Theory of Everything:

Scalar Potential Model of the big and small

John C. Hodge

February 18, 2012

Blue Ridge Community College,
100 College Dr.,
Flat Rock, NC, 28731-1690
E-mail:jc [email protected]

c
2012 Hodge

All rights reserved

ISBN-13: 978-1469987361

ISBN-10: 1469987368
Contents

Acknowledgments xix

preface xxi

1 Progenitors 1
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 The start . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Thales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4 Democritus and Aristotle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.5 Descartes and Newton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2 The big: Relativity and cosmology 47

3 The small: light and quantum mechanics 99

4 Scalar Theory of Everything(STOE) 173

4.1 STOE PRINCIPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
4.2 STOE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
4.2.1 Energy continuity equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
4.2.2 Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
4.2.3 Particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
4.2.4 Chirality of matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
4.2.5 Source characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
4.2.6 Sink characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
4.2.7 Equivalence Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

5 Photon diffraction 209

5.1 Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
5.1.1 Hod action on Ψ–field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
5.1.2 Ψ–field action on a hod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
i
 5.1.3 Photon action on Ψ–field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
5.1.4 Ψ–field action on a photon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
5.2 Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
5.3 Photons traveling a long distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
5.4 Young’s experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
5.5 Laser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
5.6 Afshar experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
5.7 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234

6 Galaxy redshift and discrete redshift 239

6.1 Sink and Source galaxies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
6.2 Redshift model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
6.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
6.4 X factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
6.5 Discrete variations in redshift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
6.6 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

7 Pioneer anomaly 273

7.1 Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
7.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
7.2.1 Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
7.2.2 Annual periodicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
7.2.3 Difference of ap between the spacecraft . . . . . . . . 279
7.2.4 Slow decline in aP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
7.2.5 Saturn encounter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
7.2.6 Large uncertainty of P11 80/66 . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
7.2.7 Cosmological connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
7.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283

8 Rotation Velocity vs Inner Radius 287

8.1 Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
8.2 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
8.2.1 Using DSS Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
8.2.2 Using HST Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
8.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305

9 Distance calculation 309

9.1 Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
9.2 Data and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312
9.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320
10 Galaxy RCs and asymmetric RCs 323
10.1 Spiral galaxy model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328
10.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
10.2.1 Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
10.2.2 First approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
10.2.3 Second approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342
10.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345

11 Central Massive Objects 349

11.1 Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
11.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
11.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356

12 Temperature of the universe 359

12.1 Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361
12.2 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365

13 Life and survival 367

13.1 The purpose of life is life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
13.2 The nature of nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378
13.3 Biological to Social Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389
13.4 The Vital Way to life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395

14 STOE comparison to current models 409

appendix 413
.1 Initial distance estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413
.2 The many lines in the parameter relations are not random. . 415
List of Figures

1.1 The left figure shows the initial position of the tiles with an
area of c2 . The right figure shows the rearranged position of
the same tiles with an area of the sum of two squares, a2 + b2 . 5

5.1 The left figure is a plot of the NeffT versus angle from the
direction of the photon β NhT = 10. The first six minima are
at β = 0 rad, 0.144 rad (a), 0.249 rad (b), 0.355 rad. (c), and
0.466 rad (d). The right figure is a plot of the longitudinal
vs. latitudinal position of photons after 1000 intervals. The
line labeled “e” is β = π/2. The lines are labeled as the
angles in the left plot. The position of photons along lines
corresponding to minima of a photons transmission pattern
is what determines coherence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

5.2 The single slit width Ws = 1.0 step screen patterns for L = 40
steps: (A) input beam width Win = 1.0 step which is the
same as the slit width, (B) Win = 2.0 steps, (C) Win = 4.0
steps, and (D) Win = 6.0 steps. The filled squares are the
data points, the thin line connects the data points, and the
thick line marks the theoretical calculation. Although each
plot shows a good fit to the Fresnel equation, the fit differs
among the plots and depends on Win . Because the calcu-
lation includes all photons, the photons that were destined
to be removed by the mask have an effect on the diffraction
pattern beyond the mask. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
v
5.3 Resulting patterns for varying L. The mask, screen, and
photon input was the same as the previous experiment with
Win = 6 steps. The single slit Ws = 1.0 step screen patterns
for L = 30 steps (left figures A and C) and for L = 50 steps
(right figures B and D). The top row is the Fresnel calcu-
lation plots and the bottom row is the Fraunhofer calcula-
tion plots. The filled squares are the data points, the thin
line connects the data points, and the thick line marks the
theoretical calculation. Comparing Fig. 5.3(A), Fig. 5.2(D),
and Fig. 5.3(B) shows the evolution of the diffraction pat-
tern with L = 30 steps, L = 40 steps, and L = 50 steps,
respectively. Fig. 5.3(C) and Fig. 5.3(D) show the Fraun-
hofer equation fits. The greater L produces a closer match
between the Fresnel and Fraunhofer equation fits. . . . . . . 224

5.4 Plot of Fig. 5.3B with an expanded scale to show the second
and third diffraction rings. The filled squares are the data
points, the thin line connects the data points, and the thick
line marks the theoretical calculation. The center area, first
ring, and second ring of Fig. 5.3(B) and Fig. 5.4 has 954
photons, 20 photons, and 4 photons, respectively, of the 1000
photons counted. The number of photons in each ring agrees
with the theoretical calculation of the relative intensity of
the diffraction rings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

5.5 Plot of the double slit screen pattern at L = 40 steps and

Win = 8 steps. The A figure is with the slits placed from 0.50
step to 1.00 step and from -1.00 step to -0.50 step. The B
figure is with the slits placed from 0.75 step to 1.25 steps and
from -1.25 steps to -0.75 step. The filled squares are the data
points, the thin line connects the data points, and the thick
line marks the theoretical calculation. The model produces
the double slit interference pattern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
5.6 Traces of 10 consecutive photon paths between the mask
and screen at two different intervals. The numbers mark
the following occurrences: (1) One photon follows another
and traces the same path. The following photon travels a
longer path before path merging. (2) One photon follows
another and traces a parallel and close path. (3) A photon
experiences an abrupt change in θ as it passes close to an-
other photon. These events were probably a result of the
discrete nature of the simulation like a collision condition.
(4) A photon from one slit follows another from the other
slit. The leading photon determines the xs and θ at the
screen. The photon’s path continues to change direction for
a short distance after the mask. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
5.7 The right figure is a plot screen pattern of Young’s exper-
iment at L = 40 steps after the first mask and Win = 6
steps. The filled squares are the data points. The thin line
connects the data points. The Fresnel equation fit is poor.
Therefore, the pattern is not a diffraction pattern. The right
figure shows the distribution of photons from the first mask
to the screen. The lines and the lower case letters are as in
Fig. 5.1. Random photons through a first slit fail to produce
a diffraction pattern that indicates incoherence. However,
the position distribution shows coherence (see Fig. 5.1B). . 227
5.8 Plot of the double slit screen pattern at L = 40 steps from
the second mask and 80 steps beyond the first mask. The
slits were placed from 0.50 step to 1.00 step and from -1.00
step to -0.50 step. The filled squares are the data points, the
thin line connects the data points, and the thick line marks
the theoretical calculation. The position distribution after
the first mask is coherent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
5.9 Plot of the pattern on a screen at L = 40 steps of a laser
pulse input Win = 6 steps through a double slit. The slits
were placed from 0.50 step to 1.00 step and from -1.00 step
to -0.50 step. The filled squares are the data points, the thin
line connects the data points, and the thick line marks the
theoretical calculation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
5.10 Plot of the position of photons between 0 step≤ y ≤ 100
steps and Win = 6 steps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
5.11 Plot of the pattern on a screen at L = 40 steps of a line laser
input (see Fig. 5.10) Win = 6 steps through a double slit.
The slits placed from 0.50 step to 1.00 step and from -1.00
step to -0.50 step. The filled squares are the data points, the
thin line connects the data points, and the thick line marks
the theoretical calculation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

5.12 Plot of φs vs. xs for the photons that passed through the
Positive Slit (left) and the photons that passed through the
Negative Slit (right). The groups of photons with -3 steps
≤ xs ≤ 3 steps to have a nearly linear distribution. A lin-
ear regression was done on the data of each of the groups.
Photons existed outside this range. However, occurrences
(1) and (2) of Fig. 5.6, which was considered an artifact of
the simulation, caused errors. The distribution outside this
range became non-linear. Over 86% of the recorded photons
were in this range. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

6.1 Plot of the calculated redshift zH using Eq. (6.1) and D calcu-
lated using Cepheid variable stars for 32 galaxies (Freedman
et al. 2001; Macri et al. 2001) versus the measured redshift
zm . The straight line is a plot of zH = zm . The circles indicate
the data points for galaxies with (l,b) = (290◦ ±20◦ ,75◦ ±15◦ )
(Reprinted with permission of Elsevier(Hodge 2006a)). . . . 243

6.2 Plot of the luminosity ratio Lr for galaxies with a distance D

less than the limiting distance Dl versus Dl .(Reprinted with
permission of Elsevier(Hodge 2006a).) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252

6.3 Plot of the correlation coefficient Cc of Eq. (6.26) using the

best values of the constants to be discovered versus the dis-
tance Dlc (Mpc) limitation of rxi and rxl .(Reprinted with
permission of Elsevier(Hodge 2006a).) . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

6.4 Plot of the calculated redshift zc versus the measured redshift

zm for 32 Category A galaxies (Freedman et al. 2001; Macri et
al. 2001). The straight line is a plot of zc = zm . The circles
indicate the data points for galaxies with (l,b) = (290◦ ±
20◦ ,75◦ ± 15◦ ).(Reprinted with permission of Elsevier(Hodge
2006a).) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
6.5 Plot of distance Da (Mpc) versus exponent factor X of the
redshift calculation for 32 Category A sample galaxies. The
straight line indicates Da = −2600X − 1. (Reprinted with
permission of Elsevier(Hodge 2006a).) . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

6.6 Plot of scalar potential ρ (×109 erg) versus distance x (Mpc)

along our line of sight of NGC 1326A at location (l, b, z) ≈
(239◦, −56◦ , 0.0057134). (Reprinted with permission of Else-
vier(Hodge 2006a).) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258

6.7 Plot of scalar potential ρ (×109 erg) versus distance x (Mpc)

along our line of sight of NGC 4535 at location (l, b, z) ≈
(290◦, 71◦ , 0.0063253). (Reprinted with permission of Else-
vier(Hodge 2006a).) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259

6.8 Plot of scalar potential ρ (×109 erg) versus distance x (Mpc)

along our line of sight of NGC 1425 at location (l, b, z) ≈
(228◦, −53◦ , 0.0046664). (Reprinted with permission of Else-
vier(Hodge 2006a).) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260

6.9 The left plot is of the measured redshift zm versus the an-
gle A (arcdegrees) subtended from NGC 5353 (S0) (l, b, z) =
(82.61◦,71.63◦ ,8.0203×10−3). The open diamonds indicate
the data points for Source galaxies. The filled diamonds in-
dicate the data points for Sink galaxies. The right plot is the
distance D (Mpc) from earth versus A. The open squares
indicate the data points for galaxies with the D calculated
herein. The filled squares indicate the data points for galax-
ies with the D calculated using the Tully-Fisher relationship.
(Reprinted with permission of Elsevier(Hodge 2006a).) . . . 263

6.10 Plot of galactic latitude Glat (arcdegrees) versus galactic lon-

gitude Glon (degrees) approximately six arcdegrees around
NGC 5353. The open circles indicate the data points for
galaxies more than one arcdegree from NGC 5353. The filled
circles indicate the data points for galaxies within one ar-
cdegree of NGC 5353. The “+” or crosshairs indicate the
position of NGC 5353. (Reprinted with permission of Else-
vier(Hodge 2006a).) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
6.11 The left plot is of the measured redshift zm versus the angle
A (arcdegrees) subtended from NGC 2636 (E0), M = −17.9
mag. (l, b, z) = (140.15◦ ,34.04◦ ,7.3163×10−3). The open di-
amonds indicate the data points for Source galaxies. The
filled diamonds indicate the data points for Sink galaxies.
The right plot is the distance D (Mpc) from earth versus
A. The open squares indicate the data points for galaxies
with the D calculated herein. The filled squares indicate
the data points for galaxies with the D calculated using the
Tully-Fisher relationship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

6.12 Plot of galactic latitude Glat (arcdegrees) versus galactic lon-

gitude Glon (degrees) approximately six arcdegrees around
NGC 2636. The open circles indicate the data points for
galaxies more than one arcdegree from NGC 2636. The filled
circles indicate the data points for galaxies within one ar-
cdegree of NGC 2636. The “+” or crosshairs indicate the
position of NGC 2636. (Reprinted with permission of Else-
vier(Hodge 2006a).) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266

6.13 Plots of the angle A (arcdegrees) subtended from a target

galaxy versus the measured redshift zm . The target galaxy
is shown on the A = 0 axis as a large, filled diamond. The
open diamonds indicate the data points for Source galax-
ies. The filled diamonds indicate the data points for Sink
galaxies. The data for the target galaxies are listed in Ta-
ble 6.4.(Reprinted with permission of Elsevier(Hodge 2006a).) 267

6.14 The left plot is of the measured redshift zm versus the angle
A (arcdegrees) subtended from NGC 1282 (E), M = −19.8
mag. (l, b, z) = (150◦,-13.34◦,7.4727×10−3 ). The open di-
amonds indicate the data points for Source galaxies. The
filled diamonds indicate the data points for Sink galaxies.
The right plot is the distance D (Mpc) from earth versus
A. The open squares indicate the data points for galaxies
with the D calculated herein. The filled squares indicate
the data points for galaxies with the D calculated using the
Tully-Fisher relationship. (Reprinted with permission of El-
sevier(Hodge 2006a).) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
7.1 Plots of the aP data versus geocentric distance D for P10 (left
figure) and P11 (right figure). The solid diamonds reflect the
aP from Nieto and Anderson (2005a), the solid squares are
the calculated points for aPc , and the “X’s” are calculated
points for dates ten days from the date of the aP . (Reprinted
with permission of Nova Science Publishers, Inc. (Hodge
2010).) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
7.2 Plots of the ρ versus geocentric distance D along the LOS.
Data is for P10 on 84/338 (left figure) aP = 8.43 × 10−8 cm
s−2 and for P10 on 85/138 (right figure) aP = 7.67 × 10−8
cm s−2 . The Asun ≈ 175◦ on P10 84/338 and Asun ≈ 16◦
on P10 85/138. (Reprinted with permission of Nova Science
Publishers, Inc. (Hodge 2010).) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
7.3 Plots of the aPc data versus geocentric distance D for P10
(solid diamonds) and P11 (solid triangles). The stars plot the
data points for aPc with the Sun excluded (aPsun ).(Reprinted
with permission of Nova Science Publishers, Inc. (Hodge
2010).) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
7.4 Plots the aPc versus geocentric distance D for P10 (solid
diamonds) and for P11 (solid triangles). The data points of
aPc excluding the outer planets aPplanets (left), and the aPc
excluding the galaxy mass aPgal (right) are shown as stars.
(Reprinted with permission of Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
(Hodge 2010).) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
7.5 Plot of aPc versus the hours from the closest approach of
P11 to Saturn. (Reprinted with permission of Nova Science
Publishers, Inc. (Hodge 2010).) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
7.6 Plot of the distance Dl (×10−11 Mpc) versus X(×10−13 ) for
both spacecraft. The line is a plot of Dl = 2800X + 5 × 10−11
Mpc. (Reprinted with permission of Nova Science Publishers,
Inc. (Hodge 2010).) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283

8.1 Diagram depicting the regions of a galaxy in relation to a

hypothetical rotation curve. The lines in the SR depict the
different shapes possible. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
8.2 Plot of surface brightness I (scaled distance of Digital Sky
Survey) versus the distance along the major axis from the
center of the galaxy r (kpc) for NGC 0925 using Dc to cal-
culate r. The center region shows the “peak” characteristic. 294
8.3 Plot of surface brightness I ( scaled distance of Digital Sky
Survey) versus the distance along the major axis from the
center of the galaxy r (kpc) for NGC 4321 using Dc to cal-
culate r. The difference from peak I to I at rǫd is average
compared to other galaxies. The center region shows the
“flat” characteristic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
8.4 Plot of HI (diamonds) and Hα (squares) (Sempere et al. 1995)
rotation velocity v 2 (×103 (km2 s−2 ) versus the distance from
the center of the galaxy r (kpc) for NGC 4321 using Dc
to calculate r. A linear curve has been fitted to the RR.
The highest value of v 2 on the straight line is the value of
2
vrmax . The vertical lines mark the position of discontinuities
as noted in the text. NGC 4321 is the only galaxy in the
sample with the HI rotation curve extended inward to rǫd . . 298
2
8.5 Plot of the maximum rotation velocity in the RR vrmax (km2
−2
s ) versus the discontinuity radius rǫd (kpc) for the chosen
2
galaxies. The line is a plot of the equation vrmax = 21000rǫd −
1000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
8.6 Plot of surface brightness I (data value of FIT image of HST)
versus the distance along the major axis from the center of
the galaxy r (kpc) for NGC 4321 using Dc to calculate r.
This figure shows the rǫ1 and rǫ2 positions. The “A” shows
the first local maximum after rǫ2 which is the first pixel in
the third region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
8.7 Plot of surface brightness I (data value of FIT image of HST)
versus the distance along the major axis from the center of
the galaxy r (kpc) for NGC 4321 using Dc to calculate r.
This figure shows the rǫ3 and rǫ4 positions. The curved line
is the plot of I − r −1 line. The straight line is the fourth
region line. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
2
8.8 Plot of the maximum rotation velocity in the RR vrmax (km2
s−2 ) versus the discontinuity radius rǫ (kpc) for the chosen
galaxies with HST images. The diamonds are rǫ4 , the squares
are rǫ3 , and the triangles are rǫ2 . The lines are plots of the
equations in Table 8.4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
2
9.1 Plot of log(vrmax − Kras ) from HCa versus log(W ). The line
2
is the best fit. The line is a plot of log(vrmax − Kras ) =
2.138 log(W ) − 1.099. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
 2
9.2 Plot of the residual R of log(vrmax − Kras ) measurement and
the line in Figure 9.1 versus log W . The lines are the best fit
and are described in Table 9.2. The “+” sign, diamond, and
square are for galaxies in RZ 1, RZ 2, and RZ 3, respectively.
The R, F, and D denote the galaxies with rising, flat, and
declining rotation curves, respectively. . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
9.3 Plot of surface brightness I (scaled distance of Digital Sky
Survey) versus the distance from the center of the galaxy
r (kpc) for NGC 2403 using Dc to calculate r. The profile
is characteristic of a “peak” shaped curve with a peak and
high slope sides. These profiles are found in RZ 1 and RZ 2
galaxies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
9.4 Plot of surface brightness I (scaled distance of Digital Sky
Survey) versus the distance from the center of the galaxy r
(kpc) for NGC 7331 using Dc to calculate r. The profile is
characteristic of a “flat” shaped curve with a flat top and
sides with a lower slope than RZ 2 galaxies. These profiles
are found in RZ 3 galaxies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
9.5 Plot of the calculated distance Dcalc to the test galaxies ver-
sus the reported Cepheid distance Dc . The line is Dcalc = Dc .
The correlation coefficient is 0.99 with an F test of 0.78. . . 320

