particles are utilized in such

mapping processes to “fill in the gaps” where details are lacking in

these exceedingly short-lived events.

One may then wonder why virtual particles are considered

“virtual” instead of “real”. On one hand, since virtual particles cannot

actually be seen or detected directly we must consider them to be

imaginary, but on the same note, they have real, measurable effects.

This is somewhat analogous to the manner in which words convey

ideas. Words themselves are the real, objective tools facilitating the

conveyance of ideas. However, ideas themselves are incorporeal. This

shouldn’t imply that an idea doesn’t exist or have observable effects.

An idea may exist as a real force with the power to affect our

objective reality as much as anything else. Many wars fought

throughout history were wars of ideology, based upon ideas, beliefs,

and emotional motivation. Human history has been shaped by our

physical requirement to survive and propagate, but also by the forces

of ideology and belief. Ideas and beliefs, like virtual particles, have

measurable effects even though they, themselves, are not directly

measurable.

We now understand that the “vacuum of empty space” is, in

fact, the opposite; it should more properly be regarded as a plenum. In

this way, the Universe is a container which may never be emptied.

Rather than a “void”, space represents something far more

substantive. By way of QM, we have discovered that energy is the

quintessential substance filling the Universe.

34

**Emerging from, and then dissipating into the vacuum so rapidly that
**

we may never be able to detect them directly.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

77

78

www.deltagroupengineering.com

4

4.1

**Making Something of Nothing
**

Virtual reality

**Although QVE is obliged to exist by the rules of QuantumMechanics (QM), our psychological acceptance of the QV appears to
**

be more a suspension of disbelief rather than a sincere conviction. The

QV seems a bit too weird to be true. Yet the Casimir Effect has

provided substantial physical proof that QVE is real, or at least virtual

but with real, measurable effects. The most dramatic insight to be

gained through this level of understanding is that space affects matter

just as matter affects space. A deep, mutual connection exists between

matter, space and energy which cannot be severed. Matter and the QV

are two aspects of a fundamental concept, as if two sides of the same

coin.

The existence of Quantum-Vacuum-Energy (QVE) is

revealed by the application of spatial boundary conditions as

demonstrated by the Casimir Effect. From such spatial partitions,

forces are generated due to the formation of Quantum Vacuum (QV)

asymmetry, causing the two parallel metallic plates to be pushed

together. If only one plate were utilized, the QV would remain

symmetrical and appear identical from either side of the plate, and no

force would be generated on the plate. However, bringing two parallel

plates close together causes the QV between them to change. Fewer

QV photons exist between the plates than outside them due to the

boundary the plates establish. All but the smallest wavelengths of

energy are excluded from the space between the plates. The field

asymmetry between the inner and outer vacua generates a net pressure

on the outer surface of the plates, and as the inner and outer vacua

attempt to equilibrate to identical energy states, the plates are pushed

together in the process as if carried along by an increasingly swift

current.

However, the Casimir Effect isn’t the only development

lending credence to the existence of QVE and its influence upon

matter. Professor Stephen Hawking has become one of the most

famous theoretical physicists of the late 20th century, and a legend in

his own time, yet many people would not be able to say precisely why

his has become a household name in our current day and age. If one

were to ask the same question about Einstein, one would almost

invariably get an answer pertaining to “E = mc2”, something about

Relativity or the atomic bomb etc. So what brilliant insight into

Nature has earned Hawking the privilege of sitting in Sir Isaac

www.deltagroupengineering.com

79

**Newton’s chair at Cambridge University? For one, Hawking came up
**

with a theory describing how black holes “radiate” by kicking virtual

particles out of the vacuum and into the real world.

Black holes are referred to as such because they produce a

gravitational field so intense that not even light can escape it. When

an extremely massive star pulls in matter, it generates an ever-larger

gravitational warp in space-time until a threshold is reached. The

threshold marks the point at which the gravitational strength of the

enormous mass causes the star to collapse under its own weight. The

gravitational acceleration becomes so great that not even light can

escape; at this point, the object becomes a black hole because the light

entering its gravity well can never escape to reach our eyes.

When electromagnetic (EM) radiation, is emitted from an

object it is said to “radiate” photons. Hence, one expects that if black

holes attempted to emit radiation, it would get sucked right back in

(analogous to the submarine example described earlier). The signal

could be sent, but it would never reach the outside world. If we were

traveling in intergalactic space, far from any star or material object,

rogue black holes marauding through space might pose a serious

threat to us should we happen to fly a bit too closely. Since they are

just as dark as the surrounding space, they would be invisible to us.

When we attempt to hunt for black holes with a telescope, we run into

the same dilemma. Because we cannot see them, we may only infer

the black hole’s presence through its gravitational effect on other

nearby stars. What Hawking discovered was that there might be a

way, theoretically, to detect a black hole in empty space via its

subatomic particle emissions. But if light cannot escape a black hole,

then how can they “radiate” particles?

Black holes are extremely dense, creating a near-infinite

depression in space-time. At a certain distance from the center of the

black hole, a point exists at which gravitational attraction is low

enough so that light may escape. If light crosses this invisible border it

will be drawn into the black hole. This dividing line encircling the

black hole is termed the “event horizon”; marking the boundary

between our Universe and the mystery inside.

But again, if a black hole can’t actually emit radiation then

how does it release real particles as Hawking maintains? The answer

lies within the vacuum. Based upon mathematical prediction, the QV

seethes with virtual particles, flashing imperceptibly into and out of

existence. Virtual particles form in pairs comprised of a particle and

its corresponding anti-particle, as required by charge symmetry, only

to dissolve back into the QV just as quickly.

80

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**Virtual photons are ever-present in the vacuum, and are
**

responsible for the Casimir Effect. But they are also responsible for

the creation of virtual particle-antiparticle pair formation, as virtual

particles are formed by borrowing energy from vacuum fluctuations.

Hawking’s revelation came as he wondered what might happen if a

pair of particles popped into existence on the razor’s edge of the event

horizon. One of the virtual particles would be sliced away and

disappear into the black hole, and the other particle would be cut off

from its partner and thrust into reality. Thus, the event horizon is

thought to be brimming with orphaned particles that were created as

part of a virtual particle pair, and then torn apart by the intense gravity

of the black hole. These orphaned virtual particles, in turn, should be

detectable as “radiation” being “emitted” from the black hole.

Even more interesting is the fact that when one particle of the

pair becomes “real”, the other member of that pair must account for

that addition of mass-energy to our Universe because of the First Law

of Thermodynamics35. The particle of the pair falling into the black

hole is assigned a negative mass-energy value, while the particle that

has been formed on the outside of the event horizon is assigned a

positive mass-energy value. As negative mass-energy rains onto the

positive mass of the black hole, an infinitesimal piece of it is

annihilated. Each of these mass annihilations eats away at the matter

contained inside black hole, facilitating a net gain of mass outside the

black hole and a net loss inside. Thus the black hole not only appears

to radiate particles, it will eventually evaporate away!

Hawking’s principle is purely theoretical because we haven’t

yet detected “Hawking radiation”, nor have we directly observed a

black hole evaporate or emerge back into our Universe as a neutron

star. However, it may be possible to substantiate Hawking’s principle

by other means.

The Equivalence Principle demonstrates how physical laws

are maintained for an object accelerating through flat space-time or

held fixed in a gravitational field of identical apparent acceleration.

Thus, if we produced enough thrust to fix the position of a spaceship

just outside the event horizon of a black hole, this produces the

equivalent physical condition of accelerating to nearly light speed in

free space. It’s somewhat like rowing up stream in a swift current.

One may have to expend a lot of energy, rowing swiftly in order to

simply keep pace with a stationary point on the shore.

One highly noteworthy theoretical prediction made by the

physicists Paul Davies and Bill Unruh in the 1970’s lends credence to

35

**Energy may change form, but cannot be created or destroyed.
**

www.deltagroupengineering.com

81

**Hawking’s theory. Paul Davies and Bill Unruh independently derived
**

a free-space acceleration equivalent of Hawking radiation at

approximately the same time Hawking developed his black hole

evaporation hypothesis. Although different approaches were taken,

Davies and Unruh determined mathematically that if an observer was

accelerated at an extreme rate to nearly the speed of light, the observer

would perceive themselves as being immersed in a haze of thermal

energy, making it appear as though the space outside was heating up.

The effect, although exceedingly slight, may be likened to quantum

“friction” as the observer tears through the QV while accelerating.

This curious effect is known as the “Davies-Unruh Effect”.

The Equivalence Principle states that gravitational

acceleration is equivalent to mechanically induced acceleration. In

either case, a force is experienced when an object attempts to deviate

from its geodesic path through curved space-time. When we observe a

comet orbiting the Sun, its elliptical path is experienced as being a

straight line of least resistance through curved space. The only way

that the comet can move out of its geodesic path is if energy is

supplied to counteract inertial resistance as it deviates from that path.

An alternative way to change the comet’s path would be to place

another massive object like a planet nearby, disrupting the space-time

curvature and redirecting the comet. In both cases, due to mass-energy

equivalence, energy is simply being added to the system either

through thrust-energy supplied to the object or by adding mass-energy

to a region of space in the vicinity of the object.

The Earth may be regarded, in relativistic terms, to reside in

a well of space-time curvature. As the space shuttle launches from the

Earth’s surface, it gradually climbs “uphill” to get free of the Earth’s

gravity well. In the case of a black hole, the space-time curvature at

the event horizon is analogous to “the hill becoming vertical”; which

means that an infinite amount of energy would be required in order to

escape. Similarly, if our spaceship is traveling in a straight line

through flat, interstellar space, and we decide we want to change

direction, we would need to fire our thrusters in order to change our

path. Changing paths always entails accelerating, and by accelerating

we are, in effect, curving our geodesic path, and curving our local

space-time by adding energy to the system.

Just as gravity is discussed in terms of space-time curvature,

so is acceleration. As an object is accelerated to near light speed, an

apparent “near-vertical” space-time curvature is experienced. To the

accelerated object, it would appear as though it were hovering near

(but not at) the event horizon of a black hole! At the accelerationinduced event horizon, the object being accelerated perceives space-

82

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**time around it to be “warming up” with thermal radiation as virtual
**

photons are compressed in its vicinity. Since the object cannot

actually be accelerated to light speed (as is represented by the event

horizon of a black hole), Hawking radiation and Unruh-Davies

radiation are not entirely congruous, although both occur by way of

the same mechanism.

High-energy particle physicists are laboring to find a method

of detecting Davies-Unruh radiation in a particle accelerator when

subatomic particles are accelerated to near light-speed.xi If this

radiation is observed, it will not only provide proof for Davies’,

Unruh’s and Hawking’s theories, it will provide further vindication

for the importance and physicality of the QV.

Gravity and acceleration appear to have an effect on the

vacuum, based upon Hawking Radiation and the Davies-Unruh

Effect. In both cases, intense gravitational fields or extreme

accelerations physically stress and tear the fabric of space-time.

Both of these effects are expressly due to mass and its

interaction with the vacuum. Mass warps space-time to produce

gravitational fields and it experiences inertial resistance upon

acceleration. Both of these effects may also be described by evoking

Einstein’s concept of space-time geodesics. Since the Hawking and

Davies-Unruh Effects deal with gravity and acceleration respectively,

one faces a revolutionary and inescapable conclusion: that mass is

completely and impartibly linked to the QVE of space!

We know from Einstein that mass and energy “curve” spacetime. However, Einstein did not appeal to QM as being the mediator

of this process. What Nature has written for us in boldface type is that

GR and QM, formerly considered to be disparate aspects of the

Universe, are indeed quite capable of being unified. In fact, Relativity

and QM must already be unified – the physics community just hasn’t

been able to figure out exactly how quite yet . . . or have they?

4.2

Mutually assured construction

**If mass directly affects the vacuum through mechanisms such
**

as the Hawking and Davies-Unruh Effects, and the vacuum can affect

matter through the Casimir Force, could it also be possible that the

properties of mass are attributable to the QV? We have discussed how

mass affects the vacuum and vice versa; but in these examples, mass36

remains independently defined. Recently, scientists have begun to

36

**A descriptive attribute of matter; a measure of its energy.
**

www.deltagroupengineering.com

83

**investigate whether the specific attributes defining mass might
**

actually be physical manifestations of QVE.

Matter is comprised of atoms, themselves composed of

subatomic particles which may be classified in terms of their energy

and described as wave-functions. Particles also possess charge; for

example, a proton carries a positive charge while electrons carry a

negative charge. Charge is “relativistically invariant”, meaning that

unlike mass, length or time, it doesn’t appear to change according to

its relative velocity. Charge is more akin to light, in that it is a

standard by which other relativistic effects are measured.

But what is charge anyway? What does it mean when

someone speaks of positive or negative charge? One might consider it

to be analogous to the opposite poles of a magnet, where the northern

pole emits a field and the southern pole seems to re-absorb it, like a

one-way revolving door allowing passage either “in” or “out”.

However, this doesn’t describe what charge actually is. The truth is

that no one really knows what charge is. Charge is certainly a wellcharacterized attribute, but the question: “what is charge?” is

presently unanswerable. Some physicists believe that every charge is

akin to a miniature black hole “singularity”, or a dimensionless

mathematical point generating or absorbing field energy. Although

much debate surrounds the fundamental nature of charge, an

electron’s charge is characterized by a rather fascinating key attribute:

electrons continually radiate EM waves (photons) and generate

“electrostatic fields”.

EM force is transmitted via an exchange of photons. The net

charge of a single atom is typically zero, as there is a balance between

the number of electrons and protons it carries, causing charge effects

to be neutralized. The continual exchange of photons is what mediates

the attraction and balance between opposite charges. If a localized

accumulation of electrons builds up in a substance, an “electrostatic”

field is produced. When the repulsive force between electrons

becomes too great, the charges arc to a region of lower potential. A

bolt of lightning is an example of this release of electrostatic energy.

When an electron is in motion, it radiates an EM field, measured as a

collection of photons. Whatever an electron may physically be, it is

characterized by an EM field propagating into space. Even though

photons forming an EM field are mass-less, their interaction with

charged matter imparts either repulsive or attractive forces.

Magnetic force is produced through the interaction of fields,

coupled to the field source (the magnet itself). For example, as one

brings two like poles of a pair of magnets together, one finds it

increasingly difficult to make the surfaces of each magnet touch. A

84

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**strong repulsive force is being transferred to each magnet via the
**

fields they extend into the space surrounding them. Similarly, the field

emanating into the surrounding space is coupled to the magnet, so the

magnet experiences the force imparted by the field.

Whether it is through the Hawking or Davies-Unruh Effects,

or the fundamental connections between electricity and magnetism, a

deep connection exists between space and matter, field and particle. A

synergistic relationship is at play, enabling the existence of all things.

An unceasing, dynamic exchange occurs, which provides structure to

the Cosmos. Were it not for the perpetual dance between space and

matter, the Cosmos would cease to be. The key to our continued

understanding of the Universe is our acknowledgement of the

connection between matter and the QV. If we are going to make

further progress in science, we need to change our collective

perspective and begin thinking in terms of systems and interactive

wholes rather than disconnected, singular entities.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

85

86

www.deltagroupengineering.com

5

5.1

Mass Illusion

A matter of terms

**It is very easy for us to take for granted this truly strange and
**

mysterious attribute called mass. It is so fundamental to our everyday

experience that few people pause to consider it. Of course, scientific

progress has yielded a vast working knowledge of matter extending

into the furthest depths of scale. We have come to know the inner

structure of the atom, and that the atom is the basic building block of

matter. This knowledge not only permeates, but also creates the

foundation upon which our modern civilization is built. It has enabled

the development of the field of chemistry, and through application of

this knowledge we can create a seemingly infinite array of useful

compounds and materials. Indeed, our modern way of life on Earth is

rooted in this deep working knowledge of matter. However, when we

talk about matter we aren’t necessarily talking about mass. Mass isn’t

so much a thing like matter is; it is an attribute of matter, in much the

same way that temperature is an attribute of matter. Temperature may

vary due to the amount of thermal energy a given material possesses,

but temperature doesn’t define the atomic or molecular structure of

matter. Likewise, “mass” is a measure of the energy embodied by

matter, and represents a physical attribute associated with all matter at

all levels of scale.

Matter experiences inertial reaction forces upon acceleration,

gravitational attraction to other objects, and is subject to relativistic

effects. Not only does it “warp” space-time to generate a gravitational

field, but depending on an observer’s motion relative to an object, the

mass of that object may appear to change when the observer alters

their motion relative to it. Moreover, Relativity states that mass is

energy and energy is mass.

If mass is nothing more than a synonym for energy and is

subject to relativistic effects, then how does it assume the physical

attributes we associate with matter? Why does matter resist

acceleration and why does it gravitate? Although Einstein and Newton

invented marvelous and ingenious methods for modeling and

predicting the behavior of mass, their models do little to explain why

mass behaves the way it does, or what causes matter to have the

particular set of attributes it does. If GR cannot explain the physical

origin of the collection of attributes we call mass, then what can? The

answer seems to be inscribed within the very fabric of space and time.

All we must do to uncover the answer is decipher Nature’s language.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

87

**Matter and energy are locked in a ceaseless dynamic
**

exchange and define one another through this intimate collaboration.

In quantum reality, the barriers defining individuality are nebulous

and vague. Matter, and the space in which it resides, may no longer be

considered separate entities. Einstein states that energy and mass are

equivalent, and by way of Quantum Mechanics (QM) we are able to

glean literal meaning from this statement. Could the quantum

connections between matter and energy be utilized to explain the

properties of mass? The answer to this question is beginning to take

shape at the forefront of theoretical physics. A fresh understanding of

the quantum origins of mass will lead to new discoveries and

unparalleled technological advancements so profound, that the course

of human history will be radically altered.

5.2

Intrinsic inertia

**The connection between the field and the field-source has
**

been explored as a means of describing one way in which an electron

might acquire the attribute of mass. This connection provides a

possible explanation for why the Equivalence Principle holds true,

hinting at the possible mechanism underlying General Relativity

(GR). Physicist Vesselin Petkov at Concordia University in Montreal,

Quebec describes the historical basis for what he terms “Classical

Electromagnetic Mass Theory”xii.

Petkov hints at the possibility that physicists may have

uncovered the origin of inertia long ago, had they not been so dazzled

by the bright lights of Einstein’s “geometric space-time curvature”

early in the 20th century. If one considers classical models of the

electron proposed by such physicists as Thomson, Maxwell and their

successors, a proposed mechanism for inertia and Relativity appears

to emerge quite readily through the nature of the electron. What this

model proposes is that the force of inertia is simply the result of the

charge source interacting with its own field while accelerating. This

describes a classical, physical and completely intrinsic model of

inertia, helping to explain the observation that inertial force is local to

matter, and immediate in action, i.e., it is not a force to be

“transmitted” to matter by mysterious means.

The model for intrinsic inertia posited by Petkov is based

upon the electron model from Quantum Electrodynamics (QED),

dealing with recoil forces on the electron charge as it absorbs and

radiates virtual photons. As the electron is accelerated, it senses that

the surrounding virtual photons it interacts with are asymmetrically

red or blue-shifted. However, to make the reasoning behind this

88

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**model amenable to principles described in previous chapters, it shall
**

be interpreted via the Doppler Effect.

If we were moving with uniform motion alongside an

electron and were able to view it, we would expect it to be perfectly

spherical. In this model we shall presume that the electron is a pointlike singularity (the source of the charge), radiating a uniformly

spherical electromagnetic (EM) field in all directions. Imagine that the

charge is analogous to a tiny ambulance with its siren on. The siren

emits sound waves of consistent frequency that we can hear. When we

travel alongside the ambulance at the same speed, or if the ambulance

is stationary next to us, we hear the siren as undistorted with

consistent pitch. If we could view the sound waves emanating from

the ambulance, we would see a series of perfectly uniform concentric

waves radiating spherically outwards like a rain-drop in a pond.

However, if we were able to observe the electron as it

accelerates past us, it would appear to be radiating an asymmetrical

field. As the charge accelerates, the EM field emitted at the speed of

light in all directions becomes compressed in wavelength in the

direction of its acceleration, and decompressed (i.e. stretched out) in

the trailing direction. The electron and its field now appear eggshaped, with the electron offset in the direction of acceleration. If the

electron were an ambulance siren, we would notice the pitch rapidly

dropping as it passes by.

If we consider the charge source to be coupled to its own

field, we begin to understand where the reaction force against

acceleration originates. As the EM field is continually compressed to

a higher frequency in the direction of acceleration, the energy of the

field in the direction of motion increases proportionally. Conversely,

the trailing waves are decompressed to a lower frequency and

energy37. “E = hν” states that the leading compressed waves possess

greater energy than the trailing decompressed waves.

The electron charge source is analogous to a ball suspended

in a two dimensional (2D) box by two springs attached to opposite

sides. As the ball moves in one direction inside the box, one of the

attached springs is compressed in the direction of motion while the

other is decompressed (i.e. stretched out). The total energy between

the springs remains constant, but the energy in the springs is shifted

37

**The source experiences a push backwards from the compressed
**

energy in front of it and a pull backwards from the decompressed

energy behind it (analogous to the pressure drag associated with the

motion of submerged bodies in fluids).

www.deltagroupengineering.com

89

**asymmetrically, divided between them during acceleration. When one
**

spring increases in energy, the other decreases in energy.

**When the electron is accelerating it “perceives” itself to be
**

immersed in an asymmetric field which is more energetic in the

direction of motion. However, the electron seeks existence at its

equilibrium state, with neither of its springs deformed and sharing its

energy equally in all directions. Whenever compression occurs, the

electron experiences a counter-force acting to nudge it into a resting

state of equilibrium within its environment. The ball, attached by

springs inside the box, moves independently from its frame to a

certain extent, but the forces acting on the ball and box cause them to

co-move, adjusting to each other as they change position.

For example, if the box were to enter a region of curved

space-time, the box, being defined by the Universe in which it exists,

would deform asymmetrically. If the ball inside the box is held fixed,

the springs would be forced out of equilibrium and asymmetrically

deformed. However, to keep pace with the energy disequilibrium of

its surroundings, the ball naturally moves to keep pace, centering

itself in the area of lowest energy within the box. The movement of

the ball inside the deforming box describes the inertial motion of freefall in a gravitational field.

When Einstein developed GR, one of the tools he utilized to

develop the theory was an “elevator thought experiment”. An elevator

compartment is very handy as a descriptive tool in this regard because

it provides a way of walling-off the Universe and considering the laws

of physics to exclusively exist in a small, local volume of space-time.

The elevator is analogous to the box, ball and spring model previously

described. Since there are no windows in the elevator, it is impossible

to determine any information about ones location, direction or

90

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**velocity, etc. Einstein imagined riding inside such an elevator
**

compartment in two locations. One involved being held fixed in the

Earth’s gravitational field and the other in free space. Let’s start by

riding inside Einstein’s elevator in free space.

At first we find ourselves floating about freely inside the

elevator. We are weightless and do not experience “up” or “down”

orientation. However, we have decided that the elevator can only

travel in what we, inside the elevator, perceive to be an “up” or

“down” direction, so we shall refer to the tiled surface inside the

elevator as being the “floor”. Now let’s imagine that we place our feet

against the tiled floor to mimic standing upright. To do our

experiment, we brought with us a rubber ball to bounce around inside

the elevator. In a zero-gravity environment, if we threw the ball in a

perfectly straight line to the wall on either side of us, the ball would

bounce back and forth several times, striking opposing walls at the

same height without ever “falling” to the floor. But what would

happen as the elevator started accelerating in what we regard as being

the “up” direction?

If the elevator began to accelerate upwards fast enough, as

the ball bounced back and forth between the walls, the ball would

suddenly appear to fall to the floor. The rate at which it would fall

would be precisely the same rate of the elevator’s acceleration

because the ball isn’t really falling in this case. The ball remains in the

same place as the elevator begins accelerating past the ball’s position.

However, according to our frame of reference, defined by the interior

parameters of the elevator we move along with, the ball appears to

accelerate towards the floor. If we traced the ball’s path inside the

elevator, it appears to fall along a parabolic trajectory, just as it does

after being thrown horizontally at the surface of the Earth.

If the elevator sat on the surface of the Earth and we threw a

ball at the wall, it would bounce off and fall to the floor along the

same parabolic trajectory as it would inside the elevator accelerating

in free space at the same rate as Earth’s gravity. The idea leading

directly to the development of GR and the concept of “curved spacetime” was that the ball in the elevator may be replaced with a beam of

light. The acceleration required would be much, much greater, but if

we could accelerate fast enough, a light beam (or photon) propagating

from one side of the elevator would appear to bend towards the floor

along a parabolic path. Paths of light in accelerated reference frames,

such as the frame defined by the elevator compartment, are geodesic

paths defining the topology (i.e. “curvature”) of space-time!

Inside an elevator floating in free space, the path of light

inside will be a straight line from one side of the elevator to the other.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

91

**This tells us that the observed space relative to our reference frame is
**

“flat”. When the elevator accelerates in free space, the path of the

light beam bends and our reference frame then tells us that the

observed space-time is “curved”.

Space-time in a gravitational field always appears to be

curved, and curvature defines the “depth” of the gravitational “well”

produced in space. The more massive the object, the greater the

curvature and the apparent acceleration experienced. Similarly, as

acceleration rates increase, the greater the apparent curvature of space

will be38. The whole of GR theory is based upon the pathways of light

within our perceived reference frame in space.

Now, let’s re-visit our model of intrinsic inertia for the

electron. Whether the electron is moving in an accelerating elevator in

space, or falling to the Earth in a gravitational well, it is always

moving in accordance with our perceived view of the space-time

around it. To us, an electron may appear to fall to the ground due to

gravity, but the electron perceives itself as being in equilibrium with

its environment and not experiencing a “force” causing it to fall.

Human experience causes us to believe that the “force of gravity” is

“pulling” the electron to the floor. No “pull”, no “force” and no

“gravity” exists per se; we simply observe an electron moving in

equilibrium with the geodesic path of lowest energy encasing it,

which happens to be “curved” (i.e. asymmetrical) in this case.

If the electron’s field is uniform and it enters a region of

space-time asymmetry (such as a gravitational field), it responds to

environmental conditions by “falling” in search of an equilibrium

state within that asymmetric space-time. Similarly, any imposed

perturbation of the electron’s natural path produced by altering its

intrinsic energy to an asymmetrical state within a flat space-time

background (what we term “acceleration”), requires energy input.

When an electron is held stationary in a gravitational well

(e.g. the surface of the Earth), ambient space-time appears curved and

the object continually responds to it. When the electron falls freely in

curved space-time, it feels no force because it adjusts to the

background field asymmetry. Utilizing the box and spring example, if

the box moves then the ball attached by springs inside is compelled to

keep pace and co-move within its frame to equilibrate with the

asymmetric energy of the springs. However, when an object is held

fixed within a gravitational field, it senses that the immediate spacetime is always asymmetric, and this asymmetry of space-time results

in gravity.

38

Based upon curved paths of light in the local frame of reference.

92

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**Objects, no matter how massive, are equally affected by
**

space-time curvature (i.e. asymmetry) because they are immersed in

the same gravitational environment. However, the energy required to

move objects out of equilibrium within curved space-time depends

upon the object’s mass, and this is termed “weight”.

The acceleration of gravity is constant and all masses

equilibrate to the local asymmetry at the same rate. The mass of an

object is only consequential when resistance to the acceleration of

gravity is taken into account; a force is required to counter the inertial

resistance to the change in an object’s natural geodesic path. The

greater the mass an object possesses, the greater the force required to

counter inertia. So even though a hammer weighs more than a feather

when fixed in the same gravitational field (because it has greater

mass) all matter, regardless of how massive it is, responds to the

asymmetry of space-time by accelerating downwards at the same rate.

In this regard, mass is a measure of the force required to move an

object out of equilibrium with its immediate space-time environment.

The electron self-energy model not only describes inertial

and gravitational effects, it also hints at the deeper meaning behind “E

= mc2”. Since inertial resistance is a measure of an object’s mass, the

more massive an object is the more inertial resistance it will

experience upon acceleration, and the more curvature it will generate

in space-time. Similarly, the more intensely an object is accelerated,

the more massive it becomes because acceleration generates apparent

curvature; this is why mass is relative under GR.

Consider the electron self-energy “ball-and-spring” analogy

once again. In order to completely compress one spring connected to

the ball to zero length, one requires an infinite amount of energy

input. This also implies that the leading EM field of an accelerating

electron approaching the speed of light approaches infinite energy.

The energy required to compress the leading EM field increases

because the EM field frequency in the direction of acceleration

increases. The inertial reaction force against acceleration becomes

greater, which in turn is a measure of mass, thus the mass increases

according to the relationship “E = mc2” (or in this case, “m = E/c2”).

Simply put, matter cannot attain the speed of light because it would

become infinitely massive.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

93

5.3

Extrinsic inertia

**We now understand from QM that we must always consider
**

the notion that space is replete with QVE fluctuations, and that the

QV has an effect on matter. So one might wonder what kinds of

forces, if any, an electron experiences as it accelerates through the

QV. This is precisely what astrophysicist Bernard Haisch and

physicist Alfonso Rueda wondered, and when they looked into it in

greater detail, they began to find some truly remarkable results!

