You are on page 1of 10

# Journey 33 - PHYSICS WITHOUT PARADOX

If scientists are the Priests of our Age, physicists must be the High Priests of the Temple. Even
other scientists accept whatever the physicists say without question and without thought. Future
generations will marvel that in 1927, at the Fifth Solvay conference, the physicists decided they
were smarter than mathematicians and logicians, and not subject to the restrictions of logic and
mathematics. At that conference, against the protests of Einstein, the chief physicists of the day
decided simply to incorporate the wave-particle paradox into physics.

A paradox is like a self-contradiction. Kurt Gödel proved that one can derive any proposition, such
as 1=2, from a logical system with a buried self-contradiction. It is like those mathematical tricks
which hinge on dividing by zero. Mathematicians always consider paradox a defect, something to
overcome. For instance, mathematicians invented calculus, in part, to escape Zeno’s paradoxes.

Over the following decades, after 1927, physicists also decided to accept other mathematical
impossibilities, such as singularities and infinities, and rejected reductio ad absurdum as a form of
reasoning.
As an example of the last point, consider virtual particles. The theorists of the last half of the 20th
Century all based their theories on virtual particles, which arise from the application of
Heisenberg’s Uncertainty rules to the vacuum. This despite the fact that the theory of virtual
particles implies an infinite energy for the vacuum. Well, we know that is absurd. The vacuum
does not have infinite energy. If it did, the universe would either explode or implode, depending on
whether the energy was positive or negative. That is clearly the reductio ad absurdum of virtual
particles. There are no virtual particles. It is inappropriate to apply Heisenberg’s rules to anything
without a de Broglie wave attached to it. The vacuum has no momentum, and thus, no de Broglie
wave.

Kurt Gödel, Einstein’s best friend in his old age, found solutions to the equations of General
Relativity that allow time travel. That too is a reductio ad absurdum for General Relativity. We
already know there is no time travel. Otherwise, as Stephen Hawking pointed out, we would be
swamped with tourists from the indefinite future. We would have to face the paradoxes of “The
Terminator” series of movies. We already knew that General Relativity cannot be true, because it
leads to singularities. Indeed, many parts of the Standard Model lead to singularities. The
mathematicians say that a function is undefined at a singularity. We need a different theory for that
point. String Theory and its successors such as M-theory avoid singularity by adding at least six
additional and unseen spatial dimensions. Unfortunately, String Theory has no known testable
consequences, at least within physics. This is not the triumph of physics, the theory to end all
theory; it is the end of physics and of science as we know it.

Some scientists have begun to recognize this. In the June 2003 issue of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN,
in the article by Gordon Kane, called "The Dawn of Physics Beyond the Standard Model," ten
theoretical problems are listed:

"1. It (the standard model) implies a tremendous concentration of energy, even in the emptiest
regions of space. This so-called vacuum energy would have either quickly curled up the universe
long ago or expanded it to much greater size.

1
2. The expansion of the universe is accelerating and the standard model cannot explain this.

3. There is reason to believe that in the first fraction of a second of the Big Bang, the universe went
through a period of extremely rapid expansion called inflation. The fields responsible for inflation
cannot be those of the Standard Model.

4. If the universe began as a huge burst of energy, it should have evolved into equal parts of matter
and anti-matter. This did not happen. The universe is matter. The Standard Model cannot explain
this.

5. About a quarter of the universe (or more) is invisible cold dark matter that cannot be particles of
the Standard Model.

6. In the Standard Model, interactions with the Higgs field cause particles to have mass. The
Standard Model cannot explain the form these interactions must take.

7. Quantum corrections apparently make the Higgs boson mass huge and that would make all
particle masses huge, obviously not the case.

8. The Standard Model cannot include gravity, because it does not have the same structure as the
other three forces.

9. The Standard Model cannot explain the values of the masses of particles.

10. There are 3 generations of particles. The Standard Model cannot explain why there is more than
1 generation."

All these problems might have arisen because of an eleventh problem and that is the acceptance of
logical and mathematical impossibilities such as paradox, singularities, and actual infinities. Such
errors produce quantum weirdness. It is not something we should just meekly accept.