10.1 Plot of the square of the H i rotation velocity v 2 (103 km2 s−2 )
versus galactocentric radius Rmajor (kpc) along the major
axis. The straight lines mark the application of the de-
rived equations to the RCs of the select galaxies. The ap-
plication of the derived equations to NGC 0224, NGC 0300,
and NGC 0598 were omitted because these galaxies lacked
a |K~ • ~ao | value. The references for the RCs are noted
in brackets and are as follows: [1]Gottesman et al. (1966),
[2]Carignan & Freeman (1985), [3]Corbelli & Salucci (2000),
[4]Krumm and Salpeter (1979), [5]Begeman et al. (1991),
[6]Rots (1975), [7]van Albada et al. (1985), [8]Bosma (1981),
[9]Moore and Gottesman (1998), [10]van Albada and Shane
(1975), [11]Sempere et al. (1995), [12]Braine et al. (1993),
[13]Chincarini & de Souza (1985), [14]Vollmer et al. (1999),
[15]Huchtmeier (1975), and [16]Mannheim and Kmetko (1996).
(Reprinted with permission of Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
(Hodge 2010).) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
 2
10.2 Plot of square of the rotation velocity vrrmax (103 km2 s−2 ) at
the maximum extent of the RR versus B band luminosity
L (108 erg s−1 ) for the 95 sample galaxies. The 15 select
galaxies have error bars that show the uncertainty range in
each section of the plot. The error bars for the remaining
galaxies are omitted for clarity. The straight lines mark the
lines whose characteristics are listed in Table 10.3. The large,
filled circle denotes the data point for NGC 5448. The large,
filled square denotes the data point for NGC 3031.(Reprinted
with permission of Nova Science Publishers, Inc. (Hodge
2010).) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
2
10.3 Plot of the square of rotation velocity veormax (103 km2 s−2 ) at
extreme outer region versus B band luminosity L (108 erg s−1 )
for the 50 sample galaxies. The 16 select galaxies have error
bars that show the uncertainty level in each section of the
plot. The error bars for the remaining galaxies are omitted
for clarity. The large, filled circle denotes the data point for
NGC 5448. The large, filled square denotes the data point
for NGC 3031. (Reprinted with permission of Nova Science
Publishers, Inc. (Hodge 2010).) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
10.4 Plot of maximum asymmetry Asymax (103 km2 s−2 ) versus |K• ~
3 −1 2 −2
~ao | (10 kpc km s ) for the 50 sample galaxies. The 13 se-
lect galaxies have error bars that show the uncertainty level
in each section of the plot. . The error bars for the re-
maining galaxies are omitted for clarity. The large, filled
circle denotes the data point for NGC 5448. The large, filled
square denotes the data point for NGC 3031.(Reprinted with
permission of Nova Science Publishers, Inc. (Hodge 2010).) . 340

12.1 Behavior of vl with feedback control for intermediate values

of kl. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364

1 Plot of the absolute magnitude Ma versus the inclination

i
corrected 21 cm. line width W20 at 20% of peak value for 29
of the 32 Category A galaxies (Freedman et al. 2001; Macri
et al. 2001). The straight line is a plot of Eq. (2). The circles
indicate the data points for galaxies with (l,b) = (290◦ ±
20◦ ,75◦ ± 15◦ ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414
2 Plot of distances Da to galaxies calculated using Cepheid
variable stars as listed by Freedman et al. (2001) and Macri
et al. (2001) versus the redshift zm of these galaxies. The
straight line is a plot of Eq. (5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416
List of Tables

1.1 Harmony of the numbers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.2 Harmony of the planets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3.1 A very approximate strength order. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

3.2 Light wave or particle evidence. Some tests such as atomic
line spectra do not reject either model. . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

5.1 The values of the constants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

5.2 The measurements of the curve fit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
5.3 The values of the constants in the linear regression Eq. 5.14. 233

6.1 Category A galaxy data in order of increasing Da . . . . . . . 255

6.2 The components of Eq. (6.21) for each Category A galaxy. . 256
6.3 The values of the constants of Eq. (6.21). . . . . . . . . . . 256
6.4 The data for the Case Nos. of Fig. 6.13. . . . . . . . . . . . 263

7.1 The values of the constants of Eq. (7.2). . . . . . . . . . . . 277

7.2 The components of Eq. (7.2) and Asun for each data point. . 277

8.1 Data for the chosen galaxies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289

8.2 Distance calculation comparison. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
8.3 Radii rǫ from HST images. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
2
8.4 Data of the equations vrmax = Ks rǫ + Ks curves. . . . . . . 305

9.1 Data for calibration galaxies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313

9.2 Data for the R zones (RZ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
9.3 Data and results for the test galaxies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318

10.1 Data for the select galaxies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331

10.2 Interger values for the non-select galaxies in the sample. . . 334
xvii
10.3 Data for the integer values of a1 of Eq. (10.13) shown as the
plotted lines in Fig. 10.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
10.4 First approximation integer values for the select galaxies. . 336
10.5 Values of the minimum correlation coefficients Ccmin , con-
stants Kx , and exponent bases Bx for the first approximation
equations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
10.6 Asymmetry and |K ~ • ~ao | data for the select galaxies. . . . . 341
10.7 Second approximation integer values for the select galaxies. 344
11.1 Data for the host sample galaxies used in the σc calculation. 354
11.2 Data for the host sample galaxies used in the σc and Mc
calculations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
13.1 Methods of problem solving heuristically used by humans. . 373
13.2 A Spirit’s Vital Way to survive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398
13.3 Stages of development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399
13.4 Great Idea relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402
Acknowledgments

I appreciate the financial support of Cameron Hodge (my father) and May-
nard Clark, Apollo Beach, Florida, while I was working on this project.
Dr. Michael Castelaz, Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute, One
PARI Dr., Rosman, NC, 28772 helped train me to write scientific works.
The anonymous reviewer of Hodge (2006a) inspired this investigation of
the Pioneer Anomaly within the context of the STOE.
This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database
(NED) that is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California In-
stitute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.
This research has made use of the LEDA database (http://leda.univ-
lyon1.fr).
This research has made use of the Wikikpedia database
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main Page .

xix
preface

We are at a critical time in the evolution of our understanding of the uni-

verse. Cosmology models and elementary particle models are fundamentally
inconsistent. Science and the philosophy of life have also been considered
divergent. Technology advances during the last 30 years have allowed sur-
prising discoveries. These observations indicate that the “standard” models
of cosmology and particle physics are likely incomplete. We are ready for
the next evolutionary step in understanding the universe. This future model
has already been named the “Theory of Everything”.
Each revolution in physics such as Aristotle’s physics, Newtonian me-
chanics, electromagnetism, and nuclear forces has produced unanticipated
and far-reaching social consequences. Societies grow larger and nations
grow more powerful. Little wonder that people outside the physics commu-
nity are becoming increasingly curious about the universe and increasingly
sophisticated.
However, the term “Theory of Everything” is meant to include only the
physics of cosmology and particle physics. Life and our social organization
are also part of our universe. The principles that apply to the physics of
the big and the small should also apply to life, our social organization, and
philosophy.
Before each revolution in thought, observational anomalies accumulate,
the accepted models become a patchwork of adhoc modifications, societies
experience disintegration, and a need to unify several academic disciplines
seems necessary to develop a new view of the universe. I think I have dis-
covered a single model that stitches the observational anomalies and social
needs into a seamless whole. The model, the Scalar Theory of Everything
(STOE), is the subject of this book.
A conceptual approach to theories and data is emphasized. This book
is ideal for the amateur scientist, professionals in other fields, and physics
outreach programs. Hopefully, the STOE will encourage the scientists of
xxi
cosmology, particle physics, and philosophy to rejoin their efforts.
The process that led to the STOE involved studying the data that sup-
ports the current standard models and data with which the current models
are inconsistent. Then a model that explained all the data was developed
with little regard to existing models. Thinkers such as Democritus, Aris-
totle, Descartes, and Newton had developed many of the principles of the
STOE. The data of the last 200 years is then added to the ideas of these
thinkers. Predictions about the Pioneer anomaly are starting to be realized.
Chapters 1 (Progenitors), 2 (Small) and 3 (Big) examine the significant
experiments and observations that led to the current models and those parts
of the STOE that were suggested by scientists. The standard models are
discussed with the view that they do describe some portion of the universe.
That is, the STOE must correspond to those domains that they describe.
Chapter 4 (Scalar Theory of Everything) posits the new assumptions
and the model that is consistent with the data described in previous chap-
ters. The STOE is basically a continuation of Sir Issac Newton’s work. The
data of the last 200 years is interpreted in light of Newton’s speculations.
Chapter 5 through chapter 12 presents the STOE analysis of those data
that are troubling to the current models.
Chapter 13 presents the STOE principles applied to the survival of life
and society.
Chapter 14 compares the STOE and its correspondence to current mod-
els.
Chapter 1

Progenitors

1.1 Introduction
The standard models of cosmology, of elementary particles, and of light are
fundamentally inconsistent. Also, many recent observations have necessi-
tated patches such as dark matter, dark energy, and inflation to the models.
There exist data that the models fail to explain. The task of creating the
next broader model has been overcome previously with Thales, Aristotle,
Newton and Einstein. Each revolution in thought is allowed by tolerance
of new ideas. Each revolution in ideas starts with data that produces re-
quirements for new organizational principles. The new thoughts produce
new technology. New technology produces new organization principles for
society. Those societies that fail to change are soon overcome by those that
do.
For example, the environment that allowed Kepler and Galileo was
started by a change of the Roman Catholic Church toward tolerance that
produced the Italian Renaissance. The “success”, from the Church’s view-
point, of the Spanish Inquisition, the threat of the protestant movement,
and the threat of the Ottoman Empire caused a retrenchment into intoler-
ance of Galileo’s time. The retrenchment caused science to move north.
The revolution required involves a major redefinition of terms, of op-
erations, and of relations. That is, a new description of the universe is
required. The organizing principles of society and of science categorize ob-
servable phenomena into general rules about the patterns of nature. These
principles then allow prediction and power that allow survival. For exam-
ple, we could assemble a large library about where and how fast a yellow
pencil will travel when dropped. Another library could cover similar data
1
2 CHAPTER 1. PROGENITORS

about a blue pencil. The ancient Egyptian builders assembled a book of

data about the length of sides of right triangles. The Thales theorem and
the Pythagoras theorem reduced this builder’s book of approximations into
calculation rules that were much more general. Newton related the dy-
namics of falling objects on Earth to celestial bodies with the notion of
gravity and the redefinition of force. Now the observation of galaxies, of
subatomic particles, and of light presents data that is unexplained by one
model. Hence, separate fields of knowledge develop. Each field has experts
in counter intuitive concepts such as dark matter, dark energy, inflation,
quantum weirdness, and wave–particle duality of light.
The long–term trend is the development of models of patterns in the
universe that include more observational data from wider fields of study.
These new models have more predictive ability that results in greater power
for societies.
Note the repeated instances where the people we view today as making
the largest contribution were philosophical, even religious, but not neces-
sarily conforming to social doctrine. Many were social outcasts. Some were
really miserable people to be around. All had a wide range of interests and
linked the perceptions and methods of several areas of study to the problem
solution. The conceptual linking of diverse, even unrelated, subjects seems
to be the key to problem solution. The model and tests follow.

1.2 The start

Stone age (2.5 million years ago to 5000BC) man followed the phases of
the moon for the better hunting at night and, later, the Sun (seasons) for
farming.
Babylonia (10,000BC [?] - 1000BC) studied the movement pattern of
heavenly bodies against a background of the celestial sky. Their interest was
to relate celestial movement to human events - astrology. Other old societies
wanted only a calendar, a timekeeper. The goal was to predict events
by recording events against a time measure and then look for recurrent
patterns. A time scale linked to kings reign had problems. If mention of a
king became politically incorrect, heads could roll. Occasionally, the new
king would erase the memory of the old king.
The time periods in multiples of 6 derives from Babylonian astrology -60
seconds per minute, 60 minutes per hour, 24 hours per day, 12 zodiac signs.
Today the Sun passes through 13 (Ophiuchus is the 13th) constellations and
1.2. THE START 3

the duration in each constellation differs from ancient times, which reflects
the Earth’s precession. Only the Mayans of the cultures before 1500 AD
detected and measured the Earth’s precession. The Egyptians 4800 years
ago referred to Thuban as the pole star not Polaris. The ancients did ob-
serve that celestial events occurred in cycles. This began the philosophical
concept that nature operates in eternal “cycles”.
Physics was the province of priests. Natural phenomena were explained
by invoking idiosyncratic explanations by reference to the will of capri-
cious, anthropomorphic gods and heroes. There was little for humans to
understand or try to predict. The action of the gods followed a few gen-
eral principles. The gods came in male—female contending opposites. The
gaining of strength of one set the stage for the rise of the other, the yin-yang
of oriental fame. Today, this may be viewed as a negative feedback process.
The gods and the universe behaved much as humans behaved. Today, this
may be similar to the fractal or self–similar philosophy.
The ancients were well aware of the cycles of the moon in hunter so-
cieties and the cycle of the seasons in farming societies. Occasionally, a
change was made in method or machine that became permanent. One set
of philosophies that went east from Babylon suggested eternal cycles of
the universe. The other set of philosophies that went west from Babylon
suggested a beginning of the universe. This debate rages today.
Mathematics was little more than tallying counts with addition and
subtraction. Today, we still use the Roman numerals of I, II, III, etc.
Multiplication was difficult. Measuring was tallying the number of standard
units, which is called a metric today. However, the standards were ill defined
for today’s usage.
Many cultures had requirements to tally. As their needs became more
complex, so too did their mathematics and physics. The Chinese devel-
oped a level of mathematics well in advance of western civilization. Chi-
nese mathematics, like their language was very concise and problem based.
The problems addressed were the calendar, trade, land measurement, ar-
chitecture, government (taxes), and astronomy. Their method of proof and
gaining knowledge was Proof By Analogy. That is, after understanding
a particular arrangement of events or circumstance, inferences are made
about similar arrangements. Thus, the Chinese were able to formally de-
duce and predict by reasoning well in advance of western culture. Western
culture became oriented to Proof by Axiom from the Greeks.
This book is about the Theory of Everything, which is the next theoret-
ical physics development. Most of the experiments considered were done in
4 CHAPTER 1. PROGENITORS

the last 200 years in the west. Accordingly, the development of knowledge
follows the western tradition.

1.3 Thales
Thales of Miletus (c. 624 BC- c. 546 BC) was a pre-Socratic Greek philoso-
pher and one of the Seven Sages of Greece. Many, most notably Aristotle,
regard him as the first philosopher in the Greek tradition. Thales, however,
aimed to explain natural phenomena via a rational explanation that refer-
enced natural processes themselves without reference to mythology. Thales
made a distinction between priest and philosopher. Almost all of the other
pre-Socratic philosophers follow him in attempting to provide an explana-
tion of ultimate substance, change, and the existence of the world with
reference to concepts men may understand and use. Those philosophers
were also influential. This definition of science provides the limit of science
as the knowledge that human understanding may use to predict and to
cause events.
Eventually Thales’ rejection of mythological explanations became an
essential idea for the scientific revolution. He was also the first to define
general principles and set forth hypotheses. As a result Thales has been
dubbed the “Father of Science”. Democritus may be more deserving of this
title.
Thales used geometry to solve problems such as calculating the height
of pyramids and the distance of ships from the shore. He is credited with
the first use of deductive reasoning applied to geometry by deriving four
corollaries to Thales’ Theorem. As a result, he has been hailed as the first
true mathematician and is the first known, western individual to whom a
mathematical discovery has been attributed. The Chinese with the Proof
By Analogy developed these relationships centuries before Thales.
Pythagoras of Samos (c. 580 BC - c. 500 BC) was an Ionian (Greek)
philosopher and founder of Pythagoreanism, which we view, perhaps mis-
takenly, as a religious movement. He is often revered as a great mathemati-
cian and scientist because of the writings of his students. He is noted for
the Pythagorean theorem a2 + b2 = c2 . The usual proof given in textbooks
is based on Euclidean geometry and Greek logic. Euclid had not been born
yet. The proof Pythagoras probably used was the rearrangement of physical
tiles as depicted in Fig. 1.1.
Pythagoras discovered that musical notes could be described by mathe-
1.3. THALES 5

Figure 1.1: The left figure shows the initial position of the tiles with an area of c2 . The
right figure shows the rearranged position of the same tiles with an area of the sum of
two squares, a2 + b2 .

matical ratios (Table 1.1) of the length of a stretched string. For example, a
taught string vibrates with a given “fundamental” tone. Divide the string
into two (a 2:1 ratio) by holding the center still produces a harmonious
octave. Only certain other particular divisions of the string produce har-
monious tones.
Pythagoras believed in the “harmony of the spheres”. He believed that
because planets and the stars all moved in the universe according to cycles
(Table 1.2). These cycles could be translated into musical notes and, thus,
produce a symphony.
Why should these musical notes be pleasing to humans and describe the
planetary orbits? These patterns reflect a certain efficiency of operation on
various scales. The measurements need only change the scale to describe
various observations. Thus, human evolution selects the most efficient hear-
ing mechanism.
These relationships suggest a “hidden structure” that, Pythagoras noted,
was of waves and wave behavior.
Today, the Fourier series algebraically transforms any periodic series
of numbers into a sine and cosine function. The sine function describes
a “wave” such as the position of each element of a string in oscillation.
The Fourier series may be considered geometrically as circles and ellipses.
Thus, any periodic occurrence such as planet orbits can be described as a
combination of circles.
Careful scholarship in the past three decades has found no evidence of
6 CHAPTER 1. PROGENITORS

Table 1.1: Harmony of the numbers.

ratio note
o 1:1 unison
1 135:128 major chroma
2 9:8 major second
3 6:5 minor third
4 5:4 major third
5 4:3 perfect fourth
6 45:32 diatonic tritone
7 3:2 perfect fifth
8 8:5 minor sixth
9 27:16 Pythagorean major sixth
10 9:5 minor seventh
11 15:8 major seventh
12 2:1 octave

Table 1.2: Harmony of the planets.