Having a background in astrophysics, Haisch was drawn to

the notion that the QV might contribute to inertia because he already

knew quite a bit about “radiation pressure”. Everyone has seen

pictures of a comet, with its tail streaming elegantly behind it like the

train of a bridal gown. However, what some people may fail to realize

is that the comet’s tail isn’t necessarily streaming along “behind” it as

it moves through the solar system. The comet’s tail is formed by

debris blown off the comet’s surface by the Sun’s solar wind and by

radiation pressure, so that the comet’s tail always trails in the

direction of the solar wind, like a cosmic windsock.

The solar wind, of course, always “blows” radially outwards

from the Sun. However, the thing to remember in this case is that the

solar “wind” isn’t really like the atmospheric wind we have on Earth.

Solar wind does have a “material” aspect to it, in that many energetic

particles radiate from the Sun. In fact, the solar wind is largely

comprised of electrons and atomic nuclei of hydrogen and helium

atoms that have been stripped of their electrons (i.e. ionized gas

plasma)xiii. But countless numbers of photons are also released from

the sun. Even though photons lack mass, they can still pack quite a

wallop because they have momentum.

All materials exposed to EM radiation experience radiation

pressure. The atoms comprising any substance may absorb or reflect

radiant photons, and when an atom absorbs a photon, it also absorbs

the energy associated with it. When a photon is reflected, energy is

transmitted as it “ricochets” off the recoiling atom. James Clerk

Maxwell realized this in the late 1800’s, but it wasn’t verified

experimentally until the year 1900 by Russian physicist, Pyotr

Nikolayevich Lebedevxiv.

Luminiferous momentum (i.e. radiation pressure) is at least

partially responsible for physically blowing material off the comet’s

core, producing the tail we see streaming through the heavens. New

spacecraft propulsion technology has even been developed aiming to

harness solar wind and the force of radiation pressure. This particular

method of propulsion is referred to as a “solar sail”, and poetically, a

94

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**spacecraft could sail on the solar wind, and move through vast
**

distances of space without needing to carry fuel. In 2005, the

Planetary Society built and launched a privately funded solar sail

spacecraft named “Cosmos-1”. The spacecraft was designed in the

form of a giant reflective umbrella, to be unfurled in space and catch

the solar wind. The radiation pressure impacting the sail’s surface per

unit time is miniscule, but the cumulative force applied to the sail over

a long period will produce staggering velocities – perhaps even

enough to reach nearby stars. Unfortunately, Cosmos-1 was lost after

a faulty launch, so we must continue to dream of sailing amongst the

stars on the winds of light … at least for now anyway.

It is possible to estimate the force Cosmos-1 would

experience from the solar wind by calculating the power associated

with light39 as it propagates. This is made possible by utilizing the

“Poynting vector”40 developed by the English physicist, John Henry

Poynting in 1884. When you switch on your flashlight, you are

generating a “beam” of light that propagates from the bulb towards

whatever object you wish to illuminate. The Poynting vector is a

quantitative measure of the power of flow (i.e. the flux) associated

with the combined electric and magnetic wave components of light as

it propagates from the flashlight to the object.

The QV of flat space-time comprises a near infinite spectrum

of photons of various energies and random orientations, meaning

there is no cumulative or net direction to the QV. So in flat space-time

the QV photons can be disregarded from most calculations. This

doesn’t mean that the spectrum of QV photons doesn’t exist; it simply

means that the QVE may be considered virtual because a net force

does not arise from a random, baseline QV. Thus, in free space, the

QV is said to be “isometric” (i.e. equal in all directions).

In the early 1990’s, Haisch and Rueda applied the concept of

radiation pressure to the QVE derived from QM. They wondered how

the QV might appear when viewed from an accelerated reference

frame, in much the same way that Einstein wondered how light paths

behaved inside an accelerating elevator in free space. What they found

was shocking. By applying textbook Electro-Dynamic principles, they

determined, by transforming QVE from a stationary to an accelerated

reference frame, that it acquired asymmetry. The field was no longer

random and isometric, rather, the QVE in the accelerated frame

39

**For a photon or a radiation field composed of many photons.
**

By chance, the sound of its name describes what it does. A vector

quantity possesses magnitude and orientation (i.e. an “arrow” of

varying size and direction).

40

www.deltagroupengineering.com

95

**appeared to have a net direction to it, and because it had a direction
**

they were able to calculate the Poynting vector associated with it!

They determined that the magnitude of the energy flux generated in

the local QV was proportional to the magnitude of the applied

acceleration. Thus, as the acceleration increased, the QVE flow

opposing it also increased. Apply these terms to mass and what do

you get? Inertia!

EM radiation generates forces on matter. Haisch and Rueda

surmised that upon acceleration, the particles and charges comprising

matter experience an EM “drag-force” against the local QV,

analogous to radiation pressure. The only instance in which an object

is affected by the local QV occurs when it appears to possess net

direction (i.e. when it is asymmetrical or “anisotropic”). The fact that

QV anisotropy appeared to be acceleration-dependent was the ace in

the hole – the key reason for believing that they may have discovered

the physical basis of inertia.

Haisch and Rueda consider the electron to be a classical

point-like particle, jostled about by QVE flow impinging upon it,

resulting in inertial resistance to acceleration. Here, we are shown a

model for inertia which is extrinsic. In this model, inertia arises due to

the influence of an external source; similar to that of Mach’s

Principle, as opposed to the intrinsic electron self-energy model as

described by Petkov. This extrinsic model proposed by Haisch and

Rueda is termed the “Quantum Vacuum Inertia Hypothesis” (QVIH).

But why does asymmetry manifest in the QV only during

acceleration and not uniform motion? In other words, why do objects

experience inertial force only when they accelerate? This question

may be answered by the electron self-energy model and Haisch and

Rueda’s QVIH.

Consider the Doppler Effect. The change in pitch we hear as

an ambulance siren moves past us is due to the ambulance’s motion

relative to the sound waves propagating from the siren. But the

ambulance doesn’t need to be accelerating to cause this auditory

effect; it just has to be moving past us. However, with inertia, the

situation is rather different. Inertial force is only experienced in such

cases where a change in velocity is occurring. If the nature of inertia

was rooted within Mach’s Principle or a Doppler-like effect, one

might conclude that all motion should result in a resistance force. If

inertia operated by Mach’s Principle, then a preferred reference frame

would exist within the Universe, acting as a backdrop to the motion of

all objects moving through it – an idea that is anathema to the tenets

of GR. The Doppler Effect may hold “some” value as an analogy, but

it cannot be directly applied to inertia because space is quite different

96

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**from a fluid like air or water. Whatever we wish to call it; space-time
**

geometry, the aether or what have you, the nature of space must also

satisfy the rules of inertia, and all physical laws that have been

experimentally validated thus far. What then, should the vacuum of

space be like in order to satisfy the condition of inertia?

The answer has to do with the way in which energy is

distributed throughout the QV. Unlike the blackbody spectrum of the

Sun, for example, peaking in a specific region of the EM spectrum

and based entirely on temperature, QVE is predicted by QM to be

distributed throughout space in a fundamentally different manner.

When we plot the blackbody energy distribution41 for the Sun, we find

that it emits photons spanning a wide range of the EM spectrum,

peaking in the ultraviolet, visible and infra-red range42.

QVE has a rather different distribution along the EM

spectrum, however. The QV is predicted to possess a “frequency

cubed” energy distribution throughout free space; at low QV

frequencies, the spectral energy density of QV photons is minimal and

at high QV frequencies it is maximal. The spectral energy density of

QV photons follows the cube of the frequency along the EM

spectrum, and doesn’t peak at any particular bandwidth as a

blackbody radiation spectrum does.

For example, let’s say we want to calculate the QVE density

in the microwave region of the EM spectrum. Microwaves exist in the

“10(GHz)” range (approximately). To simplify matters, we may say

that the density of QVE at “10(GHz)” along the EM spectrum is

proportional to “10 x 10 x 10”. The frequency cubed distribution of

the QV means that moving up the EM spectrum to waves with a

frequency of “100(GHz)”, the proportional energy density of QV

photons is “100 x 100 x 100”! Thus, the highest frequency ranges of

the EM spectrum contain the most QVE, implying that the energy

density of free-space is inconceivably energetic. It has been

estimated43 that the amount of QVE contained in a coffee cup sized

41

**The density and arrangement of photons surrounding an object.
**

A Blackbody spectrum calculator may be found at The Wolfram

Demonstrations Project:

http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/BlackbodySpectrum/

43

This is the mainstream view, not the view of the EGM construct in

the “Quinta Essentia” series (i.e. QE3,4) where the opposite

conclusion is mathematically derived. That is, QE3,4 mathematically

demonstrate that “free space” does not contain a near infinite amount

of energy in a vanishing volume.

42

www.deltagroupengineering.com

97

**volume of empty space, if converted to heat energy, would be enough
**

to boil away the Earth’s oceans!

The frequency-cubed distribution of QVE in a flat space-time

manifold explains why an object doesn’t experience a reaction force

against uniform motion. Michelson and Morely experimentally

verified that an absolute reference frame by which to measure uniform

motion does not exist. Thus, for an object to avoid experiencing a

resistive force against uniform motion, the QV must appear identical

to all observers irrespective of relative velocities44. This necessitates

the cubic frequency distribution form of the QV spectrum,xv rendering

uniform motion “Lorentz invariant” such that it appears consistent

across reference frames. For example, wave amplitude may be small

or large, but its form remains unchanged regardless of magnitude. The

frequency-cubed QVE distribution ensures that space-time appears

flat and isometric for any object traveling in uniform motion.

However, during acceleration, the background QVE distribution

appears asymmetric.

Therefore, the QVIH model remains Lorentz invariant and

consistent with GR via the cubic frequency distribution of QVE. GR

states that an observer traveling in uniform motion through space-time

perceives the Universe as being flat and isometric; however, in an

accelerated reference frame space-time appears to be curved. Haisch

and Rueda’s classical ElectroDynamics model of inertia asserts a

congruent position; during uniform motion the QV appears

symmetric. In an accelerated reference frame, asymmetry45 manifests

in the QV that is proportional to the magnitude of the applied

acceleration. Thus, rather than relying upon the metaphysical, nonintuitive terminology of GR, which describes space-time as being

“flat” or “curved”, these terms may now be substituted with the more

physically meaningful reference to “symmetrical” or “asymmetrical”

QVE densities.

5.4

Bridging the gaps

**Einstein relied upon the Equivalence Principle to
**

demonstrate how the geometric space-time of an accelerated reference

frame can be equivalent to a gravitational field. The same is true for

Haisch and Rueda’s QVIH, which utilizes the Equivalence Principle

44

**Caveat: applicable to objects traveling in uniform motion, not
**

accelerating.

45

i.e. anisotropy.

98

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**to demonstrate how QVE asymmetry appears in an accelerated
**

reference frames and reference frames held fixed in a gravitational

field.

The force an object experiences in a gravitational field is due

to local QVE asymmetry, producing a net energy flux that, in effect,

pushes downwards on the object. The question Einstein was never

able to address, and which remains in the QV interpretation is: how,

exactly, does matter “curve” space or generate QVE asymmetry?

Although the mechanistic particulars have not yet been formally

conjectured by Haisch and Rueda, they have been able to replace the

“imaginary” four-dimensional geometry of Einstein’s space-time with

their own classical, physical modeling of QVE distributions. Their

description modestly insinuates one of the most astounding and

profound ideas ever suggested in the history of science!

QM was largely formulated several years after Einstein

developed GR, and he considered the entire field to be rather

unpalatable. Einstein modeled inertial and gravitational frames of

reference based upon the geodesic pathways light follows in the

presence of matter and during acceleration. However, Einstein lacked

the tools to offer any potential physical basis for the existence of

inertia, or why matter curved space-time. The QV had not yet been

conceived at the time he was developing GR, so he lacked a source

from which to derive a potential physical basis for gravity and inertia,

aside from the “luminiferous aether” which he believed did not exist.

The development of QM eventually produced a rift between

itself and GR which remains solidly in place to this day. QM, through

its prediction of the QV, states that the Universe possesses a specific

value of energy density. However, when viewed through Relativity

theory, the energy density of the QV should cause a catastrophic

gravitational collapse of the Universe . . . but the Universe hasn’t

collapsed. In fact, recent observations reveal that the Universe is

expanding. This observation has created a major dilemma for

physicists, because it means that either QM or Relativity is

fundamentally flawed or incomplete, yet QM and GR have both

proven to be highly accurate means of representing physical systems.

To avoid a seemingly insurmountable incongruity between

GR and QM, Einstein left his original interpretation of space-time

alone, as a mathematical tool to extend Newton’s laws of motion into

the extreme limits of the Cosmos. His theory worked so beautifully

that there was little need to worry about precisely how it worked so

well or why it didn’t jibe with the emerging quantum view. The

beauty and elegance of GR has stood impervious to criticism for over

a century and gave birth to modern cosmology. It has directly

www.deltagroupengineering.com

99

**generated some of the most profound questions to be asked and has
**

predicted the existence of otherwise unfathomable objects in our

Universe such as black holes. Yet QM has proven to be equally

valuable for explaining observations at the subatomic scale which

Relativity cannot handle. Therefore, it is only fair to say that both

formalisms are equally correct, even though they don’t appear to

corroborate.

The most important aspect of the QVIH is not that it provides

a physical mechanism for inertial and gravitational forces, which GR

merely describes, but that it represents the unification of GR, QM and

electromagnetism. It takes the first steps at bridging the gap between

these formerly incompatible, yet equally valid theories.

Since Sir Isaac Newton formulated his postulate “F = ma”, it

has remained just that – a postulate. “F = ma” is a tenet in physics; the

immutable law governing how objects move. However, the

remarkable mathematical feat leading to the QVIH was that Rueda

managed to derive Newton’s postulate from QM! If Newton’s first

law of motion, and thus GR, may be derived from QM then in

principle these formalisms must already be unified. “F = ma” predicts

how objects move; Rueda offers an explanation for why objects move

in the manner they do by deriving Newton’s postulate from QM.

In order to achieve this result, the QVIH model must assume

something quite radical: which is that the subatomic particles

comprising matter, such as quarks and electrons, are intrinsically

mass-less, and it is only through their interaction with the external

QVE environment that the property of inertial mass is born. In this

model, mass merely arises as a by-product of an interaction between

the energy packaged in the form of matter and the QVE surrounding

it. The QVIH model likens this interaction to EM interference or

scattering that takes place as charges are perturbed by the QV fields

they move through, and the energy of this interaction is a measure of

the particle’s inertial mass. In this model, the mass of any object may

be considered to be a measure of the energy with which

fundamentally mass-less particles interact with their quantum

environment. Through this interpretation, a (classical) physical

explanation for Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence relationship is

also revealed.

According to Haisch and his colleagues, mass arises as a

function of scale. For example, if a large46 vessel floats in fairly calm

waters with only small waves on the surface, it remains motionless

and unperturbed by the action of the waves. However, if a toy boat is

46

Much larger than the small waves surrounding it.

100

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**placed in the same water, it will be jostled about by the small waves it
**

encounters as if weathering a violent storm at sea. The size of the toy

boat is on the same scale as the waves it floats upon, causing it to feel

the undulating terrain of the rough and choppy sea surrounding it.

On the molecular scale an analogous effect exists, termed

“Brownian motion”. Robert Brown was a Scottish botanist who

collected and catalogued thousands of plant species in Australia in the

early 1800’s. He was highly skilled at microscopy and utilized it as a

tool to study plant pollens. In studying pollen grains under the

microscope, he noticed that the individual pollen grains appeared to

jitter wildly in suspension, yet maintained their overall position within

the field of view. He noted that the movement seemed to be an

intrinsic quality of the grain itself, resembling a freely moving lifeformxvi. However, he also noticed that particles only slightly larger

than pollen grains do not move in this manner. Like the toy boat,

pollen grains are of a particular size, which allows them to experience

the kinetic motion of the water molecules they are suspended within.

As the water molecules impact the pollen grain from all sides, the

pollen grain jitters wildly, while larger objects are unperturbed. In

Brown’s time, the cause of this effect was not entirely clear, but

thanks to his initial observation, this effect has since been dubbed

“Brownian motion”.

Again, the temperature of any substance is a measure of the

average kinetic energy of the molecules comprising that substance.

Within fluids like air and water, molecules dart about bouncing off

one another; the higher the temperature, the more frenetic the

molecular activity. Some molecules possess sufficient momentum

such that when they strike the surface of a pollen grain it recoils.

Since water molecules are too small to be viewed through a

microscope, we may infer their movement because we observe the

pollen grains rapidly quivering and jittering in place as they recoil

upon impact.

Over a period of time, if one tracked the motions of a pollen

grain under Brownian motion, one notices generalized movement in

some direction; referred to as a “random walk”. This range of motion

represents the statistical average of the combined small-scale

movements of the pollen grain, resulting in travel from point A to

point B.

The QVIH was developed utilizing “Stochastic

Electrodynamics” (SED). The term “stochastic” refers to a

mathematical treatment incorporating random behavior over time.

Random stock market fluctuations or the walk of Brownian motion

may be modeled utilizing this technique. Haisch and Rueda, in their

www.deltagroupengineering.com

101

**development of the QVIH, modeled the electrodynamics of a moving
**

electron stochastically as though it were a pollen grain jostled about

by Brownian motion in the randomly fluctuating sea of QVE.

According to Haisch and Rueda, under conditions of uniform motion,

the classical, point-like electron is buffeted about by the chaotic

fluctuations of QVE.

When the electron is forced to accelerate, it appears to the

electron that the QVE fluctuations in the direction of acceleration

become increasingly energetic. It is this QV asymmetry that is thought

to result in the acceleration reaction force of inertia. Since mass is a

measure of inertial force, the interaction between the electron and

QVE is thought to establish the electron’s inertial mass.

QV fluctuations, in this model, are thought to cause the

electron to be wildly shaken about while stationary or in uniform

motion. The stationary fluctuation of a charge was predicted

mathematically by Erwin Schrödinger in the early 1930’s.

Schrödinger derived from Dirac’s equations that the electron should

be expected to fluctuate at the speed of light in what he referred to as

“zitterbewegung”, which in German means “trembling motion”. But if

the charge truly is fluctuating at the speed of light, it means that the

electron must be intrinsically mass-less. Otherwise, how could it

move at light-speed? It is this idea that establishes the basis upon

which the Haisch-Rueda interpretation operates. What they propose is

that if particles such as the electron are inherently mass-less, then it

must be through an interaction with the extrinsic QV field that the

property of mass emerges. In other words, the energy of the

fluctuation is a measure of the particle’s mass. Thus, in this view,

mass and energy are equivalent, and mass cannot exist without the

QV of space!

Louis de Broglie predicted, by combining the equations “E =

mc2” and “E= hν”, that all matter has wave-like properties. Although

the de Broglie wavelength of a moving planet or person is

imperceptibly minute, the wavelength of a moving electron or

subatomic particle is quite large compared to its size. As a direct

mathematical consequence of combining the two equations, the restmass of a “stationary” electron may be expressed in terms of

wavelength. In other words, the mass of the electron may be

expressed as a frequency of energy equivalent to the mass-energy of

the electron. This relationship is termed the “Compton

wavelength”xvii. However, electrons aren’t the only particles which

may be expressed in Compton wavelength form. Other subatomic

particles possess characteristic Compton wavelengths because, by

102

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**way of combining the equations, a particle’s mass defines its
**

wavelength.

Like Einstein, who used the photoelectric effect to illustrate

that light could be thought of as having particle-like attributes, Arthur

Compton also contributed to this particulate (photon) model of light

by experimentally verifying that photons possess momentum (a

characteristic associated with mass). Compton demonstrated this by

scattering X-ray photons off atomic electrons. As X-ray photons

bounce off electrons, the photon’s momentum diminishes as it knocks

the electron out of place (i.e. changes its momentum). Compton found

that the X-ray photon loses momentum energy in the form of

frequency, and that the frequency lost is limited to double the

electron’s Compton wavelength. So not only did Compton help

establish the particle nature of light, he also confirmed the physicality

underlying the wave nature of matter, revealed by mathematically

combining “E = mc2” and “E= hν”.

By means of the extrinsic interpretation, Haisch and Rueda

propose that the Compton wavelength is established as the electron

charge physically interacts with the QV at the Compton frequency. In

this interpretation, the Compton frequency is associated with the restmass due to its zitterbewegung energy. However, when the electron is

in motion, it gains the attribute of momentum (mass multiplied by

velocity). Since the de Broglie wavelength is a measure of a particle’s

momentum, Haisch and Rueda decided to investigate whether the

Compton and de Broglie wavelengths were interrelated phenomena.

In the year 2000, Haisch and Rueda published a manuscript

demonstrating how an electron fluctuating at the Compton frequency,

as it passes by a stationary observer, appears to be moving at its de

Broglie wavelengthxviii. They achieved this by mathematically

“observing” the electron’s Compton frequency from a Doppler shifted

reference frame in motion. When they superimposed the Doppler

shifted frequency from the moving reference frame onto the Compton

frequency of the electron, they noticed that the resulting “beatfrequency”47 was precisely equal to the de Broglie wavelength of a

moving electron!

Beat-frequencies arise when differing wave frequencies

overlap and are often readily identifiable in videos of cars in motion,

when the wheels (as viewed on video) appear to be slowly rolling

backwards as the car drives forward48. We perceive this visual effect

47

**The mathematical difference between frequencies.
**

This phenomenon is referred to as “temporal aliasing” or “the

wagon-wheel effect”.

48

www.deltagroupengineering.com

103

**due to the difference between the frequency with which the video
**

frames are captured by the camera (in frames per second), and the

frequency at which the wheels of the car rotate (in revolutions per

second). Video cameras typically capture approximately thirty still

frames per second, which during play-back are blended together by

our visual cortex to re-produce the effect of motion.

If the wheels of the car were turning at a rate of “25”

revolutions per second as the car is captured on video, the wheels will

not have revolved completely by the time the next video frame is

captured; the wheels would only have turned about “85%” of the full

cycle. If a marker were placed on the wheel to keep track of its

position with time, it would show that the wheel shifts about “55°”

counter clockwise with each captured frame of video. Thus when the

video is played back, the wheel will appear to be rotating backwards

at roughly four revolutions per second. By changing either the

frequency of the video capture or the speed of the car, the effect may

be run faster or slower in the clockwise or counter clockwise

direction. If the revolutions per second and frames per second are

equally matched, the wheel will appear motionless as the car drives

along.

In this regard, Haisch and Rueda have “filmed49” the

Compton frequency of an electron against the background frequency

of the QV in a moving reference frame. In doing so, the electron’s

wavelength appears to an outside observer to be the de Broglie

wavelength. Here, Haisch and Rueda suggest that the de Broglie

wavelength is ultimately derived extrinsically from the QV. However,

this particular example represents just one of many suggestions for

how the QV might help us understand the deep mysteries of the

quantum Universe.

The QVIH suggests the possibility that the property of

inertial mass, and other quantum phenomena such as the de Broglie

wavelength, arise extrinsically through an interaction between the

subatomic “particle” and QVE. This stochastic modeling system

yields quite profound results, but not without stirring some

controversy, because it represents a very literal way of approaching

the problem. But if we are ever going to fully understand gravity and

inertia, we must be open to innovative interpretations like Petkov’s

intrinsic model and the Haisch-Rueda extrinsic model.

Creative interpretations of reality are commonplace in

contemporary physics, and we are quite accepting of them because we

are cognizant of the fact that they are merely human rationalizations

49

Analogous to the wheels of the car in the preceding example.

104

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**of purely mathematical concepts. However, these mental models
**

sometimes forge bias in our thinking, and cause us to form preconceived notions about matter and space which obfuscate our

intuition and our ability to observe the obvious. One such bias is the

notion that space-time is literally curved or that space should be

interpreted as a purely geometric manifold. It is of vital importance

that we not confuse the abstract mathematical description of space for

space itself.

The other cataract clouding the lens of truth is the notion that

gravity is one of the primary forces in nature, or a force in its own

right. We know that the action of gravity on matter is equivalent to

inertial force, and arises by way of apparent curvature, or asymmetric

energy distribution in space-time. The root of our problem is that we

have defined separate terms (gravity and inertia) for a single

phenomenon, and find it necessary to cling to such misguided dogma.

Einstein’s work explicitly states that gravity and inertia are

equivalent, and “E = mc2” tells us that energy and matter are

equivalent. Perhaps if it weren’t for the atomic bomb, we would have

just as much difficulty with the notion of mass-energy equivalence as

we seem to have with the idea that gravity and inertial forces are, in

fact, one-and-the-same phenomenon.

GR is as brilliant and elegant as it is effective, yet on the

same note, it is also one-sided and incomplete because it disregards

the demands of the quantum Universe. When we view mass only in

terms of GR, or only in terms of QM, we limit ourselves to a partial

and incomplete description of the Universe, and this inevitably leads

us in the wrong direction. However, by viewing the problem from

both perspectives simultaneously, a wondrous and limitless horizon

begins to unfold before us.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

105

106

www.deltagroupengineering.com

6

6.1

**The Polarizable Vacuum
**

Blind-sighted

**General Relativity (GR) is a geometric model of gravity such
**

that space-time is represented as a four-dimensional manifold yielding

a topological map of space in the presence of matter. This space-time

landscape, in turn, guides the paths of light and the motion of objects

passing through it. We interpret this motion as “gravity”.

On one hand, GR is a marvelous achievement which has

profoundly enhanced our understanding of the Universe. On the other

hand, it is not at all amenable to technological applications, in that it

would require huge amounts of matter or energy to modify or

manipulate gravitational forces. GR yields highly accurate

predictions, yet makes no assumptions as to why the Universe is as it

is. It doesn’t explain why matter produces a gravitational field, or the

specific mechanism by which matter experiences inertial forces upon

acceleration. Einstein’s space-time manifold is a vacuum – a void. If

this is indeed the case, then the obvious question remains: how can

nothing possess a curved four-dimensional geometry? And how is it

that objects “know” whether they are passing through a region of

curved or flat space? It is of critical importance to remember that GR

is merely a highly effective descriptive tool – a mathematical

representation, not a literal explanation of Nature.

Bernard Haisch and Alfonso Rueda introduced a model

describing matter as being immersed within and wholly dependent

upon the quantum medium of space for its existence. Their model

does away with the notion that matter rests suspended in a vast, inert

nothingness while exerting gravitational force on other objects from

afar. Throughout the history of physics, it is almost incomprehensible

that we have virtually ignored the question of why an object

experiences a force upon acceleration, and have yielded without

protest to the notion that this force emerges from nowhere!

Perhaps this is due to the way in which our brains are wired.

Our ability to function as human beings relies upon our capacity to

selectively tune-out superfluous input like the sound of a ticking

clock, the buzz of fluorescent lighting, or the background murmur of

conversation in a crowded room. At every moment of every day

throughout the course of our lives we sense the weight of our own

body as we sit or walk, and the tug of inertia whenever we change

direction or velocity. It is a constant and consistent experience; so

consistent that we scarcely think of it. It is human nature to ignore the

www.deltagroupengineering.com

107

**obvious so that we may focus on things that seem important, aberrant
**

or threatening.

We seem content to nod vacantly in agreement to any

suggestion, no matter how bizarre or disconnected from our intuitive

knowledge and everyday experience, as long as it satisfies our need to

predict the patterns of Nature. We are apt to swallow contradictions

such as the idea of “geometric nothingness” hook, line and sinker in

lieu of other, perhaps more rational explanations. Twentieth century

physics has merely replaced the notion of “action at a distance” with

the equally abstract concept of “curved space-time”. Many physicists

are quite comfortable with this contradiction, insisting that the

relativistic tensor mathematics beautifully describing the space-time

manifold actually is space-time – substituting the abstraction for the

phenomenon! This may be suitable for those who are highly adept and

well versed in the language of applied mathematics, but it leaves little

for the more pragmatic mind to chew on.

GR was developed by “mapping” the trajectory of light as it

passes alongside massive objects. The extent to which gravitational

fields bend light allows us to trace the contours of the otherwise

invisible space-time manifold. The physicist John Wheeler is noted

for one of the most succinct and concise descriptions of GR in stating:

“matter tells space how to curve, and curved space tells matter how to

move”. But is matter actually curving space, and in so doing causing

rays of light to bend as they propagate along a curved manifold? Ask

an engineer to bend light and they won’t attempt it by curving spacetime; if you want to bend light, shine it through a lens!

108

www.deltagroupengineering.com

6.2

Optical gravity

**If you dip a long stick into a swimming pool, you will notice
**

that it appears to bend as it enters the water. The same is true if you

happen to be spear fishing – you would need to aim your spear at a

slightly different place than where you see the fish if you wish to hit

your target. This phenomenon arises because in both cases you are

seeing light (an image) which has been refracted (i.e. bent) by the

water.

Light is refracted as it passes from one substance through to

another of different density. A substance like water possesses a

specific index of refraction based upon its density. When light transits

from air into water, it moves from a medium of lower to higher

density.