I think it would be better to go back to the old way of doing science, sticking closely to the data.
By following that approach, I have made a few discoveries to be discussed later:

(1) Anti-matter has antigravity. This allows an explanation for the temporary acceleration of the
Hubble expansion. Thus, we don’t need dark energy.

(2) The planet Earth absorbs and emits gravitons perhaps once a decade that change its spin vector
abruptly. Thus, gravitons are not the tiny things with tiny energy absorbed or emitted by tiny
objects, as implied by General Relativity. The evidence suggests they are large things with large
energy and they are absorbed and emitted only by large objects, such as a planet or star.

Not all is gloomy in the world of physics. Despite the rotten foundations of the Standard Model,
physics has continued to make progress in nuclear physics and condensed matter physics.

2
George Gamow figured out the internal workings of stars, showing how they go through their life
cycle, in the process generating all elements heavier than helium. We can apply the same rules of
calculation to the Big Bang, to calculate the conditions necessary to turn about a quarter of the
protons and neutrons into Helium, and most of the rest into Hydrogen. Given those conditions,
nuclear physicists were also able to calculate the percentage of deuterium, Helium 3 and a few
other light isotopes not produced in stars. These calculations agree with experience. That is how
we know that 4.4% of the mass in the universe is Baryonic, what we could call ordinary matter,
while 23% is dark matter, and about 73% is dark energy. At least, that’s one fairy tale. Dark energy
could just be the mass equivalent of all the gravitational potential energy. It may not exist at all, as
we shall see. Dark matter is a useful idea, which I have picked up and used in my theory of mind.
Nevertheless, astronomical dark matter may not exist. We can banish dark matter with a small
adjustment to Newton’s formula for gravitational force.

While I don't have solutions for all ten of the problems listed by Gordan Kane, I can solve some of
them.

## A reinterpretation of Quantum Mechanics:

It is not the equations that are wrong, but in some cases our use of them. We apply Heisenberg's
uncertainty rules to the vacuum, giving an infinite energy to the vacuum. This is wrong because the
vacuum has no momentum, and thus no de Broglie wave. In some cases, the problem is not the
equations, but our interpretation of them. It is a misinterpretation that produces the wave-particle
paradox, the collapse of Schrödinger states, and quantum weirdness in general. Some quantum
weirdness is real, but not all of it.

The fundamental paradox of QM is wave-particle duality. Everything is both a wave and a particle
at the same time, or viewed one way in one experiment and the other in a different experiment. A
non-paradoxical interpretation of quantum mechanics is possible if we accept the fundamental
reality of the de Broglie wave. All we have to do is show why particles sometimes have a wave-like
behavior (while remaining particles) and why vibrations sometimes act like particles, (while
remaining vibrations in a field). A thing cannot be simultaneously a particle and a wave. It is one or
the other. The scale of things doesn't change logic. It was Prince Louis de Broglie, a French
aristocrat, who discovered this wave in 1923. His Ph.D. was in history, and he went on to a career
as a civil servant. He could always solve QM problems just using his wave.

The de Broglie Wave: It is an information wave, determining what is possible and the probabilities
of each of the possibilities.
Two equations describe the properties of the de Broglie wave:

## Momentum p = h / L and wave velocity W = C**2 / v, where L is the de Broglie wavelength, v is

the ordinary velocity of the associated particle and h is Planck's constant (6.6*10**(-27) erg-sec),
while C is the speed of light (3*10**10 cm/sec).

Any object can have a de Broglie wave, including a compound object, such as the 60-carbon atom
bucky-ball. All his life, de Broglie could calculate any quantum mechanical problem correctly, just
using his wave. It is the de Broglie wave that corresponds to something real. It is by the de Broglie

3
wave that the mind can see while Out-of-Body, without eyeballs to use. It is by emitting de Broglie
waves that the hands can "push the probabilities" to create the Uri Geller effects.