Planet days between opposition note Siderial period
± 5 days days
Mercury 110 1st octave 87.96
Venus 240 2nd octave 224.68
Mars 437 4th octave 686.95
Jupiter 396 minor sixth of Venus 4337
Saturn 415 major sixth of Venus 10,760
1.4. DEMOCRITUS AND ARISTOTLE 7

his contributions to mathematics or natural philosophy. However, “no evi-

dence” doesn’t mean he did not contribute. Because legend and obfuscation
cloud his work even more than with the other pre-Socratics, little can be said
with confidence about his life and teachings. We do know that Pythagoras
and his students believed that everything was related to mathematics, that
numbers (counting) were the ultimate reality, and that everything could
be predicted and measured through mathematics in rhythmic patterns or
cycles.

1.4 Democritus and Aristotle

Democritus of Abdera (460BC - 370BC) with Leucippus of Miletus (480BC
- 420BC) is best known for his atomic (atomism) model. Atomic theories
were known before Democritus (maybe even back to the Pythagorean notion
of regular solids). Democritus noticed cheese could be successively cut to
smaller pieces. Philosophers noticed dogs and humans ate similar food.
Yet, both retained their characteristics. Therefore, the plant and animal
food must be composed of smaller bits of another type of matter that the
dog and human recombined to form a dog and a human. Democritus liked
food analogies.
The “atom” of Democritus is not the atom of today. His term “atom”
has been applied to an assembly of nucleons and electrons. Today, the Dem-
ocritus concept applies as well to nucleons and smaller particles. Therefore,
the Democritus “atom” is a still smaller, single type of particle. Democri-
tus’s atom was the smallest particle of matter. This implied there is only
one type of particle that combined in a structure to form differing objects.
Democritus created a more elaborate and systematic view of the physical
world. Space or “void” is a container of matter (material objects). Space is
a stage that material things play out their existence. Consequently, space
had an equal place in being (reality) with atoms and existed. A void is
emptiness that is devoid of the property of “extendedness”. “Emptiness”
in modern cosmology -can have no metric (length measurement) associated
with it. The void is an infinite space with an infinite number of atoms.
Matter, made up Being of the physical world. The atoms are (1) eternal
and invisible (so small they cannot be seen and, today, might be called
the components of neutrinos; (2) absolutely small (their size cannot be
diminished); and (3) absolutely full, and incompressible (without pores and
entirely fill the space they occupy). If light is a particle, it is composed of
Democritus atoms (particles?). Changes (time) in the world are changes
8 CHAPTER 1. PROGENITORS

in motion of the atoms or changes in the packing structure. The only

things that exist are the void and atoms. Atoms and motion are eternal
implies a form of the conservation of matter/energy. The universe (but not
necessarily the world or any configuration of atoms) existed eternally with
the atoms. This is an attempt to describe the whole of physics based on a
small number of ideas.
Democritus thought a solid was the sum of infinitely many parallel
planes. Because this conflicted with his view of extendedness, he may have
meant this as a calculating method. He may have used this idea (later
known as the “method of exhaustion”) to find the volume of a cone and
pyramid (reported by Archimedes). Probably, Democritus believed lines
were, like his atoms in a geometrical continuum, infinitely divisible. If
so, this would make Democritus the inventor of integral calculus before
Archimedes and Newton.
Eudoxus of Cnidus (Turkey 408BC - 355BC) created a model of the
motion of each planet (sun, moon, 5 planets, and the stars) as spheres
rotating about an axis that passes through center of Earth, two spheres for
the Sun, and one for the celestial backdrop - a total of 33 spheres (from 8
of Pythagoras). This model follows Pythagoras’s belief that the sphere is
in philosophical truth the most perfect shape.
Why spheres rather than a circles? Planetary orbits are inclined rela-
tive to each other and to Earth. From an Earth view, planets apparently
oscillate on celestial background around the ecliptic (path of the Sun) in
addition to the motion around Earth. Several spheres are several terms of
the Fourier series.
Aristotle (384BC - 322BC) was more of a philosopher. More than any
other thinker of his time, Aristotle determined the orientation and content
of western intellectual history. 1700 years would pass before he was seri-
ously challenged. His “continuous” could not be made of indivisible parts.
Rather the “continuous” is that in the boundary or limit between two con-
secutive parts. Aristotle denied the existence of the infinite. He substituted
“finite and as large as they please”. The modern “without limit” is similar.
Aristotle strongly disagreed with the atomism of Democritus. Also, there
was no such thing as a “void”. Instead there was a “plenum” within which
the concept of the “void” (space) was meaningless. Matter (body) was
whatever possessed dimensionality. “Space” is a projection of relationships
among material bodies into the perceived world. Space is a backdrop for
matter to play out its role. “Time” is the projection of ordered change into
1.4. DEMOCRITUS AND ARISTOTLE 9

the perceived world.

Aristotle and Euclid wrote on naturally–occurring, rudimentary pinhole
cameras such as light through the slits of wicker baskets. Ancient Greeks,
however, believed that our eyes emitted rays that enabled us to see, which
conflicts with Newton’s simplicity principle.
Aristotle defined forces to be proportional to the objects velocity. A
force was applied by physical contact. Newton will change this notion.
Aristotle’s force was not the definition of force today. Aristotle did not
have the concept of “acceleration”.
If a force is applied to move an object, a greater force produces a greater
velocity. Remove the force and the object stops. The rate of an objects fall
in gravity was proportional to its specific gravity (ratio of the density of an
object to the density of the medium it was falling through). Dropping two
differing objects in air and detecting a difference in their rate of descent was
beyond measurement methods at the time. To slow the objects, let them
drop in water. Indeed, the denser object falls faster. The same happened
in an air medium. Both air and water have buoyancy. The modern concept
is that the medium (air, water) exerts a force opposing the movement of an
object. Therefore, an object achieves a “terminal” or limiting velocity that
is proportional to the force applied if there is no turbulence.
Terminal velocity is the velocity reached when the drag force equals
the weight of the body minus the buoyant force, which halts acceleration
and causes speed to remain constant. As the object keeps on accelerating
downwards, the drag produced is increased. At a particular speed, the drag
force produced will be equal to the weight of the object.
Aristotle’s “force” was Newton’s net of several forces.
“Vacuum” was not an understood concept. Aristotle adopted the four
elements and light emanating from the eye from Empedocles. Zero velocity
implies zero Aristotle type force. Aristotle postulated that objects tend
to return to their “natural” position in the universe to explain the motion
of dropped objects. This seems to imbue each object with a spirit of con-
sciousness that knows where its natural position is. Hence, an object falling
without a contact force is merely returning to its natural position. There-
fore, the path the object follows need not be “ideal” (circular). Therefore,
the parabolic motion of a cannon ball noted by Galileo is imperfect be-
cause it derives from the object returning to its natural position, which is a
straight-line motion. Today, the parabolic path of cannon balls is mistak-
enly viewed as disproving Aristotle.
Descartes would later hold then reject the idea that gravity carried bod-
10 CHAPTER 1. PROGENITORS

ies to the center of the Earth as if the objects had some knowledge where
the center of the Earth was.
It is unclear whether Aristotle meant the object exerts its own force to
achieve its natural position similar to inertia and to what Newton called
“fictitious force”. If he did mean this, Aristotle may have anticipated the
Equivalence Principle.
This model suggested one of two possibilities. One is the existence of
crystal spheres (the ideal shape, and the heavens must be ideal) that exert
the necessary force to hold the planets in position and prevent them from
seeking their natural position at the center of the universe (Earth) . The
Earth is the accumulation of all the things not held by ideal crystal spheres.
The crystal spheres were meant to be real much like dark matter of today.
The other model postulates different physics for each planet. The Greeks
could look with their own senses. They saw moving stars (planets), the Sun
and moon moving against an unchanging background of stars. Further, the
outer planets had a retrograde motion that differed from the inner planets
retrograde motion. The Sun and the moon had nearly constant motion in
opposite directions. If a piece of matter didn’t follow the physics of a planet
level, it was rejected to fall to the next inner level, its more natural place.
The falling object would have to go through the crystal spheres of the first
possibility.
Aristotle viewed the Earth to be at the center of the universe as opposed
to the center of the universe. At the center is where the heavenly rejects
fall. Therefore, Earth was the garbage pile of the heavens. Therefore, the
practices that result in prosperity on garbage pile Earth are rejected by
heavenly rules, as has been frequently suggested. Less ideal spirits are even
closer to the center of the universe below the Earth’s surface. From this I see
the religious (Catholic and Buddhist) ideals of poverty Mt 19:21, simplicity
Lk 9:3, and humility Mt 16:24 may be heavenly ideals. Contrast this with
the alternate view that Earth (man) is the center of the universe preferred
by the rich and powerful.
The current arguments about the nature of matter, light, space, and
time seem to be a continuation of Democritus’s and Aristotle’s differing
views.
Euclid of Alexandria (Egypt 325BC - 265BC) is best known for his trea-
tise on mathematics (The Elements) and the logical method of the western
“proof” process. Euclid had made a mathematical study of light. He wrote
Optica circa 300 BC in which he studied the properties of light that he pos-
tulated traveled in straight lines. He described the laws of reflection and
1.4. DEMOCRITUS AND ARISTOTLE 11

studied them mathematically. He questioned sight as being the result of a

beam from the eye. The beam from the eye travels infinitely fast or eyes
merely receives light emitted by objects.
The Elements begins with definitions and five postulates. The first three
postulates are postulates of construction. For example, the first postulate
states that it is possible to draw a straight line between any two points.
These postulates also implicitly assume the existence of points, lines and
circles and then the existence of other geometric objects are deduced from
the fact that these exist. A line is an extension of a point in space. A plane
is an extension of a line. A solid is an extension of a plane. This differs from
the (Chinese) notion that a line is composed of many points. What point
represents 1/3? There are other assumptions in the postulates that are not
explicit. For example, that there exists a unique straight line joining any
two points is assumed. Similarly postulates two and three, on producing
straight lines and drawing circles, respectively, assume the uniqueness of
the objects whose construction is being postulated to be possible.
The fourth and fifth postulates are of a different nature. Postulate
four states that all right angles are equal. This may seem “obvious” but it
actually assumes that space is homogeneous and flat so that four right angles
subtend a full circle. That is, a figure will be independent of the position in
space in which it is placed. The famous fifth, or parallel, postulate states
that one and only one straight line can be drawn through a point parallel
to a given straight line. Euclid’s decision to make this a postulate led to
Euclidean geometry. It was not until the 19th century that this postulate
was dropped and non–Euclidean geometries were studied.
There are also axioms which Euclid calls “common notions”. These
are not specific geometrical properties but rather general assumptions that
allow mathematics to proceed as a deductive science.
Euclid makes other subtle assumptions.
Aristarchus of Samos (c280 BC) suggested a heliocentric universe, which
was universally ignored. After all, what held the planets in place?
Not everyone believed that a beam coming from the eye explained sight.
Lucretius wrote in On the nature of the Universe (55 BC): The light and
heat of the Sun; these are composed of minute atoms which, when they are
shoved off, lose no time in shooting right across the intervening space of air
in the direction imparted by the shove.
Despite this remarkably modern view, Lucretius’s views were not gen-
erally accepted and sight was still modeled as emanating from the eye.
12 CHAPTER 1. PROGENITORS

Heron (c 60 AD) observed that when a mirror reflects light, it travels

along the path of least length (Principle of minimum action). Certainly,
others could have noticed this. Heron’s contribution was to note that this
is an important characteristic of light.
Claudius Ptolemy (Egypt 85 - 165 AD) defined a trigonometric func-
tion related to the sin, sin(a+b), sin(a-b), and sin(a/2) functions. Ptolemy
studied light in his astronomical work. Through accurate measurements of
positions of stars, he realized that the atmosphere refracts light. He suppos-
edly made accurate (for his time) observations of over a thousand heavenly
bodies. He “confirmed” the duration of the year as 1/300 of a day less
than 365.25 days. Today we take 1/128 of a day less than 365.25 days (an
error in the observation of the equinox). Newton and others later accused
him of fraud because this error caused the data to appear as if he fit the
data to the model of the planetary orbit calculations. Even if he did fudge
this number, this one number made the remaining calculations remarkably
accurate. However, he could have made a more accurate measurement with
the equipment of his day. He used epicycles centered off the Earth to de-
scribe retrograde motion and the change of speed of the Sun around Earth.
Note this motion produced also approximates an ellipse.
In Europe, the only debate for over a thousand years was whether the
universe was (a) formed out of nothing, was decaying, and would sometime
return to nothing or (b) had always existed.
Abu Ali al-Hasan ibn al-Haytham (born Iraq 965, died Egypt 1040) was
a cruel leader and eccentric. He ordered the killing of all dogs because their
barking annoyed him. He banned certain vegetables and shellfish. He had
a large library. He did research on lenses and deduced a reflection and
refraction model. He is often known as Alhazen, which is the Latin version
of his first name. He argued that sight is due to light entering the eye
from an outside source and there is no beam from the eye itself. He gave
a number of arguments to support this claim, the most persuasive being
the camera obscura, or pinhole camera. Light in a pinhole camera passes
through a pinhole shining on a screen where an inverted image is observed.
al-Haytham argued that we see objects because the Sun’s rays of light,
which he believed to be streams of tiny particles traveling in straight lines,
are reflected from objects into our eyes. He understood that light must
travel at a large but finite velocity and that the velocity being different in
different substances causes refraction.
He also studied spherical and parabolic mirrors. He understood how
1.4. DEMOCRITUS AND ARISTOTLE 13

refraction by a lens will allow images to be focused and magnification to

take place. He understood mathematically why a spherical mirror produces
aberration. He suggested a model on how the rainbow results from light.
He (re) invented the scientific method.
European scholars who followed al-Haytham did not know of his work.
It was not widely available in Europe until the final quarter of the 16th
century with the increase in trade and war. However, without making major
advances on the Greeks, some Europeans did make some improvements.
Grosseteste, in about 1220, stressed the significance of the properties of
light to natural philosophy and in turn advocated using geometry to study
light. He put forward theories of color, which have little merit.
Roger Bacon, about 50 years later, continued to follow his teacher Gros-
seteste in believing in the importance of the study of light. He conceived of
some modern conclusions deduced from experiments carried out in a very
scientific way. He believed that the velocity of light is finite, studied convex
lenses, and advocated their use to correct defective eyesight.
About the same time as Roger Bacon was working on optics in England,
Witelo was studying mirrors and refraction of light and wrote his findings
in Perspectiva which rested on Ibn al-Haytham’s research in optics. It was
a standard text on optics for several centuries.
Following this there was improved understanding of using a lens. By
1590 Zacharius Jensen even used compound lenses in a microscope. The
first person to make a significant step forward after the time of al-Haytham,
however, was Kepler at the beginning of the 17th century.
Nicholas de Cusa (Germany 1401 - 1464) suggested the universe is infi-
nite, the universe lacks a center (the pattern of stars would look the same
at all locations - isotropic), all motion is relative, the universe has no begin-
ning or end, there is no absolute truth because the universe is too complex,
and the Earth may move.
Nicolaus Copernicus (Poland 1473 - 1543) was a monk (a canon, rather
than a priest). Around 1514 he stated in a book without an author the
philosophy that the Sun is, in truth, the center of the universe, which easily
accounted for retrograde motion. This was the beginning of De revolu-
tionibus orbium coelestium. He waited over 20 years until he was on his
deathbed to publish in 1543. He gave the book to Rheticus, a colleague
and protestant astronomer, to publish who gave it to Andreas Osiander, a
Lutheran theologian. Osiander shortened the title and rewrote the preface
to reduce the appearance that it was a claim that the Sun center model was
14 CHAPTER 1. PROGENITORS

intended to be “truth”. Rather that the model was merely a simpler way to
calculate the positions of the planets. That is, the calculation was merely a
conformal mapping. This probably saved the book from being condemned
and unread. A Church problem of his era was to determine which day was
a special day and the Ptolemaic calculation was difficult. The Copernican
model assumed all planetary motion is circular (rather than spherical or
elliptical) and the Sun is the center of the universe.
The rotation of the Earth in Copernicus’s system caused the stars’ ob-
served motion, rather than the rotation of the sphere of the stars. The
starry sphere was obsolete.
The Copernican system suggested the stars were at various distances
from Earth rather than being on a celestial sphere. Therefore, the stars
should exhibit parallax as the Earth moved around the Sun. A parallax shift
is the apparent change of position against the celestial sphere background
resulting from a change of position of the observer. The prevailing opinion
was that the stars were relatively close. Because no parallax was observed
with the equipment of the day, observational lack of parallax argued against
the Copernican system. This issue was not resolved until the parallax of
the stars was measured in the 19th century.
Another problem was that the Ptolemaic system was more accurate
than the Copernican system. Kepler resolved the accuracy issue by finding
planets move in ellipses rather than circles.
Because the heliocentric model was inconsistent with the data at the
time, the heliocentric model required “belief” to be considered “truth”. A
hidden assumption was that the stars were close. “Belief” without obser-
vational support was the province of the Church.
The situation with alternate models of today is similar. The Big Bang
model seems better, but proponents of the eternally existing universe mod-
els (Steady State, cyclic, etc.) persist with faith in their model.
Tycho Brahe (Denmark and Czech Republic 1546 - 1601) was the son
of a nobleman. He is also famous for loosing his nose in a sword fight.
Tycho in his younger days had been a fair man in his dealings with others.
For a lord at this time to treat his subjects harshly was usual. However
in the 1590s Tycho’s nature seemed to change and his treatment both of
the inhabitants of Hven and of his student helpers at Uraniborg became
unreasonable.
He always thought a lot of himself and of his own importance. He saw
himself as the natural successor to Hipparchus and Ptolemy, a far more
important person than a King. He equipped his observatory with large and
1.4. DEMOCRITUS AND ARISTOTLE 15