As photons of light move through substances such as air,

glass, or water, they don’t simply pass through unaffected – light

interacts with the atoms and molecules comprising it; the light might

be absorbed and re-radiated, or reflected. When light passes from air

into water, it takes longer for the photons to interact with the water

because it is more densely packed with molecules than air; as this

occurs, the light slows down, causing it to bend. It’s a bit like the

difference between running on land and trying to run in a swimming

pool. You can’t run as fast in water as you can in air because water is

denser.

The degree to which a beam of light is bent depends not only

on the density of the medium it passes through (its index of

refraction), but also the angle of approach (i.e. “angle of incidence”).

The science of optics is based upon the principles of refraction and

angle of incidence. Thanks to optics, we have eyeglasses, telescopes

and a whole host of other magnificent technologies which improve

our daily lives.

Sir Isaac Newton worked extensively to create the science of

optics. Newton studied the manner in which lenses of different shape

and density bend and refract light in various ways, and how curved

mirrors reflect and focus light. However, the foundations of optics are

based upon interactions occurring at the quantum level, which

Newton knew nothing of. The theory fully describing the fundamental

interaction between light and matter is termed Quantum

Electrodynamics (QED), and is one of the most accurate theories in

physics.

The application of optical principles to those of GR as led to

an alternative and more intuitively appealing interpretation of the

space-time manifold referred to as the “Polarizable Vacuum (PV)

www.deltagroupengineering.com

109

**Approach to General Relativity (GR)”xix. Harold “Hal” Puthoff
**

introduced the PV model in 2002, having drawn upon earlier work by

physicists Harold Wilson, Robert Dicke, and famed Nobel laureate,

Andrei Sakharov.

The PV model utilizes optical principles to define the

topological features of space-time via the application of a variable

“Refractive Index”50 rather than “curvature”. As a beam of light

propagates through space, passing nearby a massive object, its path is

not bent due to the curvature of “the nothingness” it happens to be

transiting through; it is bent by passing through a region of variable

energy density which in turn, generates a variable Refractive Index

affecting the path of the beam.

According to the PV model, all matter establishes an energy

density gradient in the QV surrounding it, acting as a space-time lens.

This results in the formation of a changing Refractive Index within the

Quantum Vacuum (QV) surrounding matter. Consider the use of a

magnifying glass to focus light from the Sun. The magnifying glass

bends the parallel beams passing through it to a single focal point. It is

the tapered shape and varying lens thickness which causes the light to

bend to differing degrees as it passes through.

A similar effect also occurs in space. Einstein predicted that

a strong gravitational field should cause the trajectory of light to bend

in much the same way as it does when passing through a lens. This

effect is referred to as “gravitational lensing”, and astronomers have

obtained direct photographic evidence of this phenomenon with the

Hubble space telescope. Given the right set of circumstances, light

from a distant quasar may be bent around the intense gravitational

field of a galactic cluster positioned between the Earth and the quasar,

so that it may be seen even though it is located directly behind the

cluster. Hubble images of distant lensed objects appear warped and

stretched as though having been reflected off the back of a polished

spoon.

Within the context of GR, the space-time geometry of a

gravitational field surrounding a galactic cluster is depicted as a

depression in the fabric of space. As light passes by this curved region

of space-time it bends, resulting in a gravitational lensing effect.

Substituting the concept of “variable index of refraction” within the

QV in place of “space-time curvature” yields a congruent

interpretation of gravity to that of GR. The key distinction between

the PV and GR models is that the PV interpretation explicitly

describes a physical manner in which space-time may, in effect, be

50

Denoted by the symbol “KPV”.

110

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**“curved”. However, it doesn’t completely address the precise
**

mechanism by which this occurs. That is to say, the PV model doesn’t

explicitly describe how matter physically changes the Refractive

Index of the space-time manifold surrounding it.

6.3

Shaping the lens

**The PV model asserts that matter polarizes the QV into
**

regions of variable energy density that, in turn, generates regions of

variable Refractive Index in the space surrounding an object. To

visualize this concept, one might consider a common magnet. If you

sprinkle iron filings onto a piece of paper and place a magnet

underneath, the filings rapidly align themselves with the magnetic

lines of force produced by the magnetic field. The magnet’s influence

polarizes (i.e. enforces direction and order) to the random scatter of

filings.

A precedent for the existence of vacuum polarization comes

from the generally accepted model of the electron. In previous

chapters, a highly simplistic model of the electron was utilized to

describe “Classical Electromagnetic Mass Theory”; the electron was

described as a point-like charge in a pure vacuum, radiating an

electromagnetic (EM) field. To further simplify this concept, the

electron was treated as a ball held fixed inside a frame by springs

which expand or compress as the ball moves within its frame.

The contemporary model of the “bare electron” stems from

QED51. The QV is effervescent with virtual particle pair formation

and annihilation; thus, we must consider the effect this has on the

dynamics of all elementary particles, including the electron.

The effect an electron has on the QV is termed “vacuum

polarization”. In a volume of space devoid of all matter, the QV is

comprised of a chaotic and equally distributed mix of virtual particle

pairs popping into and out of existence. However, drop an electron

into the mix and all that drastically changes. Its presence attracts the

virtual positrons present in the vacuum, forming a cloud of positive

charges surrounding the bare electron. The QV becomes biased as

51

**Modeling it as a negatively charged point-particle surrounded by a
**

cloud of virtual particle pairs, constantly emerging from and

disappearing into the QV; charge emerges as a highly localized

change in QV energy distribution. Hawking and Davies-Unruh

radiation are also derived from the principle of virtual particle pair

formation.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

111

**virtual particle pairs are segregated into clusters of positive and
**

negative charge. In this state, the QV is no longer neutral or uniform –

it has been polarized52.

One possible explanation

accounting for the formation of

gravitational fields is that all

material objects are composed of

atoms which are themselves

composed

of

charges

and

elementary particles generating their

own localized polarizations within

the QV. The cumulative effect of

these densely packed particles and

charges generates a large-scale,

synergistic polarization in the QV

extending into space.

Taking vacuum polarization into account, the PV

interpretation combined with the Quantum Vacuum Inertia

Hypothesis (QVIH) provides a physical explanation for why matter

experiences inertial force and generates gravitational fields. GR offers

little in this regard; it describes the manner in which energy moves in

gravitational fields but doesn’t offer a physical explanation for why

objects gravitate, or experience weight and inertia.

According to the PV model, matter generates a polarized

gradient in the QV resulting in a change in the Refractive Index of

space-time. In such cases the QV appears asymmetrical, thus inertial

and gravitational forces are experienced.

When the optical effect of an asymmetrical energy gradient

is considered, the manner in which the polarized vacuum affects light

propagation becomes apparent53. As a ray of light enters an area of

vacuum polarization, it is affected by the change of Refractive Index

and bends towards the polarization source as if it were passing

52

**http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html: according to QED
**

and relativistic Quantum Field Theory (QFT) describing the

interaction of charged particles and photons, an electron is considered

to emit virtual photons which, in turn, may become virtual electronpositron pairs. The virtual positrons are attracted to the “bare”

electron while the virtual electrons are repelled from it. The bare

electron is therefore shielded due to polarization within the vacuum.

53

The paths of light altered by the presence of matter define spacetime “curvature”.

112

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**through a lens. The bending of light in this context is congruent to the
**

curved path of light predicted geometrically within GR.

GR states that inertial force and gravitational weight are

defined by the geodesic paths of light in curved space-time. Any

deviation from the natural geodesic topology requires energy input.

When an object accelerates or is held fixed in a gravitational field,

space-time appears curved and the object experiences a force. For an

object moving with uniform motion in free space, or falling along the

natural geodesic in a curved manifold, space-time appears flat and no

force is experienced.

Likewise, to an observer held fixed on the surface of the

Earth, space-time appears asymmetrical, thus constant acceleration is

experienced. Similarly, from the perspective of a uniformly

accelerating observer in free space, the QV appears asymmetrical and

one experiences a force. In both cases, the Equivalence Principle is

preserved and we are equipped with a framework for understanding

its origin.

6.4

Conflux

**What of the other strange predictions made by GR, such as
**

time dilation, mass scaling, length contraction and mass-energy

equivalence? In order for the PV model to robustly challenge GR, it

must satisfy all competing predictions which have thus far been

experimentally verified. The solution and answer to “the challenge”

pertains to the Refractive Index “KPV”.

When light passes from air into water, it moves from media

of lower to higher density and slows down. In terms of an optical

model of gravity, relative to a distant observer, if “KPV” increases, the

speed of light “c” appears to slow down54. GR is based upon the

trajectories of light through curved space-time relative to an observer;

this implies that the propagation of energy within the QV is the basis

of gravity. Thus, descriptors such as mass, size and time are also

subject to “KPV”.

Energy is the currency of the Universe and can neither be

created nor destroyed, it may only be exchanged or transformed; all

mass-energy influences its environment and is itself affected by

54

**As light from a region of low energy density (e.g. free space),
**

moves to a region of higher energy density (e.g. the Earth’s gravity

well).

www.deltagroupengineering.com

113

**environmental conditions. One such phenomenon illustrating the
**

interaction between an object and its environment is “buoyancy”.

Consider a helium balloon near the surface of the Earth. The

helium gas inside the balloon is less dense than the encapsulating

atmosphere of heavier gasses (nitrogen and oxygen). The balloon

possesses buoyancy because atmospheric density is greater than inside

the balloon; the density differential forces the balloon upwards as it

seeks environmental equilibrium55. Equilibrium marks a point of

neutral buoyancy such that the pressure inside and outside the balloon

are equalized. Because the balloon is elastic, it expands during

ascension. Higher atmospheric pressure near the surface of the Earth

acts uniformly on the balloon, confining the helium inside to a

particular volume. However, with increasing altitude, the atmospheric

pressure decreases and less environmental energy is available to

contain the gas inside and the balloon expands.

A similar concept sustains the PV model of GR such that

mass-energy equilibrates to the local Quantum Vacuum Energy

(QVE) environment56. Hence, objects appear to shrink upon

acceleration to near light-speed while equilibrating, as perceived by a

distant observer; from the object’s perspective the Universe appears to

increase in energy, however its own size does not seem to change.

From the distant observer’s perspective, the situation is

analogous to watching a helium balloon being pulled to Earth from

high altitude. At high altitude, the balloon is stretched to a size

determined by environmental equilibrium. As the balloon is displaced

from its initial equilibrium state by moving into a region of higher

pressure, the increase in atmospheric density compresses the balloon.

In terms of the PV model, because “E = mc2”, we must consider that

mass is a measure of energy and the energy density of the

encapsulating space directly affects mass as it equilibrates to the local

QVE environment.

An object accelerating away from us at near light speed57

appears red-shifted because the frequency of emitted light is subject to

the “KPV” value. Regardless of the energy density (i.e. “KPV” value) of

55

**All physical systems seek stabilization, marked by the lowest
**

permissible energy state.

56

Analogous to the manner in which a helium balloon is affected by

the atmosphere.

57

The speed of light in a vacuum is a definition, not a measurement.

This is why it is listed as “exact” by the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST);

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-in/cuu/Value?c|search_for=Speed+of+light

114

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**the local space-time encapsulating you in a vacuum, the light you emit
**

always propagates away at “c”. However, to a distant observer, the

light you emit appears refracted by the space-time you move through.

The “tone” of the light appears to shift because the observer views the

light source as moving into a region of “KPV” which is different from

the observer’s local value. The spectral shift of the light emitted from

an accelerating source is solely dependent on the relative difference

between the “KPV” values of the observer and the source.

Consider a light source moving naturally into a region of

variable “KPV” (a gravitational field). To the source object, nothing

appears to change in terms of its own size, the way light moves, or the

way time flows. However, to a distant observer, light from the source

appears to refract as it moves into the gravitational field. An object

moving naturally within a region of variable “KPV” experiences no

external forces because natural motion in such a case requires moving

along a geodesic path in “curved space-time”. Thus, the geodesic path

of GR may be expressed in terms of “KPV”, rather than explicitly in

terms of space-time curvature. The primary advantage of the PV

model over GR, in this regard, is its conceptual simplicity.

An observer might presume that a force acts on a naturally

moving object causing it to shift into a curved trajectory around a

planet or star, but the object itself doesn’t experience any force. It is

only when the object is displaced from equilibrium within its local

environment that it experiences a force. All objects seek the lowest

energy equilibrium state within an environment; this is why

acceleration requires energy input and inertia is experienced during

acceleration. Thus, energy input is required to maintain disequilibrium

and once the energy input ceases, the object resumes a state of

uniform motion, in equilibrium.

No matter where uniform motion occurs or how fast an

object may appear to be moving with respect to its environment, a

uniformly moving object will be in equilibrium with the energy

configuration of its environment. It perceives the Universe as being

flat even though it may appear curved to a distant observer. Therefore,

we may summarize equilibration in terms of the PV model of gravity

and GR as follows; “uniform motion” is synonymous with “QV

equilibrium” and “acceleration” is synonymous with “QV

disequilibrium”.

From Relativity theory we know that an object can never

accelerate to the speed of light because it becomes infinitely massive;

in order to accelerate an object to the speed of light, an infinite

amount of energy is required to push it that fast. This is truly one of

the most bizarre predictions of Relativity and one of the most difficult

www.deltagroupengineering.com

115

**to understand intuitively. It also presents one of the most formidable
**

boundaries limiting our hopes of finding an efficient means of

interstellar space travel.

As mass accelerates, it encounters inertial resistance due to

disequilibrium, becoming a “sink” for the increasingly energetic

environment it perceives. To achieve greater acceleration (i.e. QV

disequilibrium), more energy must be dumped into the mass from the

environment in order for the system to equilibrate. Since energy is

equivalent to mass, the mass increases with the addition of thrust

energy. As an object is accelerated to near light speed, its mass

becomes nearly infinite. Consequently, infinite force would be

required to accelerate an infinite mass to the speed of light.

Haisch and Rueda’s QVIH demonstrates that as matter

accelerates through space, it perceives the QV as being asymmetrical.

The PV model advances this approach by assigning form in terms of a

“KPV” value. As an object moves into a region of space with an

apparent asymmetric vacuum energy density58, a force is required to

counteract the resistance induced by QV asymmetry. When an object

is held in a gravitational field it experiences constant acceleration; this

is what we have come to call the “force of gravity”. In actuality, due

to the Equivalence Principle, the object is actually experiencing an

inertial force. No unique force of “gravity” exists per se, only a

disequilibrium stress between matter and the QV. All points in a

gravitational field exist in a constant state of asymmetrical energy

polarization; thus, all material objects in the field continually attempt

to equilibrate to the asymmetry. However, equilibration is impossible

while any object is held fixed and not permitted to fall along its

natural geodesic trajectory (i.e. path of energetic equilibrium). The

only means to equilibrate with environmental asymmetry is to “go

with the flow” and fall with gravity. This is why objects are

weightless during free-fall.

An object’s weight is a function of its mass and the

acceleration of gravity. If we travel to the Moon, we weigh less than

we do on Earth because our weight is a product of our mass (which

remains the same) and the acceleration of gravity, which is lower on

the Moon. If Jupiter had a solid surface we could stand upon, we

would expect to weigh more than we do on Earth. Held fixed in a

stronger gravitational field, the force required to counter the

acceleration of gravity is much greater.

58

i.e. a region of space with a “KPV” value greater than unity.

116

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**In a weak gravitational field such as the surface of the Moon,
**

the QV possesses a lower Refractive Index59 than on the surface of the

Earth. One may relate Refractive Index (QV asymmetry), to the slope

of a curve, such that greater asymmetry induces a steeper slope. The

higher the “KPV” value, the steeper the slope and greater the

gravitational acceleration will be. Because mass is a measure of the

force required to counter QV asymmetry, mass scales according to the

local “KPV” value as it does under GR due to the intensity of spacetime curvature. Thus, when optical principles from the PV model are

applied to GR, physical processes are easier to comprehend.

One of the most fascinating aspects of GR is the notion that

time is enmeshed with space. GR not only states that mass and energy

must be considered “mass-energy”, it also states that space and time

are a singular phenomenon termed “space-time”. In the fourdimensional matrix of space-time, an object has a precise position

within 3-D space, and it has a coordinate or “position” in time as well.

When an object moves to different coordinates in 3-D space, it will

take a certain amount of time to do so.

We define “time” as the interval between linked events. In

Relativity the speed of light is constant, thus the most appropriate

means of representing the passage of time is to base it on the duration

of the interval required for light to traverse a particular distance in

space. However, the consequence of holding the speed of light

constant is that mass, length and time will all appear to change

relative to it.

Let’s consider Einstein’s elevator again. In this case, we

decide to quantify time by measuring how long it takes for a photon to

bounce between the walls of the elevator from side to side. Let’s also

imagine that we have two identical elevators moving parallel to one

another through space. At first, they move at the same rate with no

difference in velocity between them. The photons bounce back and

forth inside each elevator in unison, hitting each wall at exactly the

same moment. However, when one of the elevators begins to move at

a faster rate than the other one, the vertical movements of the

elevators must be considered when measuring the total distance each

photon travels between each wall. Not only is the distance travelled

by each photon measured in terms of the horizontal distance inside the

elevator, the vertical distance the elevator travels within that period

must be added to that distance. This causes the photon’s path to

stretch into a zigzag rather than a horizontal line.

59

**i.e. the “KPV” value is closer to unity.
**

www.deltagroupengineering.com

117

**As one elevator moves faster than the other, the photon has a
**

greater distance per unit time to travel between each wall. A photon

propagates in a vacuum at the speed of light; thus, the modified factor

between each elevator is the time required for the photon to bounce

between the walls60. In the slow-moving elevator, the photon has a

shorter overall distance to cover, but in the fast-moving elevator the

photon travels a greater distance overall, taking into account the larger

vertical distance it has to travel. If we are measuring time as the

interval between photons striking each wall, time in the fast-moving

elevator appears to an outside observer to slow down. However, if we

were inside either elevator, we would not notice any difference in the

passage of our own time; we would only be aware of photons

bouncing from side to side. Likewise, if we examine the behavior of

the slow-moving elevator from inside the fast one, it appears that time

has slowed down for the other elevator while ours remains the same;

from inside the “slow” elevator, time in the fast-moving elevator also

appears to have slowed down.

Time is thus relative, not only because it is relative to an

observer’s motion, but because it is relative to the constant speed of

light in a vacuum. If we were riding in a space ship headed towards a

black hole, we would observe that we move towards it and “fall” in61.

However, to an outside observer watching the scene unfold, we first

appear to shrink62 and the light we emit begins to red-shift, but we

would never actually appear to fall into the black hole! This is

because, to the outside observer, our time first appears to slow down

and then stop at the moment we reach the event horizon!

Within GR, these strange effects are due to the propagation

of light in a curved space-time manifold. In the context of the PV

model, the same effects occur but they are a function of “KPV”, not

curvature. Imagine that a region of flat space-time was analogous to a

large rug laying flat on the floor. Let’s say an ant is walking from one

end of the rug to the other, moving at the maximum speed its legs

permit (the ant represents a photon traveling at light speed). If we

scrunch up the rug and measure the time required by the ant to

traverse a distance relative to the bare floor, the distance per unit time

the ant travels appears to be less than if the rug were lying flat.

When the “KPV” value increases, QVE density increases.

This is analogous to “scrunching up” the fabric of space-time. Even

60

**The relativistic mass effects discussed previously do not apply
**

because the photon is considered to be mass-less.

61

Not withstanding the tidal forces ripping us apart beforehand.

62

Before being stretched apart by gravitational tidal forces.

118

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**though the speed of light does not appear to change locally within a
**

region of varying vacuum polarization63, to a distant observer in flat

space-time, light appears to slow down64 and the distance between

two points decreases65. By considering the difference between local

and observed vacuum polarization states of space-time, it becomes

obvious why an object appears to behave as though its time was

slowing down, its length was contracting or its emitted light was

being refracted and shifted in frequency. It’s like spear fishing in a

tide pool; the image of the fish we see is refracted, and if we aim for

what we see we will miss the target. However, if we aim for where the

fish should be after refraction is considered, we have a much better

chance of hitting it.

The PV model demonstrates the manner in which the “KPV”

value of the QV is congruent with the concept of “curved space-time”

which Einstein invoked to explain acceleration and motion through

gravitational fields. Most importantly, the PV model leaves us better

equipped to understand the physical basis for the perplexing

conclusions of GR. Mathematically, the laws of motion elegantly

unfold through the implementation of GR but the basis for these laws

remains difficult to grasp from the perspective of relativistic

“curvature”. However, when we replace the concept of “curvature”

with the principles of optics, the consequences of relativity make

intuitive sense when viewed through the “lens” of the PV.

63

**e.g. at the surface of the Earth.
**

Appearing to refract towards the region of higher “KPV” value.

65

As measured in accordance with the ambient energy density

condition in the observer’s local environment.

64

www.deltagroupengineering.com

119

120

www.deltagroupengineering.com

7

7.1

**The Harmony of Nature
**

Ancient wisdom

**The Universe is an ever-changing system in motion. All of
**

its parts; the stars and planets, the galaxies and nebulae, are all linked

in a marvelously intricate dance. If a single attribute characterizes the

Cosmos, it is movement. The Universe flows and evolves – forming

whorls and spirals like eddies in a flowing river; it appears at once

chaotic yet profoundly ordered. We see order in the regular orbits of

planets around the Sun and the quantum jumps of electron energy

levels in atoms. Science rests upon our ability to mathematically

predict these regularities in a seemingly chaotic Universe. But why is

there order in the first place? What is the organizing principle upon

which order arises in our Universe?

Our innate appreciation of music and harmony affords us a

singular distinction in the animal kingdom, and it is by way of this

principle that we may gain a more thorough understanding of order in

the Cosmos. The Universe is built upon the foundation of harmonic

relationships. Harmony is stability, and stability is order. The Cosmos

exists through a sympathetic balance of forces; a dynamic equilibrium

binding its inner workings in perpetual dance. Nothing exists

independently and all things find order and stability through harmonic

concordance. The supreme clockwork order of the Cosmos is

regulated and overseen by an almost musical harmony. Without this

harmonic imperative acting to govern the existence of matter and

motion, chaos would ensue and the Universe would cease to be. This

is not simply a philosophical exhortation – it is a physical fact.

The concept of harmony permeates virtually every culture

and philosophy, and has been a pervasive theme throughout recorded

history. The ancient Babylonians, whose civilization thrived some

four thousand years ago, are reported to have defined their cultural

and philosophic identity according to the principle of harmony. The

Hellenistic philosopher, Philo of Alexandria (20BC – 50AD),

described the ancient Babylonians as having “… set up a harmony

between things on Earth and things on high, between heavenly things

and earthly. Following as it were the laws of musical proportion, they

have exhibited the Universe as a perfect concord or symphony

produced by a sympathetic affinity between its parts” xx.

The Father of Numbers, Pythagoras of Samos (582 – 507BC)

was a scientist, a mystic, but foremost, a mathematician. Pythagoras is

known primarily for his “Theorem”, utilized to calculate the

www.deltagroupengineering.com

121

**dimensions of right triangles. However, he is also known for having
**

formulated the Laws of Cosmic Harmony. Similar to the ancient

Babylonians, Pythagoras adopted a world-view founded not only on

the order that harmony implies, but the physics of harmonic

relationships. His harmonic philosophy was not merely a poetic and

idealistic notion – it was an idea forged from mathematical logic.

The Pythagorean philosophy arose from the study of musical

and tonal relationships. Pythagoras was the first to formally describe

the manner in which our human appreciation of musical tone and

pitch rests upon a solid a mathematical foundation of harmonic

proportions. The notes in a scale are not arbitrary. The spectrum of all

possible tones is delineated into distinct divisions, forming scales of

whole notes which we naturally discern as being evenly defined

increments of a larger whole. Most people can immediately identify

whether a note sounds flat or sharp. We sense upon hearing a note

sounding flat or sharp that it is mathematically discordant from other

notes in the scale.

Western music is based upon the “diatonic scale”, defined by

Pythagoras; thus, originally known as the “Pythagorean scale”.

Certain notes of a scale may be produced on a single string of a guitar,

for example, if the string is held fixed at fractions of its fixed length.

The “octave” marks a complete cycle of the tonal scale. Two tones

separated by eight full tones, termed the octave, is actually the same

tone, just higher or lower in pitch. The harmonic ratio describing the

octave is “2:1”; meaning, a string vibrating along half its length

produces the same note as the whole length but at a higher pitch66. If a

string is held fixed at a point one-third of its whole length, a note five

tones above the fundamental67 will sound. The ratio for this tone is

“3:2”. The ratio producing a sound four tones above the fundamental

is “4:3”. All of these even ratios produce sounds in tune with the

others. However, when two different notes not mathematically

concordant with this harmonic ratio are played simultaneously, the

tones sound dissonant. Musical notes are not arbitrarily chosen from a

spectrum of tones, they are increments in tone derived from geometric

ratios of a fundamental tone. The frequency of vibration is what we

hear as a tone and the physics describing the musical scale is defined

by the harmonic relationship between the tones.

“Harmony” means to be in concordance with, or having parts

joined in sympathetic union; connoting congruence, compatibility and

66

**The high-tone octave is double the frequency of the low-tone.
**

“Fundamental” refers to the lowest tone (i.e. frequency) in a

harmonic series.

67

122

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**stability. The Pythagoreans interpreted numeric harmonic
**

relationships as being implicit in Nature such that the Cosmos owed

its existence to a mathematical imperative. Pythagoras believed that

numbers were the only real things in the Universe and that divine

numerical ratios caused all order to arise. Harmony, in the

Pythagorean Universe, begets order and influences all forms in

Nature.

Pythagoras was also the first to apply the term “Cosmos” to

characterize the Universe. To us, the “Universe” is abstract –

something out there. However, the term “Cosmos” encompasses

everything that is the Universe, from galaxies to planets, from people

to plant life; everything. The word “Cosmos” that we now colloquially

apply interchangeably with “Universe” is an ancient Greek expression

describing a state of perfect order – the antithesis of chaos. That

Pythagoras so carefully chose to assign this word to describe the

Universe is quite telling because in doing so, he implies that the

Cosmos is far more than a void in which we are suspended; it is a

supreme manifestation of perfect harmony, permeating all facets of

existence.

7.2

Music of the spheres

**“Harmony” is not merely a poetic philosophical concept; it is
**

also physical and literal. Assuming harmonics represented the basic

nature of the Cosmos, Pythagoras developed a mystical model of

planetary motion known as “the Music of the Spheres”68. He surmised

that the planets, the Earth and Sun included, were organized and set in

place according to a divine rule of harmonic proportions. Although

this was a purely mystical philosophy, based upon a mathematical

concept, some literal truth remains in its core.

We have come to discover that the planets do not orbit the

sun in arbitrary paths of their own design; the gravitational fields of

the other bodies in the solar system directly affect their orbits. This

gravitational network is a key factor in the formation and evolution of

our entire solar system. Jupiter’s moon Europa, for example, is tugged

by the gravitational influence of all other moons in the Jovian system,

and this acts to “align” and stabilize the orbital period of each moon.

This stable gravitational arrangement that evolves over time is known

as “orbital resonance”69.

68

69

Musica Universalis.

Orbital resonances may be stable or unstable.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

123

**Orbital resonance was the key driver in the formation,
**

evolution and order of our current solar system. Early in its evolution,

our own solar system is thought to have possessed many more planets

than exist today. However, resonant instabilities caused these early

planetoids to congeal into larger ones, or nudged them out of their

precarious orbits and into the Sun. Some planetoids ejected from their

solar orbits were “captured” by planets and became moons. The

substantial masses of gas giants such as Jupiter and Saturn provide a

source of protection and stability for our solar system – acting as

grand matriarchs of the solar family, reigning in rebellious rogues and

ejecting uncooperative dissidents.

Over the course of many millions of years, the solar system

eventually evolved more stable orbital resonances as it settled into the

configuration that exists today. These stable resonances act to hold

our solar system together. For example, the Earth’s period of rotation

around the Sun is one year and Saturn takes nearly 30 years to

complete its orbit. The closest planet to the Sun, Mercury, takes

roughly three months to complete its orbit. Considering the orbital

periods in relation to one another, we notice a marked regularity

amongst them. For every orbit of the Earth, for example, Mercury

orbits the Sun approximately four times and for every five orbits of

Jupiter, Saturn orbits twice. Quasi-uniform ratios are found amongst

the orbital periods of the planets and moons, and these alignments

stabilize and balance the solar system. A rhythm and synchronicity

exists, as if the planets are engaged in a grand, cosmic waltz.

To illustrate this point, we shall examine the orbital

resonance ratios of Jupiter’s moons Ganymede, Europa and Io. The

harmonic ratio of these three moons is “1:2:4” respectively; for every

orbit of Ganymede, Europa orbits twice and Io orbits fourfold.

Harmonically ordered orbits evolve because all objects and systems

seek the condition of greatest stability, marked by the state of lowest

energy. For example, a ball rolling back and forth in a U-shaped well

eventually stabilizes as it comes to rest at the lowest point in the well,

achieving a state of least energy. Moving the ball up the side of the

well requires energy input and represents an unstable energy state.