The ideas of de Broglie excited immediate interest, because he could use his formula to calculate
the orbits of atoms. Each orbit is determined by the standing waves (or resonances) of the de
Broglie vibration. The ground state orbit will fit precisely one wavelength, the second orbit two
wavelengths, and so forth to higher and higher overtones. These standing waves can themselves
move and that indicates movement of the associated particle. This movement of the standing wave
is never faster than the speed of light.

Louis de Broglie's theory is similar to the theory of a musical instrument, as he well knew. For a
valve-less Baroque trumpet with a given length of tubing, there is a lowest note, one where exactly
one wavelength of sound will resonate in the tube. It is possible to make higher notes on the
trumpet, by exciting overtones, but impossible to make a lower note. One end of the trumpet is the
bell. This discontinuity produces the end of the tube. In fact, there are a whole series of tube
lengths made possible by the bell. In this way, a Baroque trumpet can produce most of the notes on
the diatonic scale, above a certain minimum frequency.

This picture allows us to see why the first orbit of electrons around a nucleus can only hold two
electrons, one somewhere under the maximum of the de Broglie resonance, and the other opposite
to it under the minimum. These two electrons have slightly different energies, because the magnetic
pole of the “up” electron aligns with that of the nucleus, while the “down” electron has its magnetic
pole alignment opposite to that of the nucleus. The picture even allows us to understand why we
can never predict exactly where the electron is. The de Broglie wave is a probability wave. It shows
us where the probability is greatest, but some of the time the electron will be anywhere its
probability is non-zero.

It was Erwin Schroedinger who took de Broglie's formulas and plugged them into the partial
differential equation for a wave. He then imposed severe boundary conditions that in effect made
each solution of the equation a probability function. In this way, we transform the 2-dimensional
picture of orbits into a 3-dimensional picture of orbitals. There are s, p, d and f orbitals. All the s
orbitals are spherical. The other orbitals can assume more complicated, multi-lobed shapes. There
are 3 such shapes for the p orbitals, 5 for the d orbitals and 7 for the f orbitals. Knowing the size,
shape, and energy level of each orbital, chemists can understand the periodic table of elements.
This, in turn, provides an understanding of ionic bonds and valence bonds and the general behavior
of all of the elements, alone or in combination. See THE PERIODIC KINGDOM, by P.W. Atkins,
especially pages 112 and 113.

There is nothing wrong with the Schroedinger equation. I disagree with the Standard Model
interpretation of it that says that all its numerous solutions are somehow simultaneously real, until
an observation "collapses the wave function" to a single reality. I would say that each solution
represents a possible state, and the system is always in one state or another. We just don’t know
which without making the measurement.

## Heisenberg's Uncertainty Rules:

4
What we must add to this picture is Dirac's relativistic treatment of the atom that gives us electron
spin and anti-particles. I won't get into Dirac beyond saying he is one of the handful of geniuses
who gave us modern physics.

We must also add Heisenberg’s uncertainty rules. If Z is some observable, then we will indicate the
spread of its probability function (its Heisenberg uncertainty) by putting a "d" in front of it, dZ. The
Heisenberg rules describe a curious coupling of position with momentum, and energy with time.
Heisenberg's rules are:
dP * dx = h-bar, and dE * dt = h-bar where P is momentum, x is position, E is energy, t is time, and
h-bar is Planck's constant divided by 2 pi. Therefore, if the positions are spread out, momenta will
not be spread out. They will be "sharp." If the duration of an energy state has a large Heisenberg
uncertainty, the energy will not. It will be "sharp."

Consider an electron in an excited orbit in the hydrogen atom. It will remain in that state for a
certain duration of time, t, and when it falls back into a lower orbit, it will release a quantum of
electro-magnetic energy, where E=hf (f being the frequency). If we have a large number of
hydrogen atoms making the same transition, both the energy E and the time t will vary a little. That
is the "spread." There is a little probability curve that goes with each variable. The product of those
spreads is h-bar. Nature is fundamentally probabilistic on an atomic or sub-atomic level. Notice that
the product of the spreads is an extremely small number, where we have to move the decimal place
27 places to the left, filling in with zeroes, far smaller than experimental error. The real importance
of Heisenberg's laws is that it is from them that we get virtual particles and the infinite energy of
the vacuum. More on that later. Incidentally, Heisenberg's rules provide another way of calculating
the orbits of the electrons in an atom.