accurate instruments that improved accuracy to 0.5 to 1 arcminute, which

was exceptional for the time. He produced and published lots of data of the
planets. He was not the first to see a new star (a supernova). However, his
observations of it (published in 1574) did much to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that the star really belonged to the firmament of the celestial sphere
and was not merely a local phenomenon in the sublunary world as comets
were generally believed to be. Therefore the heavens do change and are not
“perfect” (“perfect” meant unchanging at the time). The star is now usu-
ally known as “Tycho’s supernova”. One of the most exciting astronomical
events that Tycho observed from Uraniborg was a comet that he first spot-
ted on 13 November 1577. He published his account in De mundi aetherei
recentioribus phaenomenis (1588) where he draws cosmological conclusions
from his measurements that show the comet is not closer to Earth than
the Moon, contradicting Aristotle’s model of the cosmos. From his obser-
vations Tycho was able to show that the comet was certainly further away
than Venus. This meant it had to come through the crystal spheres. This
disproved the existence of the crystal spheres and suggested the physics of
the heavens may be the same for all the heavens. Thereby re-raising the
question of what holds the planets up. Among his many discoveries, Tycho
found that the obliquity (angle between the planes of the Earth’s orbit and
the objects orbit) of the ecliptic had decreased since Ptolemy. However, he
obtained an incorrect value of the obliquity due to errors by Ptolemy. His
universal model was the Earth was center of the universe with the moon
and Sun in orbit around Earth, the orbits of other planets were around
the Sun. He adopted this to model the lack of parallax shift of the stars.
To measure distance to close stars requires 0.3 arcseconds accuracy (mea-
sured in 1838 by Bessel), which was beyond Brahe’s instruments. Either
the stars are unbelievably (to him) far or the Earth is at the center of the
universe. This convinced him the Earth was at the center of the universe.
Also, because he thought objects thrown upward (a short distance) land in
the same place, the Earth must be at the center of the universe.
Galileo Galilei (Italy 1564 - 1642) worked on the problem of centers
of gravity (1585-86). He suggested performing experiments in addition to
observations could test theories. Particularly, he tested models of falling
bodies using an inclined plane to slow the rate of descent, rather than trying
to observe the falling body directly, which was difficult because clocks were
poor.
He also studied pendulums. He is credited with considering the vertical
movement of a pendulum significant. That is, the lowest point in the pen-
16 CHAPTER 1. PROGENITORS

dulum’s path was also the point with the highest velocity. The highest point
in the pendulum’s path was the point of lowest velocity. The “virial the-
orem” [for a simple harmonic oscillator, half the time average value of the
potential energy (height of bob of pendulum) equals the time average value
of the kinetic energy (velocity of bob)] was developed later and Galileo’s
observations are derived if the inverse square law applies as developed by
Newton. He also noticed the regularity of the frequency of the pendulum’s
motion. This is linked with the inverse square law of gravity and harmony
of the sine function.
The simple harmonic oscillator motion results from a balancing of forces
and exchange of energy between kinetic and potential. A slight energy input
to the balanced system starts the energy exchange. Adding kinetic or po-
tential energy at integer (quanta) or half integer multiples of the frequency
of oscillation may add energy to the system.
Example: to increase swing’s height, input potential energy at ends of
the swing by shifting center of gravity. Other pendulums use torsion and
springs to provide the necessary force balance.
He made the first pendulum clock near the end of his life.
The pendulum clock is the fundamental defining notion of time. That
is, the idea that time can not only be ordered but also be divided into equal
intervals with a definite numerical magnitude. The pendulum concept of a
“clock” in general relativity is following Leibniz’s philosophy of time.
He had formulated a law of falling bodies: the distance that a body
moves from rest under uniform acceleration is proportional to the square of
the duration taken. Newton would use this law.
He worked out that projectiles follow a parabolic path. That is, the rate
of an objects fall (in air and for a short distance before terminal velocity
becomes important) is nearly independent of the weight or specific gravity
(Aristotle) of objects. Galileo observed that bodies fall at a rate indepen-
dent of mass (today - say in a vacuum). Objects of different weight fall with
the same accelerating speed, hitting the ground at virtually the same time.
The drag of air is small for short drops. Further, the objects must have the
same drag coefficient that, at least, requires them to be of the same size.
This is often portrayed differently.
Galileo improved on the telescope. The Galileo telescope combined a
convex and a concave lens. It gave an upright image but was very difficult
to use. He discovered the moons in orbit around Jupiter which suggested
to him a method to measure longitude because the moons were a measure
of “absolute time”, mountains on the moon, sunspots (sun imperfections),
1.4. DEMOCRITUS AND ARISTOTLE 17

and the Milky Way is composed of stars (1609-10). The use of a telescope,
an instrument, to produce data that was not seen by the naked, human eye
represented a branching point in philosophy and science. What makes us
think the instrument readings represent data about the universe and not
merely characteristics of the instrument? Galileo could use the telescope to
see ships far out to sea. Later, when the ships came to port, the ships were
as seen through the telescope. So, Jupiter had moons in orbit and the moon
had mountains because such things were seen on Earth, also. The philo-
sophical change was the modern hidden assumption that the universe may
be interpreted by Earthborn experiments. Thus, the galaxies are moving
away from us because the Doppler shift on Earth causes a redshift of light.
This view has become a postulate for the interpretation of astronomical
observations.
Galileo’s interpretations conflicted with church doctrine that everything
revolved around Earth. Because others could duplicate the observations,
there was controversy but no problem. That is, no faith or belief problem
until he interpreted the observations according to changes in belief about
the universe. Galileo inserted the belief that the Sun is center of universe.
He looked for parallax of the stars but found none. Ptolemy’s scheme was
more accurate and predicted no parallax. Therefore, at the time, the Earth
centered postulate was supported by data and the Sun centered postulate
required a philosophical acceptance.
He postulated velocity was not absolute, all mechanical experiments per-
formed in an inertial frame will give the same result, and Galileo’s Principle
of Equivalence. Galileo’s Principle of Equivalence is:
“The time in which a certain distance is traversed by an object moving
under uniform acceleration from rest is equal to the time in which the same
distance would be traversed by the same movable object moving at a uniform
speed of one half the maximum and final speed of the previous uniformly
accelerated motion.”
This is very close to the Equivalence Principle. He noticed that if ex-
periments are conducted below decks of a ship moving at uniform velocity
(speed and direction), then the results are the same. Unlike Brahe, a ball
could be thrown in the air and return to the same place in such uniform
motion in the moving frame but not the same place on Earth because the
rotating Earth imparts an acceleration.
Johannes Kepler (Germany 1571 - 1630) was Brahe’s assistant for some
of his career. He was profoundly religious. He believed God had made the
18 CHAPTER 1. PROGENITORS

universe (a belief) according to a mathematical plan, which was associated

with the works of Plato and Pythagoras - harmony of the spheres. The four
mathematics of his time were arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music.
This was far from the Church doctrine that things might be understood in
only an imprecise way. Kepler was excommunicated in 1612.
His first model of the solar system (1596) fitted the 5 Platonic solids
(convex regular solids) inside the spherical orbits of the 5 planets. The 5
Platonic solids are tetrahedron (4 triangles), cube (6 squares), octahedron (8
triangles), dodecahedron (12 pentagons), and icosahedrons (20 triangles).
This model gave a 10% error of the sizes of paths of planets, which was
spectacularly good for his era.
Kepler had thousands of observations of the orbit of Mars from Brahe.
He was able to check his calculations. Mars was a most troublesome planet
for Kepler because it has the largest eccentricity and inclination to the
ecliptic. He was forced to conclude the orbit of Mars was an ellipse with
the Sun at one of the foci. He extended this result to the other planets.
Kepler’s First Law is the orbit of a planet/comet about the Sun is an ellipse
with the Sun’s center of mass at one focus.
In checking possible orbits against observation and because he resisted
the idea of non-circular orbits, he had to invent a system to determine what
should be accepted as adequate agreement. This is the first explicit use of
the concept of observational error.
A line joining the planet and the Sun swept equal areas in equal times is
Kepler’s Second Law. Planets move faster at perihelion (nearest the Sun)
than at aphelion (farthest from the Sun). “For two bodies interacting via
a central force such as gravity, the force is inversely proportional to radius
squared” was added later as a generalization. It had to wait for Newton’s
proof.
Kepler’s Third Law for planets is the ratio of the squares of their sidereal
periods will be the same as the ratio of the cubes of the mean radii (semi-
major axis) of their orbits.
Further, motion along a conic section curve is described by sine curves.
The musical notes and the shape of a string in making the sound are also
described by sine curves. The sound is a summation of sine waves. If
the maximal points of two sine waves coincide repeatedly, a harmonic is
formed. These harmonics can be found in any motion along a conic section.
The circles-within-circles description of planetary movement is complicated.
Occam’s razor applies.
Pythagoras found that when a string is played with a stop exactly 1/2
1.5. DESCARTES AND NEWTON 19

way along its length, an octave is produced (same quality of sound but at
twice the frequency of the fundamental (unstopped) note, a 1:2 frequency
ratio. Notes separated intervals of a perfect fifth (ratio 2:3) and a perfect
fourth (ratio 3:4) have been important consonances (harmonies) in western
music. Kepler measured how may arcseconds planets moved at perihelion
and aphelion. Kepler found the angular velocities of all planets closely cor-
respond to musical intervals. For example, Saturn moves at 106 arcseconds
per day at aphelion and 135 arcseconds at perihelion. 106:135 differs only 2
arcseconds from 4:5 (a major third). The ratio between Jupiter’s maximum
and Mars’ minimum corresponds to a minor third and between Earth and
Venus to a minor sixth. A later scholar (Francis Warrain) extended the
correspondence between the angular velocity ratios and musical harmony
to Uranus, Neptune and Pluto, which were unknown in Kepler’s time. Why
this is true for orbits due to a central force, which produces conical orbits,
is the relation of Fourier series to musical notes (vibrating strings). The
Greek “harmony of the spheres” became the “music of the spheres”.
Kepler was an astrologer. He differentiated between the science of as-
trology and the popular version of astrology.
He invented a 2-convex-lens-system telescope in which the final image is
inverted. This Keplerian telescope in now known simply as an astronomical
telescope.
Kepler worked on optics, and came up with the first accurate mathe-
matical theory of the camera obscura. He also gave the first modern form of
how the human eye works, with an inverted image formed on the retina. He
explained nearsightedness and farsightedness. He gave the important result
that the intensity of light observed from a source varies inversely with the
square of the distance of the observer from the source, which has become
the “inverse square law”. He argued that the velocity of light is infinite.

1.5 Descartes and Newton

The science and philosophy of Aristotle was being overthrown at the end of
the 1500’s. There were many scientific and philosophical attempts to untan-
gle the web of new observations and modifications to Aristotle’s thought.
The certainty of the last 1700 years was gone. It fell to Newton to create a
testable model describing cosmological happenings.
Unanswered questions that may be subject to scientific inquiry:
Why do objects fall at a rate proportional to the square of the time and
independent of an objects weight? (counter intuitive)
20 CHAPTER 1. PROGENITORS

What is the relation between the pendulum’s motions and why is it so reg-
ular and harmonious?
Why do planets follow elliptical (conic section) orbits?
What is the relation of the planets orbits to musical harmonies?
What is the common property of raindrops, glass, and thin films that causes
them to radiate in different colors?
Is light a particle or a wave? What is the nature of light? How is diffraction
explained? If light is a wave, in what medium does the wave travel?
An object swung on a string exerts an outward (centrifugal) force. The
centrifugal force is related to the weight of the object, length of string, and
rate of rotation. Why is the force proportional to the square of the length
of string?
The intensity of light also declines as the square of the distance. What is
the relation between the centrifugal force, planets orbits, and light inten-
sity?
Why do some materials seem immutable while others are not? What gov-
erns their combination proportions?
Which model of the solar system is better - Ptolemy, Copernicus, or Brahe?
If Copernicus is correct, why do the stars lack parallax? What holds the
planets up (in place)?
Fundamental conditions prior to a major paradigm shift:
(1) Current paradigm is stressed with inconsistencies and rapid modifica-
tions are made to the model as new observations are discovered.
(2)Data is interpreted according to the paradigm with marginal results.
(3) Some paradigms are so entrenched that they are barely recognized as a
postulate.
(4) Many competing models exist, none of which seem better than the pop-
ularly accepted model. They all have some falsifier.
(5) Great social pressure exists to reason from accepted postulates. This
creates a selection bias that is often not recognized. The exceptions are sim-
ply deleted from consideration or marginalized for one reason or another.
Perhaps this is the reason social outsiders often find the new solution.
(6) Observations inconsistent with any suggested model are often
marginalized or ignored. A very open and tolerant society is required to
over come this bias.
(7) Several “coincidences” of the numbers have been noticed but there is
no understanding about the fundamental similarity of the calculations.
Newton’s next step was to:
(1) Define new parameters as being fundamental such as Mass rather than
1.5. DESCARTES AND NEWTON 21

weight.
(2) Define force without “contact” and responsible for all change of move-
ment.
(3) Use some aspect of many models with supporting observations that are
inconsistent with other models.
(4) Defined new “rules for natural philosophy”.
(5) Concentrated on phenomena that others tend to minimize.
(6) Created a new mathematics method or used what others considered too
simple.
(7) Developed new analysis procedures of differential and integral calculus.
René Descartes (1596 - 1650), also known as Renatus Cartesius (la-
tinized form), was a highly influential French philosopher, mathematician,
scientist, and writer. Dubbed the “Founder of Modern Philosophy”, and
the “Father of Modern Mathematics”. Much of subsequent western phi-
losophy is a reaction to his writings. His Cartesian coordinate system is
used to bridge between algebra and geometry and is crucial to the inven-
tion of calculus and analysis. He was one of the key figures in the Scientific
Revolution. He also created exponential notation. He is credited with the
discovery of the law of conservation of momentum (mass X speed). How-
ever, Descartes did not join direction with speed, which caused his view of
the conservation of momentum to be complex. There was some confusion
between what we call energy (mass X speed2 ), potential energy (mass X
height), and momentum. Is the key matter characteristic proportional to
the velocity or to velocity2 ? This debate lasted into the end of the 18th
century. Because of this confusion, his postulate of the laws of motion
(what would become Newton’s first law of motion) was complex. However,
applying this to vertical (gravitational potential energy) movement was a
problem. That is, move an object up to a given height fast and drop it.
Compare the dropped momentum when it hits the floor with the momentum
if the body is moved up slowly to the same height. The two experiments
produce the same momentum on the floor. This is the velocity2 motion
of energy. Momentum measures inertial mass. Potential energy measures
gravitational mass.
Descartes adopted the “mechanical” philosophy’s explanation of natu-
ral phenomena. The mechanical philosophy favored a contact model of the
interaction of small, unobservable “corpuscules” of matter. Descartes sug-
gested that space was filled with “plenum” that transmitted pressure from
a light source onto the eye. The corpuscules possess a limited number of
mainly geometric properties such as size, shape, motion, and arrangement
22 CHAPTER 1. PROGENITORS

of the corpuscules. Descartes’ plan was to reduce the class of properties to

quantifiable attributes.
Descartes’ method was to explain natural phenomena based on allegedly
simple observations drawn from rational reflection on everyday experience.
This is sometimes mistakenly interpreted as “metaphysical search for first
principles” on which to base the models rather than as analogy.
Descartes spent considerable effort in modeling motion. He defined mo-
tion as the transfer of one piece of matter from the neighborhood of those
bodies that (1) are immediately contiguous to it and (2) are “considered at
rest” to it into the neighborhood of others. Rest and motion are different
matter states. A body is everything that is simultaneously transported.
This suggests both body and motion have equal ontological importance. A
resting body, according to Descartes’ definition, blends into the surrounding
plenum. That is, any definition of one must incorporate the other. The rel-
ative rest of its parts hold a macroscopic body together. Descartes rejected
any explanation of the solidarity of a body that employs a bond among
parts. The problem is that an impact of bodies’ results in the destruction
of the bodies as observed in modern accelerator experiments.
Willebrord Snell discovered the sine law of refraction of light in 1621 but
did not publish the result. The first to publish the law was Descartes in 1637
in La Dioptrique published as a supplement to Discours de la method pour
bien conduire sa raison et chercher la verite dans les sciences. Descartes and
Fermat carried on a discussion after this publication and initially assumed
that they had reached a different law because they had started from different
assumptions. Fermat initially proposed that light follows the path that
takes the shortest time, enabling Snell’s law of refraction to be deduced
mathematically.
Christiaan Huygens (Netherlands) (1629 - 1695) - Was sickly through
his life that occasionally interfered with his work. He built better lenses
and was the first to detect the moon Titan and the rings of Saturn. His
contemporaries at first didn’t believe him (they had inferior telescopes). He
studied and patented a pendulum clock. He showed that the momentum
of two colliding bodies before a collision equals the momentum after the
collision. He thought the theory of gravitation to be absurd. His thought
was how can two masses attract when there is nothing between them (action
at a distance). He composed one of the earliest discussions of extraterrestrial
life.
Huygens proposed the wave theory of light. Huygens offered a geomet-
rical construction for reflection and refraction of waves without in any way
1.5. DESCARTES AND NEWTON 23

interfering one with another. Huygens principle envisioned waves as a series

of random pulses and that each point on a wave front may be regarded as
a new source of waves. Also, he suggested the secondary waves to be effec-
tive only at the point of tangency to their common envelope to prevent the
possibility of the secondary waves from being emitted backward, but denied
the possibility of diffraction. One problem with the wave theory of light is
“in what was the wave oscillating?” Waves require a medium of transmis-
sion. The ether (spelled ”aether”, also) was the postulated medium. This
issue still haunts wave theory supporters. However, without the property of
periodicity such waves could not account for color or any of the other peri-
odic properties of light. Nor could Huygens principle, without the principle
of destructive interference invented by Young a little more than a hundred
years later, adequately account for the simplest of all optical phenomena –
rectilinear propagation.
In 1676, Ole Christen Roemer observed Jupiter’s moons. He discovered
the eclipses were 11 minutes early when the Earthwas closest to Jupiter
and 11 minutes late when the Earthwas farthest from Jupiter. The speed
of light is finite.
Cavalieri in 1647 gave the relationship between the curvature of a thin
lens and its focal length. Inspired by Kepler’s discoveries on light, James
Gregory (1638 - 1675) had begun to work on lenses and in Optica Promota
(1663) described the first practical reflecting te1escope now called the Gre-
gorian telescope. Gregory made a fundamental discovery about light a few
years later while in St Andrews. He discovered diffraction by letting light
pass through a feather. However, he was not the first to investigate this
phenomenon as Grialdi had studied it a few years earlier. Here is Gregory’s
description:
“Let in the Sun’s rays by a small hole to a darkened house, and at the
hole place a feather (the more delicate and white the better for this purpose),
and it shall direct to a white wall or paper opposite to it a number of small
circles and ovals (if I mistake them not) whereof one is somewhat white (to
wit, the middle which is opposite the Sun) and all the rest severally colored.
I would gladly hear Mr. Newton’s thoughts of it.”
The reference to Newton brings us to the person who revolutionized
thinking on light. The last third of the 17th century was a period where
major theories on light would be put forward. These resulted from the con-
tributions of Huygens, Hooke, and Newton. Two opposing theories were
supported. Gassendi had put forward the particle theory in the 1660s sug-
24 CHAPTER 1. PROGENITORS