Resonant orbital arrangements are self-reinforcing because they often

represent the lowest permissible energy configuration of the system.

124

www.deltagroupengineering.com

The orbits of other planets in our solar system have selforganized and evolved over the eons into highly regular harmonic

ratiosxxi, and though not all planets in the solar system possess highly

regular orbital resonances, our solar system continues to evolve into a

state of increasing stability as time progresses. Harmonization in the

orbital periods of planets in our solar system has been recognized and

appreciated since ancient times. This clockwork syncopation

mesmerized early philosophers and physicists such as Johannes

Kepler.

In his 1619 treatise entitled

Harmonice Mundi,70 Kepler sought to

explain the arrangement of the planets

according to an organizing principle

stipulated by the Pythagorean model and

the geometric conventions of Plato’s five

perfect solids. Kepler believed that the

circumference of each planetary orbit

was prescribed by the ratio resulting

from nesting the five perfect solids inside

one another.

In Kepler’s model, a cube with a

sphere fitting snugly inside indicated the

orbital circumference of an arbitrary

planet. Within that sphere fits another solid such as a tetrahedron, and

the sphere nested within the tetrahedron indicated the orbital

circumference of another planet. Within the orbit defined by the

tetrahedron another perfect solid would fit, thus defining another

planetary orbit and so on, until all the planets were accounted for.

70

**“Harmony of the Worlds”.
**

www.deltagroupengineering.com

125

**Needless to say, Kepler’s speculative model ultimately
**

proved to be incorrect. However, his deep conviction that a divine,

harmonic order regulated Natural laws inspired him to develop the

famous Three Laws of Planetary Motion. These laws not only maintain

their rank as the gold-standard of celestial mechanics to this day, they

laid the ground-work for Newtonian Mechanics and provided

undeniable evidence for a heliocentric model of the solar system.

**(Left): Kepler's planetary model
**

of the solar system as nested

Platonic solids. Mysterium

Cosmographicum (1596).

7.3

The quantum-harmonic axiom

**Harmony implies stability. This is not only true in
**

philosophical terms; it also applies to physical systems. Matter exists

in the Universe because elementary particles71 are products of an

inherent harmonic order. Atoms are composed of three particle

constituents; the proton, neutron and electron. The proton and neutron

are themselves composed of three quark subunits. The structural

composition of atoms is never arbitrary; symmetry and uniformity

exists at every level of scale. Simple and consistent mathematical

rules of symmetry always apply, giving rise to the existence of matter.

A simple rule, such as the number of electrons in an atom,

dictates how an individual element reacts and combines with others to

form a varied array of molecules which, in turn, form all substances in

the Universe. The stability and homogeneity of matter and its

predictable chemical behavior is a manifestation of the underlying

mathematical order upon which it is constructed.

71

The building blocks from which atoms are constructed.

126

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**The energy levels of electrons surrounding the atomic
**

nucleus are harmonically defined. Atomic electrons may be

considered to exist as three-dimensional probabilistic standing waves

surrounding the nucleus. Sometimes the probability of finding an

electron at a specific point in an atom is unlikely, while in other

places the presence of an electron is very likely.

The electron probability distribution is proportional to the

size of the atom itself. One may consider the atom as being trapped

inside a box containing the electron-wave, analogous to the orbit of a

planet in Kepler’s model. The boundary imposed upon the electronwave limits its existence to harmonic multiples of its ground-state72,

not unlike a guitar string held fixed at both ends. The fixed string may

only vibrate in harmonic increments of its fixed length. Similarly,

atomic electrons exist as harmonic intervals of their fundamental

frequency. In the electron’s case however, instead of vibrating like a

string in two dimensions, the electron exists as a standing wave

encompassing the three-dimensional volume of the atom.

These harmonic frequency intervals are termed “Eigenfrequencies”, derived from the German word “Eigen”, meaning

“same”. The electron Eigen-frequencies (i.e. “Eigen-states”) are

quantum and discrete73; representing whole harmonic multiples of the

ground-state energy. It is this harmonic organization principle that led

to the development of Quantum Mechanics (QM), and it is also the

reason it is called “quantum” in the first place.

(Right): Eigen-states of the

electron in a hydrogen atom74.

In order to better explain

this concept, we shall turn to the

model of blackbody radiation. Max

Planck demonstrated that thermal

radiation may be described by a

spectral relationship. The distribution

pattern of the blackbody radiation

spectrum is characterized as a skewed

72

**The lowest permissible whole-integer frequency within the
**

parameters set by the atomic boundary.

73

Intermediate energy states do not exist.

74

Image credited to the Florian Marquardt, Theoretical Condensed

Matter, department of physics, University of Munich (LMU),

Germany.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

127

**bell-shaped curve; the majority of photons surrounding a hot object
**

possess roughly the same energy, and the prevalence of photons with

higher or lower energy diminishes on either side of the spectrum.

Planck treated each photon as a harmonic oscillator,

analogous to a tiny string in space; each one vibrating at a specific

frequency. Planck concluded that the range of permissible oscillation

frequencies was not continuous, but limited to integer multiples of

“hν”, i.e., the frequency multiplied by “Planck’s Constant”xxii. Thus a

blackbody radiation spectrum is not randomly defined; it represents a

distribution of discrete frequencies with variable prevalence along the

spectrum. In other words, photon energies surrounding a hot object

cannot oscillate at random frequencies; they may only exist at precise

sub-harmonics of the Planck Frequency, implying that the energy

associated with any material object is harmonically defined.

For example, the majority of radiant energy from the Sun

occurs in a relatively narrow bandwidth of wavelengths. When

graphed, the prevalence of photons in a given energy range forms a

skewed bell-shaped distribution termed a “blackbody radiation

curve”. Planck determined that the only manner in which to accurately

depict the distribution of energy in a blackbody curve was to

“quantize” the field. He partitioned the spectral energy into discrete

“bits”; each “bit” being harmonically related to others by Planck’s

Constant, analogous to the manner in which various Eigen-states of an

electron are delimited by its ground-state energy.

Thus, the quantum model not only applies to energy, it also

applies to matter. In quantizing electron Eigen-states and dividing the

electromagnetic field into photons, the underlying structure and order

of the quantum Universe is revealed. QM states that matter and

energy are literally built upon the foundation of harmonic

relationships.

7.4

Fourier’s legacy

**If we delve deeply enough into any physical phenomenon, it
**

seems that nearly all physical processes are governed by “some kind”

of harmonic statute. But what is the reason behind all this order and

structure we find in the Cosmos, and how does it naturally arise?

Order governs the balance of energy and forces. An unstable,

disordered system is like a boulder precariously balanced on the tip of

a mountain peak. A boulder that has come to rest on the valley floor

after having tumbled down the mountainside denotes a stable system

at its lowest energy state.

128

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**Analyzing orbital resonance in planetary motion, we find that
**

configurations evolve75 to represent the most energetically stable and

efficient arrangement possible. Each planet contributes gravitational

influence to the system such that the resulting tidal forces provide a

positively or negatively reinforcing effect upon the elements76 of the

system.

A complete cycle of a planet around the sun is termed an

“orbital period”. Orbital periods and cyclical motions of any kind,

such as the swing of a pendulum, may be represented as sine waves

possessing frequency and amplitude. To increase the amplitude

(height) of the pendulum’s swing, energy may be added in the form of

a push to the pendulum’s direction of motion. When pushing in

syncopation with the motion of the pendulum77, the amplitude of the

swing increases. Similarly, to decrease the amplitude of the swing, a

push may be applied which is out of phase78. Doing so saps the kinetic

energy of the motion and the pendulum will eventually come to a

stop.

The energy dynamics of this process may be represented

mathematically by the simple addition and subtraction of waves.

Adding79 two waves of equal length and amplitude peak-to-peak80

forms a resultant wave possessing the same length, but double the

amplitude of the initial waves; this is termed “constructive

interference”. Conversely, if two identical waves are added peak-totrough81, the waves cancel each other out. This is termed “destructive

interference”. This scheme for adding and subtracting waves has been

greatly elaborated upon in the world of mathematics to encompass all

manner of wave interactions.

Many different waves may be combined to produce a single

composite waveform. Conversely, a composite waveform may be

decomposed into a set or spectrum of individual waves. The

decomposition process is a bit like defining the number 100. Many

individual numbers may be added together to obtain “100”;

alternatively, “100” may be decomposed into sets of lesser numbers

equaling “100” when summed. Waves are analogous to numbers in

this regard. Each wave is analogous to a number which may be added

75

**Over long periods of time.
**

i.e. celestial objects.

77

The addition of energy is “in phase” with its natural swing.

78

Opposing the swing of the pendulum.

79

Superimposing.

80

The two waves are said to be “in phase”.

81

The two waves are said to be “out of phase”.

76

www.deltagroupengineering.com

129

**or subtracted from the others to create a final number, denoting a
**

“constant function”.

This process of summing harmonic modes of a fundamental

wave may be used to mathematically re-construct any waveform or

constant function by applying the rules of constructive and destructive

interference. The reverse is also true, as one may readily decompose

any constant function into a cognate spectrum of discrete harmonic

frequencies. The process of waveform dissolution is termed “spectral

analysis”. Spectral analysis has broad applications and is commonly

utilized in electronics, optics, acoustics, image processing, computer

data compression and more. It may even be used to model

gravitational acceleration82. In fact, the use of spectral analysis to

characterize gravity forms the basis of what we refer to as “space-time

engineering”.

The early 19th century

French mathematician and physicist,

Joseph Fourier, founded the field of

spectral analysis through his

development of a mathematical

process for compiling harmonic

waves. This method is nowadays

termed “Fourier series”83, and the

mathematical operation facilitating

spectral decomposition is termed

“Fourier Transformation”84.

Sir Isaac Newton learned

that if he shined white light through

a glass prism, it spread into a

rainbow of colors. This experiment

demonstrated that sunlight is composed of many distinct wavelengths

of light, spanning all visible colors of the spectrum. In terms of

spectral analysis, sunlight is analogous to a “constant function”

compiled from the superposition of a spectrum of light waves.

Spectral analysis may be utilized to characterize electromagnetic

82

**The harmonic representation of gravitational acceleration is
**

thoroughly demonstrated in Quinta Essentia Part III (QE3). A brief

summary of this process is also available in the EGM Technical

Summary.

83

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FourierSeries.html

84

The Fourier Transform defines a relationship between a signal in

the time domain and its representation in the frequency domain:

http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~mjj/dspDemos/EE4/tutFT.html

130

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**(EM) fields85 such as “sunlight”, for example, by mathematically
**

compiling the individual wavelengths that make up the visible

spectrum.

**The Fourier summation of waves may be utilized to construct
**

a constant function by the mathematical superposition of the

harmonics associated with a fundamental wave. For example, a

periodic square wave86 may be represented as harmonic multiples of

the fundamental frequency utilizing Fourier series87. The following

illustration depicts a Fourier series summation of a small number of

harmonic modes, demonstrating that as the number of summed modes

approaches infinity, the Fourier representation utilizing sine waves

becomes (in this case) a perfect square wave of unit amplitude.

85

**EM energy is typically represented as a span of radio, microwaves,
**

visible light, x-rays or gamma rays. Gamma rays possess shortwavelengths (i.e. high frequencies) and are highly energetic, whereas

radio occurs at long-wavelengths (i.e. low frequencies) and are low in

energy. All possible energy values of EM radiation fall along a

continuum called the “EM spectrum”. EM waves are spectrally

organized according to wavelength, representing a range of

possibilities. “Bandwidth” refers to a range or sub-set of wavelengths

within the spectrum such as “visible light”. The bandwidth of white

light lies between the UV and infrared EM limits.

86

http://www.falstad.com/fourier/

87

Each harmonic, relative to its lowest permissible frequency value in

the applied mathematical spectrum, is termed a “mode”.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

131

**The ground-state of any system represents its lowest
**

permissible energy value, and is synonymous with stability. Whether

it is the orbital period of Jupiter’s moons, the quantum shifts of

electrons in a hydrogen atom, or a drop of oil spreading upon the

surface of water, stability (a constant energy state) is a direct

consequence of environmental equilibrium. In terms of spectral

analysis, any ground-state system we wish to consider represents a

summation of inputs and outputs resulting in a constant function; the

system’s most stable configuration.

It is possible to mathematically visualize the difference

between stability and instability, in terms of symmetry and

asymmetry, utilizing Fourier series. Let’s look back to the orbital

resonances of Io, Europa and Ganymede. If the harmonic orbital

periods of these moons are superimposed upon one another as

periodic functions, the wave summation forms a regular and

symmetric pattern. If the orbital period of Europa happened to be

“2.765” per orbit of Ganymede rather than “2”, the resulting

waveform will be asymmetric.

132

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**The same is true for musical tones as well. When we hear
**

multiple notes played in unison, which denote even harmonic

intervals in a scale, (termed a “chord”) it sounds pleasing. However, if

one of the notes possesses a wavelength which is not an exact

harmonic increment in that scale, the chord sounds dissonant.

Mathematical and harmonic symmetry is often congruent with

aesthetic value. Mathematically, the dissonant interaction of sound

waves generates a composite asymmetrical waveform which sounds

unpleasant. However, harmonic sound waves combine elegantly,

yielding an ordered and symmetric waveform which sounds pleasant.

Our aesthetic appreciation of harmony, symmetry, music,

order and beauty defines our humanity. Pythagoras and the ancient

Babylonians reasoned that this was due to an underlying mathematical

symmetry in Nature; a harmonic sympathy amongst all things which

enables and establishes structure in the Cosmos. We intrinsically

appreciate Natural order because we innately understand that all

things are drawn to, or tend towards this end. We readily appreciate

the difference between free-flow and interference, harmony and

dissonance. The fact that we may apply Fourier’s techniques to

analyze systemic symmetry affords us a unique opportunity. Through

this perspective, we may view the processes of Nature in a deeper and

more enlightened manner, and easily identify the common threads and

underlying principles of action driving natural processes in all their

forms.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

133

134

www.deltagroupengineering.com

8

Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM)

**“Controversy is the first step towards reformation.”
**

• Riccardo C. Storti

8.1

Introduction

**Gravity is an electromagnetic phenomenon. Many physicists
**

in the scientific community today might deem this to be a rather bold,

even heretical statement because gravity has traditionally been treated

as a unique and distinct force in and of itself. Electricity and

magnetism, which were once thought to be entirely disparate entities,

are now unified into a single set of interactions termed

“electromagnetism”. The weak nuclear force, which helps keep the

subatomic particles of atoms bound together, was shown to be

mediated by photons, and thus we now call this combined interaction

the “electroweak interaction”. Nature has placed many conspicuous

clues pointing directly to the notion that gravity and inertia are

electromagnetic in origin. We have chosen to use this argument as the

starting point of our investigation into the nature of gravity, simply

because it is the most logical and obvious place to begin.

The science of physics has long considered the development

of an all-encompassing “Theory of Everything” to be its greatest and

final purpose – to unify gravity and all the other forces of Nature into

a single, elegant equation. Despite the fact that by the turn of the 21st

century there was still no single theory which could successfully unite

gravity with electromagnetism, there is good reason to suggest that

gravity has always been unified with electromagnetism, in principle at

least.

If one rationally considers the tenets of General Relativity

(GR), one is forced to conclude that gravity must operate, at least in

part, through some component of electromagnetism. According to

GR, matter generates “curvature” in space-time, and this imaginary

curvature directly affects the propagation of electromagnetic (EM)

energy and the motions of material objects. As a beam of light enters

a gravitational field, its trajectory is curved in direct response to the

gravitational field it passes through. However, the dynamic behavior

of EM energy in proximity to matter defines “space-time curvature”,

which in turn defines how material objects interact gravitationally.

This means that one may remove the concepts of “space-time

curvature” and “gravitational force” entirely and substitute them with

the refraction of EM energy in the presence of matter.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

135

**We use the term “electromagnetism” because we now
**

understand that the forces of electricity and magnetism go hand-inhand. This is connection is empirically proven because magnetic

fields may be applied to induce electrical currents in conductors, and

vice versa. Each force has the ability to directly affect the other. By

this logic, we must also conclude that because gravity is the result of

energy displacement due to the presence of matter (i.e. what Einstein

termed “curvature” of space-time) gravity must act through some deep

and fundamental connection between matter and EM energy.

This fundamental connection may be described in exquisite

detail utilizing the Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM) method. EGM has

been developed through a synthesis of observation and application of

time-tested principles of engineering, physics and mathematics. No ad

hoc theories are required and no “new physics” has been conjured up

in order to develop the EGM method. EGM doesn’t require the

invocation of multiple dimensions or universes to yield highly

accurate results which are fully consistent with observation and

proven theory. EGM simply and elegantly reveals mathematical

patterns and relationships in Nature which form the basis of all

physical phenomena involving matter and energy – including gravity.

More specifically, EGM models the manner in which mass-energy

behaves in the milieu of Quantum Vacuum Energy (QVE). Most

importantly, this interaction between matter and the Quantum

Vacuum (QV) constitutes a system which not only defines the

properties of mass, but also reveals the primary canonical rule

governing the existence of matter.

The first principle which must be acknowledged and

accepted to fully understand how the EGM method works is that

matter doesn’t exist as an autonomous entity floating inertly in space.

EGM models mass-energy as a dynamic interaction process in which

energy in the form of mass establishes equilibrium with the energy of

the QV surrounding it. Matter and EM radiation follow geodesic paths

of least resistance through space-time as they seek equilibrium within

the ambient vacuum-energy environment.

8.2

Similitude

**If we wish to investigate gravity as being a function of
**

electromagnetism, we must assume that gravity and electromagnetism

are already unified. Furthermore, if we wish to implicate the QV, and

therefore Quantum Mechanics (QM) as the binding link, we must

additionally assume that QM is also unified with gravity and

electromagnetism. However, prior to adopting this perspective, we

136

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**must identify the common thread relating these outwardly divergent
**

concepts. This was the first step in the development of the EGM

method, and the reason why it is referred to as a method and not a

theory.

Buckingham “Π” Theory (BPT) is a well established

fundamental engineering principle which has been widely utilized

since its formulation in the early 1900’s. In fact, much of what we

know today about thermodynamics has been gained through the

implementation of this theory. Buckingham’s technique is applied to

simplify the representation of complex physical systems. In doing so,

BPT determines which components are necessary (or unnecessary) in

order to adequately represent the dynamics of a system.

The Greek letter “Π” (Pi) in BPT doesn’t refer to the ratio

“π”, but instead denotes dimensionless variables arranged according

to like terms in order to describe the components of a system. It is

somewhat analogous to the manner in which words are arranged

according to the rules of grammar and sentence structure. In this

regard, the dimensionless “Π” groups are the words of the sentence,

whereas the grammatical structure and choice of words in the

sentence are analogous to the equation best describing the system

being analyzed. For example, a single event may be described in

many different ways, utilizing different words, different combinations

of words, placed in various order, and yet still yield an adequate

description of that event. No right or wrong sentences exist per se,

only ones adequately describing the event being observed. One may

choose to recount a single event quite differently from another person,

or rephrase the details of one event in various ways, yet the desired

result is the same: that the information is communicated adequately.

BPT formalisms afford an engineer the ability to phrase the

dynamics of an experimental prototype in multiple ways, with the end

result being an equation describing the system mathematically. Syntax

in language provides the structural framework upon which ideas are

communicated. The basic rules of syntax allow a limited number of

words to be arranged into an almost limitless number of expressions.

Syntax provides structure and meaning to language so that ideas are

conveyed. BPT, in a sense, provides the mathematical syntax upon

which an equation may be constructed. An engineer designs and

selects a mathematical expression, in accordance with syntactic

guidelines, yielding the most complete depiction of the prototype.

Variables may be added or removed from the equation until a model

is constructed which best predicts the outcome of a simulation.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

137

**BPT is utilized to model the behavior of a whole system88
**

without requiring precise knowledge of all components within the

system. For example, it is not necessary to calculate the movements of

every water molecule in the ocean to adequately model or predict the

movement of a wave passing through it. BPT operates within the

framework of Dimensional Analysis Techniques (DATs)89,

demonstrating the scaling relationship between similar systems90. For

example, in modeling a wave in water, DATs demonstrate that the

size of a wave may be irrelevant in many cases. A wave may be

several meters high, or a mere ripple on the surface; however, the

wave dynamics of the system are geometrically scalable. Likewise,

the dynamics of a vortex of water going down a drain may be

described in the same terms as a tornado in the atmosphere.

If we wish to design a computer simulation of a new

submarine prototype, BPT and DATs allow us to select the proper

physical parameters affecting the real submarine, such as the tensile

strength of the hull, the pressure of the water acting on the hull and so

forth, and it also allows the researcher to reduce or eliminate variables

and parameters which are unnecessary. This dramatically increases

the efficiency of the prototype design process by reducing the number

of experiments and simulations necessary in order to test it

adequately. These methods also provide a framework for

understanding and analyzing problems, and a means of assessing the

overall quality and usefulness of the model itself91.

Generating an equation utilizing BPT is quite

straightforward. All the factors involved in the system being analyzed

are considered, then the experimenter judges which variables92 are

expected to be physically important, such as energy, time, mass,

length, gravity, pressure, etc. The variables are then grouped as a set

of parameters influencing the system, in accordance with the standard

methodology developed by Edgar Buckingham.

88

**Particularly when scaling physical relationships to the size of
**

bench-top experimental prototypes.

89

Primarily enforcing dimensional homogeneity across mathematical

and physical representations.

90

Indicating that they may be described in like terms.

91

Norwegian University of Science and Technology,

http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/kurs/matmod/1998h/

92

Each possessing units of physical measure; for example, mass is a

fundamental unit (e.g. “kg”) which cannot be reduced nor expressed

as a combination of units.

138

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**An important consideration involving DATs and BPT is the
**

rule of “similitude”. In order to compare a mathematical model to a

physical system, certain criteria must be satisfied. The model must

have dynamic, kinematic or geometric similarity to the real-world

system (any of, or all of these if applicable). “Dynamic similarity”

relates forces, “kinematic similarity” relates motion93 and “geometric

similarity” relates shape94. Once the design principles of similitude are

satisfied, the mathematical model is considered applicable to the realworld system95.

The famed English physicist, Sir Geoffrey I. Taylor,

masterfully demonstrated how dimensional analysis could be applied

to predict the energy generated by the first atomic bomb, detonated

outside Alamogordo, New Mexico in 1945, utilizing declassified

high-speed camera images of the explosion. Taylor surmised that the

five physical factors involved in the explosion were; the energy of the

explosion, the radius of the shockwave, the atmospheric pressure and

density acting to contain the shockwave, and the time interval of the

shockwave’s expansion. These five physical terms possess three

fundamental units between them (i.e. length, mass and time). The

number of dimensionless groups96 equals the number of physical

factors involved in the system, minus the number of fundamental

units. Five physical factors are involved in the system yielding three

fundamental units, therefore two dimensionless “Π” groupings are

required to solve for the energy released by the detonation.

Energy, exerted as atmospheric pressure, acts to partially

contain the explosion as it occurs. The dynamic interaction between

the energy released in the blast and the energy exerted by atmospheric

pressure generates the shock wave. This interaction is similar to the

manner in which the size of an air bubble in the ocean is defined by

the ambient pressure of the water. Thus, the shock wave is utilized as

a measure of the total energy of the system.

High-speed cameras were utilized to film the explosion and

each still image provided Taylor with precise time intervals to

measure the size97 and rate of the shockwave’s expansion. This

information facilitated the determination of the energy released by the

93

**Synonymous with the time domain.
**

For instance, the topology of space-time curvature within the

context of GR.

95

Refer to a standard Engineering text for worked examples of DATs

and BPT.

96

i.e. “Π” groups.

97

i.e. the spherical dimensions of the expanding explosion.

94

www.deltagroupengineering.com

139

**blast, without foreknowledge of the amount of explosive used in the
**

device itself. The rate and size of shockwave expansion is

proportional to the energy released by the explosion and

representative of the energy exerted by the surrounding atmosphere

acting to contain the blast-sphere as the system moves towards a state

of energetic equilibrium.

8.3

Precepts and principles

**The EGM method is so named because it was initially
**

developed as a means of representing, based upon DATs and BPT,

how a gravitational field might be described solely in the

mathematical language of electromagnetism. EGM is not a theory; it

is a modeling approach – a method of mathematically simulating a

real-world system.

Standard engineering techniques such as DATs and BPT are

typically applied to simulate common engineering problems such as

those involving aerodynamics, thermodynamics or load stress;

however, in this case they have been applied to find solutions to

problems in GR and QM. EGM is not “new physics”. EGM is based

entirely upon tried-and-true mathematical and physical principles.

The original intent of EGM was to determine, via

mathematical modeling alone, whether it might be possible to modify

the gravitational force acting on a test object, or to potentially

generate artificial gravity by utilizing electromagnetic energy to alter

the state of the QV surrounding the test object. However, the result

proved to be of far greater scope and significance than its developers

originally anticipated, or could have possibly imagined. The EGM

method has unveiled a universal principle which may be applied to

virtually all physical systems involving matter and energy. To any

properly skeptical scientist, this may seem either too good to be true,

or even impossible to believe. Yet, when EGM is applied to physical

systems, it consistently yields highly accurate and astonishingly

precise results, whether one is investigating the microcosm of

subatomic particles or the largest astronomical objects in the

Universe.

EGM was formulated with the intent of providing a tool with

which engineers and physicists could not only understand, but

possibly even modify gravity and inertia. Theoretically, this can only

be achieved by somehow modifying the space-time manifold

surrounding a test object. Gravity is often erroneously referred to and

treated as a “force”, that is said to “pull” on other objects. This is an

entirely inaccurate and misleading portrayal. Gravity is the result of

140

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**an interaction between matter and the space-time manifold
**

surrounding it. GR interprets gravity as being due to curvature within

the space-time manifold98. The space-time manifold is thought to

control how objects and radiation move through it, in accordance with

the local index of curvature in a region of space. In effect, GR allows

us to study the physics of gravity through a geometric interpretation of

space-time. Hence, the original purpose of EGM was an attempt to

determine how one might go about physically modifying the spacetime manifold in order to alter gravitational and inertial geodesics.

We also know from Einstein’s famous equation “E = mc2”

that matter and energy are equivalent. Simply put, this means that

matter is energy – the energy is merely “condensed” in the form of

matter. However, “matter” is an inadequate term to use in physics and

is better represented by its physical attribute termed “mass”. Mass is a

mathematical term describing the amount of energy embodied by

matter, and is thus referred to as “mass-energy” to reflect Einstein’s

equivalence relationship.

GR states that mass-energy generates curvature in the fabric

of space-time, resulting in “gravity”. However, we must always

remember that “space-time curvature” is physically meaningless; that

is to say, it is only a mathematical construct allowing us to describe a

physical phenomenon. Believing the space-time manifold to be pure

vacuum leads to a logically defiant position99. Although GR describes

the motions of matter and EM radiation, it may only be regarded as a

mathematical interpretation of reality because Einstein was never able

to adequately demonstrate the exact physical mechanism by which

matter generates curvature in space-time, or the physical attribute of

space-time capable of being curved.

EGM models the matter–manifold interaction as a physical

system such that energy, in the form of mass, does “work” on the

space-time manifold in order to directly affect (i.e. curve) it.

However, in order for this to be a physical interaction, the space-time

manifold must be treated as though it is something rather than nothing

– there must be something for mass-energy to exert its influence upon.

EGM presumes physicality of the space-time manifold and that the

currency of this exchange is electromagnetic (i.e., mediated by

photons, or more specifically, by “gravitons”). Presuming gravity is

the result of a matter–manifold interaction, the EGM construct may be

98

99

**i.e. induced and affected by the presence of matter and / or energy.
**

i.e. “nothingness” cannot possess “shape”.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

141

**implemented via the application of control-systems engineering
**

philosophies100 in accordance with the following precepts:

i.

ii.

iii.

iv.

**An object at rest polarizes the QV surrounding it.
**

An object at rest is in equilibrium with the QV

surrounding it.

The QVE101 surrounding an object at rest is

equivalent to “E = mc2”.

The frequency distribution of the spectral energy

density of the QV surrounding an object at rest is

cubic.

**In other words, EGM methodology commences by
**

mathematically expressing the mass-energy value “E”, from “E =

mc2”, in terms of an EM spectrum by Fourier Transformation. This

mass-energy spectrum is then superimposed upon the frequencycubed QV spectrum of “flat” space-time, derived from QM.

Expressing mass-energy in spectral terms facilitates the coalescence

of these two spectra mathematically, creating a new spectrum. This

new spectrum, in turn, depicts an EM energy equilibrium gradient

formed between the center of mass and “infinity”. The energy

gradient produced is entirely congruent to the attribute of “spacetime curvature” derived from GR.

However, it is important to emphasize that EGM is a

mathematical construct only. EGM does not propose that mass is

literally comprised of spectral modes interacting with the QV, it is

merely a tool by which to distil and deconstruct the fundamental

energy dynamics of GR, EM and QM; combining like characteristics

in order to solve a problem.