If we assume that the de Broglie wave is not a mathematical fiction, we can make all the quantum
paradoxes and all the quantum weirdness go away. The electron does not go through both slits in
the famous two-slit interferometer experiment. Its de Broglie wave does, and produces the
diffraction patterns on the far side. The electron goes through one slit or the other; we just don't
know which, since the de Broglie wave intensity is equal at the two slits. The electron is always in
one place or another. It does not have a ghostly presence in each of the places it could be. Thus,
observing an electron does not "collapse the wave function," nor does it pick out one among the
infinity of universes.

The de Broglie functions describe the experiment, such as the 2-slit interferometer. It describes
what is possible, and the probabilities of each. For the detector on the 2-slit interferometer, we use
wave theory and positive and negative interference to produce a curve of the intensity of the de
Broglie wave at the plane of the detector. It might land on the right, or it might land on the left.
What has collapsed? Nothing. The function for this apparatus remains the same. If we keep on
feeding electrons through it, the results will more and more closely match the probability function
we have calculated for the plane of the detector. We do not change it by observing it.

The 2-slit experiment has now been done with atoms, molecules, and even a 60 carbon atom bucky-
ball (Arndt, M. et al. (1999) Letters to NATURE, vol. 401, October 14, 1999 pg 680). This implies
that one can calculate the de Broglie wave of an entire object, such as the bucky-ball, as if it were a
single simple thing having a particular mass, velocity, and location. This is somewhat like the

5
Center of Mass theorem in Newtonian physics. Of course, someone is sure to repeat the mantra of
QM, that we cannot know the position and velocity of an object simultaneously. This is not what
the Heisenberg Uncertainty relationship says. It says we can simultaneously know each conjugate
quantity to about 13 significant digits each, if both variables are equally "broad." I am sure any
experimenter would be happy with that.

The de Broglie vibration explains the sometimes-wavelike behavior of electrons. When a beam of
electrons reflects off a crystal, it forms diffraction patterns. This is because the de Broglie wave
associated with the electron goes before, (since its velocity is always greater than that of the
electron), and bounces off each atom on the surface of the crystal. The result is a whole series of
reflected de Broglie waves that add or subtract, producing a diffraction pattern. The probability of
an electron hitting the detector screen in a particular place is proportional to the intensity of its de
Broglie wave there.

Photons:
Recall that the velocity of the de Broglie wave for an object traveling at velocity v is W = C**2 / v
but v in this case is C, thus W=C and we know the frequency from E=hf, and by definition the
velocity of a wave is its wavelength times its frequency so
L = C*h / E.

This is the same as for photons. In other words, the de Broglie wave acts exactly like the EM
(Electro-Magnetic) wave.

The problem of photons is quite different from the problem of atoms. In atoms, we have resonances
of the de Broglie wave that determine the orbits of the electrons. With EM radiation, the de Broglie
wave does not form a resonance. It just spreads out like ripples in a pond, in three-dimensions, and
has positive and negative interference with all the other de Broglie waves from other photons in the
same quantum state. As usual, where the de Broglie wave is strongest, that is where you are most
likely to find a photon. What does a photon look like?
I believe it looks just like a Schroedinger wave packet, except we must imagine a second wave at
right angles to the first one. The first wave is in the electric field, and the one perpendicular to it is
in the magnetic field. Photons are highly localized in space. They may all have the same size. One
can get fewer long waves into a packet and that is why E=hf, that is, why the energy of a photon is
proportional to the number of waves of electrical and magnetic energy one can get into a photon.
Thus, both Bosons and Fermions are particle-like, and it is the de Broglie wave that explains and
predicts the wave-like behaviors of both.