gesting that light was composed of a stream of tiny particles. The wave
theory by Huygens and Hooke was a development of Descartes’ ideas where
they proposed that light is a wave through the plenum. Newton supported
the theory that light rays were composed of tiny particles traveling in a
medium, which was later called an aether.
Sir Issac Newton (England 1643 - 1727) brought astrophysics into science
rather than philosophy. Reports of his early life show he seems to have
had little promise in academic work. He showed no talent or interest in
managing his mother’s considerable estate. Later he developed a passion
for learning and problem solving.
Newton developed hypothesis (models) based on what he saw by exper-
iment in our size domain. For example, he hypothesized matter and light
(energy) could be interchanged with one another.
Newtonian physics is alive and well today. His ideas form the base of
the ideas today. Indeed, Newtonian physics is still an alternative cosmology.
Newton was the first scientist to be knighted in 1705 solely for his work.
When Sir Francis Bacon was knighted, he was a well–connected politician
and jurist.
Newton experimented with passing light through a triangular glass prism
circa 1666. That a spectrum of colors was produced was well known. The
standard explanation of this was that the pure while light was somehow
corrupted in passing through the glass. The farther it had to travel in the
glass the more it was corrupted. Hence different colors emerged.
Newton passed light through a second prism. The light was not further
decomposed. If the second prism was inverted relative to the first prism, the
colors recombine to form white light. This proved white light is multicolored
(not pure).
The chromatic aberration seen at the edges of the Keplerian telescope’s
image convinced Newton in 1670 that white light was a mixture of rays of a
corpuscular nature following al-Haythem and Democritus that are refracted
at slightly different angles rather than a single basic, pure entity.
Corpuscular because sunlight cast shadows like particles rather than go
around corners like sound or water waves. If an open doorway connects two
rooms and a sound is produced in a remote corner of one of them, a person
in the other room will hear the sound as if it originated at the doorway. As
far as the second room is concerned, the vibrating air in the doorway is the
source of the sound. Light appears to travel straight past edges. This was
one of the difficulties in the wave model of light.
Newton speculated that gravity acts on aether and aether acts on parti-
1.5. DESCARTES AND NEWTON 25

cles including corpuscular light particles. General Relativity suggests grav-

itation bends light to travel along a geodesic. Newton thought refracting
(Keplerian) telescopes would always suffer chromatic aberration. He in-
vented the reflecting telescope, which bears his name.
He later used a wave model in conjunction with the corpuscular model
to describe colors of light from thin sheets, Newton’s rings, and diffraction.
The first major account of interference and diffraction, which Newton
called the “inflection”, of light was that published by F. M. Grimaldi in
his Physico-Mathesis de Lumine Coloribus et Iride (Bologna 1665). Boyle
and Hooke made further studies of diffraction. The most significant and
quantitative results were those obtained by Newton while studying the in-
terference rings produced when the curved surface of a plano-convex lens
was pressed against a flat optical surface.
Newton wrote a book Philosophiae naturalis mathematica(Newton 1687)
or Principia that is recognized as the greatest scientific book ever written.
New Fundamental Principles:
(1) No more cause of natural things should be admitted than are both true
and sufficient to explain their phenomena.
(2) Nature does nothing in vain.
(3) Nature does not indulge in the luxury of superfluous causes or nature
maximizes profit from energy.
(4) The causes assigned to natural effects of the same kind must be the
same such as the cause of respiration in man and beast; falling stones in
America, in Europe, and on the moon; and the light from a fire or from the
Sun.
(5) Those qualities of bodies that cannot be intended and remitted (i.e.
qualities that cannot be increased and diminished) and that belong to all
bodies on which experiments can be made should be taken as qualities of all
bodies universally. (Early form of conservation and symmetry principles.)
(6) Propositions in experimental philosophy gathered from phenomena by
induction should be considered either exactly or very nearly true notwith-
standing any contrary hypothesis, until yet other phenomena make such
either more exact or liable to exceptions. (Mach in the 19th century will
echo this because so many seem to ignore it).
Phenomena.
1. Kepler’s laws.
2. Orbits of planets around the Sun.
3. The moon, only, obeys Kepler’s laws relative to the Earth.
Newton formed the “Newtonian Equivalence Principle”: the rest mass
26 CHAPTER 1. PROGENITORS

(rather then weight which is measured on Earth) of an object is equivalent

to its inertial (resist moving) mass. The seed for this idea goes back to
the observation by Galileo that bodies fall at a rate independent of mass.
Newton defined the concept of “mass” as a characteristic of objects (not
Aristotle’s specific gravity) and endowed mass with inertial (moving) and
rest properties. The modern form of the Equivalence Principle is gravita-
tional effects are identical in nature to those arising through acceleration.
The equivalence of rest mass and inertial mass holds to better than 1 part
in 1011 (Will 2001).
Newton found a proof in corresponding with Hooke that Kepler’s areal
(2nd) law was a consequence of centripetal forces. If the orbital curve is
an ellipse under the action of a central force, then the radial dependence of
the force is inverse square with the distance from the center (inverse square
law). Halley asked Newton in 1684 what orbit a body followed under the
inverse square force. Newton replied an ellipse. Newton’s prime area of
research was centrifugal motion such as weight on a string. He took about
3 months to send a proof to Halley for point weights. Newton then took 2
years to prove it for extended objects such as the Earth and the Sun.
Newton’s three laws of motion, which are more like postulates, are:
First: Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that
state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. This differs from
the generally accepted view of the time, Aristotle’s view. Descartes had 2
similar laws. Newton’s made the form more mathematical.
Second: The relationship between an object’s inertial mass m, its accel-
eration ~a, and the applied force F~ , is F~ = m~a. The arrow over a symbol
indicates the parameter is a vector. The m is a proportionality constant for
the conformal mapping of the measured acceleration into a “force” and is
a characteristic of a body. The standardization of m for the application of
mathematics is achieved via m1 /m2 = a2 /a1 , where 1 and 2 denote different
bodies with the same F~ applied to each.
Centrifugal force of the inertial mass of objects rotating about a center
derives from the continual change of direction. Note the equation states the
directions of the F~ and ~a are the same. Under Aristotle, force is proportional
to terminal velocity, which is after considering friction and buoyancy. The
measurement is a change in momentum such as the collision of balls.
Third: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Gravi-
tational force F~1g on body 1 caused by body 2 is
F~g1 = m1 (GM2 /r 3 )~r, where G is the gravitation constant, M is the rest
1.5. DESCARTES AND NEWTON 27

mass of one body, m is the inertial mass of another body, and ~r is the
vector distance between the center of masses. The (GM2 /r 3 )~r factor is the
acceleration field caused by body 2. This is also a conformal mapping of
the gravitational influence of body 2. The GM2 factor is the proportion-
ality constant between the force and the experimentally determined r −2 .
Because the M2 is defined as a characteristic of a body, the G carries the
conversion between m and M characteristics. The center of inertial mass
is assumed to be at the same position as the center of gravitational mass.
The G is assumed to be a constant in our everyday world. Experiments
performed on Earth seem to support this assumption within the limits of
the experiment. The limits include masses that have atomic weights within
an order of magnitude of each other and cosmologically small r.
After the mapping of other forces such as friction, buoyancy, and elec-
tromagnetic, the vector addition of the forces reduces to just one force that
then determines motion of a body via the inverse transformation.
The measurement of M is by a scale such as Hook’s spring, which is a
static measurement. The term “rest mass” is used here rather than gravita-
tional mass to anticipate a fundamental issue in General Relativity. The M
may be a mass other than Earth such a mass held in a plane perpendicular
to Earth’s gravitational field, which is used in experiments to measure G.
The measurement of m is by measuring its motion such as by dropping it
and measuring its acceleration. Newton’s third law implies F~g1 = −F~g2 and,
therefore, Newton’s equivalence principle (m1 = M1 and m2 = M2 ). An
assumption used in astronomical calculations is that m and M are universal
characteristic of objects, and G is a universal constant.
The physics of Newton’s time had a paradox of whether the conserved
characteristic of a body’s motion was proportional to its velocity (conser-
vation of momentum) or its velocity squared (kinetic energy). This debate
raged until the 1800’s. However, kinetic energy is not conserved. Remem-
ber, the force by only contact of Aristotle considers the height as the body
desiring to return to its natural position. The application of Newton’s
model suggested the height is a form of energy (force times distance). Con-
sequently, the ideas of momentum and conservation of total energy are
different. Total energy is kinetic and potential. Newton’s cradle is a sim-
ple demonstration of (in his day) a very complex issue. The raised ball
introduces a potential energy that is converted to kinetic energy by the
string constraint. The potential energy is recovered after a conservation of
momentum (through the balls) process.
From centrifugal force and Kepler’s third law, Newton deduced the in-
28 CHAPTER 1. PROGENITORS

verse square law: The gravitational attraction between two bodies is pro-
portional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the
square of the distance between their centers-of-mass (a point) and directed
along a line connecting their centers-of-mass. This is the importance of
Kepler’s second law. Newton additionally derived that if one of the bodies
is held stationary (or is very much larger than the other) the motion of
the smaller body follows a conic section (circle, ellipse [Kepler’s first law],
parabola, or hyperbola) because a central force governs the motion. Also,
objects approaching the Sun from outside our solar system, which are not
in orbit, follow hyperbola paths. This was known at the time. Newton
derived it from his fundamental principles.
One of the issues that exercised Newton and delayed the publication
of the Principia was to justify the assumption that the gravitational pull
exerted by a mass is identical to that exerted by an equal “point mass”
(the mass of the object located at its “center of mass” - a point in space) of
zero extent. This is known as the “spherical property”. Eventually, Newton
established the spherical property is true for inverse square law of force but
not for other powers of distance such as inverse cube.
The inverse square law is very important for understanding many con-
cepts in astronomy. The assumption in using the inverse square law requires
three-dimensional, Cartesian, isotropic, (“flat” in General Relativity terms)
mathematical space. Consider a substance being emitted from a very small
volume into the surrounding volume. After some time, the substance would
expand by diffusion into a larger volume. The r −2 dependence of the force
of an object implies the effect is dependent of the surface area of the object
presented to the center of the source. The inverse square law may be seen as
a relation of a force with a geometrical surface. The total force is assumed
to be evenly distributed over a spherical surface.
Another vexing issue is the infinite universe conclusion from Newton’s
gravitation law. The other forces in modern times (electromagnetic, strong
nuclear, and weak nuclear) cancel at moderate distances. The gravitational
force is assumed to be the only force with extragalactic effect. If the universe
is finite, there is an outer galaxy. The outer galaxy would be attracted to
the center (yes, a finite universe in Newtonian dynamics implies a center)
and the universe would collapse. Therefore, the universe must be infinite is
extent. “Infinite” here means “unbounded” without an “edge” rather than
“unlimited”. Otherwise, as Newton noted, the balance of the positions of
the galaxies must be so fine that it would be easier to balance thousands of
pins on their points.
1.5. DESCARTES AND NEWTON 29

Alternatively, there may be some other force directed outward from the
center of mass of the universe that acts against gravity. If such force is
centrifugal, then the universe must be rotating relative to a fixed “absolute
space”. The modern “dark energy” or cosmological constant serves the
same function.
The mathematics of r → 0 presents another difficulty. The Newtonian
universe has limits of applicability.
Newton applied these concepts to relate a body falling to Earth and
the orbital period of the moon, pendulums, etc. Thus, he connected the
heavens to a universal law experiment and tested the universal law on Earth
with masses and sea tides.
Five concepts that were and are controversial that are attributed to
Newton are:
(1) “Action at a distance” vs. action requires contact with objects. Newton
did not support “Action at a distance” philosophically.
(2) “Absolute space” coordinates system vs. “relational space”. Newton
did not support this (he made no hypothesis).
(3) “Absolute time” vs. “relational time”.
(4) Light is “corpuscular” (particles)
(5) Particle – wave duality of light.
Time works in Newton’s equations equally well whether going forward
or backward – symmetry in time. The observation in everyday life is that
time progresses in only one direction. This is the “arrow of time”. Liebiz
attempted to define time as the earlier/later relation by means of causal
connections. Such a model is known as a “causal theory of time”.
Many still reject the idea of “action at a distance”. Newton saw the
gravitational relationship but couldn’t explain the force. The prevailing
idea is (championed by René Descartes) that forces work through contact.
“Fields” were invented in the 19th century to provide a contact medium.
However, a field is little more than potential at a distance.
The “absolute time” of Newton’s model was an absolute clock external
to the universe that measured time independent of the universe.
The concept of space as the container of material objects is generally
considered to have originated with Democritus and, for him, it provided the
stage upon which material things play out their existence. Emptiness exists
and is that which is devoid of the attribute of extendedness. For Newton,
an extension of the Democritian concept was basic to his mechanics. Abso-
lute space, by its own nature and irrespective of anything external, always
remains immovable and similar to itself.
30 CHAPTER 1. PROGENITORS

Thus, the absolute space of Newton was, like that of Democritus, the
stage upon which material things play out their existence. Space had an
objective existence for Newton and was primary to the order of things.
Time was also considered to possess an objective existence, independently
of space and independently of all the things contained within space. Uni-
versal time is an absolute time that is the same everywhere. The fusion of
these two concepts provided Newton with the reference system (spatial co-
ordinates defined at a particular time) by means of which all motions could
be quantified in a way that was completely independent of the objects con-
cerned. If emptiness exists and is devoid of the attribute of extendedness,
then the emptiness of Democritus can have no metric (a length measure)
associated with it. But it is precisely Newton’s belief in absolute space and
time with the implied virtual clocks and rods that makes the Newtonian
concept a direct antecedent of Minkowski spacetime. That is, an empty
space and time within which it is possible to have an internally consistent
discussion of the notion of metric.
The contrary view is generally considered to have originated with Aris-
totle for whom there was no such thing as a void - there was only the plenum
within which the concept of the empty place was meaningless and, in this,
Aristotle and Leibniz were at one. It fell to Leibniz, however, to take a cru-
cial step beyond the Aristotelian concept in the debate of (Samuel) Clarke
and Leibniz (1715 - 1716) in which Clarke argued for Newton’s concept.
The forces in Newtonian mechanics acting on a mass that depend on
positions and motions of other bodies are called “real” forces. Whereas,
the forces acting on a mass that depend on changing direction of the mass
(inertial mass) such as centrifugal forces with respect to the “fixed” coor-
dinate system are “fictitious” forces. An absolute space coordinate system
is required to distinguish a “fixed coordinate” system. The fictitious forces
in the General Theory of Relativity are regarded as legitimate forces on the
same footing as the real forces. A method to deduce the fictitious forces
from the position and motion of other bodies must be shown to accomplish
this.
Newton thought that the results of experiment and observation estab-
lished that there was absolute motion, i.e. motion was defined to be relative
to absolute space. His main argument for absolute motion is the argument
called “Newton’s Bucket” conceived in 1689. Newton was misunderstood
in his time about fictitious forces. This is why many “Newtonian Dynam-
ics” issues seem to be developed long after Newton such as the v vs. v 2
arguments in the 1700’s. Newton’s concern was the causes of centrifugal
1.5. DESCARTES AND NEWTON 31

motion and defining what was meant by “rotation” without a fixed frame
of reference. It challenges the relationalist position.
For a relationalist, a notion like “unchanging speed” can be understood
only relative to a frame fixed by some material objects. For example, some-
thing at rest relative to the Earth’s surface is in motion relative to a ref-
erence frame fixed to the Sun. However, Newton argues that the notion of
inertial (or accelerated) motion is not merely “relative” it is “absolute”.
Examine the observed effects that form the basis of the Newton’s Bucket
argument. Then turn to the argument itself.
Consider the case of a body that is accelerating in a straight line, i.e.
a body that is traveling in some fixed direction with a steadily increasing
speed. For example, consider the case where you and I are in cars on a
straight stretch of road. However, I am in a car that is at rest on the
shoulder and you are accelerating away from me down the road. You will
feel inertial effects due to your acceleration, i.e. you will feel yourself being
pulled back into your seat as you accelerate, and I won’t. The Newtonian
would claim that you are really accelerating and that is why you experience
the inertial effects you feel and I don’t. However, the Leibnizian can’t
say this because you can think of me as accelerating away from you just
as much as I can think of you as accelerating away from me (relation to
other bodies). That is, for the relationalist, there is only a notion of relative
acceleration. Neither of us can be taken as the one that is really accelerating.
Consequently, there seems to be no reason why you experience the inertial
effects and I don’t unless there is a fixed reference frame such as the Earth.
Consider a point on a turntable that is rotating at a constant rate. The
speed at which this point is moving is fixed (i.e. the distance traveled per
unit time is fixed), but the direction in which it is traveling is constantly
changing so that it can follow the circular path associated with the rotation
of the turntable. Therefore, this point is accelerating. Consequently, be-
cause rotations are examples of accelerated motions (changes in the velocity
vector), they will have inertial effects associated with them. Such an effect
is the basis of the “bucket argument”.
Consider a bucket of water that is suspended by a rope so that it is
free to rotate. (A) When both the bucket and the water are at rest, the
surface of the water is flat and there is no relative motion between the
bucket and the water. (B) Now, make the bucket rotate (say by “winding
up” the rope). The bucket is rotating and the water is still at rest with a
flat surface. As the bucket is moving and the water is not, there will be
frictional forces acting between the bucket and the water. (C) The action
32 CHAPTER 1. PROGENITORS