8.4

Space-time engineering

**In 1939, physicists Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch published
**

an article in the journal Nature entitled “Disintegration of Uranium by

Neutrons: a New Type of Nuclear Reaction”xxiii. Meitner and Frisch

studied the physics of nuclear fission occurring when the nuclei of

uranium atoms are bombarded with neutrons. This causes the nucleus

100

**Commonly invoked to design cruise control devices in cars or
**

tracking systems, and in general, any automated technology utilizing

feedback to maintain a steady-state.

101

i.e. gravitational field energy.

142

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**of the atom to split in two, forming barium isotopes and releasing a
**

large amount of energy in the process. However, Meitner and Frisch

were initially stumped in their investigation of this phenomenon. The

mass of uranium and the absorbed neutrons yielded fission products

lower in total mass than that of the starting materials, and they could

not account for the mass lost in the reaction, until they took Einstein’s

mass-energy relationship into consideration. Their breakthrough in

finally understanding fission came from the realization that the

missing mass-energy is equivalent to the amount of photon energy

released by the fission process.

Similarly, when a massive star explodes as a supernova,

some of its mass is lost as energy102 while some is “fused” into

heavier elements such as carbon and iron. Any loss of the star’s

original mass must be accounted for, and this “missing mass” takes

the form of an equivalent amount of photonic energy.

The combined energy of a collection of photons is often

expressed mathematically as a spectrum of EM frequencies. The

EGM method commences by mathematically representing any mass

as an equivalent localized density of photonic energy. Properties of

Fourier harmonics are subsequently utilized to mathematically

decompile the mass-energy into a spectrum of EM frequencies. The

total mass-energy of a celestial object is analogous to a “white light”

composite which may be separated by a prism into a spectrum of

frequencies103.

This mathematical conversion process is somewhat similar to

the manner in which a blackbody radiation spectrum is derived. An

object radiates thermal photons into its environment (or absorbs

them104), such that their spectral distribution may be expressed as a

Planck blackbody radiation curve. Similarly, EGM transforms a value

of mass into a value of energy, expressed in terms of a spectrum of

energy modes (i.e. photons).

Mathematically translating an expression of mass into energy

is not the only task required to adequately model the matter-manifold

interaction; additionally, we must treat our collection of mass-energy

“photons” as though they were being confined (i.e. contained) by an

external energy density.

102

**i.e. thermal photons, X-rays and other high-energy radiation.
**

This is not to imply that the material properties of a celestial object

may be separated by a prism, it is simply a method of conceptually

and mathematically representing mass in standard units of energy.

104

Depending upon the ambient temperature.

103

www.deltagroupengineering.com

143

**Mass-energy105 may be represented through principles of
**

similitude in much the same manner that Sir Geoffrey Taylor modeled

the energy of an atmospheric atomic bomb detonation. Sir Taylor

treated the physical parameters of the atomic blast as an actionreaction system between the energy released by the blast and the

surrounding pressure and density of the atmosphere acting to contain

it. Although space-time curvature is representative of this energy

relationship, a “pure vacuum” cannot be utilized as a physical means

of establishing equilibrium because “nothingness” is non-physical. At

this juncture, we must rely on Quantum Mechanics to provide us with

the proper tools.

The existence of the QV is predicted and required by QM

and Quantum Electro-Dynamics (QED). QM and QED are arguably

the most precise and accurate theories ever developed in physics. QM

and QED dictate that “virtual” energy must be embedded within the

fabric of space-time. The origin and physical constitution of virtual

energy is too complex to describe in brevity, but we know for certain

that truly empty space does not exist. Space is teeming with energy

fluctuations. This energy, in a manner of speaking, is the thread from

which the fabric of space-time is woven. The energy of free space,

originally derived from QM, is thus termed QVE; also known as

Zero-Point Energy (ZPE).

The QV is represented as a sea of “virtual” photons which

may be expressed spectrally by mathematically divvying up the

“Zero-Point Field” (ZPF) into individual units (photons) of energy.

Any collection of photons is referred to as an EM field. This is

conceptually similar to the manner in which we may characterize the

surface of the ocean as a spectrum of waves. The ocean possesses

many waves of different size and direction, and all the individual

waves combined form the surface of the ocean. Each photon

comprising the QV is analogous to a single wave on the ocean. The

energy of any EM field may be represented as a spectrum of waves;

thus, the QV may also be represented as a spectrum of EM energy.

Moreover, since mass is equivalent to energy, it follows that we may

also represent matter as a precisely defined spectrum of EM energy.

Now that matter and the vacuum have been expressed in like

terms (as spectra), it becomes possible to model their interaction

utilizing Fourier techniques106. This approach enables the construction

105

**Mass is contained within a volume of space; thus, it follows that
**

the energy density of the object should be related to the energy

density of the field surrounding it.

106

Derived in QE3.

144

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**of a matter-vacuum system engineering prototype, which may be
**

analyzed and manipulated mathematically to simulate gravitational

force acting on a test object, and to model potential ways of

modifying the gravitational field. Since gravitation is engendered by

curvature of the space-time manifold, we employ the term “spacetime engineering” to describe the prototype.

The EGM construct treats the interaction of matter with the

QV as an equilibrated system. In this way, an object may no longer be

considered to exist as a discrete entity floating inertly in the empty

vacuum of space. The energy of the QV interacts with the energy

packaged as mass (i.e. matter), and these two forms of energy act in

concert as part of a dynamic system.

EGM works by mathematically superimposing the spectral

“signatures” of matter and the QV upon one another utilizing Fourier

harmonics. It is through this mathematical superposition of spectra

that we might better understand where the “forces” of gravity and

inertia come from. This is not to suggest that a precise physical

mechanism for gravity has been discovered, because it doesn’t take

into consideration the behavior of every particle of matter as it

interacts with virtual particles of the QV. Nor does it imply that

gravity is the result of energy strings interacting in multi-dimensional

space-time as String theories suggest. It simply demonstrates how, by

mathematically combining the spectral energy forms of mass-energy

and the QV107, a change in Poynting vector108 (∆P) results to produce

the effect we associate with gravity.

8.5

Gravity

**The universal principle driving the EGM construct is
**

equilibrium. All matter in the Universe109 seeks a state of greatest

stability, which is synonymous with its point of lowest energy (i.e. its

ground-state). The expression “E = mc2” depicts a relationship of

equivalence rather than one of transformation, and it is through this

principle that EGM operates. Since mass and the QV are

embodiments of energy, we may treat the energy condensed as matter

as existing in a state of dynamic equilibrium with the Universe

surrounding it. Consequently, EGM asserts that the properties of mass

107

**The superposition of the QV and mass-energy spectra results in a
**

new spectrum termed the “Polarizable Vacuum (PV) spectrum”.

108

In the displacement domain.

109

Including the fabric of the Universe (i.e. the space-time manifold).

www.deltagroupengineering.com

145

**are relativistic because mass adjusts to the ambient energy conditions
**

in its local environment. It is by way of these principles that EGM

may be considered congruent to GR.

The EGM construct yields a precise determination of the

mass-energy equilibrium point of an object with the QV110

surrounding it. EGM models the presence of matter immersed within

the QV as an interactive system, suggesting an alternative

interpretation of space-time “curvature”. Geodesic paths of matter and

energy define the topology of space-time curvature under GR.

However, EGM provides a rather more heuristic framework for

investigating how space-time manifests “curvature” in the presence of

matter through the principle of equilibrium.

As equilibrium is established between an object and the QV

surrounding it, a gradient in the energy-density is formed within the

vacuum. This gradient, in turn, is congruent to what Einstein termed

“curvature”. However, instead of interpreting gravity as functioning

through geometric imperatives, the EGM interpretation demonstrates

that gravity operates according to optical principles.

EM energy moves in accordance with any local gravitational

potential it may encounter. The way light (energy) moves through

energy-density gradients within the vacuum is analogous to the

manner in which light refracts when passed through a lens. This

optical interpretation of gravity was first suggested approximately

three hundred years ago by Sir Isaac Newton in his treatise entitled

Opticks. Newton describes how gravity may be regarded as a

manifestation of density variations in the “aether”, which he presumed

surrounded and permeated all objects. These density variations

should, as Newton thought, directly affect the motions of light and

matter passing through them. Newton theorized that the aether should

be most dense far away from an object like the Earth, and conversely,

more subtle and rarefied nearby or within an object. Two passages

from Newton’s Opticks demonstrate the optical model of gravity

exceedingly well:

110

**Facilitating a “reverse engineering” approach to gravity if a region
**

of space-time on a laboratory test bench is considered to be the

Experimental Prototype (EP) for the mathematical model produced by

the application of DATs and BPT. Subsequently, the mathematical

model may be applied to the EP for scaling purposes, leading to

gravity control experiments.

146

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Qu. 20.

Doth not this aethereal medium in passing out of

water, glass, crystal, and other compact and dense bodies

into empty spaces, grow denser and denser, by degrees,

and by that means refract the rays of light not in a point,

but by bending them gradually in curved lines? And doth

not the gradual condensation of this medium extend to

some distance from the bodies, and thereby cause the

inflexions of the rays of light, which pass by the edges of

dense bodies, at some distance from the bodies?

Qu. 21.

Is not this medium much rarer within the dense bodies

of the Sun, stars, planets and comets, than in the empty

celestial spaces between them? And in passing from them

to great distances, doth it not grow denser and denser

perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those great

bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the

bodies; every body endeavouring to go from the denser

parts of the medium towards the rarer? For if this medium

be rarer within the Sun’s body than at its surface . . . and

rarer there than at the orb of Saturn, I see no reason why

the increase of density should stop anywhere, and not

rather be continued through all distances from the Sun to

Saturn, and beyond. And if the elastic force of this medium

be exceedingly great, it may suffice to impel bodies from

the denser parts of the medium towards the rarer, with all

that power which we call gravity.xxiv [sic]

Newton’s optical model of gravity has a modern counterpart

known as the Polarizable Vacuum (PV) Representation of GR – a title

originally coined by physicist Hal Puthoff in 1994, based upon an

earlier body of work introduced by the physicists, Harold Wilson and

Robert Dicke in the 1950’s. The PV model replaces the concept of

“space-time curvature” with a variable “Refractive Index” caused by

the polarization of the QV surrounding an object.

Newton wrote that a gradually changing density in the aether

results in gradually curving paths of light. A changing Refractive

Index induced by gradual changes in the polarized QV surrounding

matter also results in the refraction of light, as though it were passing

through a lens. This “bent” EM radiation follows a geodesic path

congruent to that predicted by GR according to the “space-time

curvature” interpretation. EGM similarly interprets the PV model’s

www.deltagroupengineering.com

147

**Refractive Index as a region of variable vacuum polarization
**

surrounding a mass-object. However, EGM matures this concept by

demonstrating that the variable polarization is a product of the

mathematical superposition of the QV and mass-energy spectra

described earlier.

A key distinction between QVE and mass-energy is that the

energy contained within matter is highly localized, whereas the

energy of the QV is distributed homogeneously throughout the vast

regions of free-space. The differences between these energy

distributions may be expressed in terms of spectral characteristics.

Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff (HRP) were able to ascertain that

the QV spectrum possesses a “cubic frequency distribution”; i.e., the

spectral energy density increases proportionally to the cube of the

frequency. Therefore, the peak spectral energy density of the QV is

predicted to occur at maximum frequency. However, this presents a

rather formidable dilemma because it implies that the energy density

of empty space is nothing short of staggering.

Calculating the total energy of the QV in this form suggests

that every cubic centimeter of empty space is so energetic that it

should cause the Universe to collapse in on itself. According to GR,

energy and mass generate curvature in space-time. Thus the energy

distribution predicted by HRP should cause the space-time manifold

to curve acutely inwards, causing the Universe to implode111. In fact,

it has been estimated that the amount of QVE contained in a coffee

cup volume of empty space, if converted to heat-energy, would be

enough to boil away the Earth’s oceansxxv. Because of these

theoretical results, many physicists discount the existence of the QV

in cubic frequency form, believing that “something” must be

fundamentally wrong with the derivation, despite the fact that this

form originates from standard QM.

However, the theoretical prediction of an imploding Universe

does not preclude the frequency-cubed spectral distribution of QVE.

In other words, the distribution of the QV spectrum may remain

frequency-cubed, yet not result in a catastrophic collapse of spacetime, as long as the maximum frequency in the spectrum is low

enough. To better illustrate this point, all we must do is state the First

Law of Thermodynamics; energy can neither be created nor

111

**This is the mainstream view, not the view of the EGM construct in
**

the “Quinta Essentia” series (i.e. QE3,4) where the opposite

conclusion is mathematically derived. That is, QE3,4 mathematically

demonstrate that “free space” does not contain a near infinite amount

of energy in a vanishing volume.

148

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**destroyed. The total energy of the Universe is, and always has been,
**

constant. Neither more nor less energy existed in the early Universe,

during the first few trillionths of a second after the Big Bang than

exists today. The energy of the Universe hasn’t gone anywhere; it has

only become more diffuse112 over time as the Universe expanded. As

this occurs, energy isn’t conjured from nowhere to fill the everwidening gaps – the energy of the Universe merely becomes “diluted”

with cosmological expansion.

Precise measurements of the Hubble constant and Cosmic

Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) temperature allow us to

quantify the expansion of the Universe since the instant of the Big

Bang. We calculate the Hubble constant by measuring the red-shift of

light from galaxies moving away from us as they are pulled apart by

the expanding fabric of space. Thus, the Hubble constant is a measure

of the rate of cosmic expansion and the CMBR temperature is a

measure of the EM energy left over from the Big Bang – only now,

the once high-frequency radiation filling the young Universe has been

“stretched out” into the microwave frequency range as a result of

cosmic expansion.

Utilizing EGM to analyze the energy dynamics of Hubble

expansion spectrally, we may model the primordial spectrum of the

“seed-Universe”113 as a single, high-frequency wavefunction

containing the total energy of the Universe. At the moment of the Big

Bang, this single wavefunction rapidly began to decompose114 into a

broad spectrum of lower-frequency waves, forming localized energy

gradients within the QV where matter condensed. This spectral

decomposition model is a mathematical representation of the energy

dynamic which occurs due to expansion, and is not intended to be a

literal interpretation. The many modes of lower-frequency waves in

the present-day QV spectrum115, when summed, must contain the total

energy present at the instant of the Big Bang (excluding the energy

condensed as matter).

112

i.e. red-shifted.

i.e. prior to the Big Bang.

114

i.e. bifurcate.

115

In “flat” space-time.

113

www.deltagroupengineering.com

149

**However, the total energy value of the present-day spectrum
**

is spread out and divvied up amongst many modes, each with a lower

energy (frequency) per mode. The composition of the vacuum at

present constitutes a near-infinite number of modes, but the majority

of these are low-frequency because the sum of the spectrum must

equal the observed energy present in the vacuum. To suggest

otherwise would imply that the energy of the Universe had increased

since the time of the Big Bang.

For the purpose of conceptual demonstration, let us assume

that the size of the Universe is almost infinite, such that we may

assign low and high-frequency limits to the QV spectrum of flat

space-time incrementally above zero Hz and precisely one Hz

respectively. Under such conditions, a near infinite number of

harmonic modes, relative to a fundamental frequency value, may exist

within the QV spectrum, obeying a cubic frequency distribution

between “0” and “1” Hz. In this context, the QV contains many

modes of low energy and avoids the “infinite energy in a vanishing

volume” problem encountered by standard QM because the countless

numbers of low-energy modes sum to a finite QVE density value.

Moreover, the significant majority of energy contained within flat

space-time (in our example) occurs at the one Hz limit.

Similarly, if we assume that the Universe is infinitely large,

the fundamental frequency of the QV spectrum would be exactly zero

Hz, with an infinite number of low frequency harmonic modes

existing within the range of zero Hz and a high-frequency spectral

limit, arranged in a frequency-cubed distribution. EGM demonstrates

that the high-frequency spectral limit approaches zero Hz because the

bulk of the total energy of the QV is comprised of a large number of

150

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**very low-frequency modes, each containing a relatively small amount
**

of energy. Therefore, EGM116 produces a QV spectrum in cubic

frequency form, low enough in energy density to prevent collapse

under its own weight, and without violating GR or QM.

Within the EGM construct, the cubic frequency distribution

of the QV is probabilistic. This means that, although the upper QV

spectral limit is permitted to tend to infinity, the probability of

detecting a photon decreases as the spectral limit increases. In other

words, it is increasingly likely that a measurable QV photon exists at

low rather than high frequency because: (a) QV photons have been

“stretched-out” since the instant of the Big Bang and (b), Nature seeks

conditions of lowest energy. Although the probability of detecting a

high-frequency QV photon in a gravitational field of non-zero

strength117 is greater than a field of zero strength118, the probability of

detecting a low rather than high-frequency QV photon remains greater

in both cases. Detection probabilities are based upon photon

populations119 at specific harmonic modes, denoting an important

characteristic of the EGM spectrum.

In summary, the “QV spectrum” of flat120 space-time derived

by EGM is characterized as possessing a cubic-frequency distribution

with a cut-off frequency which is quite low. The EGM derivation does

not contradict the cubic-frequency distribution form of the spectrum;

it merely disputes the cut-off frequency value assigned by HRP.

Setting the QV spectrum temporarily aside, we shall now

define and describe the energy spectrum associated with matter;

termed “the EGM spectrum”. In contrast to the QV spectrum, the

EGM spectrum of a mass-object is comprised of a narrow bandwidth

of extremely high-frequency modes121. Here, the “E” from the

equation “E = mc2” is expressed in the same terms as the QV

spectrum; i.e. as a wavefunction representation of mass-energy

obeying a Fourier distribution such that the number of modes

decreases as energy density increases.122 (see: QE3).

116

**Without contradicting any principle of QM or thermodynamics.
**

i.e. in curved space-time.

118

i.e. flat space-time.

119

See: QE2,3,4 for derivations.

120

“Empty” space, containing no matter.

121

This is a simplified reference to the EGM spectrum. Please consult

the proceeding chapter for further information.

122

i.e. the number of modes is inversely proportional to the energy

density of the space-time manifold.

117

www.deltagroupengineering.com

151

**When the QV and EGM spectra are superimposed upon one
**

another using spectral analysis, the resulting spectrum is termed the

“PV spectrum”. This hybrid spectrum represents the energy

equilibrium state between the QV and EGM spectra123. It is important

to note that the QV and EGM spectra are purely theoretical constructs,

because mass and the vacuum never exist in isolation. The QV

spectrum represents a theoretical Universe without mass-objects,

while the EGM spectrum represents only the mass-energy of an object

in isolation. However, mass-energy is invariably found within the

milieu of QVE, so the only relevant spectrum is that of the PV. The

PV spectrum upholds the HRP cubic-frequency distribution form,

with a spectrum extending into very high-frequency ranges, but only

in the immediate presence of matter.

The PV spectrum, formed by the superposition of the QV

and EGM spectra, resolves the HRP “cosmic collapse” problem

because the only instance in which the PV spectrum extends into very

high-frequency ranges is in the immediate presence of matter. Flat

space-time, on the other hand, far from any matter, is comprised of

very low-frequency modes and thus does not contain enough energy

to cause a catastrophic collapse of space-time. The high-frequency

contribution to the PV spectrum does not come from empty space, but

rather from energy that is “locked-up” in the form of mass, which is

distributed in highly localized points throughout the Universe.

For example, consider the action of adding a single star to an

empty Universe. Within the EGM construct, the entire mass of the star

is represented as a single point (a “point mass”), radiating the totality

of its mass-energy into the space surrounding it. This action

superimposes the EGM spectrum of the point mass onto the QV

spectrum of the empty Universe; doing so forms the PV spectrum.124

Surrounding the point mass, a mode population gradient is established

in space-time between the mass and the “edge” of the Universe. The

mode population gradient modifies the Refractive Index “KPV” value

of the vacuum such that it changes at the same rate as gravitational

acceleration “g” from the center of the point mass. Thus, the gradient

is congruent to the concept of space-time “curvature” within GR.

123

**The EGM spectrum is mass-energy based. Since a maximum mass
**

limit does not exist within contemporary physics, the EGM spectrum

is infinitely broad. However, mass-density is theoretically limited to

the Planck scale; thus, the EGM spectrum is bounded (in this regard)

by the Planck Frequency.

124

i.e. a quantized representation of the gravitational field.

152

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**The obvious question arising from the formation of the PV
**

spectrum is; what induces the modal population gradient?125 The

nature of the Universe is to expand such that the energy within it

becomes “stretched out”. The Universe continually strives to reach its

lowest energy state and greatest stability. As this occurs, the highfrequency modes present shortly after the Big Bang are bifurcated into

a larger number of low-frequency modes as the Universe expands.

Mass may be modeled as doing work126 on the surrounding

vacuum by “curving” it. The presence of a point mass “pushes” the

vacuum around it “uphill”, against its natural flux of expansion. The

nature of the Universe is to expand, and upon encountering resistance

to its normal flux from high to low energy, the Universe “pushes

back” as it strives to reach a state of equilibrium. The mass-associated

spectrum represents “condensed” energy, which causes the QV

spectrum surrounding matter to locally re-compress to fewer modes of

higher-frequency. Hence, it follows that the more massive the object,

the “steeper” the gradient (change) in mode number between its center

of mass and the edge of the Universe, resulting in gravitational

acceleration proportional to mass. Compression of the vacuum modes

requires energy input, and it is precisely this re-compression of QVE

which results in gravity. This model also provides an answer to the

question of how and why matter “curves” space.

125

126

**i.e. why does the vacuum become polarized?
**

i.e. expending energy.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

153

**The tendency of the space-time manifold is to expand;
**

however, the presence of matter interrupts this movement, polarizing

the QV. Energy is required to alter its state to fewer modes of higher

frequency, counteracting the thermodynamic tendency of any system

to move towards a state of lowest energy and greatest stability.

Subsequently, an observer held fixed within a QV gradient senses that

the mode energy is asymmetrical127 and based upon the Quantum

Vacuum Inertia Hypothesis (QVIH), vacuum asymmetry results in an

apparent acceleration force on the observer which is perceived as

gravity.

Rather than a geometric curvature of nothingness, the

manifestation of “g” is better represented as back-pressure from the

vacuum as mass-energy exerts its influence upon it. Anything caught

in the inward flow of space-time, so to speak, is pulled along with the

current. EGM represents this process as the superposition of two

distinct spectra utilizing Fourier harmonics, resulting in a

mathematical description of “g”. Thus, it may be stated that the EGM

construct yields a quantized description of gravity.

EGM mathematically represents matter as radiating a

spectrum of conjugate EM frequencies. However, if we consider

matter to radiate a spectrum of “gravitons”128, the EGM construct may

be represented in quasi-physical form,129 such that gravitons emerge

as a vehicle for the feedback of information between the EGM

spectrum of matter and the QV spectrum of the local space-time

manifold.

127

**i.e. higher in the direction of the center of mass of an object and
**

lower out in space.

128

i.e. elementary particles presumed to mediate gravitational force.

129

Science has yet to detect or rigorously define gravitons;

consequently, sufficient latitude exists to interpret the graviton in a

manner suitable to the EGM construct.

154

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**EGM considers the spectral energy of a gravitational field to
**

be equivalent to the mass-energy of the object generating the field,

expressible in terms of a PV spectrum and analogous to space-time

curvature within GR. It models each of the conjugate EM frequencies

as two populations of “conjugate photon pairs”, i.e., each population

is “180°” out of phase with its conjugate, consistent with a Fourier

harmonics representation of a constant function in complex form (see:

QE3). A conjugate photon pair constitutes the definition of a graviton

within the EGM construct.

The density of gravitons surrounding a mass-object is

maximal in close proximity to an object, and gradually decreases with

radial distance; thus, the greater the population density of gravitons,

the stronger the gravitational field will be. These factors are consistent

with the manner in which the PV spectrum is defined via Fourier

harmonics, resulting in a spectrum which increases in mode number

with radial distance from the mass-object130.

The EGM interpretation of gravity is analogous to Newton’s

conceptualization of optical gravity as well. According to Newton, the

aether was presumed to be “denser” farther away from a mass-object

and “less dense” nearby. The change (i.e. gradient) in the density of

the aether causes light and the movements of objects through it to

follow trajectories characteristic of gravitational attraction. The

increasing density of Newton’s aether may be substituted with the

analogous concept of increasing mode population in the QV,

proportional to the distance from a mass-object.

**The physical basis for gravity, within Newton’s optical
**

framework, is similar to that of a long-range Casimir Effect. The

Casimir Effect demonstrates that when two neutrally charged parallel

metal plates are brought very close together, photons in the QV with

130

**i.e. QV mode number decreases with “graviton” density.
**

www.deltagroupengineering.com

155

**wavelengths too large to fit between the plates are excluded. The
**

reduced energy density between the plates biases the QV131, pushing

the plates together with increasing force as the separation distance

decreases. Gravity, in this regard, is akin to a long-range Casimir

Effect because EGM describes gravity as being the result of a change

in mode population across a region of the QV.

In fact, EGM derives the Casimir Force from first principles,

demonstrating that it differs depending on the gravitational field

strength of the location in which it is measured. For example, EGM

asserts that the strength of the Casimir Force on Jupiter will be

smaller than on the surface of the Moon (see: QE3). The gravitational

effect on the Casimir Force is due to the population of modes

comprising the PV spectrum. The denser the mass, the fewer modes it

has in its PV spectrum because each mode within it possesses higher

energy (i.e. frequency). The modal bandwidth of the PV spectrum for

a very dense object is narrower than that of a less dense object. Thus,

at the surface of Jupiter, fewer low-frequency vacuum modes exist

than at surface of the Moon, resulting in a smaller Casimir Force on

Jupiter than the Moon.

What Sir Isaac Newton originally envisioned over three

hundred years ago in his speculations regarding optical gravity is

mirrored in the PV model of GR. EGM doesn’t merely elaborate on

PV theory, it puts real numbers to it, allowing one to precisely

quantify and define the PV. The variable Refractive Index of the PV

model acts as a replacement for the metaphysical concept of “spacetime curvature” under GR. EGM models the changing gradient of the

PV as a summation of harmonic modes via Fourier series to represent

a “constant function” (i.e. “g”) at any position in space surrounding a

mass-object. However, it is important to re-emphasize that EGM is a

mathematical construct only. EGM does not propose that mass is

literally comprised of spectral modes interacting with the QV, it is

merely a tool by which to distil and deconstruct the fundamental

energy dynamics of GR, EM and QM; combining like characteristics

in order to solve a problem.

The EGM method provides a unique framework for

understanding the physics of gravity. The vacuum of space, as we

now understand, is an embodiment of energy, and so is mass. The

problem with previous interpretations of gravity has to do with the

131

**Casimir experiments (to date) have only been performed in a
**

gravitational field. Thus, it is more accurate to refer to the PV rather

than the QV; however, “QV” has been applied for conceptual

simplicity in order to assist the reader.

156

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**notion that matter is “something” and space is “nothing” when, in
**

fact, matter and space are actually two mutually dependent forms of

energy: one subtle and impalpable, the other objective and concrete.

8.6

Elementary particles

**Although the EGM method is ideally suited for modeling the
**

structure of gravitational fields surrounding large objects such as

planets and stars, it may also be utilized to model properties of atomic

and subatomic matter. Moreover, applying the EGM method to

elementary particles has led to some rather startling and profound

results! A deeper level of order has been uncovered at the subatomic

level that follows as a natural extension of the QM paradigm, which

governs the order and structure of the atom.

As we have already seen, the atomic system is reliant upon

the principle of harmonic symmetry. The discovery that electron

energy levels in atoms only exist as stable “quantum” frequency

intervals gave rise to the discipline of QM. EGM demonstrates that

the electron energy-level isn’t the only instance where this quantum

paradigm applies.

The QM model doesn’t state what the electron is, precisely,

but it does show that when it exists as part of an atomic system, it can

only exist in harmonic energy states defined by the parameters of the

atom-system. Each quantum change in an electron’s energy level is

induced by the absorption or emission of a photon. EGM

demonstrates that the properties of subatomic particles are not defined

arbitrarily in Nature, and that this harmonic principle of action

extends into the furthest depths of the atom. EGM has revealed a QVE

equilibrium ratio relationship amongst all subatomic particles,

forming a quantum-harmonic canon governing the inner structure of

matter.

Particle physics research often involves the act of smashing

subatomic particles together at near light-speed velocities and

analyzing the bewildering array of debris formed in the collision. This

process is commonly described as being similar to smashing two cars

together and attempting to determine how they worked by analyzing

the shattered debris. The discipline of particle physics is also referred

to as High-Energy Physics (HEP). This term is applied because the

particles resulting from such collisions are only able to exist in

extremely high energy environments.

Subatomic particles often only exist as interlinked

components of another greater particle system and not as free entities

in and of themselves. They often exist only when we cause them to

www.deltagroupengineering.com

157

**exist. At the instant of a particle collision, for example, the subatomic
**

particle products generated in the collision may only be measured (or

even be generated in the first place) by having increased the energy of

the environment in which the parent particles are smashed together132.

For example, a proton is composed of three quark subunits;

however, quarks themselves are not known to exist as free quarks.