There is no new physics here. I'm not changing the equations. This is just an interpretation of the
equations, i.e., a word picture and a mental picture. This interpretation avoids the weirdness of later
quantum mechanics, such as the wave-particle paradox, multiple universes, instantaneous action at
a distance, the collapse of the wave function and the entanglement of observer with observed that
crept in with Schrödinger, Heisenberg, and Bohr. My non-paradoxical interpretation is consistent
with observation. We cannot ask more of an interpretation. I would make a stronger statement.
Physics cannot simply accept paradox, any more than it can just accept singularities. To do so is the
end of physics as a rational enterprise, because we can derive absolutely any proposition from a
logical system with logical self-contradictions. Einstein’s friend Kurt Gödel proved that.

6
Getting Rid of the Infinite Energy of the Vacuum:
The infinite energy of the vacuum (which would curl the whole universe up faster than I can type
this sentence) arises from the theory of virtual particles. The entire theory of virtual particles arises
from applying Heisenberg's rule of dE*dt=h-bar to the vacuum, where h-bar is Planck's constant
divided by 2 pi. Remember, dt is the spread in duration, and dE is the spread in energy. If we make
dt very sharp, dE becomes very broad, so broad in fact, that the formation of a particle and an anti-
particle has non-zero probability, although this pair will exist only for the minute fraction of time
allowed it by dt. This is the origin of the theory of virtual particles. Virtual particles have the
unfortunate consequence of making the energy of the vacuum infinite. We call this vacuum energy
the ZPE (Zero Point Energy). Scientists base the physical theories of the second half of the 20th
Century, such as QED and QCD, on virtual particles.

It is possible to prevent infinity by cutting off the possible wavelengths when they are small enough
to enter the realm of quantum gravity. That ad hoc device still gives us a vacuum energy 120 orders
of magnitude greater than the energy contained in all the matter in the universe! According to
Lawrence Krauss, a well-respected neutrino physicist, "[This] discrepancy between theory and
observation is the most perplexing quantitative puzzle in physics today (SCIENTIFIC
AMERICAN, Jan. 1999, "Cosmological Antigravity," p. 55)." I am glad that Lawrence Krauss
agrees with me. Some would say that if the vacuum has any energy density, it would be infinite if
the universe were spatially infinite. What is wrong with that? Only that space-time has been
expanding from a Hawking no-boundary "South Pole" where imaginary time was zero, and it has
been expanding for a finite time, exactly 13.7 billion years. The visible universe cannot be spatially
infinite.

Fortunately, it is possible to get rid of virtual particles, simply by saying that it is appropriate to
apply Heisenberg's rules only when we can calculate a de Broglie wave. There is no de Broglie
wave for the vacuum, since it has no momentum. So how then do we explain Casimir's force and
other apparent confirmations of this idea? By applying de Broglie theory to the Electro-Magnetic
field that extends through all of space. As we bring two plates closer together, we begin limiting the
wavelengths of photons that can exist between them. This draws the plates together. At least, that is
one idea. Better than accepting the logical absurdity of infinite energy for the vacuum. Those who
plan space ships that will extract energy from the ZPE are just wasting their time.

## Anti-matter has anti-gravity:

I have now eliminated the wave-particle duality paradox from Quantum Mechanics. I would like to
begin my discussion of cosmology with an observation about anti-particles.

It was Richard Feynman who suggested that anti-particles are like ordinary particles moving
backwards in time. If that is true, anti-particles should have anti-gravity, a conjecture never tested,
although there is evidence for it.

NEWSWEEK (May 12, 1997, "Fountain of Annihilation") and ISCOVER magazines have reported
a fountain of 511 KEV gamma rays spouting from the center of our own galaxy, suspected of
harboring an old quasar, also known as a giant black hole. 511 Kilo Electron Volts is the mass of an
electron. When an electron and a positron collide, they produce 2 photons of 511 KEV energy. A

7
fountain of 511 KEV gamma rays tells us there is a fountain of anti-electrons coming out of the
North Pole of the old Quasar at the heart of the galaxy. This is exactly what we would expect if
anti-particles have anti-gravity. Matter drawn towards the center of the Black Hole will rapidly
pick up energy that will produce particle and anti-particle pairs. The energy might arise from
internal collisions of particles inside the Black Hole. When particle and anti-particle pairs form
inside the intense gravitational field of a black hole or quasar, the anti-particle shoots out one pole
or the other, producing the jet. It is nonetheless possible to have a stable black hole. All that is
necessary is that all particles stay in their orbits around the central Hawking no-boundary zero point
in imaginary time. Black holes will eventually evaporate due to Hawking radiation.