of these frictional forces will cause the water to rotate, i.e. the water will
start to move, too. These frictional forces will continue to operate until
the bucket and the water are rotating at the same rate, i.e. until there is
no relative motion (no frictional forces) between the bucket and the water.
The surface of the water will become concave.
The “bucket argument”, in brief, then is as follows:
Premise 1: The shape of the water’s surface is dependent on some motion
that is either absolute or relative.
Observation: (A) and (C) represent situations where the bucket and the
water are rotating at the same rate, yet there is a difference in the shape
of the water’s surface. So, in both of these cases, the bucket and the water
have the same (i.e. no) relative motion, but the shape of the water’s surface
is different.
Therefore, the shape of the water’s surface is not dependent upon the
motion of the water relative to the bucket. However, it could be due to the
motion of the water relative to something else.
Premise 2: If the shape of the water’s surface was dependent upon some
relative motion between the water and a set of objects not in contact with
it such as the Earth or stars, then there must be action at a distance. For
Leibniz, relative motion must be motion relative to some other objects.
Premise 3: There is no action at a distance. This is the premise that
Mach will deny. However, Mach will be required to introduce something
else to explain the concave surface.
Therefore, the shape of the water’s surface is independent of relative
motion and, as such, it must be dependent on its absolute motion. Hence,
inertial effects, like those due to rotation, cannot be accounted for within a
relationalist framework.
Premise 4: Absolute motion is motion relative to absolute space. This
is the definition of absolute motion.
Therefore, absolute space exists. How else can we have absolute motion?
This argument is “inference to the best explanation” of some observa-
tion. That is, given the only choice between the relationalist and absolutist
view of space, we should choose the latter because the former can’t supply
an adequate explanation. Einstein said there is a third choice. Further-
more, notice that this is an argument for an absolute space and, as such, it
doesn’t tell us anything about what space is.
What is the problem? Is this not precisely what we would expect to
happen? Newton asked the simple question: why does the surface of the
water become concave? The easy answer – the surface becomes concave
1.5. DESCARTES AND NEWTON 33

because the water is spinning. But what does “spinning” mean? It certainly
doesn’t mean spinning relative to the bucket. After the bucket is released
and starts spinning, then the water is spinning relative to the bucket yet its
surface is flat. When friction between the water and the sides of the bucket
has the two spinning together with no relative motion between them, then
the water is concave. After the bucket stops and the water goes on spinning
relative to the bucket, then the surface of the water is concave. Certainly
the shape of the surface of the water is not determined by the spin of the
water relative to the bucket. Indeed, the water is not spinning relative to
the bucket in both a flat and a concave shape.
Newton then went a step further with a thought experiment. Try the
bucket experiment in empty space. He suggested a slightly different ver-
sion for this thought experiment. Tie two rocks together with a rope, he
suggested, and go into deep space far from the gravitation of the Earth or
the Sun. This cannot be physically done any more than it could be done
in 1689. Rotate the rope about its center and it will become taut as the
rocks pull outwards. The rocks will create an outward force pulling the
rope tight. If this is done in an empty universe, then what does a “rotating
system” mean? There is no coordinate system to measure rotation. Newton
deduced from this thought experiment that there had to be something to
measure relative rotation. That something had to be space itself. It was his
strongest argument for the idea of absolute space. I deny this experiment
can be done. Therefore, this thought experiment is meaningless.
Newton returned to his bucket experiment. “Spin”, he claimed, was spin
with respect to absolute space. When the water is not rotating with respect
to absolute space, then its surface is flat. When it spins with respect to
absolute space, its surface is concave. If the bucket is in a tree attached to
the Earth, the bucket is spinning with the Earth’s rotation and revolution,
at least. However, he wrote in the Principia:
“I do not define time, space, place, and motion, as they are well known
to all. Absolute space by its own nature, without reference to anything
external, always remains similar and unmovable.”
He was not happy with this as perhaps seen from other things he wrote:
“It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover and effectually to
distinguish the true motions of particular bodies from the apparent, because
the parts of that immovable space in which these motions are performed do
by no means come under the observations of our senses.”
34 CHAPTER 1. PROGENITORS

Leibniz, faced with “Newton’s bucket”, had no answer. He was forced

to admit:
“I grant there is a difference between absolute true motion of a body and
a mere relative change of its situation with respect to another body.”
The Leibniz-Clarke correspondence (debate) was a scientific, theological
and philosophical debate conducted by letters, between the German thinker
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and Samuel Clarke, an English supporter of Isaac
Newton between 1715 and 1716.
Clarke had three basic criticisms of Leibniz’s approach over Absolute
Space and Absolute Time.
(1) Clarke argued that, in Leibniz’s view, if the entire universe were
to be moved say, ten feet to the left of its present position then it would
be in the same place as it is now. But, Clarke argues, this is an ”express
contradiction” and, hence, the Leibnizian view is absurd. Why is such a
supposition contradictory? Presumably because if the entire universe were
first in position A and then moved 10 feet to the left to a new position
B, then A and B could not be the same place because they are 10 feet
apart. Leibniz had no problem in disposing of this objection. Clarke’s
point assumes that the notion of Absolute Space makes sense, and, hence,
that A and B are different. But, this is just what the Relationalist is
denying. Clarke’s point reduces to arguing that Leibniz is wrong because
he is wrong. Hardly telling. However, because this experiment cannot be
done, the thought experiment is flawed. This will later vex Einstein after
Special Relativity. He will note the move requires forces (acceleration and
deceleration). Too bad Leibniz didn’t see this.
(2) Clarke’s second argument is more telling and Leibniz’s answer is un-
satisfactory. Clarke asks, in effect, how Leibniz is prepared to deal with the
experimental evidence (i.e., the bucket experiment) which “proves” (Care-
ful, this is philosophy. Hypotheses are either rejected or not rejected.) that
there is a difference between absolute and merely relative motion and, hence,
by implication, between absolute and merely relative space and time. A
consistent relationalist would have to deny that the experimental result en-
ables the distinguishing between absolute and relative motion. Leibniz does
not take this tack. He agrees that there is a distinction between absolute
and relative motion but denies that this entails that there is a distinction
between absolute and relative space. Clarke professes that surely this is
untenable and he presses Leibniz for a fuller explanation. Unfortunately,
Leibniz died before he could formulate a satisfactory answer.
1.5. DESCARTES AND NEWTON 35

Leibniz’s position seems to be that absolute motions can be distin-

guished from purely relative motion by considering the causes (forces) that
act to set the bodies in motion. If A and B are moving in relation to one
another and if an impressed force on A set A in motion, then it is A (rather
than B) which is undergoing absolute motion. As far as the relative mo-
tions of A and B are concerned, there is no distinguishing them. When
we consider the forces acting on A and B, then, Leibniz suggest, absolute
motions can be distinguished from relative motions.
Leibniz is saying is that kinematically (motion in the abstract without
reference to the forces or mass that produces the motion) speaking, all
motions are purely relative (this is why current physics talks of “energy”
rather than forces such as “dark energy”). However, dynamically (treating
the action of forces to produce motion) speaking, some motions can be
distinguished from others.
Newton took this difference between kinematic and dynamic effects to be
evidence for the existence of Absolute Space. Leibniz, rather inconsistently,
agreed that the effects were different but arbitrarily denied that they had
the implications that Newton tried to draw from them. If Leibniz had been
a consistent relationalist he could have denied that consideration of forces
does make a difference, as Einstein would later do. He would have argued
that, dynamically speaking, the motions of A and B were indistinguishable
as well. He did not, however, make this move. It was left to Ernst Mach
in the late 1800’s to argue for the dynamical equivalence as well as the
kinematic equivalence of two observers in relative motion to one another.
(3) Clarke’s third basic criticism of Leibniz was also inadequately an-
swered by Leibniz in the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence. Leibniz had ar-
gued that space was a system of relations. Clarke urged that space had a
quantity (but not substance) as well (Democritus). Relations could have
no quantity and that, therefore, a theory that held space (or time) to be
merely relational could not be adequate. Leibniz responds by arguing that
a relation also has its quantity. Leibniz says:
“As for the objection that space and time are quantities, or rather things
endowed with quantity; and that situation and order are not so: I answer,
that order also has its quantity; there is in it, that which goes before, and
that which follows; there is distance or interval. Relative things have their
quantity as well as absolute ones. For instance, ratios or proportions in
mathematics, have their quantity, and are measured by logarithms; and yet
they are relations. And therefore though time and space consist in relations,
yet they have their quantity.”
36 CHAPTER 1. PROGENITORS

This is pretty obscure stuff and Clarke, perhaps, can be forgiven for
thinking that Leibniz was just evading the issue.
The basic problem is that specifying a given order of points (objects,
events) is not sufficient to determine a unique quantitative measure (length,
duration) for them. Leibniz tried to give some account of the metrical
properties of order in his 1715 paper:
“In each of both orders (time and space) we can speak of a propinquity or
remoteness of the elements according to whether fewer or more connecting
links are required to discern their mutual order. Two points, then, are nearer
to one another when the points between them and the structure arising out
of them with the utmost definiteness, present something relatively simpler.
Such a structure which unites the points between the two points is the
simplest, i.e., the shortest and also the most uniform, path from one to the
other; in this case, therefore, the straight line is the shortest one between
two neighboring points.”
There are two related difficulties with this approach. Both arise from
the idea that a metrical structure cannot be generated from a topological
structure alone. General relativity ascribes gravity to the topology or ge-
ometry of space but then spends considerable effort dealing with these two
difficulties. The first difficulty concerns Leibniz’s characterization of the
“nearness” relation. The second difficulty concerns his characterization of
“straightness”. The problem with nearness is this. Consider three points
A, B, and C. According to Leibniz, B is nearer to A than C in the case
where there are fewer points between A and B than their are between A
and C. Note “points” not extent that begs the issue of irrational numbers.
Intuitively, this seems right. However, our intuitions, as often as not, are
liable to lead us astray in an arena requiring prediction and measurement.
They do so here. We can talk about the number of intervening points be-
tween A and B or between A and C as being different only if we assume
that space itself is discrete. Our definition of a standard measure may not
measure the discrete distance. That is, if we assume that there are a definite
finite number of spatial positions between A and B and a greater number
between A and C. To find the distance between any two points A and B,
we find the smallest number of points linking A to B and use that count
as a natural measure. This is inconsistent with Democritus and the idea of
extent rather than number of points.
The straight line from A to B in Liebniz’s view is the shortest path in
terms of intervening connecting points that connects them. Thus, if space
1.5. DESCARTES AND NEWTON 37

or time were composed of discrete points or instants, then the definition of

measure by means of order might be possible.
However, there are two difficulties. The first is that the view that space
and time are discrete leads to paradoxical results. The second is that Leib-
niz’s own view was that space and time were continuous, that is, infinitely
divisible. The modern concept of continuity is a product of the 19th cen-
tury, 150 years after Leibniz’s work. But if space is infinitely divisible (or
worse, continuous in the modem sense), then the number of points between
any two points A and B is not finite and the natural method of counting
intervening links and, thereby, determining shortest paths, fails. The link
between the order structure of space and time and its metrical structure is
broken.
The task of defining metrical concepts and characterizing the metrical
structure of continuous space and time requires an additional account, not
derivable from considerations of order alone. Insofar as metrical concepts
cannot be derived from considerations of order alone, Leibniz’s account is
incomplete. This does not detract, however, from the insights of Leibniz
that are today part, in modified form, of the theories of relativity.
The problem that Newton was addressing with the absolute space con-
cept and the absolute time concept was the cause of the fictitious forces and
how to determine whether a mass is rotating. Newton was able to recognize
the fundamental issues and bring the observations together with the model.
Newton thought in terms of forces. Today, the language is energy. The
general theory of relativity restates the fictitious forces as acceleration of
one inertial frame relative to another. Fictitious forces (acceleration) are
considered “legitimate” forces in accelerated inertial frames. That is, the
laws describing the forces are invariant in all inertial frames.
Newton’s universe in the 17th and 18th centuries was derisively termed
“mechanical” or “clockwork”. This derives from the deterministic philoso-
phy (deism religion) inherent with Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics
suggests that if the initial position and the forces (or rate of change of the
initial positions) are known, then all future positions and motions may be
determined. The physics of that era was more metaphysical. Today, physics
seems more oriented to get the math consistent with the measurements.
Newton’s arguments in favor of absolute space were hardly challenged
for 200 years. One person to question Newton was George Berkeley (1685-
1753). He claimed that the water became concave not because it was ro-
tating with respect to absolute space but rather because it was rotating
with respect to the fixed stars. This appears to be an attempt to reconcile
38 CHAPTER 1. PROGENITORS

the divergent views. This did not convince many people. Carl Neumann in
1870 suggested a similar situation to the bucket when he imagined that the
whole universe consisted only of a single planet. He suggested: “Wouldn’t it
be shaped like an ellipsoid if it rotated and a sphere if at rest?” The first se-
rious challenge to Newton came from Ernst Mach, who rejected Neumann’s
test as inconclusive.
Newton had shown that celestial and terrestrial motions were in accor-
dance with a law of universal gravitation in which the attraction between
any two bodies in the universe depends only on their masses and (inversely)
on the square of the distance between them. This led to an attribution to
Newton of ideas that he abhorred. One was that because the gravitational
attraction is a function of the masses of bodies irrespective of any other
properties except their separation in space, this attraction arises simply
from the existence of matter. This materialist position was castigated by
Newton in a letter to Bentley in which he said:
“You sometimes speak of gravity as essential and inherent to matter.
Pray, do not ascribe that notion to me; for the cause of gravity is what I do
not pretend to know.”
In another letter to Bentley, he amplified his position:
“It is inconceivable, that inanimate brute matter should, without the
mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon and affect
other matter without mutual contact.”
Newton disliked “action at a distance” and non-contact force.
Cotes replied to Leibniz (although without mentioning his name) in the
preface he wrote to the second edition of the Principia “ . . . twere better
to neglect him.”. Cotes also discussed the general nature of gravitation
and forces acting at a distance. For this second edition, Newton wrote the
famous General Scholium to Book Three, in which he attacked the vortex
theory of Descartes, declared that the “ most beautiful system of the Sun,
planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an
intelligent and powerful Being,” and discussed the nature of God. Newton
concluded: “And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the
appearance of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy.” Newton
then addressed himself to the problem of what gravitation is and how it
might work, admitting that no assignment had been made of “the cause of
this power” whose action explains the phenomena of the heavens and the
tides of the seas. This is followed by the famous paragraph that reads:
1.5. DESCARTES AND NEWTON 39

“But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those prop-
erties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever
is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called an hypothesis; and hy-
potheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or
mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy ... . And to us it is
enough that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws which
we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of
the celestial bodies, and of our sea.”
The purpose of the General Scholium was apparently to prevent any mis-
understanding of Newton’s position such as had been made by Bentley and
Leibniz after reading the first edition of the Principia in which this General
Scholium did not appear. Yet the cautious wording prevented the reader
from gaining any insight into Newton’s changing views on this subject. Long
before the Principia, in a letter to Boyle written on 28 February 1678/9,
published in the mid-18th century, Newton speculated about the “cause of
gravity” and attempted to explain gravitational attraction by the operation
of an all-pervading “aether” consisting of “parts differing from one another
in subtlety by indefinite degrees”. Some hint, but not more, of Newton’s
later opinion concerning an aethereal “electric” spirit was contained in the
final paragraph of the above General Scholium, in which Newton wrote:
“And now we might add something concerning a certain most subtle
spirit which pervades and lies hid in all gross bodies; by the force and action
of which spirit the particles of bodies attract one another at near distances,
and cohere, if contiguous; and electric bodies operate to greater distances as
well repelling as attracting the neighboring corpuscles; and light is emitted,
reflected, refracted, inflected, and heats bodies; and all sensation is excited,
and the members of animal bodies move at the command of the will, namely,
by the vibrations of this spirit, mutually propagated along the solid filaments
of the nerves, from the outward organs of sense to the brain, and from the
brain into the muscles. But these are things that cannot be explained in
few words, nor are we furnished with that sufficiency of experiments which
is required to an accurate determination and demonstration of the laws by
which this electric and elastic spirit operates.”
Thus, the 18th century reader who had become convinced that the sys-
tem of Newton’s Principia accounted for the workings of the universe and
then would feel frustrated that Newton had not elucidated the topic of the
cause of gravity.
He refused to discuss the cause of gravitation, begging off with the
40 CHAPTER 1. PROGENITORS

phrase “Hypotheses non jingo”. He declared that needs to be known is

that gravity exists, that it follows the law of the inverse square, and that it
serves to describe the motions of the celestial bodies and the tides. Newton
concluded the General Scholium with the statement that he might discuss
the aether but refrained from doing so.
Newton’s book Opticks(Newton 1704), like any other scientific master-
piece, is a difficult book to view objectively because of the unique place of
its author in the history of science and because of the doctrine it contains.
Opticks remained out of print until about 1952 while the Principia(Newton
1687) was constantly being reprinted. One of the reasons for this neglect
was that the Opticks was out of harmony with the 19th century physics
ideas. The burden of this book was an exposition of the corpuscular theory
of light, even though it also contained many of the basic principles of the
wave theory. Also, Newton apparently had no difficulty in simultaneously
embracing features of two opposing theories. The problem in 19th century
physics was not that Newton embraced two models of the same phenomena
as is done in the modern Copenhagen Interpretation. Rather, by adopt-
ing a combination of the two theories at once, he had violated one of the
major canons of 19th century physics. Whenever there are two conflicting
theories, a crucial experiment must always decide in favor of one or the
other.
This situation is similar to that in mathematics during the 18th century,
when a blind adherence to the Newtonian method and a complete rejection
of the Leibnizian method seem to have deadened the sensibilities of British
mathematicians and to have produced an era of almost complete sterility
with regard to progress in the calculus. Science was, and maybe is, incapable
of adhering to the First Amendment principles of the U.S. Constitution,
which causes such sterility.
In a letter written in 1672 by Newton to Henry Oldenberg, Secretary of
the Royal Society, in response to an objection that had been raised to his
first publication on optics, Newton discussed the function of hypotheses at
length:
“For the best and safest method of philosophizing seems to be, first dili-
gently to investigate the properties of things and establish them by experi-
ment, and then to seek hypotheses to explain them. For hypotheses ought
to be fitted merely to explain the properties of things and not attempt to
predetermine them except in so far as they can be an aid to experiments.
If anyone offers conjectures about the truth of things from the mere possi-
bility of hypotheses, I do not see how anything certain can be determined
1.5. DESCARTES AND NEWTON 41

in any science; for it is always possible to contrive hypotheses, one after

another, which are found rich in new tribulations. Wherefore I judged that
one should abstain from considering hypotheses as from a fallacious argu-
ment, and that the force of their opposition must be removed, that one may
arrive at a maturer and more general explanation.”
This “hypothesis” precedes the Mach view of “hypothesis with some
justification”.
The first edition of the Opticks (1704) had 16 queries. The Latin edition
(1706) contained 7 new queries, which were revised to become Qu. 25-31
of the later English editions. There appeared in the second English edition
(1717/18) Queries 17-24 in which Newton discussed the nature of the aether.
Here he compared water waves produced by a stone to the vibrations excited
in the refracting or reflecting medium by particles of light (Qu. 17) and
proposed the theory that the vibrations so excited “overtake the Rays of
Light, and by overtaking them successively, put them into the fits of easy
Reflexion and easy Transmission . . . ”. He also suggested (1) that the aether
is a “much subtler Medium than Air”, (2) that its vibrations convey heat,
both radiant heat which may pass through a vacuum (blackbody radiation)
and the heat communicated by hot bodies “to contiguous cold ones” (Qu.
18) , and (3) that it is “more elastick and active” than air. This aether (Qu.
19, 20) is responsible for refraction and, because of its unequal density, also
produces “Inflexions of the Rays of Light” or diffraction of the sort recorded
by Grimaldi.
Newton indicated (Qu. 21) his belief that the variations in density of
the aether are the cause of gravitation; that the aether must be highly elas-
tic to support the enormous speed of light; and that the aether does not
(Qu. 22) interfere with the motions of planets and comets. He compared
the gravitational action of the aether to the action of electrified and mag-
netic bodies in attracting, respectively, “leaf Copper, or Leaf Gold, at . . . [a]
distance . . . from the electrick Body . . . . And . . . through a Plate of Glass
. . . to turn a magnetick Needle . . . .” The last of these new Queries (Qu. 23,
24) relate the vibrations of the aether to vision and hearing and to animal
motion.
One reason why the Opticks should enjoy a greater popularity among
experimenters than the Principia is plain. The Opticks was, in great part,
an account of experiments performed by Newton and the conclusions were
drawn by him from the experimental results by Proof By Anology. Newton
in the Principia described only two or three important experiments that
he actually had made and, for the rest, merely cited data obtained by
42 CHAPTER 1. PROGENITORS

contemporaries and predecessors and Proof By Axiom.