The configuration of the proton system acts as a boundary condition,

containing the quarks in a composite form called the “proton”.

Extremely high energies are thus required to smash protons into their

individual quark constituents and the quarks released in the collision

can only exist freely for an extremely brief period of time133. The

energy of any object, whether particle or otherwise, is equilibrated by

the ambient energy in its local environment. However, only when

equilibrium is artificially shifted, as occurs in a high energy collision,

is the energy balance destabilized sufficiently to allow high-energy

quarks to exist autonomously for a brief moment.

Quarks generated in a collision, as it turns out, are each more

massive (in energy terms) than the proton they originate from! How

can it be that the free subunit of a parent particle possesses greater

mass-energy than its source? This is analogous to a baby weighing

more than the mother at the time of birth! However, this happens to be

the case because we release quarks by increasing the mass-energy

density of the proton system at the time of the collision.

Shortly after the Big Bang, the Universe was a soup of free

quarks in a hot and dense environment. In the first moments after the

Big Bang, the total energy of the early Universe was much more

densely packed than it is today. Quarks could exist freely in the early

Universe because the ambient energy density allowed them to exist in

this more energetic form. When particles are accelerated to extremely

high energies in a collider we are, in effect, re-creating the dense,

high-energy conditions of the early Universe, and allowing free

particles to exist.

As the Universe rapidly expanded and cooled, its energy

density decreased, subsequently permitting the condensation of

composite particles such as the proton and neutron (termed “Big Bang

132

**Relativity describes why tremendous energy is required to
**

accelerate even the tiniest particles like protons and neutrons to near

light-speed. It also states that mass scales proportionally with the rate

of change of velocity and that accelerating objects (whether it’s a

person or a particle) to anything closely approaching the speed of light

requires enormous amounts of energy.

133

i.e. until energy conditions return to normal.

158

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**Nucleosynthesis”xxvi), followed by the formation of even more
**

complex, low-energy composites (hydrogen and helium atoms) as the

energy density decreased further.

This manner of energy-density dynamics is exquisitely

modeled by the EGM method, which has been specifically designed to

simulate the environmental interaction of such systems where massenergy is affected by the energy density conditions surrounding it.

The existence of a particle is wholly and completely based upon the

mutual, indissoluble interaction between itself and the environmental

energy conditions it strives to equilibrate within. However, the

question remains as to why particles posses distinct energies, and why

they are not arbitrarily defined in Nature. In other words, photons may

possess a wide range of possible frequencies, while elementary and

subatomic particles in the atom have well defined and discrete

energies. What governs the formation of distinct subatomic particles

and their pattern of organization within the atomic system?

In elementary particle physics, a particle’s mass is expressed

as an energy equivalent via “E = mc2”, which means that the more

energy a particle possesses, the more “massive” it will be. The energy

of a photon is frequency based (via “E = hν”), meaning the higher in

frequency (shorter in wavelength) a photon is, the more energy it

possesses. Thus, the EGM construct asserts that “mass” is inherently

frequency-based as well, because it is an expression of a particular

EM frequency bandwidth.

EGM models the energy-density environmental equilibrium

dynamics of systems, where matter is affected by ambient conditions,

by mathematically decomposing a value of mass-energy into an

“EGM spectrum” of frequencies utilizing Fourier harmonics. This is a

mathematical construct only, utilized to model the system as a whole,

and must not be interpreted as being physically descriptive of reality.

Nevertheless, the process of mathematically translating units of mass

into spectral information elegantly articulates the equilibrium

established between matter and the QV. The resulting equilibrium

state, in turn, defines the physical properties and characteristics of any

mass-object, including subatomic particles. The physical

characteristics of all fundamental particles are born of equilibrium and

are a manifestation of Einstein’s principle of mass-energy

equivalence. EGM models mass-energy equivalence as a condition of

energetic equilibrium within the QVE environment. This energy

relationship is expressed in terms of the PV spectrum, and as we shall

see, yields a natural harmonic relationship between all subatomic

particles.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

159

**In order to fully comprehend the manner in which EGM
**

derives particle characteristics, it is first necessary to derive the EGM

spectrum of a particle. Even though a proton is a composite particle

composed of quarks, it is still possible to accurately model it with

EGM in spectral form as a singular entity. Here, the experimentally

measured mass of the proton may be utilized to derive its EGM

spectrum. The proton is the easiest place to begin in this analysis

because its mass is precisely known and experimentally validated to

high precision.

EGM methodology commences by mathematically

representing the proton’s mass-energy in spectral form. However, this

process doesn’t only convert the mass of the proton into a PV

spectrum of EM energy; it develops the concept that the mass-energy

of an object is contained within a finite volume of space-time, defined

by environmental equilibrium. Thus, the free proton isn’t solely

described by its mass-energy value, its mass-energy is also associated

with density because it occupies a limited and finite volume of spacetime. The PV spectrum of an object is thus derived as a representation

of an objects mass-energy density, not just by the quantity of massenergy it carries.

For example, stars and planets take spherical form because

they are compressed by gravity into their lowest-energy configuration.

Under ideal conditions, a gas bubble in water is compressed to a

spherical shape by the balance in pressure between the air and the

water encapsulating it. The same principle applies to stars as well; the

expansion pressure of hydrogen fusion in a star is balanced by the

gravitational force acting to hold the hydrogen densely packed

together. The equilibrium point established between the two forces

confines the star to a particular size and density in space, and also

establishes the surface parameters of the object.

In Nature, the sphere is generally the most efficient shape for

packaging energy or matter. This is because the sphere has the lowest

surface to volume ratio of any shape. A cube requires more total

surface area than a sphere in order to contain an equal volume. The

same is true for a pyramid, or any other three-dimensional shape for

that matter. The spherical form is so commonly found in Nature

because systems seek the most stable and efficient configuration

possible within any given set of circumstances; efficiency is

synonymous with stability.

160

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**Note: the sphere represents the equilibrium boundary between the
**

mass-energy of an object and the QVE of the environment acting to

contain it.

This principle of spherical energy density configuration

directly affects the fundamental and harmonic cut-off frequency of the

proton’s PV spectrum134. The PV spectrum is derived as a

representation of mass-energy density equilibration such that spectral

characteristics differ from object to object. For example, the proton

possesses fewer harmonic modes and a higher harmonic cut-off135

frequency than that of a star. We may utilize EGM to spectrally model

any particle’s mass-energy in precisely the same manner as is done for

a star or planet; by assuming that Nature utilizes the most efficient

form of packaging and distributes the mass-energy of a free particle

spherically. It may or may not be physically true that a singular

particle is spherical. However, we may assume that the energy of a

free particle is spherically distributed in order to maintain geometric

similitude between all mass-energy systems, whether that system is a

particle or a planet.

At first glance, it may seem like a rather complicated

exercise to mathematically treat matter as though it were a spectrum

of frequencies. Translating a simple expression of mass into an

ostensibly more complicated spectral form is essential, however.

There is a way to simplify things a bit though, and it is by way of this

simplification process that the aforementioned harmonic relationship

amongst particles is established. For all practical purposes, we may

134

**Possesses specific characteristics such as a low and high-frequency
**

end-points (i.e. “cut-off’s”). Within the EGM construct, the low and

high-frequency limits are termed “the fundamental” and “the cut-off”

frequency respectively. Between these, a range of harmonic frequency

modes exist comprising the spectrum.

135

Spectral limit.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

161

**disregard all low-frequency modes of the PV spectrum and describe a
**

particle explicitly in terms of its cut-off frequency, because the

highest harmonic frequency in the spectrum is representative of the

significant majority of the particle’s total energy.

Each particle type possesses a

particular mass-energy value such that it

may be characterized by a unique

harmonic cut-off frequency value,

derived from the free particle’s rest

mass. For example, the proton will have

a different cut-off frequency than an

electron or neutron because their massenergies are different136. Thus, the

harmonic cut-off frequency denotes the

equilibration “signature” of a given

particle

type.

Moreover,

EGM

demonstrates that the harmonic cut-off

frequency signatures of all subatomic

particles are uniquely related to one

another.

The EGM construct reveals that particle mass-energies

(expressed spectrally) are naturally established according to a distinct

and highly precise harmonic pattern. For example, the relationship

between any pair of particle types, such as an electron and a proton,

may be represented as the ratio of their harmonic cut-off frequencies,

demonstrating that all fundamental particles exist as though they were

musical “notes” played on the same “string”. Each particle “note” is

but one harmonic in a scale of notes, and each note is defined by the

particle’s harmonic cut-off frequency. Because the harmonic cut-off

frequencies of particles are direct representations of the particle’s

mass-energy, and because those harmonic cut-off frequencies are only

found in whole, quantum-harmonic increments, it means that the

mass-energies of all subatomic particles are strictly ordered according

to a quantum rule. Thus, we may consider all particles to be harmonic

multiples of another particle like an electron, for example. Based upon

this harmonic principle of order, a periodic table of subatomic

particles may be formulated mirroring the hierarchical basis upon

which the chemical elements are arranged.

136

**The harmonic cut-off frequency of the neutron is extremely close
**

to that of the proton. Thus, where appropriate, the ratio of the

harmonic cut-off frequency of the proton to neutron is usefully

approximated to unity.

162

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**EGM decomposes the energy value of any object into a
**

spectrum of harmonic EM frequencies – mathematically representing

its mass as a collection of photons. Each photon in the resulting

spectrum is dependent upon the value of the mass from which it is

derived. Since frequency relationships are best described in harmonic

form, it comes as no surprise that subatomic particles should exhibit

harmonic relationships as well.

Thus, the mass-energy of any particle may be defined as a

harmonic (or sub-harmonic) increment of a common EM frequency.

Within EGM, the fundamental particle masses (expressed in

frequency terms) exist in harmonic increments (i.e. quanta) in a

similar manner to the way in which electron energy levels are defined

harmonically in atoms. This is why the EGM model acts as an

extension of the QM paradigm. It is not currently possible to derive a

precise mathematical pattern or relationship amongst the masses of

fundamental particles by any other known method. More importantly,

we may utilize the EGM method to predict the mass and operative

size of any particle with unprecedented precision, and obtain values

orders of magnitude more accurate than may be achieved utilizing the

Standard Model of particle physics.

One of the most valuable features of EGM is that it

demonstrates how GR and QM are interrelated. In this regard, EGM

is a unique method, derived from a single paradigm demonstrating the

cross-fertilization of the central pillars of physics. It has uncovered

not only the framework underpinning the stability, order and coherent

inner structure of the atom; it also reveals how this order and stability

arises in Nature. Perhaps the most profound insight to be gained from

EGM is that the harmonic pattern of organization amongst subatomic

particles arises based upon a particle’s relationship to all other

fundamental particles. Could this perhaps imply that the common

particle “ancestor” from which all atomic elements, all molecules and

all material forms are constructed is the photon – energy itself?

www.deltagroupengineering.com

163

8.7

Cosmology

**EGM is “universal”. It is a single concept – a single
**

paradigm which may be applied to sub-atomic particles, planets, stars,

galaxies – even the Universe as a whole may be evaluated utilizing

EGM methodology. In fact, EGM not only allows the researcher to

model all these things independently, it reveals how all of matter and

space is interconnected, because the same equation revealing the

harmonic relationship amongst particle types may also be applied to

precisely derive cosmological measurements such as the present

values of the Hubble constant and Cosmic Microwave Background

Radiation (CMBR) temperature (“H0” and “T0” respectively).

Moreover, EGM demonstrates that “T0” may be derived from “H0”,

meaning that these two phenomena are interrelated. The EGM

“particle equation” even serves to validate and substantiate the

evolutionary epochs of our Universe, as science has come to

understand them, since the time of the Big Bang.

A “mass-object” may be defined as any interacting collection

of material objects, such as an atom or galaxy, and it may also be

defined as a single, indivisible unit of matter such as a free elementary

particle. This is because EGM models any object as a feedback system

between the mass-object itself and the QVE surrounding it. For

example, we know that it is not necessary to calculate the movements

of every individual water molecule in the ocean in order to adequately

predict the dynamics of a wave passing through it. All we must do is

model the dynamics of the wave itself. In the same manner, EGM

treats any object or collection of objects as a whole entity, whether it

164

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**is a whole proton, a whole atom, a whole star, a whole galaxy, or even
**

the whole Universe. EGM is a method permitting one to

mathematically represent a mass-object in spectral form. Although

EGM doesn’t purport this interpretation to be literal or physical, it is a

computationally accurate means of representing matter within the

context of the QV.

In place of standard (and often highly complex) differential

equation formalisms used to solve for the dynamics of a two body

system, such as a binary star system, EGM models this dynamic by

way of the constructive and destructive interference resulting between

the PV spectra of each mass-object. EGM can model the gravitational

dynamics between galaxies, stars or even particles for that matter, in a

far simpler manner than may be achieved utilizing relativistic

differential equations.

The Planck blackbody radiation phenomenon demonstrates

that matter radiates a spectrum of EM radiation based upon its

temperature, and that the modes comprising that spectrum may be

described as harmonics of the Planck Frequency. This principle of

spectral distribution is mirrored by EGM because the PV spectra of

mass-objects are generated utilizing Fourier harmonics. That is to say,

each PV spectrum is a mathematical decomposition of the

gravitational energy of a mass-object into a cognate spectrum of

harmonic frequencies. Thus, the PV spectrum is analogous to a

“gravitational blackbody spectrum”.

“Wien’s displacement law” describes the relationship

between the temperature of an object and its blackbody radiation

spectrum. Comparing hot and cold objects, we see that the blackbody

spectrum for each object type possesses a similar shape; depicting

peak photon prevalence in a specific frequency range, trailing off at

the high and low spectral limits. Differences in peak emission

frequencies obey a scaling factor relationship defined by Wien’s

displacement law. This principle demonstrates that the spectrum is

analogous to the representation of temperature.

When we directly measure the temperature of empty space,

we are in fact measuring the residual energy from the Big Bang as

red-shifted (i.e. stretched-out) photons present in the early Universe;

the EM waves we observe today are a snap-shot of the once extremely

high-frequency photons present when atoms first formed137. Billions

of years later, those photons have become stretched by cosmic

expansion to such a degree that now they are approximately “1(mm)”

in wavelength, falling within the microwave frequency range of the

137

**As asserted by the Standard Model of Cosmology (SMoC).
**

www.deltagroupengineering.com

165

**EM spectrum. This background radiation filling space is referred to as
**

the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). We find that

this wavelength corresponds to a temperature of approximately

“2.725(K)”: the present CMBR temperature, “T0”.

At Bell Laboratories in 1964, while working with a large

horn antenna designed for Radio Astronomy and satellite

communications, Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson

discovered a ubiquitous white-noise falling within the microwave

frequency range that could not be eliminated. It was audible day and

night and in all directions. What Penzias and Wilson detected with

their antenna was the CMBR radiation left over from the birth of our

Universe! The discovery of CMBR earned Penzias and Wilson the

Nobel Prize in 1978.

The physical detection and measurement of CMBR, and thus

“T0”, was momentous because, at the time of its discovery, the Big

Bang model of cosmic history was merely conjecture. The Big Bang

theory emerged from Hubble’s observation that the Universe was

apparently expanding in all directions. It was presumed that it should

be possible to trace this expansion back in time when all the matter

and energy in the Universe was packed together in a much denser

form. However, in the intervening decades between the time Hubble

expansion was discovered and “T0” was actually measured, the Big

Bang model was by no means on solid ground. The favorable pairing

of prediction and observation meant that, as strange as it may seem,

our Universe must have suddenly burst into being as if from nowhere.

The Universe could no longer be considered an eternal, “steady-state”

Universe; it was instead finite – having a beginning and perhaps an

end in time.

When the Universe burst into existence, it didn’t explode into

some pre-existing space. It is not as if matter erupted into a void that

was already there. This is a very common and equally grave

misconception of what the Big Bang theory actually asserts. The Big

Bang model instead suggests that space itself erupted into existence,

carrying matter and energy along with it. It is the space-time manifold

which expands, not matter expanding into pre-existing space. Thus,

the Big Bang happened everywhere. Many people assume that

because we measure the accelerated recession of galaxies, we can also

trace the motion of those galaxies back to some “origin” in space, and

that a particular point marks the location of the Big Bang. What we

actually find is that every point in the Universe was the original

“location” of the Big Bang, because all galaxies (except those whose

gravitational attraction has overcome cosmic expansion) are moving

away from each other. The fabric of space is expanding between

166

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**galaxies, in all directions, and all points within space are becoming
**

further separated from all other points – not moving away from a

common origin. Similarly, all points in space would converge to a

single point if traced backwards, but this “point” would not be located

at some particular coordinate in space because every point in the

Universe may be considered the “center” of the Universe.

The expansion of the space-time metric (not the ejection of

matter into static space) provides the reason for why the ultra highenergy photons of the early Universe are now detectable as lowenergy microwaves filling space. All energy and matter are part and

parcel of the fabric of space-time, and as space-time expands, matter

and energy are also subject to that expansion.

In this regard, we may consider Hubble expansion to be

intimately tied to “T0”. The current temperature of space defines the

blackbody radiation spectrum of the Universe, and vice versa. The

radiation comprising the spectrum is composed of far red-shifted

photons that were present in the blackbody spectrum of the early

Universe shortly after the Big Bang. At that time, those photons were

much higher in frequency (energy) because the temperature of the

early Universe was extremely high. There was no more energy in the

early Universe than there is today, however. To state otherwise

contradicts the First Law of Thermodynamics. The total energy of the

Universe remains the same, but the energy is now spread out across a

much larger volume. Consequently, the energy density of the Universe

has changed, not the net amount of energy it contains.

This relationship between energy-density and temperature is

a well characterized principle of fundamental astrophysics. As a star

forms, clouds of hydrogen condense into a massive sphere of gas,

similar to the planet Jupiter. A pressure threshold must be achieved

before this dense ball of hydrogen (the “protostar”) is hot enough to

initiate hydrogen fusion. Increasing gravitational pressure on the

hydrogen gas of the protostar causes an increase in temperature. When

the pressure and temperature of the protostar reach the threshold

required to fuse hydrogen into helium, the protostar ignites and the

star is born. The temperature of an active star, which is established as

a function of pressure, also determines the star’s blackbody radiation

spectrum. All these factors are completely reliant upon a common

state of equilibrium.

Stars between ten and twenty times more massive than our

sun meet their end in the form of a gargantuan explosion termed a

“supernova”. As any star fuses its store of hydrogen into helium, an

enormous amount of energy is released from the star, resulting in

explosive outward pressure. The outward force of the energy released

www.deltagroupengineering.com

167

**from hydrogen fusion is counteracted by the inward pressure of
**

gravity. The balance struck between outward and inward pressures

establishes the spherical dimensions of the star.

However, as the star’s store of hydrogen becomes depleted

and less energy is produced by fusion, the outward pressure begins to

wane and gravitational collapse takes over. Gravity places added

pressure on the remaining hydrogen, causing it to heat up further. As

the star becomes crushed under its own gravitational weight, it heats it

up to such an extent that the helium begins to fuse into heavier

elements such as oxygen and carbon. The inward pressure continues

to build until the star implodes and the resulting shock-wave causes

the star to be ripped apart in a massive explosion, expelling the

heavier elements just forged in the stellar crucible out into space.

The remnants of supernova explosions form neutron stars –

stellar cores that are roughly as massive as our Sun but only about 20

kilometers in diameter138. Normal atoms possess a nucleus composed

of protons and neutrons, with electrons buzzing around at a relatively

vast distance from the nucleus. In fact, atoms are really mostly made

up of empty space. However, in neutron stars the atoms are

compressed so tightly that they become crushed into a compact ball of

atomic nuclei. This form of matter is so dense that just one cubic

centimeter of it measures in the billions of kilograms! Similarly, the

neutron star’s gravitational field is so strong that in order to escape its

gravitational field, one must achieve an escape velocity of roughly

forty-percent the speed of light139!

If a star larger than twenty times the mass of the Sun begins

to burn out its hydrogen supply and collapse under gravity, its matter

compresses into a state so dense that it disappears entirely within the

fabric of space! This, of course, is a “black hole”. Instead of being

compressed into a ball of atomic nuclei, matter gets squeezed by

gravity into a point. The black hole is “black” because gravity is so

great that the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. Light

attempting to flee the confines of the black hole can never reach

escape velocity – it will forever push against the current of gravity in

vain, like a fish trying to swim up a waterfall.

Whether a massive star explodes as a supernova to become a

neutron star, or a super massive star collapses to form a black hole,

the outcome ultimately depends upon the equilibrium established

138

**Encyclopedia Britannica online:
**

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9055410/neutron-star

139

Vescape = √(2GM/r).

168

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**between the expansive pressure of the energy of the star and the
**

contractive gravitational pressure.

The life cycle and destiny of most stars may be determined

utilizing a straight-forward relationship born of the principle of

equilibrium. The Sun is a middle-aged star that has fused about half of

its hydrogen supply into helium, and still has about 4.5 billion years

left before its hydrogen is depleted. As hydrogen becomes depleted,

and the outward pressure from helium fusion overcomes the

compression of gravity, our Sun will swell into a “red giant”.

Eventually the outer layer of the red giant, composed of helium and

other freshly-formed elements, will slough away from the core

leaving a ring of gasses referred to as a “planetary nebula”. The core

of the Sun will remain as a “white dwarf” star at the center of the

nebula, continuing to burn the remaining carbon from helium fusion

until it is also depletedxxvii.

The active hydrogen-burning phase of a star’s life cycle is

termed its “main sequence”. As a star like the Sun becomes a red

giant, it moves from its main sequence phase into its red giant phase.

During a star’s main sequence, its brightness (luminosity), mass, size

(radius) and temperature are established as a function of equilibrium.

For example, the Sun is “G2V” class star140, which means

that it is a main sequence star whose temperature is “5,700(K)” at its

surface. Wien’s displacement law demonstrates that the peak of the

Sun’s blackbody spectrum occurs in the “yellow-white” photographic

light range. The star Rigel in the constellation Orion is seventeen

times more massive than the Sun and six times its radius, with a

temperature of “11,000(K)”. The mass-density equilibrium of Rigel

relates to its temperature, and the temperature relates to its apparent

color, which is in the blue range. The color blue is higher in frequency

than yellow, and this difference in frequency between Rigel and the

Sun is a function of Wien’s displacement law. As temperature

increases, the peak emission of the blackbody spectrum shifts

upwards in energy. This is termed “color temperature”. It’s just like a

flame: the blue part of the flame is the hottest, whereas the yellow and

orange parts of the flame are relatively cooler.

This tangential foray into astrophysics has been for the

purpose of conveying a crucial point, which is that seemingly

independent physical parameters of the star are intimately connected,

and a change in one will affect the others. The mass-density and

radius of a star in its main sequence relates to the star’s temperature.

From the temperature we may predict the star’s color which, in turn,

140

**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
**

www.deltagroupengineering.com

169

is derived from the star’s blackbody radiation spectrum. As massdensity increases, so does temperature. This causes the star’s

blackbody spectrum to shift to a higher-energy and narrower peak

frequency bandwidth according to Wien’s displacement law. This

example from fundamental astrophysics reinforces the concept that

objects are systems – they are neither static nor inert. This is the

fundamental premise of EGM and the basis upon which all EGM

calculations are performed.

As discussed earlier, any mass-object may be described by its

PV spectrum, which is a direct function of mass-energy density. The

equilibrium point of the star affects its radius, temperature and

blackbody spectrum. The PV spectrum of a star depicts a very similar

relationship. As the mass-energy density of any object increases, its

harmonic cut-off frequency increases and the modal bandwidth is

compressed. Thus, the PV spectrum of a neutron star, for example,

possesses a higher harmonic cut-off frequency and a narrower modal

bandwidth than our Sun, which is less massive.

This is why the EGM principle is universal. We may model

any object, whether it’s a galaxy, a cluster of galaxies, a black hole, a

neutron star, the Sun, a planet or a subatomic particle using the same

fundamental equation. However, the real value of the EGM method

lies in its ability to relate mass equilibrium states to one another, as

demonstrated by the subatomic particle harmonic relationship. It is by

way of this harmonic relationship that we may extrapolate

cosmological parameters like the Hubble constant and the CMBR

temperature as well.

Because EGM models a mass-object as existing in

equilibrium with the QV, the local energy state of the vacuum may be

considered to be equivalent to the mass-energy of the object it

encapsulates. For instance, this equivalency relationship is mirrored

by the stable equilibrium state of a star, such that the outward energy

produced by fusion is equal to the inward gravitational energy acting

to contain it. One may also conceptualize this by considering a

“seesaw” or lever with a fulcrum placed at its center. The lever may

be balanced horizontally if objects of equal weight are placed on each

end. The weight of object “A” on one side must be exactly the same

weight as object “B” on the opposing side for the lever to remain

stable and horizontal. In this regard, the mass-energy of an object

must be equivalent to the vacuum energy encapsulating it in order for

it to rest in equilibrium.

170

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**EGM is based upon dimensional analysis, which permits the
**

researcher to model real-world systems by similitude. Employing

similitude, EGM derives “H0” and “T0” by relating the PV spectrum

of an imaginary particle possessing the energy density of the Universe

at the instant of the Big Bang to its present-day value; utilizing the

mass-energy density of the Milky Way galaxy as a basis for the

comparison. We may apply the EGM method to model the difference

in energy density between the early Universe immediately after the

Big Bang and the present moment by presuming that the seed of the

Big Bang was a particle of maximum permissible energy density, i.e.,

a “Planck Particle” – representing a state in which all the energy in the

Universe is compacted into a single point141.

Like Sir Geoffrey Taylor, who calculated the energy of the

atomic bomb explosion knowing only the difference in blast sphere

radius at given intervals in time, we may extrapolate “H0” and “T0” by

comparing the analogous “Planck Particle Universe” at the instant of

creation with the present-day Universe because of the First Law of

Thermodynamics.

The derivation process is executed by utilizing the “EGM

harmonic representation of fundamental particles” equation to relate

the primordial-Universe Planck Particle to a present-day equivalent of

known mass. However, instead of a proton or electron, the arbitrary

particle we elect to apply as a base-line reference particle is

imaginary, possessing the mass of the Milky Way galaxy. If we were

to use a proton, it would reflect its local equilibrium boundary within

the atomic system, not the energy-density state of the Universe. The

PV spectrum of this Milky Way particle, referred to as the “Galactic

Reference Particle” (GRP), possesses a harmonic cut-off frequency

which is very high, but less than the Planck Frequency, and represents

141

**EGM demonstrates that as mass-energy density increases, the PV
**

modal bandwidth compresses. Thus, a Planck Particle representing the

Universe at an instant prior to the Big Bang specifies a condition

where its PV modal spectrum is compressed to a single value

approaching the Planck Frequency (see: QE4 for derivation).

www.deltagroupengineering.com

171

**the mass-energy density and vacuum equilibrium state of the presentday Universe.
**

The Universe is quite isometric142; we observe that all

galaxies are, on average, evenly distributed throughout the Universe,

and that they are all roughly in the same stage of evolution. Thus, we

may assume that the evolution of all galaxies has been subject to the

same ground rules and has followed roughly the same time-line as our

own. Because of this, our own Milky Way galaxy acts as a “reference

particle”, yielding an average present-day value of the gravitational

intensity throughout space-time.

Astronomers have been able to produce a fairly good

estimate of the total mass of the Milky Way, and have been able to

calculate the distance of our sun to the center of the galaxy. We may

mathematically represent total galactic mass as being contained within

a single “particle”, placed at the galactic center. This reference

particle (the GRP) may be represented as radiating gravitational

energy equivalent to its total mass. The intensity of gravitational

energy at any radial position, such as the Sun’s mean distance from

the galactic center, may be calculated from the PV spectrum of the

GRP. Thus, the GRP is proportionally representative of the total

mass-energy density and QV equilibrium state of the Universe at the

present time.

Pressure, as it has recently been described within this

chapter, is directly related to temperature. Temperature, as we also

know, is directly related to the blackbody spectrum. A mass-object of

any type may be represented by its PV spectrum, which may also be

physically interpreted as a spectrum of gravitons. The parameters of

the PV spectrum directly relate to the gravitational intensity of the

mass-object. In other words, the modes comprising the PV spectrum

indicate the gravitational intensity present at any point from the center

of the mass-object. As one moves away from the center of mass, the

gravitational intensity decreases, and the number of PV spectral

modes increases. This equilibrium gradient denotes a balance of field

pressures between the QV and the mass-object. “H0”, in a sense, is a

measure of the “expansive pressure” of the space-time manifold.

Thus, we may utilize the GRP to determine the average cosmological

matter-space-time equilibrium value and derive “H0”. In this regard,

“H0” describes the observed energy condition of the vacuum in its

entirety, as does “T0”.

Deriving “H0” in this manner provides the required input for

the derivation of “T0”. Once again, we shall commence by stating that

142

i.e. the same, no matter where you may be measuring it.