This may be all the evidence we will ever have that anti-matter has anti-gravity. It is extremely
difficult to do laboratory experiments with anti-matter, since gravity is so much weaker than
electro-magnetism. We must contain anti-matter in a magnetic bottle. Particles with anti-gravity
will not rise to the top of the bottle; they will try to keep as far apart from each other as possible.

Dark Matter:
if we assume the truth of Kepler's laws of motion, then galaxies have a spherical halo of dark
matter. The velocity of rotation of stars about the center of the galaxy does not fall off with
distance, as do the velocity of planets about the Sun. Instead, velocity remains constant in the spiral
arms, far past the last visible component. There has to be 10 times as much dark matter as visible
matter to make that happen. Experiments are now underway to detect dark matter. I doubt if they
will find anything. They are looking for WIMPs, a consequence of the paradox riddled QED and
QCD. Dark matter requires a major revolution in physics.

I make use of this dark matter as a component of my theory of mind. Maybe it would be more
accurate to say that mind is a component of dark matter. In my theory of mind, there is an intimate
connection between mind-stuff and geodesics. Geodesics of space-time are like the flux lines of
magnetic force made visible with a sheet of paper and iron filings. You may have done that
experiment in high school. The geodesics of space-time determine the shape of space-time, locally
distorted by the presence of mass. The mind can also locally distort the geodesics to produce
levitation and apports. I suggest that dark matter consists in stable knots in the space-time
geodesics. These knotted geodesics could explain the mass of dark matter without needing the
Higgs Boson. Dark matter might not consist in discrete particle.

## The Accelerating Universe:

Recent observations show that the universe is not only expanding, it is accelerating. The jets from
black holes and quasars could explain this, since the jets produce anti-matter that has anti-gravity.
If they didn't have anti-gravity, they wouldn't be able to shoot out of the Black Hole. The proportion
of anti-matter to matter should increase (up to a point), and so should the repulsive force produced
by anti-matter. The force of repulsion will decline as quasars and black holes disappear, as anti-
matter and matter combine around the edge of the cosmic voids. The acceleration phase may
already be passing, since there have been no quasars in the last billion years. There has been just
enough acceleration to make the universe old enough to hold the oldest stars.

Each large early Quasar produced a cloud of anti-matter that created the voids we see now in the
large-scale structure of the universe, according to my theory. Bubbles of anti-matter will push out

8
matter, both light and dark, until it collides on the boundaries of the bubbles. That is where super-
clusters of galaxies form, as long strings of matter. Anti-matter itself will not clump.

Why did the universe start out as matter, instead of equal parts of matter and anti-matter? We may
never know. We can only speculate about the physics of the larger cosmos that gave rise to this
bubble of space and imaginary time. The universe could be a zero energy quantum fluctuation in
the primordial chaos that produced a bubble of false vacuum. False vacuum is not part of this
universe, so we can give it whatever properties are convenient. Let us imagine the bubble has
space and imaginary time, and expands at an exponentially increasing rate, and then freezes out
into matter, not a combination of matter and anti-matter. Somehow, the freeze-out imparts to this
matter something very close to escape velocity. Indeed, it is exactly the escape velocity out to at
least 40 decimal points.

NASA’s WMAP probe shows that the universe is flat, within the experimental margins of error. I
believe this result. It means there is enough mass in the universe to prevent runaway expansion,
and not so much as to produce a premature collapse. We know from evidence left over from the
Big Bang that no more than 4.4 percent can be ordinary matter, and that includes the anti-matter
that I believe exists in the voids. About 23 percent must be dark matter to account for the rotation
curves of galaxies, the lensing effect of clusters of galaxies and other things. If the universe is flat,
about 73 percent of the mass is in some unknown form, presently called “dark energy.” I wonder if
this could be the mass-equivalent of all the gravitational potential energy that exists in the universe.