The first book of the Opticks deals with the reflection and refraction
of light, the formation of images, the production of spectra by prisms, the
properties of colored light and the composition of white light and its dis-
persion. Based on definitions and axioms, and embodying a wealth of ex-
perimental data, this first book had, according to Newton, the “Design not
to explain the Properties of Light by Hypotheses, but to propose and prove
them by Reason and Experiments.”. The second book, devoted largely to
the production of colors in what we would call interference phenomena, con-
tains no such declaration, and it is here that Newton introduces the notion
of “fits” of easy transmission and easy reflection, and kindred concepts not
derived by induction from experiments. Although Newton points out that:
“What kind of action or disposition this is; Whether it consists in a
circulating or a vibrating motion of the Ray, or of the Medium, or something
else, I do not here enquire.”. He adds:
“Those that are averse from assenting to any new Discoveries, but such
as they can explain by an Hypothesis, may for the present suppose, that as
Stones by falling upon Water put the Water into an undulating Motion, and
all Bodies by percussion excite vibrations in the Air; so the Rays of Light,
by impinging on any refracting or reflecting Surface, excite vibrations in the
refracting or reflecting Medium or Substance, and by exciting them agitate
the solid parts of the refracting; or reflecting Body, and by agitating them
cause the Body to grow warm or hot; that the vibrations thus excited... move
faster than the Rays so as to overtake them; and, by consequence, that every
Ray is successively disposed to be easily reflected, or easily transmitted, by
every vibration which overtakes it. But whether this Hypothesis be true
or false I do not here consider. I content myself with the bare Discovery,
that the rays of Light are by some cause or other alternately disposed to be
reflected or refracted for many vicissitudes.”
Newton’s experiments, described Book Two, provided conclusive evi-
dence that some kind of periodicity is associated with the several colors
into which he divided visible light. Such periodicity cannot be accounted
for by the mechanical action of similar corpuscles moving in straight lines.
Newton was, therefore, forced into the position of having to postulate some
kind of waves accompanying the corpuscles. These were the famous aether
waves. Newton had to account for the successive refraction and reflection
that he supposed must occur at the glass-air interfaces between a convex
and a flat optical surface when the interference rings are produced. He
1.5. DESCARTES AND NEWTON 43

suggested that the alternate “fits of easy reflection” and “fits of easy refrac-
tion” arise from the action of the aether waves that overtake the particles
of light and put them into one or the other state. “Overtake” means travel
faster than light. Newton’s measurements of the separation of these rings
and his computations of the thickness of the thin film of air between the
two glass surfaces were highly accurate.
The popular view of Newton’s speculations about light is that light has
a dual nature of particle and wave. Another interpretation is that Newton
suggested light is a particle that acts like a wave when in a stream. Newton’s
“corpuscle” could mean “a very small particle” or “the smallest particle”
such as Democritus’s atom. Color then becomes a result of the stream
rather than a characteristic of the corpuscle.
The second book thus admits hypotheses, although without any con-
sideration of their truth or falsity. The third (and last) book’s opening
section deals with Newton’s experiments on diffraction, followed by the
famous Queries in which Newton introduced a variety of “hypotheses”
(speculations)–not only on light, but on a great many subjects of physics
and philosophy. He seems to have emptied his mind of the conjectures he
had accumulated in a lifetime of scientific activity. “Hypotheses non fingo”
could not be applied to the Opticks. The progressively conjectural character
of this book makes it so interesting to read.
Because Newton devoted a considerable portion of the Opticks to the
cause of gravity, which was avoided in the Principia, we can understand
why the Opticks must have exerted so strong a fascination on men who
wanted to know the cause of gravity and the fundamental principle of the
universe. Indeed, in the 1717 edition of the Opticks Newton inserted an
“Advertisement” (printed below) explicitly declaring that he did “not take
Gravity for an Essential Property of Bodies”, and noting that among the
new Queries or Questions added to the new edition was “one Question
concerning its Cause”. Newton chose to propose it by way of a Question
because he was “not yet satisfied about it for want of experiments.”
Why did Newton reject the wave theory that others in the 19th cen-
tury tried to attribute to him in vain? The information is provided in the
Opticks itself. Foremost among the reasons why Newton insisted upon the
corpuscularity of light was the general atomism of the age; indeed, the very
hallmark of the “New Science” in the 17th century, among such men as
Bacon, Galileo, Boyle, and others, was a belief in atomism, in what Boyle
called the “corpuscular philosophy”. The traditional scholastic doctrine of
Newton’s time had placed light and the phenomena of colors in the category
44 CHAPTER 1. PROGENITORS

of “forms and qualities”. Men such as Newton opposed to this traditional

view and supported the explanation of the phenomena of nature in terms
of the mechanical action of atoms or of matter and motion. Summing up
the many reasons for a general belief in atoms in the final Query, Newton
wrote:
“All these things being consider’d, it seems probable to me, that God in
the Beginning form’d Matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, moveable
Particles, of such Sizes and Figures, and with such other Properties, and in
such Proportion to Space, as most conduced to the End for which He form’d
them . . . . Now by the help of these Principles, all material Things seem
to have been composed of the hard and solid Particles above mention’d,
variously associated in the first Creation by the Counsel of an intelligent
Agent. For it became Him who created them to set them in order. And if
He did so, it’s unphilosophical to seek for any other Origin of the World
. . . .”
That waves would spread out in all directions in any homogeneous
medium, rather than travel in straight lines as light is observed to do when
it produces a sharply defined shadow, was thought at the time. Thus, says
Newton (Qu. 29):
“Are not the Rays of Light very small Bodies emitted from shining Sub-
stances? For such Bodies will pass through uniform Mediums in right Lines
without bending into the Shadow, which is the Nature of the Rays of Light.
All these things being consider’d, it seems probable to me, that God in
the Beginning form’d Matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, moveable
Particles, of such Sizes and Figures, and with such other Properties, and in
such Proportion to Space, as most conduced to the End for which he form’d
them . . . .
Now by the help of these Principles, all material Things seem to have
been composed of the hard and solid Particles above mention’d, variously
associated in the first Creation by the Counsel of an intelligent Agent. For
it became Him who created them to set them in order. And if He did so,
it’s unphilosophical to seek for any other Origin of the World . . . .
Are not the Rays of Light very small Bodies emitted from shining sub-
stances? For such Bodies will pass through uniform Mediums in right Lines
without bending into the shadow, which is the nature of the Rays of Light.”
Furthermore, that material bodies moving in a straight line oblique to
a surface will be reflected so as to obey the law of reflection, i.e. that
1.5. DESCARTES AND NEWTON 45

the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection, had been well known
since classical antiquity. Refraction might easily be explained on the basis
of the corpuscular theory. The attraction exerted by the particles of glass
on the corpuscles of light incident upon the glass from air would produce
an increase in the glass surface normal component of the velocity of the
particles. Therefore, the result ia a bending toward the normal which is
observed to be the case (gravitational bending of light.)
Finally, the most brilliant of all the portions of Huygens’ Treatise on
Light provided Newton with an argument against Huygens’ theory. Huy-
gens had been able to account for the phenomenon of double refraction
in calcite, or Iceland spar, by two different wave forms by extending the
geometric construction of wave fronts from isotropic to anisotropic media.
Newton (Qu. 28) considered this to be an important weapon against Huy-
gens’ hypothesis. Newton grasped the salient aspect of Huygens’ investi-
gation that “the Rays of Light have different properties in their different
sides”. Newton quoted from the original French of Huygens to prove how
baffling this phenomenon was to the author of the wave theory himself;
plainly, “Pressions . . . propagated . . . through an uniform Medium, must be
on all sides alike.” That the undulations might be perpendicular to the di-
rection of propagation apparently never occurred to Huygens, who thought
in terms of a geometric scheme, nor to Newton. Eventually, Young and
Fresnel suggested that light waves must be transverse rather than longitu-
dinal. Then for the first time was it possible to explain the polarization of
light and the way in which light–to use Newton’s phrase–has “sides”. The
study of the interference of polarized beams of light in the 19th century
provided one of the chief arguments for the advocates of the wave theory.
But in Newton’s day and for a hundred years thereafter, the only way to
account for the “sides” of light was to suppose that the corpuscules were not
perfectly spherical and would present, therefore, different sides depending
on their orientation to the axis of motion.
Several of the quires in Newton’s Opticks remain questions. Some may
still prove insightful and prophetic.
Pierre-Simon Laplace (France)(1749 - 1827) was from a family that was
comfortably well off in the cider trade (some texts claim he was from a poor
farmer family). He was a brilliant mathematician. He was not modest about
his abilities. This attitude didn’t improve his relations with his colleagues.
He established his reputation in difference equations, differential equations,
probability, and celestial mechanics. He wrote a masterpiece on the stability
of the solar system. He presented the “nebular hypothesis” in 1796 that
46 CHAPTER 1. PROGENITORS

viewed the solar system as originating from the contracting and cooling of a
large, flattened, and slowly rotating cloud in incandescent (hot) gas. He set
up the differential equations and solved them for the motion of solids and
fluids that also may obey the inverse square law and applied them to the
centers of gravity of bodies in the solar system and to tidal forces, which are
important in general relativity. The famous Laplace equation is ∇2 u = a
constant, where u is the potential (GM/r) and ∇u ~ = Force. The derivation
of this is to consider the gravitational force as conservative (the work done
in moving without friction from one point to another is independent of the
path taken - Principle of Minimum Action).
Laplace noted that Force ∝ −(1/r 2 ) + Λr is a solution of his generalized
inverse square law equation. The Λ (Greek upper case lambda) is now
known as the cosmological constant. The addition of this to Newton’s
equation provides a repulsive component to gravitation that could hold
the finite universe from collapse and cause accelerated expansion of the
universe. He proposed a philosophy of physics that the phenomena of nature
can be reduced to actions at a distance between molecules and that the
consideration of these actions must serve as the basis of the mathematical
theory of these phenomena. Laplace supported the corpuscular theory of
light. The application of the Laplace equation to fluid motion is also part
of the consideration of the universe in some current cosmological models as
a fluid or gas.
Einstein also added the Λ in general relativity to create a “static” uni-
verse rather than a changing universe. The discovery in 1998 of the accel-
erating universe suggested the need for a Λ in the equations.
Huygens principle is a method of analysis applied to problems of wave
propagation. It suggests that each point of an advancing wave front is the
center of a fresh disturbance and the source of a new train of waves; and
that the advancing wave as a whole may be regarded as the sum of all the
secondary waves arising from points in the medium already traversed.
Chapter 2

The big: Relativity and

cosmology

Ernst Mach’s (Austrian 1838-1916) early work focused on the Doppler ef-
fect. He studied interference, diffraction, polarization, and refraction of
light in different media and supersonic velocity. Mach held that scientific
laws are summaries of experimental events, constructed for the purpose of
human comprehension of complex and copious data. Mach opposed the
atomic theory of physics because atoms were, at the time, too small to ob-
serve directly. At the time, the atomic hypothesis (from Democritus not
Aristotle) seemed to be unwarranted by experimental observation. That
is, he stressed experimental observation rather than elegant, metaphysical
theories. Mach supported “logical positivism” that holds that philosophy
should aspire to the same sort of rigor as science (empiricism). Philosophy
should provide strict criteria for judging sentences true, false, or meaning-
less. Statements are meaningful only insofar as they are verifiable, and
statements can be verified in only two ways: empirical statements that are
verified by experiment and statements that are taken as postulates.
Mach was aware of three measurements that supported a relationalist
view: That the Earth is an oblate spheroid, with a radius at the equator
(3,958.89 miles) greater than the radius at the poles (3,949.99 miles). The
measurement of gravity was less at the poles than at the equator.
Leon Foucault (1819-1868) in 1851 was made famous when he devised an
experiment with a pendulum that demonstrated the rotation of the Earth.
Inside the dome of the Pantheon of Paris he suspended an iron ball approx-
imately 1 foot in diameter from a wire more than 200 feet long. The ball
could easily swing back and forth more than 12 feet. Just under it he built
47
48 CHAPTER 2. THE BIG: RELATIVITY AND COSMOLOGY

a circular ring on which he placed a ridge of sand. A pin attached to the

ball would scrape sand away each time the ball passed. The ball was drawn
to the side and held in place by a cord until it was absolutely still. The
cord was burned to start the pendulum swinging in a perfect plane. The
bob of the Foucault pendulum oscillates in a vertical plane, which slowly
rotates around the vertical axis in a clockwise fashion. The plane of oscilla-
tion makes a complete round in (sin lat )-1 days, where lat is the latitude of
the place of the pendulum. While our clocks are set by an average 24-hour
day for the passage of the Sun from noon to noon, the Earth rotates on its
axis in 23 hours 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds (sidereal time) relative to the
distant galaxies. From our perspective on Earth, it appears that the entire
universe circles us in the sidereal day.
However, Mach wrote in 1872 in “History and Root of the Principle of
the Conservation of Energy”:
If we think of the Earth at rest and the other celestial bodies revolving
around it, there is no flattening of the Earth . . . at least according to our
usual concept of the law of inertia. Now one can solve the difficulty in
two ways; either all motion is absolute, or our law of inertia is wrongly
expressed . . . I [prefer] the second. The law of inertia must be so conceived
that exactly the same thing results from the second supposition as from the
first.
Mach wrote in 1883 on Newton’s bucket:
Newton’s experiment with the rotating water bucket teaches us only that
the rotation of water relative to the bucket walls does not stir any notice-
able centrifugal forces; these are prompted, however, by its rotation relative
to the mass of the Earth and the other celestial bodies. Nobody can say
how the experiment would turn out, both quantitatively and qualitatively, if
the bucket walls became increasingly thicker and more massive eventually
several miles thick.
Mach argued that Newton dismissed relative motion too readily. Ro-
tation of the water relative to all the matter in the universe should be
considered rather than rotation of the water relative to the bucket. If the
matter in the universe wasn’t there and all that there was in the universe
was the bucket and water, then the surface of the water would never become
concave. He disagreed with Newton’s thought experiment of two rocks tied
together in completely empty space. If the experiment were carried out in
a universe with no matter other than the rocks and the rope, then the con-
clusion from Mach’s idea is that the rope would never become taut because
rotation was meaningless. Because this experiment cannot be performed,
 49

the test of whether Mach or Newton is right is impossible to perform and

the discussion is irrelevant.
After 1905, Einstein made important contributions to quantum theory,
but he sought to extend the Special Theory of Relativity to phenomena in-
volving acceleration. The key appeared in 1907 with the Principle of Equiv-
alence, in which gravitational acceleration was held to be indistinguishable
from acceleration caused by mechanical forces–by–contact. Gravitational
mass was, therefore, identical with inertial mass rather than merely equal,
which is similar to Liebniz’s Principle of Identity of indiscernibles.
That Einstein accepted Mach’s Principle is commonly thought. Einstein
first accepted Mach’s postulate, then later dropped it. The definition of
“rest mass” became a problem for Relativity.
After Einstein introduced the Special theory of Relativity in June 1905
the concept of absolute space was no longer tenable. This theory dealt with
only constant velocity motion. Newton’s bucket involved circular motion.
Acceleration and the Special theory did not apply. What about the two
rocks joined by a rope in a universe without any other matter? Here Ein-
stein’s Special theory would tend to support Newton rather than Mach, in
other words the rope would go taut when the system rotated. But how can
rotation mean anything once the notion of absolute space has been cast
aside? The Special theory of Relativity still has absolutes. Absolute space-
time is a feature of Special Relativity that, contrary to popular belief, does
not claim that everything is relative. Although velocities, distances, and
duration intervals are relative, the theory still sits on a postulated absolute
spacetime. Observers in Special Relativity moving at constant velocities
relative to each other would not agree on the velocity of a bucket moving
through space, nor would they agree about the duration that has elapsed
in the bucket experiment. They would all agree on whether the bucket was
accelerating or not.
The attempts of Lorentz, Poincaré, and others to formulate a theory of
gravitation were superseded by Einstein’s theory of General Relativity. This
theory is based on principles like the Equivalence Principle, the General
principle of Relativity, the principle of General covariance, geodesic motion,
local Lorentz covariance (the laws of Special Relativity apply locally for all
inertial observers), and that spacetime curvature is created by stress–energy
within spacetime.
Einstein in 1920 compared Lorentz’s ether with the “gravitational ether”
of General Relativity. He said that immobility is the only mechanical prop-
erty of which the ether has not been deprived by Lorentz. Contrary to the
50 CHAPTER 2. THE BIG: RELATIVITY AND COSMOLOGY