172

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**pressure is related to temperature. Relating the current average
**

“pressure” of space-time (i.e. “H0”) to the “pressure” of the

primordial-Universe Planck Particle at the instant of the Big Bang (via

Wien’s displacement law) yields a scale by which the Planck mode

decayed into its current spectrum. Gravitons143 radiated at the instant

of the Big Bang have red-shifted144 at the scale defined by the ratio

between the GRP and Planck Particle equilibrium end-points. This

red-shifted frequency may, in turn, be converted to cosmological

temperature, producing an estimate surpassing the precision of the

most accurately measured value of “T0”145. This level of accuracy is

due, in part, to the natural derivation of the cosmological inflationary

epoch under the EGM construct146.

It is also possible to utilize the primordial-Universe Planck

Particle and GRP end-points to thermodynamically model the change

in “H” and “T” since the instant of the Big Bang, forming a complete

historical record of the evolution of the Cosmos! This is accomplished

by relating the Planck Particle and GRP via the “harmonic

representation of fundamental particles” equation, yielding a

dimensional scaling factor which fills the gap between creation and

the present-day in terms of volumetric expansion.

Immediately after the Big Bang, as energy began condensing

to form matter, the gravitational energy radiating from matter formed

equilibrium gradients within the QV. Hence, the formation of matter

is a vital component for determining the average expansive pressure

of the Universe following the Big Bang and the manner in which “H”

has changed over time. The influence of matter upon the expansive

pressure of the space-time metric is automatically factored into the

model by incorporating the gravitational energy state at the Sun’s

relative position to the GRP. We may extrapolate the evolution of “H”

and “T” by assuming that the number of space-time modes has

bifurcated exponentially since the Big Bang, taking into account the

effect of matter condensation on the modal spectrum. This facilitates

the determination of scaling factors based upon the intensity of

gravitational flux between the instant of the Big Bang and the presentday; the scaling factors are then applied over the Hubble and

143

**i.e. conjugate photon pairs.
**

Into the microwave range.

145

EGM predicts “2.7248(K)”.

146

The SMoC does not naturally derive the inflationary epoch or

consider gravity to be an EM phenomenon; thus, the residual radiation

measured as “T0” is assumed by contemporary physicists to be the

result of the formation of atoms.

144

www.deltagroupengineering.com

173

**temperature domains. The result of this calculation is truly
**

astonishing!

Based upon the EGM method, the epochs of cosmic

evolution are mapped out in extraordinary detail. The resulting history

of “H” and “T” corroborate with all epochs of cosmic evolution as

asserted by the Standard Model of cosmology. The theory of early

“cosmic inflation” is reinforced and the recently measured

“accelerated expansion” is derived.

Cosmic inflation is an epoch thought to have occurred within

the first fractions of a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang. This

burst of rapid acceleration was followed by a reduction in the

acceleration rate, continuing throughout the life-time of the Universe.

Of particular interest in this case is that the inflation epoch emerges

spontaneously as a result of the EGM calculation, and isn’t presumed

or “placed” there a priori as part of the modeling process.

Alan Guth introduced the cosmic inflation hypothesis to the

Standard Model of cosmology as a requisite so that the Big Bang

theory “fits” observation. Without this inflationary epoch, the

Universe would not exist in present observational form. It would be

flat and featureless, with no clumps of matter or galaxies, and would

be so small today that the Universe, even after billions of years, would

only fit on the head of a pinxxviii. The inflationary epoch has been

added to the Standard Model of cosmic history because it is required.

Without it, the Big Bang theory flounders. However, the EGM

construct generates the inflationary epoch from first principles, and is

ultimately derived from a particle physics equation.

The latest scientific measurements demonstrate that the

expansion of the Universe continues to accelerate. Previously,

scientists wondered whether there might be enough matter in the

Universe to halt cosmic expansion. In the fullness of time, it was

thought that perhaps there was enough matter present to suck spacetime back in, causing the Universe to meet its end in a reverse of the

Big Bang termed the “Big Crunch”. However, when the data was

assembled, it vexed some astronomers to discover that the Universe is

actually accelerating at a rate exceeding predictions, based upon the

best estimate of the total amount of matter in the Universe.

The discrepancy between prediction and observation (within

the Standard Model of cosmology) is so vast, in fact, that

cosmologists were forced to invent the concepts of “dark energy” and

“dark matter” in order to make sense of the findings. Our best

measurements of expansion are so far from the predicted value that

theorists presently estimate that “72(%)” of the Universe must be

composed of dark energy and “23(%)” must be dark matter, meaning

174

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**that a whopping “95(%)” of our Universe exists in an unknown,
**

unobservable form147!

According to observationxxix, it is thought that a substantial

portion of matter comprising galaxies is “missing” because of the

peculiar manner in which galaxies rotate. Instead of rotating fastest in

the center and slower on the periphery, as occurs in a vortex of water,

or a cyclone in the atmosphere, stars located in the spiral arms of

galaxies rotate around the central axis at the same rate as the stars near

the center. One might naturally expect that individual stars in the arms

of a galaxy would gradually spiral into the center, moving slowly at

the edge and then faster and faster as they spiral in towards the center

of the vortex. Surprisingly, however, the entire galaxy rotates

uniformly like a giant pin-wheel in space. In order for an entire galaxy

to rotate uniformly it would require much more mass, in the form of

stars, planets and gasses, than is actually found to be present.

Therefore, it is thought that matter must be present in some

undetectable form in great halos surrounding the visible part of a

galaxy. The concept of “dark matter” has been manufactured in order

to make up for the “missing mass”, and explain why entire galaxies

rotate uniformly like a wheel, rather than spiral inward like a vortex.

Similarly, “dark energy” is also a contrivance invoked to

explain why the Universe continues to expand at an accelerated rate,

despite the addition of dark matter. Notwithstanding dark and visible

matter, the remainder of the Universe is thought to be in the form of

an energy field which generates a negative pressure in space,

counteracting gravity on a cosmological scale, causing intergalactic

voids of space-time to expand like giant balloons.

Although the CMBR spectrum is not entirely smooth and

uniform, its overall smoothness necessitates that a certain critical

density of matter exists in the Universe. Unfortunately, the derived

value contradicts measurement when the expansion rate of the

Universe is applied to calculate the density value. In other words, the

CMBR and acceleration rate measurements are in direct conflict with

current theory, which means that either something is fundamentally

wrong with the Standard Model of cosmology, or we must come to

terms with the notion that a mere “4.6(%)” of our Universe is

composed of matter and energy that we may observe and measure.

Even though the cosmic inflation epoch is also a contrivance

introduced to fit a theory, EGM substantiates its existence because the

inflation epoch emerges spontaneously as a natural consequence of

147

**NASA JPL PlanetQuest news: “SIM PlanetQuest to predict date of
**

cosmic collision” by Bob Silberg.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

175

**the calculation deriving “H0” and “T0”. However, EGM calls into
**

question the existence of dark energy and dark matter. This is due to

the fact that the EGM method not only predicts “H0” and “T0” with

extraordinary precision, it predicts the inflationary epoch and current

measures of accelerated expansion without invoking dark matter or

energy. In fact, based upon the EGM method, the contribution of dark

matter and energy to the cosmological model is negligible. The EGM

method requires no contrivances or fudge-factors in order to produce

results which are substantially more precise than those provided by

the Standard Model of cosmology (and particle physics).

Astonishingly, EGM allows one to derive “T” from “H”,

demonstrating that they are intimately related phenomenon. As a

consequence, the entire history of the Cosmos is revealed such that

key evolutionary epochs are clearly and precisely defined without the

need for dark energy and matter. After the Big Bang, an “inflationary

epoch” ensued, followed by phases leading to the condensation of

matter, the formation of stars, heavy elements and large-scale

structures such as galaxies. Cosmological epochs arise due to the

energy density conditions present in the Universe during each phase.

Just like the formation of subatomic particles in a collider, each

cosmic phase transition was induced by the epoch-specific energy

density parameters of the Universe which existed at that particular

time.

These epochs in the lifetime of the Universe are not unlike

the main sequence lifetimes of stars. The fate of a star is preordained

by consequence of its physical state of equilibrium. The

characteristics of the star; its temperature, color, size and even the

duration of its life hinge on a dynamic balance between the star’s

thermal energy and gravity. When a giant star transitions between its

main sequence and its death as a supernova, the phase transitions

brought about by shifts in equilibrium forge heavy elements and

disperses them throughout the Universe. The formation of these

elements provided the starting material for planet formation, and

ultimately, the emergence of life. We owe our existence to the

principle of equilibrium and the harmonic paradigm that EGM

describes.

The fact that it is possible to utilize the EGM “harmonic

representation of fundamental particles” equation to solve for

cosmological problems such as “H0” and “T0”, as well as describing in

fine detail the timeline of cosmic history means that the Cosmos is

beholden to the same harmonic imperative begetting the existence of

matter. The EGM principle is more than “universal”, it is

cosmological.

176

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**We have come full circle, from alpha to omega, having
**

substantiated a mathematical philosophy once fervently espoused by

Pythagoras and the ancient Babylonians over two-thousand years ago.

We now hold substantive evidence authenticating the philosophical

beliefs of our ancient scientific predecessors, who contemplated and

understood the Cosmos to be much more than a “void” in which

matter merely resides. Their depiction of the Cosmos encompassed all

forms in the Universe, from the miniscule to the immense, living and

inert. Their Cosmos was an expression of Musica Universalis – the

harmonic affinity connecting all things and giving rise to all forms in

Nature.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

177

178

www.deltagroupengineering.com

9

**EGM Technical Summary
**

Written by Riccardo C. Storti

**“Brevity is the sister of talent.”
**

Interpretation: revolutionary statements in science

should be simple.

• Russian proverb

“Brevity can be the enemy of comprehension.”

Interpretation: recognition and comprehension of simple

and revolutionary scientific statements depends upon the

skill-set of the audience.

• Riccardo C. Storti

9.1

Overview

**The following section outlines the method developed within
**

QE2-4 to describe “g” in harmonized terms, yielding new predictions

and highly precise experimentally verified results beyond the

Standard Models (SM’s) of particle physics and cosmology. The

EGM construct derives (see: QE3):

i. A harmonic representation of gravitational fields at a

mathematical point arising from geometrically spherical

objects of uniform mass-energy distribution using modified

Complex Fourier series.

ii. Characteristics of the amplitude spectrum based upon (i).

iii. Derivation of the fundamental harmonic frequency based

upon (i).

iv. Characteristics of the frequency spectrum of an implied ZPF

based upon (i) and the assumption that an EM relationship

exists over a change in displacement across a practical

bench-top test volume.

The derivational procedure obeys the following hierarchy:

v. A harmonic representation of “g” is developed.

vi. The frequency spectrum of (v) is derived by application of

Buckingham “Π” Theory (BPT) and dimensional similarity.

vii. The ZPF energy density is related to (vi) based upon the

assumption that engineered EM changes in “g” may be

www.deltagroupengineering.com

179

**produced across the dimensions of a practical bench-top test
**

volume.

viii. Spectral characteristics of the PV are derived based upon

(vii).

ix. A description of physical modeling criteria is presented.

x. A set of sample calculations and illustrational plots are

presented.

Applicable definitions:

•

•

•

•

•

•

**Quantum Vacuum (QV): a quantum representation of the
**

space-time manifold within GR.

Quantum-Vacuum-Energy (QVE): the spectral energy

associated with the QV.

Zero-Point-Field (ZPF): the QV field associated with

globally flat space-time geometry. However, such a

configuration cannot physically exist; thus, the ZPF takes the

form of a generalized reference to the QV field throughout

the “Quinta Essentia” series (i.e. QE2-4).

Zero-Point-Energy (ZPE): the spectral energy associated

with the ZPF.

Polarizable Vacuum (PV): a polarized representation of the

ZPF.

Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM): a theoretical relationship

between EM fields and “g”.

**Fourier series148 may be applied to represent a periodic
**

function as a trigonometric summation of sine and cosine terms. It

may also be applied to represent a constant function over an arbitrary

period by the same method. Since the PV model is (historically) a

weak field isomorphic approximation of GR and the frequency

spectrum is postulated to range from negative to positive infinity, it

follows that Fourier series represent a useful tool by which to describe

gravity.

148

**A Fourier series representation of a constant function involves the
**

hybridization of amplitude and frequency spectra (i.e. a Fourier

distribution contains two embedded spectra).

180

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**Utilizing Fourier series in complex form149, the square wave
**

is constructed by summing modes. The manner in which the function

to be approximated is articulated influences its harmonic

characteristics150.

Figure 1.1,

A constant function is termed even due to symmetry about

the “Y – axis”; subsequently, its Fourier approximation need only

contain certain terms at odd harmonics151, presenting the added

advantage of mathematical and energetic efficiency152. Thus, the

preceding periodic square wave may be reconstructed utilizing the

symmetry characteristics of a constant function as depicted by the

proceeding graph153 such that “g” is physically measured as a constant

function at the surface of the Earth. A Fourier series approximation of

“g” may be obtained by computing the magnitude of the preceding /

proceeding periodic square waves154 as the number of harmonic

modes tends to infinity.

149

**The preferred representation in the Quinta Essentia series,
**

possessing Real (Re) and Imaginary (Im) parts; however, the “Im”

contribution mathematically sums to zero.

150

i.e. it may contain exclusively cosine or sine terms; alternatively, it

may contain both trigonometric forms.

151

i.e. “1st, 3rd, 5th …” etc.

152

i.e. the system is modeled as existing at its lowest energy state.

153

i.e. for demonstration purposes only, up to the “21st” harmonic.

154

i.e. computing the magnitude acts to enforce full wave

rectification; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectifier

www.deltagroupengineering.com

181

Figure 1.2,

Therefore, “g” (i.e. a constant function) may be

mathematically characterized as a fully rectified periodic square wave

composed of odd Fourier harmonics. Due to symmetry (as illustrated

above / below), “g” may be constructed utilizing half the period of the

fully rectified square wave155.

Figure 1.3,

155

**i.e. the complete square wave cycle is not required to describe the
**

system.

182

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**Time domain modeling may be applied over the
**

displacement domain of a practical bench-top test volume by

considering the relevant changes over the dimensions of that volume.

Constant functions may be expressed as a summation of trigonometric

terms; subsequently, it is convenient to model a gravitational field

utilizing modified Complex Fourier series according to an odd

number harmonic distribution. Hence, “g” may be usefully

represented by the magnitude of a periodic square wave solution as

the number of waves utilized to describe it, approaches infinity.

It is demonstrated in QE3 that dimensional similarity and the

equivalence principle may be applied to represent the magnitude of an

acceleration vector such that an expression for the frequency spectrum

is derived in terms of harmonic mode. This is achieved by assuming

that electromagnetically induced acceleration is dynamically,

kinematically and geometrically similar to “g” as constructed by

Fourier series wave summation.

The gravitational field surrounding a homogeneous solid

spherical mass may be characterized by its energy density. If the

magnitude of this field is directly proportional to the mass-energy

density of the object, then the field energy density of the PV may be

evaluated over the difference between successive odd frequency

modes. The reason for this is due to the mathematical properties of

Fourier series for constant functions. For such cases – as appears in

standard texts, the summed contribution of all even modes equals

zero. Subsequently, only odd mode contributions need be considered

when modeling a constant function.

Utilizing the approximate rest mass-energy density of a solid

spherical object, an expression relating the terminating harmonic cutoff mode may be derived by assuming that the equivalent quantity of

mass-energy within an object is also stored in the gravitational field

surrounding it. Subsequently, the upper boundary of the frequency

spectrum, termed the harmonic cut-off frequency, may be calculated;

the derivation is based upon the compression of energy density of the

“random ZPF form” to one change in odd harmonic mode while

preserving dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity in accordance

with BPT.

The compressed “random ZPF form” is subsequently

decompressed over the Fourier domain (assigning structure), yielding

a highly precise reciprocal harmonic representation of “g”; preserving

dynamic, kinematic and geometric similarity to the Newtonian, PV

and GR representations. The cross-fertilization of the amplitude and

frequency characteristics of a constant function described by Fourier

series with the ZPF spectral energy density distribution derived by

www.deltagroupengineering.com

183

**Haisch and Rueda, is a useful tool by which to determine the spectral
**

characteristics of the PV representation of GR (proposed by Puthoff)

at the surface of the Earth (for example) by assuming,

xi. The PV physically exists as a spectrum of frequencies and

wave vectors.

xii. The sum of all PV wave vectors at the surface of the Earth is

coplanar with the gravitational acceleration vector. This

represents the only vector of practical experimental

consequence.

xiii. A modified Complex Fourier series representation of “g” is

representative of the magnitude of the resultant PV wave

vector.

xiv. A physical relationship exists between electricity, magnetism

and gravity such that “g” may be investigated and modified.

Therefore, we may summarize the solution algorithm

constituting the harmonically based EGM construct by five simple

steps as follows:

xv. Apply Dimensional Analysis Techniques (DAT's), BPT and

similarity principles to combine electricity, magnetism and

resultant EM acceleration in the form of “Π” groupings.

xvi. Apply the equivalence principle to the “Π” groupings formed

in (xv).

xvii. Apply Fourier Harmonics to the equivalence principle.

xviii. Apply ZPF Theory156 to Fourier Harmonics.

xix. Apply the PV model of gravity to the ZPF.

Within the EGM construct, the Poynting Vector “P”

represents the propagation of energy (i.e. conjugate photon pairs, see:

QE3), radially outwards from the center of mass; however, “g” is the

result of the change in “P” (i.e. “∆P”) between two points in the

displacement domain. This may appear counter-intuitive since “P”

propagates away from the center of mass, but “g” is a consequence of

“∆P” not “P”. A “∆P” arises due to the superposition of the “P” field

upon the ZPF. The ZPF acts to constrain the “P” field, yielding “g” as

predicted by Newtonian mechanics and GR.

This principle may be demonstrated by a simple example; let

the value of “P” at positive radial displacements from a mass-object

“r1” and “r2” be given by the positive values “P1” and “P2”

respectively. Hence, if “r2” is greater than “r1” then “P2” is less than

156

**See also: ZPF equilibrium as described in QE2 (i.e. the chapter
**

titled “The Natural Philosophy of Fundamental Particles”).

184

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**“P1” because “P2” tends to zero as “r2” approaches infinity such that
**

the difference between “P1” and “P2” is negative, indicating that “g”

acts towards the center of mass and opposite to the direction of

propagation of “P”.

“P” represents the propagation of spectral mass-energy

equivalence in the form of populations of conjugate Photon pairs. An

equilibrium gradient in the displacement domain arises due to the

mathematical interaction between the mass-energy and ZPF spectra,

equivalent to space-time curvature under GR because the intensity of

“P” varies congruently with “g”. Hence, the radial gradient in “P” is

analogous to variations in the Refractive Index of the space-time

manifold in an optical model of gravity.

9.2

The QV spectrum

**Historically, the QV has been considered to be composed of
**

a near infinite spectrum of randomly orientated wave functions, each

of specific frequency and amplitude, analogous to the static one

observes on a dead television channel. However, the EGM construct

disagrees with this historical conception as it implies the existence of

a near infinite quantity of energy in a vanishing volume (i.e. free

space contains a near infinite amount of energy).

EGM asserts that the QV is more appropriately described as

a finite spectrum whose wave function population is determined by

the quantity of mass-energy occupying a specific volume (i.e. free

space contains a near zero amount of energy). Subsequently, the QV

spectrum may be characterized by the following statements:

xx. It is a generalized reference to a quantum description of the

space-time manifold.

xxi. In flat space-time geometries, it transforms to the ZPF

spectrum.

xxii. In curved geometries (i.e. gravitational fields), it transforms

to the PV spectrum.

9.3

The EGM spectrum

**The EGM spectrum is a harmonic description of mass-energy
**

represented as conjugate EM wavefunction pairs; incrementally above

“0(Hz)”, tending to the Planck Frequency and obeying a Fourier

distribution. Key generalized spectral features are:

xxiii. It is discrete and harmonically continuous.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

185

**xxiv. The terminating frequency is a harmonic multiple of the
**

fundamental (i.e. lowest freq.).

xxv. Each wavefunction represents a population of photons such

that each conjugate photon pair constitutes a graviton.

xxvi. Where appropriate, due to the principle of mass-energy

equivalence and the law of conservation of energy157, it may

also be referred to as the PV spectrum.

9.4

The ZPF spectrum

**The ZPF spectrum may be partially described by its contrast
**

to the EGM spectrum. The EGM spectrum relates the mass of an

object to the gravitational field surrounding it utilizing Fourier

harmonics; hence, it is “somewhat localized”. However, the energy of

the ZPF is dispersed homogeneously throughout the Universe.

The historical conception of the ZPF implies the existence of

a near infinite quantity of energy in a vanishing volume (i.e. free

space contains a near infinite amount of energy). Fortunately, EGM

resolves this conflict such that a vanishingly small volume of flat

space-time does not contain an infinite amount of energy. This is

achieved by merging the continuous cubic frequency characteristic of

the ZPF with a discrete and finite Fourier distribution such that,

xxvii. The number of harmonic modes approaches infinity.

xxviii. The highest frequency tends to zero.

A determination of available ZPF energy throughout the

observable Universe is demonstrated in QE2,4 and the gradient of the

Hubble constant in the time domain is shown to be presently

positive158.

9.5

The PV spectrum

**The PV spectrum may be formulated by merging the EGM
**

and ZPF spectral distributions. Energy condensed as mass is finite;

representing a small fraction of the total energy in the Universe. The

finite parameters of matter dictate the form that the mass-energy

spectrum will take. The resulting harmonic description is termed the

PV spectrum.

157

**i.e. the mass-energy within an object is energetically equivalent to
**

the gravitational field surrounding the object.

158

Facilitating an explanation of the “accelerated cosmological

expansion” phenomenon.

186

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**PV spectral formation may be conceptualized by considering
**

a Universe populated by a singular spherical object of homogeneous

mass-energy density. When such an object is added to an empty

Universe, the EGM spectrum of the object is superimposed upon the

background ZPF spectrum. Merging the EGM and ZPF spectra results

in the cross-fertilization of characteristics; the complete mathematical

derivation is contained in QE3. Descriptions of the specific

mathematical events required are as follows,

xxix. Integrate the Haisch-Rueda-Puthoff (HRP) spectral energy

density equation over the frequency domain “ω”.

xxx. Recognize that, for any Fourier summation resulting in a

constant function, only odd harmonic modes are required due

to the null summation of even modes. This is a fundamental

property of Fourier mathematics and should not be

dismissed159.

xxxi. Formulate an expression for the change in energy density

with respect to odd harmonics, in terms of “ω”, utilizing the

integrated HRP spectral energy density equation.

xxxii. Substitute the harmonic frequency “ωPV” relationship into the

integrated HRP spectral energy density equation.

xxxiii. Solving appropriately, one obtains the harmonic cut-off

mode and frequency (i.e. “nΩ” and “ωΩ” respectively). “nΩ”

denotes the highest harmonic mode contained in the merged

spectra (i.e. the PV spectrum) and “ωΩ” represents the

terminating spectral frequency relative to a fundamental

value (i.e. its lowest permissible magnitude).

Hence, all required attributes have been derived to

completely describe “g” in harmonic terms. The next step is to

understand how the EGM method produces a PV spectrum such that

the “infinite energy” dilemma of ZPF Theory (derived by

contemporary QM methods), is averted. The deductive reasoning may

be articulated as follows:

xxxiv. The HRP derivation implies that the majority of ZPE exists

at the spectral limit160.

xxxv. Assume that the ZPE at an arbitrary mathematical point in

the space-time manifold is constant such that the associated

spectrum may be described harmonically relative to the

159

**Refer to any standard text for further information regarding Fourier
**

techniques.

160

i.e. low frequency energy contribution is comparatively trivial.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

187

xxxvi.

xxxvii.

xxxviii.

xxxix.

**magnitude of “some” fundamental frequency at the point
**

under consideration.

The Fourier characteristics of a constant function

demonstrate that only odd harmonic modes are required for

summation.

Principles of equivalence and similitude imply that the

highest spectral transition of odd harmonic mode may be

utilized in the representation of the total localized ZPE.

Assume that the mass-energy density of an object is equal to

the spectral energy density of the gravitational field

surrounding it.

Integrating the HRP spectral energy density relationship

yields the total ZPE, which may be expressed locally as a

narrow high-frequency bandwidth of equivalent energy.

Equating this result to the mass-energy density of an object

yields the PV spectrum surrounding it, preserving similitude.

**Therefore, when the EGM and ZPF spectra are merged, the
**

continuous ZPF spectrum is compressed and equated to the Fourier

distribution of the EGM spectrum such that the resulting PV spectrum

is a decompressed form of the merged spectra and the properties of its

spectral limits may be determined. This process mathematically

transforms the continuous ZPF spectrum to a discrete and finite

Fourier distribution of equivalent energy. Thus, as radial displacement

“r” at a mathematical point from a mass-object increases;

xl. Gravitational field strength decreases.

xli. Spectral energy density decreases.

xlii. The number of harmonic modes increases (i.e. bifurcation).

xliii. Greater numbers of modes are required to be summed for

energetic equivalence.

The EGM interpretation of gravity is similar to Newton’s

thoughts of an optical model such that the aether was presumed to be

“denser” farther away. The gradient in aether density causes light and

objects to follow trajectories characteristic of GR. EGM demonstrates

that the increasing density of Newton’s aether is analogous to

increases in mode population in the PV spectrum. Hence, the PV is an

EM frequency spectrum obeying a Fourier distribution at

displacement “r” describing a mass “M” induced gravitational field

such that;

xliv. It denotes a polarized form of the ZPF spectrum161.

161

**Mass pushes the ZPF surrounding it “uphill”, against the natural
**

flux of space-time manifold expansion.

188

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**xlv. The population of spectral modes decreases as mass
**

increases.

xlvi. Maximum spectral frequency increases as mass increases.

xlvii. The fundamental spectral frequency increases as mass

increases.

xlviii. Spectral frequency bandwidth162 increases as mass increases.

9.6

The EGM, PV and ZPF spectra

**The difference between the EGM, PV and ZPF spectra is that
**

the EGM spectrum commences incrementally above “0(Hz)” and

approaches the Planck Frequency. The PV spectrum is mass specific

and represents a bandwidth of the EGM spectrum commencing at a

non-zero fundamental frequency. The EGM and PV spectra follow a

Fourier distribution, whereas the ZPF spectrum possesses the same

frequency bandwidth of the EGM spectrum, but does not follow a

Fourier distribution. Thus, the EGM spectrum is the polarized form of

the ZPF spectrum, while the PV spectrum is an object specific subset

of the EGM spectrum following a Fourier distribution.

9.7

The Casimir Effect

**The Casimir Effect163 demonstrates that when small
**

distances separate two flat neutral metal plates, photons in the PV

field with wavelengths larger than the plate separation distance are

excluded from the spatial cavity, resulting in an attractive force

between the plates due to the bias in vacuum energy across the

system164. Gravity, in this regard, is analogous to a long-range

Casimir Effect because EGM asserts that mass induced gravitational

effects may be described by changes in mode population across a

region of space.

The EGM construct was applied in QE3 to derive the Casimir

Force from first principles, demonstrating that it differs depending

upon ambient gravitational field strength! For example, the Casimir

162

**i.e. the difference in magnitude between the highest and lowest
**

frequencies.

163

Presently, it is only experimentally confirmed to exist in

gravitational fields (i.e. PV fields). “The Effect” has not been

physically verified in flat space-time geometries (i.e. the free-space

“0g” condition).

164

i.e. the vacuum energy density is lower between the plates.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

189

**Force will be slightly different on Earth than Jupiter or the Moon.
**

QE3 states that,

xlix. “…. an Earth based equivalent Casimir experiment

conducted on Jupiter will exclude fewer low frequency modes

– preserving higher frequency modes that simply pass

through the plates, resulting in a smaller Casimir Force. By

contrast, the same experiment conducted on the Moon will

produce a larger Casimir Force.”

l. “…. a Casimir Experiment conducted in free space will

produce an extremely small force (tending to zero) due to the

lack of initial background field pressure. Since the Casimir

Force arises from a pressure imbalance, the lack of

significant ambient field pressure between the plates165

prevents the formation of large Casimir Forces.”

9.8

Comparative spectra

**Note: labels of the form “2.xx, 3.xx, 4.xx” refer to QE2,3,4 respectively.
**

EGM bandwidth comparisons of PV spectra associated with

physical categories of objects may be formulated and represented

graphically based upon ZPF equilibria. Determination of the ZPF

equilibrium radius of subatomic particles is a sophisticated process,

summarized in QE2. A complete and rigorous derivation is presented

in QE3.

Utilizing the EGM construct, the HRP spectral energy

density equation with cubic frequency distribution may be graphically

categorized into four regions (i.e. zones), these are; “Planck-scale”

energy densities, “particle physics”, “astrophysics” and “cosmology”,

subject to the following generalized characteristics166 [see: Fig. (2.1,

2.2)],

li. Planck scale energy densities167 [see: QE4]

• Narrowband high-frequency spectrum.

• Narrowband modal spectrum.

lii. Particle physics

• Broadband high-frequency spectrum.

• Narrowband modal spectrum.

165

**i.e. in and around the experimental zone.
**

See: QE2 for precise numerical determinations.

167

Refers to particulate representations of maximum permissible

energy densities (i.e. Black Hole singularities).