Quantum Gravity:
First, an analogy. Observation of the interaction between photons and electrons, in particular, the
discrete spectral lines produced by each element, led to existing quantum theory. The Hydrogen
atom had the Balmer series and the Lyman series, and others, and there were mathematical
formulas for calculating the frequency of these spectral lines, produced by reflecting the light off a
diffraction grating, also known as an interferometer. We cannot derive the theory of the photon
from the field theory of Electro-Magnetism, i.e., Maxwell's equations. It required new evidence. So
it shall be with the graviton. Thus, quantum gravity will be the theory of the graviton, created by
observing the absorption and emission of gravitons.

We have been looking at the absorption and emission of gravitons for 30 years, but not recognizing
it as such.

## There is a little noted experiment, reported in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN back in 1970 by

Mansinha and Smylie, which shows that the Earth experiences abrupt changes of spin vector. In
direction, the spin vector may change by 10 milli-arcseconds. In rotational speed, it changes on the
order of 10 milli-arc-seconds per second. These abrupt changes look exactly like the absorption or
emission of gravitational quanta, and this could be the beginning of a theory of quantum gravity. In
every year since atomic clocks were developed, scientists have had to add 1 second to the length of
each year, beyond all the corrections made for leap years, and so forth. They did not have to do
that for 2003. Why not? Because the Earth absorbed a powerful graviton, which increased the
length of a year by one second, if we define a year in terms of seconds.

9
theory predicts that a graviton carries an extremely small amount of energy. That is the kind of
graviton we look for, and do not find. We assume in classical gravitational theory that a relatively
small object can absorb a graviton and that is also not true. It takes a planetary sized object to
absorb or emit a graviton.

D.E. Smylie and L. Mansinha have observed milli-arc-second jumps in direction and speed of the
planetary spin vector. See "The Rotation of the Earth," vol. 225, #6, December 1971, SCIENTIFIC
AMERICAN, pp. 80-88. There is nothing in geology that could explain this.

Magma movements are too slow, and the flow of currents in the liquid metal outer core of the earth
cause continuous rather than discontinuous movements in the magnetic pole, with no associated
change in the spin vector. Earthquakes do not cause the jumps in the spin vector. We observe abrupt
changes of as much as ten milliseconds in sidereal time. Thus, Mansinha & Smylie's observations
are a mystery...unless they represent the absorption or emission of gravitons of enormous energy.
Add to this Bode's Law and we have the beginning of a theory.

Bode's Law:
Bode's law takes the series 0,3,6,12,24, each time doubling the previous number, adds 4 and divides
by 10. The result is the mean distance of each planet's orbit in units of AU (defined as one for the
Earth). Bode's law very accurately describes the orbits of all the planets (and the asteroid belt)
except the outer two, Neptune and Pluto. We now know that Pluto is not really a planet, just a
planetoid from the Kuiper Belt in a gravitational resonance with Neptune. Its orbit does not lie in
the plane of the ecliptic with the true planets. Pluto crosses the orbit of Neptune, but the
gravitational resonance prevents collision.

We also know that in the early years of the formation of the Solar System, the outermost planet
would be busy throwing out planetoids, each time moving in a little closer to the sun. It is easy to
imagine that Neptune formed at 38.8 AU, but gradually moved inward to 30.1 AU as a result of
tossing out planetoids. No one has ever come up with an explanation of Bode's law. It is too regular
to be a mere accident or coincidence. I suggest it makes our solar system resemble an atom, and
we know that the theory of photons explain an atom's orbits. Likewise, it seems reasonable that the
complete theory of gravitons will explain a solar system, if we add a dash of chaos. This means our
Solar System is normal. This increases the odds of finding life and intelligence in the universe.

How could we possibly integrate Bode's Law into gravitational theory? There is already a
suggestion that the law of gravity may have higher order terms. We see this in the motion of space
probes shot out of the Solar System. Eventually, their motion becomes non-Newtonian. In the
F=M*A equation, there seems to be a higher order term, and there may be other corrections,
functions of Atomic Number, perhaps.

Physics is a fascinating subject, with many unanswered questions. The latest theories, such as
String Theory, support teleportation. They do not provide any technological basis for star travel.

10