166

190

www.deltagroupengineering.com

liii. Astrophysics

• Moderateband168 high-frequency spectrum.

• Moderateband modal spectrum.

liv. Cosmology [see: Tab. (2.6, 2.7)]

• Narrowband low-frequency spectrum.

• Broadband modal spectrum.

Sample plots,

**Figure169 2.1 (illustrational only - not to scale),
**

where,

Region / Zone

Applicable Category

Gravitational Model

Space-Time Geometry

A

B

Cosm. Astro.

ZPF

PV

Flat

Curved

Table 2.6,

C

PP

PV

Flat

D

PS

PV

Curved

168

**A generalized reference to spectral bandwidth relative to “narrow”
**

and “broad” descriptors.

169

Utilizing this proportional spectral frequency characteristic in the

harmonic representation of gravitational fields by the EGM method,

the bifurcation phenomenon may be mathematically articulated by the

relationship “ρ0 ∝ 1 / nPV” [Eq. (2.7); see: QE2].

www.deltagroupengineering.com

191

**Note: Cosm. (Cosmology), Astro. (Astrophysics), PP (Particle
**

Physics) and PS (Planck Scale).

**Figure 2.2 (illustrational only - not to scale),
**

where,

Region / Zone

Applicable Category

Gravitational Model

Space-Time Geometry

E

F

PS

PP

PV

PV

Curved

Flat

Table 2.7,

G

Astro.

PV

Curved

H

Cosm.

ZPF

Flat

**On a Cosmological scale170, the ZPF upper spectral limit is
**

influenced by the average energy density of the present Universe. The

spectral density of the ZPF remains cubic; however, the upper spectral

frequency limit is lower than it was in the early Universe. Hence, the

majority of ZPE is presently in the form of low-frequency modes,

each containing a relatively small amount of energy.

The few high-frequency modes characterizing the early

Universe have bifurcated into a very large bandwidth of lowerfrequency modes as the Universe expanded to its present form. The

total energy of the Universe remains constant, but is spread out over a

170

**i.e. on average, with a flat space-time manifold as determined by
**

the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP).

192

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**much greater volume as cosmological expansion continues. It is
**

demonstrated by derivation in QE3 and confirmed in QE4, that the

majority proportion of the gravitational effect in a field occurs at the

harmonic cut-off frequency “ωΩ ” such that all other frequencies may

be usefully neglected171.

9.9

Characterization of the gravitational spectrum

**The EGM equations, utilized to describe fundamental
**

particles in harmonic terms, are simplified for values of Refractive

Index “KPV” approaching unity. This facilitates the representation of

“g” utilizing the PV harmonic cut-off frequency “ωΩ”, leading to the

formulation of a generalized cubic frequency expression. It is

demonstrated that the PV spectrum is dominated by “ωΩ ” such that

the magnitude of the associated gravitational Poynting Vector is

usefully approximated by the total energy density, resulting in an

expression for EGM Flux Intensity “CΩ_J”. The derivation sequence

proceeds as follows,

lv. Simplification of the EGM equations.

lvi. Derivation of “g” in terms of “ωΩ ”.

lvii. Formulation of a generalized cubic frequency expression in

terms of “g”.

lviii. Determination of the gravitationally dominant EGM

frequency.

lix. Derivation of “CΩ_J”.

**9.10 “Planck-Particle” characteristics
**

The minimum physical dimensions of “SchwarzschildPlanck Particle” mass and radius is derived, leading to the

determination of the value of “KPV” at the event horizon of a

“Schwarzschild-Planck Black Hole” (SPBH). Consequently, the

magnitude of “ωΩ” at the event horizon “RBH” of a “Schwarzschild

Black Hole” (SBH) is presented, yielding the singularity radius “rS”

171

**The information in this paragraph should not be confused with the
**

PV spectrum of a specific body such as a planet, in which case, the

bulk of the gravitational energy [i.e. >> 99.99(%)] occurs at the

harmonic cut-off frequency. The low frequency modes do not

contribute significantly and may be usefully neglected from most

calculations. This phenomenon has been thoroughly and rigorously

explored in QE3.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

193

**and harmonic cut-off profiles (“nΩ” and “ωΩ” from “rS” to “RBH”).
**

The minimum gravitational lifetime of matter “TL” is also advanced

such that the value of generalized average emission frequency per

graviton “ωg” may be calculated. These determinations assist in the

supplemental EGM interpretation with respect to the visibility of

“Black Holes” (BH’s). The derivation sequence proceeds as follows,

lx. Derivation of the minimum physical “Schwarzschild-Planck

Particle” mass and radius.

lxi. Derivation of the value of the “KPV” at the event horizon of a

“Schwarzschild-Planck Black Hole” (SPBH).

lxii. Derivation of “ωΩ” at the event horizon of a SPBH.

lxiii. Derivation of “ωΩ” at the event horizon of a SBH.

lxiv. Derivation of “rS”.

lxv. “nΩ” and “ωΩ” profiles (from “rS” to “RBH”) of SBH’s.

lxvi. Derivation of “TL”.

lxvii. Derivation of “ωg”.

lxviii. Why can't we observe BH’s?

9.11 Cosmology

9.11.1 Fundamental

The primordial and present values of the Hubble constant are

derived (“Hα” and “HU” respectively), leading to the determination of

the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) temperature

“TU”. This facilitates the determination of the impact of “dark matter /

energy” on “HU” and “TU” such that a generalized expression for “TU”

in terms of “HU” is formulated. An experimentally implicit derivation

of the ZPF energy density threshold “UZPF” is also presented. The

derivation sequence proceeds as follows,

lxix. Derivation of “Hα” and “HU”.

lxx. Derivation of “TU”.

lxxi. Numerical solutions for172 “Hα, AU, RU, ρU, MU, HU” and

“TU”.

lxxii. Determination of the impact of “dark matter / energy” on

“HU” and “TU”.

lxxiii. “TU” as a function of a generalized Hubble constant.

**“AU, RU, ρU, MU” denote cosmological age, size, mass-density and
**

total mass respectively.

172

194

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**lxxiv. Derivation of173 “Ro”, “MG”, “HU2” and “ρU2” from “TU2”.
**

lxxv. Experimentally implicit derivation of “UZPF”.

9.11.2 Advanced

A time dependent derivation of “TU” is performed, including

its rate of change and relationship to “HU”. This facilitates the

articulation of the cosmological evolution process into four distinct

periods dealing with the inflationary and early expansive phases.

Subsequently, the history of the Universe174 is developed and

compared to the Standard Model (SM) of Cosmology (SMoC). This

assists in determining the cosmological limitations of the EGM

construct. The question of the practicality of utilizing conventional

radio telescopes for gravitational astronomy is also addressed. The

derivation sequence proceeds as follows,

lxxvi. Time dependent CMBR temperature.

lxxvii. Rates of change of CMBR temperature.

lxxviii. Rates of change of the Hubble constant.

lxxix. Cosmological evolution process.

lxxx. History of the Universe.

lxxxi. EGM cosmological construct limitations.

lxxxii. Are conventional radio telescopes, practical tools for

gravitational astronomy?

9.11.3 Gravitational

An engineering model is developed to explain how

gravitational effects are transmitted through space-time in terms of

EGM wavefunction propagation and interference. The derivation

sequence proceeds as follows,

lxxxiii. Gravitational propagation: the mechanism for interaction.

lxxxiv. Gravitational interference: the mechanism of interaction.

173

**“Ro” and “MG” denote galactic radius and mass respectively.
**

“HU2”, “ρU2” and “TU2” represent transformations of “HU”, “ρU” and

“TU”.

174

As defined by the EGM construct.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

195

9.11.4 Particle

The following characteristics are derived utilizing EGM

principles,

lxxxv. The photon and graviton mass-energies lower limit.

lxxxvi. The photon and graviton Root-Mean-Square (RMS) charge

radii lower limit.

lxxxvii. The photon charge threshold.

lxxxviii. The photon charge upper limit.

lxxxix. The photon charge lower limit.

**9.12 Key point summary
**

Under the EGM construct, the following assertions were

derived,

xc. The EGM spectrum is a harmonic description of mass-energy

represented as conjugate EM wavefunction pairs;

incrementally above “0(Hz)”, tending to the Planck

Frequency and obeying a Fourier distribution. Key

generalized spectral features are,

• It is discrete and harmonically continuous.

• The highest frequency is a harmonic multiple of the

fundamental (i.e. lowest freq.).

• Each wavefunction represents a population of

photons such that each conjugate photon pair

constitutes a graviton.

• Where appropriate, due to the principle of massenergy equivalence and the law of conservation of

energy, it may also be referred to as the PV spectrum.

xci. The ZPF is an EM frequency spectrum referring to the QV

spectrum of globally flat space-time geometry. However,

such a configuration cannot physically exist; thus, the ZPF

takes the form of a generalized reference to the QV field

throughout the “Quinta Essentia” series (i.e. QE2-4) such

that,

• The number of harmonic modes approaches infinity.

• The highest frequency tends to zero.

xcii. The PV is an EM frequency spectrum obeying a Fourier

distribution at displacement “r” describing a mass “M”

induced gravitational field such that,

• It denotes a polarized form of the ZPF spectrum.

196

www.deltagroupengineering.com

•

xciii.

xciv.

xcv.

xcvi.

xcvii.

xcviii.

xcix.

**The population of spectral modes decreases as mass
**

increases.

• Maximum spectral frequency increases as mass

increases.

• The fundamental spectral frequency increases as

mass increases.

• Spectral frequency bandwidth increases as mass

increases.

A vanishing volume containing infinite energy does not exist

under the EGM construct.

Although on the human scale the quantity of ZPF energy is

trivial, on the astronomical or cosmological scale, it becomes

extremely large when approaching the dimensions of the

visible Universe.

The EGM spectrum is a simple, but extreme, extension of the

EM spectrum.

The ZPF equilibrium radius of astronomical bodies coincides

with the mean radius (see: QE3), representing the

mathematical boundary (within EGM) delineating mass

composition and the gravitational field surrounding it.

The EGM harmonic representation of fundamental

particles175 is derived by considering all matter to be

radiators of populations of conjugate photon pairs176,

suggesting that the quintessential building-block of all atoms,

chemical elements, molecules and material forms in the

Cosmos is the photon.

EGM is a method and not a theory because: (i) it is an

engineering approximation and (ii), the mass and size of

most subatomic particles are not precisely known. It

harmonizes all fundamental particles relative to an arbitrarily

chosen reference particle by parameterising ZPF equilibrium

in terms of “ωΩ”.

The formulation of table177 (4.5) is a robust approximation

based upon PDG data. Other interpretations are possible,

depending on the values utilized. For example, if one re-

175

**i.e. the harmonic pattern expressed in terms of “Stω”.
**

The majority of energy contained within a PV spectrum occurs at

the spectral limit; hence, the spectrum may be usefully approximated

by a single conjugate wavefunction pair at the harmonic cut-off

frequency. See: QE2,3 for further information.

177

Refer to the proceeding chapter.

176

www.deltagroupengineering.com

197

c.

ci.

cii.

ciii.

civ.

**applies the method presented in QE3 based upon other data;
**

the values of “Stω” in table (4.5) might differ. However, in

the absence of exact experimentally measured mass and size

information, there is little motivation to postulate alternative

harmonic sequences, particularly since the current

formulation fits the available experimental evidence

extremely well.

If all mass and size values were exactly known by

experimental measurement, the main sequence formulated in

QE3 (or a suitable variation thereof) will produce a precise

harmonic representation of fundamental particles, invariant

to interpretation. Table (4.5) values cannot be dismissed due

to potential multiplicity before reconciling how,

• EGM generates radii values substantially more

accurate than any other contemporary method178.

• “ωΩ” is capable of producing a “Top quark” mass

value – the SM of particle physics cannot.

• Extremely short-lived leptons179 cannot exist, or do

not exist for a plausible harmonic interpretation.

• Any other harmonic interpretation, in the absence of

exact mass and size values determined

experimentally, denote a superior formulation.

The cosmological inflation and accelerated expansion

phenomena emerge naturally within the EGM construct and

are not presumed a priori as part of the modeling process.

Dark matter / energy are not required by the EGM construct

to predict experimentally verified results. In fact, it is

mathematically demonstrated that “dark” influence upon

“H0” and “T0” is less than “1(%)”.

The present values of deceleration parameter and

cosmological constant (“q0” and “Λ0” respectively) are

derived and precisely quantified under the EGM construct.

The SMoC interpretation of the sign “±” associated with ZPF

energy is opposite to the EGM construct. That is, the SMoC

interprets ZPF energy as a positive quantity; EGM interprets

it as a negative quantity.

178

**It is a noteworthy result that EGM is capable of producing the
**

Neutron Mean Square (MS) charge radius as a positive quantity.

Conventional techniques favor the non-intuitive form of a negative

squared quantity.

179

i.e. with lifetimes of “< 10-29(s)”.

198

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**cv. Where appropriate, due to the principle of mass-energy
**

equivalence and the law of conservation of energy180, the

EGM spectrum may also be referred to as the PV spectrum.

Note: numerical simulations substantiating all claims exist in QE2-4.

180

**In terms of equilibration.
**

www.deltagroupengineering.com

199

200

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**10 EGM Results Summary
**

10.1 Harmonic representation of fundamental particles

Particles may be classified according to a precise harmonic

relationship amongst harmonic cut-off frequencies. The “EGM

harmonic representation of fundamental particles” equation yields

harmonic values relative to a designated reference particle. Harmonics

not matching known particles in the Standard Model are assigned

“theoretical” designations (“Th.”).

Proton

Harm.

Electron

Harm.

Quark

Harm.

**Elec. (e), Elec. Neutrino (ν
**

ν e)

L2, ν2 (Th. Lepton, Neutrino)

L3, ν3 (Th. Lepton, Neutrino)

Muon (µ

µ), Muon Neut. (ν

νµ)

Stω = 1

2

4

6

8

Stω = 1/2

1

2

3

4

Stω = 1/14

1/7

2/7

3/7

4/7

**L5, ν5 (Th. Lepton, Neutrino)
**

Tau (ττ), Tau Neutrino (ν

ντ)

Up, Down quark: (uq), (dq)

Strange quark (sq)

Charm quark (cq)

Bottom quark (bq)

QB5 (Th. quark or Boson)

QB6 (Th. quark or Boson)

W Boson

Z Boson

Higgs Boson (H) (Th.)

Top quark (tq)

10

12

14

28

42

56

70

84

98

112

126

140

5

6

7

14

21

28

35

42

49

56

63

70

5/7

6/7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

**Exis. and Th. Particles181
**

Proton (p), Neutron (n)

Table182 4.5

181

**Although the newly predicted Leptons are within the kinetic
**

range181 and therefore “should have been experimentally detected”,

there are substantial explanations discussed in QE2,3.

182

Appears similarly as “Particle Summary Matrix 3.3” in QE3 and

table (4.5) in QE2,4.

www.deltagroupengineering.com

201

**Note: Exis. (Existing), Th. (Theoretical), Harm. (Harmonics), Elec.
**

(Electron) and Neut, (Neutrino).

**10.2 Periodic table of fundamental particles
**

The harmonic relationship amongst fundamental particles

allows for their hierarchical arrangement into a representation

mimicking the periodic table of atomic elements. Assuming “QB5,6”

to be Intermediate Vector Bosons (IVB’s), EGM conjectures that the

periodic table of elementary particles may be constructed as follows:

Table 4.9,

(i) *Where, “SC” denotes coupling strength at “1(GeV)”183.

“James William Rohlf”, Modern Physics from α to Z, John Wiley

& Sons, Inc. 1994.

183

202

www.deltagroupengineering.com

**(ii) The values of “Stω” in table (4.9) utilize the proton as the
**

reference particle. This is due to its Root-Mean-Square (RMS) charge

radius and mass-energy being precisely known by physical

measurement.

**10.3 EGM vs. SMoC
**

The following table displays a summary of the key

mathematical facts determined via the EGM method in comparison to

those obtained via the Standard Model of Cosmology (SMoC).

Key Mathematical Fact

Dark matter / energy required

Max Cosmological Temp ≈ 1031(K)

Big Bang Temperature = 0(K)

Unification with particle physics

Relationship between “H0” and “T0”

“H0” and “T0” are calculable to high precision

“H0” and “T0” were derived from particle

physics

Precise determination of distinct cosmological

evolutionary phases

Sign of the deceleration parameter is in

agreement with expectation

Prediction of “accelerated cosmological

expansion”

Table 2.17,

SMoC

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

EGM

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

**where, “H0, T0, q0, Λ0” denote the present values of Hubble constant,
**

CMBR184 temperature, deceleration parameter and cosmological

constant respectively.

**10.4 Cosmological evolution process
**

Figure (4.23) depicts the change in the temperature of the

early Universe with time following the Big Bang. The EGM

calculation for peak temperature predicts a Big Bang temperature of

0(K) and peak temperature of ≈ 1031(K) immediately after the Big

Bang.

184

**Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.
**

www.deltagroupengineering.com

203

**Figure (4.26) depicts a Planck-like curve relationship
**

between cosmological temperature and the Hubble constant.

Increasing volumetric expansion results in vacuum energy diffusion;

leading to a decrease in CMBR temperature.

Figure (2.4) depicts the rate of change of the Hubble constant

over time, resulting in a curve defining the “inflationary” and

“expansive” epochs of cosmic history. The peak of the curve marks

the point at which cosmic inflation ends and expansion begins. The

maximum cosmological temperature185 line marks the instant at which

the rate of change of the Hubble constant switches from negative to

positive. The section of the curve above “0” marks a period of

positive Hubble gradient186 and below “0” marks a period of negative

Hubble gradient187. Thus, EGM calculations are congruent with the

physical observation that the space-time manifold is currently

undergoing accelerated expansion. It is important to note that this

feature is presently beyond the abilities of the SMoC to produce.

Figure (2.5) depicts the following:

1. Primordial Inflation (prior to the Big Bang): the Universe may be

described as “inverted and non-physical” such that the interior of

the Cosmos existed outside the exterior boundary “RBH” in

accordance with the “Primordial Universe” model described in

QE4 such that:

i. The cosmological temperature “T” increases from negative

infinity to zero.

ii. The rate of change of the Hubble constant over time “dHdt”

increases from negative infinity to “-Hα2”.

iii. The magnitude of the Hubble constant188 “|H|” decreases

from positive infinity to “Hα”.

2. Thermal Inflation: the period from the instant of the Big Bang to

the instant of maximum cosmological temperature such that:

iv. “T” increases from zero to its maximum value.

v. “dHdt” increases from “-Hα2” to zero.

185

i.e. an average value.

i.e. the Universe inflated and expanded at an accelerated rate;

continuing to the present day.

187

The rate of inflation was negative until the point of maximum

cosmological temperature; it then began to inflate and expand at a

positive rate.

188

This terminology is an abbreviated reference to “the square-root of

the magnitude of the rate of change of the Hubble constant over time”,

as indicated by the graph.

186

204

www.deltagroupengineering.com

3.

**vi. “|H|” decreases from “Hα” to zero.
**

Hubble Expansion: the period from the maximum postprimordial189 “|H|” to the present day such that:

vii. “T” decreases to its present day value.

viii. “dHdt” decreases from its maximum physical value to its

present day value.

ix. “|H|” decreases from its maximum physical190 value to its

present day value.

189

**i.e. bounded by the Cosmological Expansion phase.
**

In this context, “physical” refers to the “Hubble Expansion” phase

because it is experimentally observed.

190

www.deltagroupengineering.com

205

Figure 4.23,

206

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Figure 4.26,

www.deltagroupengineering.com

207

Figure 2.4,

208

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Figure 2.5,

www.deltagroupengineering.com

209

210

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Periodic Table of the Elements

www.deltagroupengineering.com

211

Image: Spiral Galaxy

212

www.deltagroupengineering.com

Bibliography 1

i

**Leonardo da Vinci, translated by Irma Anne Richter, The Notebooks
**

of Leonardo da Vinci. (Oxford University Press, 1998), pp.276.

ii

J. Robinson, An Introduction to Early Greek Philosophy. (Boston:

Houghton Miffin, 1968), pp. 75.

iii

George Johnson, Fire in the Mind: Science, Faith and the Search

for Order. (New York: Alfred A Knopf Publishers, 1995).

iv

Bruce J. Hunt, The Maxwellians. (Ithaca and London: Cornell

University Press, 1991).

v

A. A. Michelson and E.W. Morley, “On the Relative Motion of the

Earth and the Luminiferous Aether”. Philos. Mag. S.5, 24 (151),

pp.449-463 (1887).

vi

H. B. G. Casimir, and D. Polder, “The Influence of Retardation on

the London-van der Waals Forces”. Physical Review, Vol. 73, Issue 4,

pp. 360-372 (1948).

vii

S. K. Lamoreaux, “Demonstration of the Casimir Force in the 0.6 to

6 µm Range” Physical Review Letters. 78, 5–8 (1997).

viii

U. Mohideen and Anushree Roy, “A Precision Measurement of the

Casimir Force between 0.1 to 0.9 mm” Physical Review Letters,

vol.81, (no.21), APS, (1998).

ix

Benedetto, G.; Gavioso, R.; Albo, P.; Lago, S.; Ripa, D.; Spagnolo,

R. “Speed of Sound in Pure Water at Temperatures between 274 and

394(K) and at Pressures up to 90(MPa)” International Journal of

Thermophysics, Volume 26, Number 6, November 2005 , pp. 16671680(14).

x

Albert Einstein “On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the

Production and Transformation of Light” Annalen der Physik,

17(1905), pp. 132-148.

xi

Pisin Chen, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, June 06, 2000

“Violent Acceleration and the Event Horizon” - Press Release.

http://home.slac.stanford.edu/pressreleases/2000/20000606.htm

xii

Vesselin Petkov, “Did 20th century physics have the means to reveal

the nature of inertia and gravitation?” arXiv:physics/0012025 v3 17

(December, 2000).

xiii

Eugene Parker, "Dynamics of the Interplanetary Gas and Magnetic

Fields". The Astrophysical Journal. (1958) 128: 664.

xiv

Pyotr Lebedev, "Untersuchungen über die Druckkräfte des Lichtes

[The Experimental Study of the Pressure of Light]”, Annalen der

Physik, 1901.

xv

Boyer, Timothy H., “The Classical Vacuum” Scientific American,

www.deltagroupengineering.com

213

**pp. 70-78, (August 1985).
**

xvi

(i) Ford, Brian J., “The Controversy of Robert Brown and

Brownian Movement” Biologist, 39 (3): 82-83, (June 1992). (ii)

“Brownian Movement in Clarkia Pollen: A Reprise of the first

Observations” The Microscope, 40 (4): 235-241, (1992).

xvii

Compton, Arthur H. “A Quantum Theory of the Scattering of Xrays by Light Elements” Physical Review, 21, 483 - 502 (1923).

xviii

B. Haisch & A. Rueda, “On the relation between a Zero-PointField-Induced inertial effect and the Einstein-de Broglie formula”

physics Letters A, 268, 224, (2000).

xix

H. E. Puthoff, “Polarizable-Vacuum (PV) Approach to General

Relativity” Foundations of physics, Vol. 32, No. 6, (June 2002).

xx

Philo, translated by F.H. Colson, Vol. IV: On the Migration of

Abraham, (Cambridge Mass.: Loeb Classic Library, Harvard

University Press, No. 261, 1932).

xxi

Malhotra, R., Holman, M., and Ito, T “Chaos and stability in the

Solar system” PNAS, 98(22):12342-12343 (2001).

xxii

Planck, Max, "On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal

Spectrum". Annalen der Physik, vol. 4, p. 553 ff (1901).

xxiii

Lise Meitner & Otto Robert Frisch “Disintegration of Uranium by

Neutrons: a New Type of Nuclear Reaction” Nature 143: 239-240.

(1939).

xxiv

Sir Isaac Newton, Opticks. (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica

[1955, c1952] Book III, Part I) p.520-521.

xxv

Marc G. Millis, “Emerging Possibilities for Space Propulsion

Breakthroughs” Interstellar Propulsion Society Newsletter, Vol. I, No.

1, (July 1, 1995).

xxvi

Hetherington, N.S., Encyclopedia of Cosmology (Garland

Publishing Inc. New York 1993), (articles on Big Bang Cosmology,

and Origins of Primordial Nucleosynthesis).

xxvii

Sackmann, I.-Juliana; Arnold I. Boothroyd; Kathleen E. Kraemer

(11 1993). "Our Sun. III. Present and Future". Astrophysical Journal

418: 457.

xxviii

Peter Coles, “Inside Inflation: After the Big Bang”. New

Scientist, issue 2593 (March, 2007).

xxix

V. Rubin, W. K. Ford, Jr., "Rotation of the Andromeda Nebula

from a Spectroscopic Survey of Emission Regions," Astrophysical

Journal 159: 379 (1970).

214

www.deltagroupengineering.com

90000

ID: 2671468

www.lulu.com

9 781409 205340

Quinta Essentia: A Practical Guide to Space-Time Engineering - Part 1

ISBN 978-1-4092-0534-0

- Bart Leplae- Magnetism-Gravity: Working ModelUploaded byPortsnuyh
- motionmountain-volume1Uploaded byluminita
- Quinta Essentia - Part 2Uploaded bydgE
- 72 as of 10-28-13Uploaded bydonmccrmck
- euclid.bams.1183422263Uploaded byBojan Kalicanin
- Ether DetectUploaded byKWojtek
- Tombe - The Aether and the Electric Sea (2006)Uploaded byjason13086
- Quinta Essentia - Part 4Uploaded bydgE
- Biofield Harmonic EnergizerUploaded byErnest Emery Richards
- Action at a Distance in Classical Physics - Mary B HesseUploaded byLuis González-Mérida
- Tesla_vs_EinsteinUploaded bysolohovus
- Appendix b - Classical Doppler Shift From a Moving Source in the Presence of a Moving EtherUploaded bycastrojp
- Antigravity PropulsionUploaded byEstrella Adriana Sicardi
- Quinta Essentia - Part 3Uploaded bydgE
- Encyclopaedia Britannica Fourteenth Edition (1937), Volume 8, Pages 751-755 ETHER (in Physics).pdfUploaded byPUNISHMENT POSSE
- Metaphysics BooksUploaded byArka Ganguly
- tranophysintlab2reportfinalUploaded byapi-249588785
- Chapter 1.pdfUploaded byTravis Shivley
- exam1sol.pdfUploaded byYunus Akgün
- Reassessment of the Elenin Affair – Hubert_LunsUploaded byHubert Luns
- Science CurriculumgzfgfUploaded bypaulocuesta
- Science Curriculum Guide Grades 3-10 December 2013.pdfUploaded byJann Therese Barrios
- Complete Physics for Cambridge Secondary 1 OxfordUploaded bySaadet
- Chap 4 NotesUploaded byashley0202
- Principles of Einstein-Finsler Gravity and Perspectives in Modern CosmologyUploaded bySergiu Vacaru
- Optics01 IntroUploaded byTria
- Philippine Science Curriculum GuideUploaded byPablo Ragay Jr
- Four ChargeUploaded byWatungaIowa
- The Nature of the PastUploaded bypaquitolklklk
- THE LAST PROYEK PRINT.docxUploaded byMamik Kumala Suwarno

- The Natural Philosophy of the Cosmos (C)Uploaded bydgE
- SPIE 2011Uploaded bydgE
- Derivation of ElectroMagnetic RadiiUploaded bydgE
- The Natural Philosophy of the Cosmos (A)Uploaded bydgE
- Polarizable Vacuum (PV) and the Schwarzschild SolutionUploaded bydgE
- The Natural Philosophy of the Cosmos (Graphs) (C)Uploaded bydgE
- Polarizable Vacuum (PV) and the Reissner-Nordstrom SolutionUploaded bydgE
- Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM); Practical modelling methods of the polarizable vacuum - VIIUploaded bydgE
- Derivation of Fundamental Particle Radii: Electron, Proton & NeutronUploaded bydgE
- The Natural Philosophy of Fundamental ParticlesUploaded bydgE
- Derivation of the Photon & Graviton Mass-Energies & RadiiUploaded bydgE
- The Extraterrestrial Casimir EffectUploaded bydgE
- Derivation of the Photon Mass-Energy ThresholdUploaded bydgE
- The Natural Philosophy of the Cosmos (B)Uploaded bydgE
- Particle Physics & Cosmology PostersUploaded bydgE
- Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM); Practical modelling methods of the polarizable vacuum - VIUploaded bydgE
- Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM); Practical modelling methods of the polarizable vacuum - IVUploaded bydgE
- Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM); Practical modelling methods of the polarizable vacuum - IUploaded bydgE
- SPIE 2007Uploaded bydgE
- SPIE 2005Uploaded bydgE
- Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM); Practical modelling methods of the polarizable vacuum - IIUploaded bydgE
- EGM Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM); Practical modelling methods of the polarizable vacuum - VUploaded bydgE
- Quinta Essentia - Part 4Uploaded bydgE
- Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM); Practical modelling methods of the polarizable vacuum - IIIUploaded bydgE
- Quinta Essentia - Part 3Uploaded bydgE
- SPIE 2009Uploaded bydgE