luminiferous and Lorentz’s ether, the ether of General Relativity has no

mechanical property, not even immobility:
“The ether of the General theory of Relativity is a medium which is itself
devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine
mechanical (and electromagnetic) events. What is fundamentally new in the
ether of the General theory of Relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz
consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by
connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places,
which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations; whereas
the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields
is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same. The
ether of the General theory of Relativity is transmuted conceptually into the
ether of Lorentz if we substitute constants for the functions of space which
describe the former, disregarding the causes which condition its state. Thus
we may also say, I think, that the ether of the General theory of Relativity
is the outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through relativization.
Modern usage refers to this ether as “space”. This usage causes some
confusion. Consequently, this book will use the term “gravitational ether”
rather than the popular term “space”. The term “space” in this book is
reserved for an imposed measuring system that serves a mathematical tool
to measure distance.
After this, Einstein began working on the theory of General Relativity
that incorporated acceleration and gravity. His theory was published in
1915. Even before this, however, he claimed that his theory would make
Mach’s view of Newton’s bucket correct. He did so in a letter that he
wrote to Mach in 1913 in which he told Mach that his view of “Newton’s
bucket was correct and agreed with General Relativity”. Einstein even in-
cluded “Mach’s principle” into General Relativity. The theory is based on
the equivalence of gravity and acceleration, which has been checked exper-
imentally today to a high degree of accuracy. Einstein came to understand
General Relativity does not say that Newton’s two rock thought experiment
in an empty universe agrees with Mach. Rather it still comes down on the
side of Newton and the rope will become taut as the system spins. Why
should that be? A universe with no matter has no gravity. Hence, General
Relativity reduces to Special Relativity and now all observers (if there were
any) agree when the rock system is spinning (i.e. accelerating). Again this
is a meaningless thought experiment.
Einstein with the help of his mathematician friend Marcel Grossmann
began a new phase of his gravitational research in 1912. He expressed his
 51

work in terms of the tensor calculus of Tullio Levi-Civita and Gregorio

Ricci-Curbastro.
After a number of false starts Einstein published in 1915, the defini-
tive version of his General Relativity. A week before Einstein completed
his work Hilbert submitted for publication a paper that contains the now
accepted field equations of General Relativity.
When British solar eclipse expeditions in 1919 confirmed his predictions,
the popular press idolized Einstein.
Joseph Lense and Hans Thirring obtained approximate solutions of the
equations of General Relativity for rotating bodies in 1918. Their results
show that a massive rotating body drags spacetime round with it. This is
now called “frame dragging” or the “Lense–Thirring effect”. Dieter Brill
and Jeffrey Cohen in 1966 showed that frame dragging should occur in a
hollow sphere. Further progress in 1985 by H. Pfister and K. Braun showed
that sufficient centrifugal forces would be induced at the center of the hollow
massive sphere to cause water to form a concave surface in a bucket that
is not rotating with respect to the distant stars. Here at last was a form of
the symmetry that Mach was seeking.
Frame dragging has recently been (maybe) verified experimentally. This
involved using the rotating Earth as the massive body and putting a satellite
into orbit with a gyroscope which kept it pointing in a fixed direction.
Although the Earth has only a tiny frame dragging effect, an extremely
small precession of the gyroscope was detected that was caused by frame
dragging1 . However, the frame dragging for Newton’s Bucket requires a
massive body such as a black hole.
Gravity Probe B is a space born experiment that detected the frame
dragging and the geodetic effects predicted by General Relativity (Everitt
et al. 2011).
Edmund Halley puts forth an early form of Olbers’ paradox in 1720.
Erasmus Darwin pens the first description of a cyclical expanding and con-
tracting universe in 1791. Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers puts forth Olbers’ para-
dox in 1826. If the universe is assumed to be infinite containing an infinite
number of uniformly distributed luminous stars, then every line of sight
should terminate eventually on the surface of a star. The brightness of a
surface is independent of its distance, so every point in the sky should be
as bright as the surface of a star. One solution is to consider the universe is
not transparent contrary to current thought. Edgar Allan Poe in 1848 offers
1A report of the experiment is at the NASA web-site
http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast06nov97 1.htm.
52 CHAPTER 2. THE BIG: RELATIVITY AND COSMOLOGY

the first solution to gain the most scientific consensus in an essay that also
suggests the expansion and collapse of the universe. Given the finite speed
of light, the light from the most distant star cannot have traveled a further
distance. Alternatively, if the universe is expanding and distant stars are
receding from us as claimed by the Big Bang theory, then their light is red
shifted which diminishes their brightness in the visible band. According to
the Big Bang theory, both are working together; the finiteness of time is
the more important effect. Some see the darkness of the night sky to be
evidence in support of the Big Bang theory.
The finite age of the universe (in its present form) may be established by
a mathematical evaluation of hydrogen. Assume that the amount of mass
in stars divided by the total amount of mass in the universe is nonzero.
After some length of time, any given star will convert too much hydrogen
into helium (or heavier elements) to continue nuclear fusion. From this we
conclude that in unit time, the amount of hydrogen converted into helium
by a given star divided by the star’s mass is nonzero. Combining this with
the earlier statement, we conclude that the amount of hydrogen converted
into helium by stars as a whole divided by the mass of the universe is
nonzero. There is no known process that can return heavier elements to
hydrogen in the necessary quantities, and any would probably violate the
second law of thermodynamics. Postulating such a process in a necessary
task for a TOE without a Big Bang.
Therefore, the amount of time needed for stars to convert all of the hy-
drogen in the universe into helium is finite, and it will never change back.
After this, only heavier-element–burning stars will exist. These will die
when they hit iron, an event known as the heat death of the universe. This
hasn’t happened yet. Therefore, the universe is of finite age, it has under-
gone major changes in its history, or there exists some highly exotic process
that produces hydrogen to keep it going. Current popular cosmology sug-
gests no direct evidence exists for this process. However, the evidence may
exist but is being misinterpreted.
Recent satellite studies have found the cosmic microwave background
radiation is isotropic to 1 part in 10000.
All reference frames that move with constant velocity and in a constant
direction with respect to any inertial frame of reference are members of
the group of inertial reference frames. Special Relativity has several conse-
quences that struck many people as bizarre, among which are:
(1) The time lapse between two events is not invariant from one observer to
another, but is dependent on the relative speeds of the observers’ reference
 53

frames.
(2) Two events that occur simultaneously in different places in one frame
of reference may occur at different times in another frame of reference (lack
of absolute simultaneity).
(3) The dimensions (e.g. length) of an object as measured by one observer
may differ from the results of measurements of the same object made by
another observer.
(4) The twin paradox (similar to Clock paradox) concerns a twin who flies
off in a spaceship traveling near the speed of light. When he returns, he
discovers that his twin has aged much more rapidly than he has (or he aged
more slowly). The ladder paradox involves a long ladder traveling near the
speed of light and being contained within a smaller garage.
Special Relativity rejects the idea of any absolute (“unique” or “Spe-
cial”) frame of reference. Rather physics must look the same to all observers
traveling at a constant relative velocity (inertial frame). This “principle of
Relativity” dates back to Galileo and is incorporated into Newtonian physics
with the idea of “invarient”.
There are a couple of equivalent ways to define momentum and energy
in Special Relativity. One method uses conservation laws. If these laws are
to remain valid in Special Relativity they must be true in every possible
reference frame. However, simple thought experiments using the Newtonian
definitions of momentum and energy shows that these quantities are not
conserved in Special Relativity. Some small modifications to the definitions
to account for relativistic velocities can rescue the idea of conservation. It
is these new definitions that are taken as the correct ones for momentum
and energy in Special Relativity. Given an object of invariant mass m
traveling at velocity v the energy and momentum are given by E = γmc2
and p = γmv where γ = [(1 − v 2 /c2 )−0.5 ] is the Lorentz factor.
“Rest mass” must be an invariant. This presents profound problems
where every frame is moving or accelerating relative to every other frame.
The Newtonian inertial frame is one in which the bulk of the matter is at
rest relative to “absolute space”. However, Einstein’s ideas came in conflict
with Mach’s idea of the inertia of a particle that depends on the existence
of other matter. Einstein initially accepted Mach’s view, but dropped it
because of the rest mass issue.
The four-momentum of a particle is defined as the particle’s mass times
the particle’s four-velocity. Four-momentum in Special Relativity is a four–
vector that replaces classical momentum. The conservation of the four-
momentum yields three laws of “classical” conservation:
54 CHAPTER 2. THE BIG: RELATIVITY AND COSMOLOGY

The energy is conserved.

The classical momentum is conserved.
The four-momentum is conserved.

Reactions between an isolated particles conserve four-momentum. The

mass of a system of particles in Special Relativity may be more than the
sum of the particle’s masses, because kinetic energy counts as mass.
“Minkowski spacetime” is the spacetime where a freefalling observer ex-
periences no gravitational effects with the exception of non-uniform gravity
such as tidal forces and around a black hole. Minkowski spacetime is very
close to Newtonian dynamics. A notion of distance between spacetime
points (a “metric”) is a feature of many spaces in physics. However, there
are many cases were a metric does not exist. For example, there is no phys-
ical meaning to the distance between points in the plot of particle masses
versus charge. The existence of a metric in spacetime has been deduced as a
consequence of Special Relativity and the Equivalence Principle. Minkowski
spacetime is a Special case. If a coordinate transformation matrix (4X4)
is symmetric, then there exists a coordinate transformation that makes the
matrix diagonal and the diagonal coordinates are physical realities.
Albert Einstein introduces the equivalence of gravitation and inertia and
uses it to predict the “gravitational redshift” in 1907. Note this statement
refers to forces rather than masses. The “gravitational time dilation” is
the effect that clocks in a gravitational field tick slower when observed by
a distant observer. The term refers to the shift of wavelength of light to
longer wavelength when observed from a point in a lower gravitational field.
The clock is the frequency of the light and a lower frequency is the same as
a longer (redder) wavelength. This is redshift by means other than Doppler
(velocity) effects. The gravitational redshift is very small unless the masses
are very large and is only a redshift.
The gravitational redshift is a simple consequence of the Einstein Weak
Equivalence Principle (“all bodies fall with the same acceleration, indepen-
dent of their composition”) and was found by Einstein eight years before
the full theory.
The Mossbauer effect, a physical phenomenon discovered by Rudolf
Mossbauer in 1957, refers to the resonant and recoil–free emission and ab-
sorption of gamma rays by atoms bound in a solid form. Gamma rays are
produced by nuclear transitions from an unstable high–energy state to a
stable low–energy state. The energy of the emitted gamma ray corresponds
to the energy of the nuclear transition minus an amount of energy that is
 55

lost as recoil to the emitting atom. If the lost recoil energy is small com-
pared with the energy linewidth of the nuclear transition, then the gamma
ray energy still corresponds to the energy of the nuclear transition and a
second atom of the same type as the first can absorb the gamma ray. This
emission and subsequent absorption is called resonance. Additional recoil
energy is also lost during absorption. For resonance to occur, the recoil
energy must actually be less than half the linewidth for the corresponding
nuclear transition.
Experimental verification of the gravitational redshift requires good
clocks because at the Earth’s surface the effect is small. The first experimen-
tal confirmation came as late as in 1960, in the Pound-Rebka experiment
(Pound & Rebka 1960) later improved by Pound and Snider. The famous
experiment is Generally called the Pound-Rebka-Snider experiment. Their
“clock” was an atomic transition that results in a very narrow line of elec-
tromagnetic radiation. A narrow line implies a very well defined frequency.
The line is in the gamma ray range and emitted from the isotope Fe57 at
14.4 keV. The Mossbauer effect causes the narrowness of the line. The emit-
ter and absorber were placed in a tower of only 22 meters height between
the bottom and top. The observed redshift was obtained within 1% of the
prediction. Nowadays the accuracy is measured up to 0.02%.
This redshift may be deduced from the Weak Equivalence Principle by
noting the frequency of the wave model of light is a number of wavelengths
per unit of duration. Because the transmitting frequency differs from the
received frequency, the units of duration (time) must differ. The differ-
ing gravitational potential is equivalent to a Doppler shift of acceleration
(velocity at each point).
The redshift can also be deduced from the photon model of light. The
redshift is proportional to the difference in gravitational potential energy
(gd) where g is the gravitational acceleration of the Earth, and d = 22
m. The gain or loss of energy of a photon is equal to the difference in
potential energy (gd). The Pound-Rebka experiment reversed the emitter
and detector and measured a blueshift. This redshift is not the redshift
derived from General Relativity and the strong Equivalence Principle. A
perpetual motion machine can’t be made by having photons going up and
down in a gravitational field, something that was possible within Newton’s
theory of gravity.
There is a hidden assumption in models of the Pound-Rebka experiment.
Textbook thought experiments of gravitational redshift and gravitational
time dilation describe a room with a clock on the ceiling. “Photons” are
56 CHAPTER 2. THE BIG: RELATIVITY AND COSMOLOGY

emitted from the ceiling to the floor. The “photons” are viewed as small,
solid balls. The measurement is the distance between similar balls. The
energy measured by the number of balls passing a point or impinging on
the floor per unit duration. Because the speed of the balls is constant
in Special Relativity, the energy transfer is by ball spacing. This is like
measuring the distance between wave peaks and, therefore, corresponds to
the wavelength model. This model is falsified by the intensity relationship
in diffraction experiments and in the photoelectric effect.
The other possible model is that “photons” are variable. The energy
measured by the energy contained in one photon times the number that
pass a point per unit duration. Therefore, each photon absorbs gd units of
energy.
Photons emitted from a stellar surface on a star and observed on Earth
are expected to have a gravitational redshift equal to the difference in grav-
itational potential in addition to the Doppler redshift. Each spectral line
should be gravitationally shifted towards the red end of the spectrum by a
little over one millionth of its original wavelength for a star with the mass
of the Sun. This effect was measured for the first time on the Sun in 1962.
Observation of much more massive and compact stars such as white dwarfs
have shown that gravitational shift does occur and is within the correct
order of magnitude. Recently also the gravitational redshift of a neutron
star has been measured from spectral lines in the x-ray range. The result
gives the mass and radius of the neutron star. If the mass is obtained by
other means (for example from the motion of the neutron star around a
companion star), then the radius of a neutron star can be measured.
The gravitational redshift increases without limit around a black hole
when an object approaches the event horizon of the black hole. A black
hole can be defined as a massive compact object surrounded by an area at
which the redshift as observed from a large distance is infinitely large.
When a star is imploding to form a black hole, the star is never observed
passing the Schwarzschild radius. As the star approaches this radius it will
appear increasingly redder and dimmer in a very short time. Such a star
in the past was called a frozen star instead of a black hole. However, in
a very short time the collapsing star emits its last photon and the object
thereafter is black. The terminology black hole is preferred above frozen
star.
The gravitational redshift z for a spherical mass M with radius R is
 57

given by:
2GM −0.5
 
1+z = 1− 2 , (2.1)
cR
where G is the gravitational constant. This formula reduces to the one
used at Earth for a gravitational acceleration g = GM/R2 and a difference
in gravitational potential between R and R + d for small d. For radius
approaching 2GM/c2 , the redshift z → inf. The quantity 2GM/c2 is called
the Schwarzschild radius.
Corrections for gravitational redshift are common practice in many situ-
ations. With present–day accuracies, clocks in orbit around the Earth must
be corrected for this effect. This is the case with satellite–based navigational
systems such as the Global Positioning System (GPS). To get accuracies
of order 10 m, light travel times with an accuracy of order 30 ns (nanosec-
onds) have to be measured. Special relativistic time dilatation (caused by
the velocity) and gravitational redshift corrections in these satellites are of
order 30 000 ns per day.
Therefore, we can assert with confidence that the predictions of Rela-
tivity are confirmed to high accuracy over time periods of many days. New
corrections for epoch offset and rate for each clock are determined anew
typically once each day. These corrections differ by a few ns and a few
ns/day, respectively, from similar corrections for other days in the same
week. At much later times, unpredictable errors in the clocks build up with
time squared, so comparisons with predictions become increasingly uncer-
tain unless these empirical corrections are used. However, within each day,
the clock corrections remain stable to within about 1 ns in epoch and 1
ns/day in rate.
The “time dilation” is said to be found in type SN1a supernova with
large z (Blondin et al. 2008). The spectral aging rates were found to be a
function of 1 + z that falsifies models that fail to predict “time dilation”.
The Strong Equivalence Principle takes this a stage further and asserts
that not only is the spacetime as in Special Relativity, but all the laws of
physics take the same form in the freely falling frame as they would in the
absence of gravity. A physical interaction behaves in a local, inertial frame
as if gravity were absent. Gravity is in the geometry of the gravitational
ether. This form of the Strong Equivalence Principle is crucial in that it
will allow us to deduce the Generally valid laws governing physics once the
Special–relativistic forms are known. Note however that it is less easy to
design experiments that can test the Strong Equivalence Principle
In non–inertial frames there is a perceived force that is accounted for by
58 CHAPTER 2. THE BIG: RELATIVITY AND COSMOLOGY

the acceleration of the frame, not by the direct influence of other matter.
Thus, we feel acceleration when cornering on the roads when we use a car
as the physical base of our reference frame. Similarly there are coriolis and
centrifugal forces when we define reference frames based on rotating matter
such as the Earth or Newton’ Bucket. The coriolis and centrifugal forces in
Newtonian mechanics are regarded as non–physical forces arising from the
use of a rotating reference frame. General Relativity has no way, locally,
to define these “forces” as distinct from those arising through the use of
any non–inertial reference frame. The Strong Principle of Equivalence in
General Relativity states that there is no local experiment to distinguish
non–rotating free fall in a gravitational field from uniform motion in the
absence of a gravitational field. There is no gravity in a reference frame
in free fall. The observed gravity at the surface of the Earth from this
perspective is the force observed in a reference frame defined from matter
at the surface, which is not free. The matter within the Earth acts on the
surface matter from below. The action is analogous to the acceleration felt
in a car.
Einstein used an observation that was known since the time of Galileo
that the inertial and gravitational masses of an object happen to be the
same. He used this as the basis for the Strong Equivalence Principle, which
describes the effects of gravitation and acceleration as different perspectives
of the same thing (at least locally), and which he stated in 1907 as:
“We shall therefore assume the complete physical equivalence of a grav-
itational field and the corresponding acceleration of the reference frame.
This assumption extends the principle of Relativity to the case of uniformly
accelerated motion of the reference frame.”
That is, he postulated that no experiment could locally distinguish be-
tween a uniform gravitational field and uniform acceleration. The meaning
of the Strong Equivalence Principle has gradually broadened to include the
concept that no physical measurement within a given unaccelerated refer-
ence system can determine its state of motion. This implies that it is impos-
sible to measure and, therefore, virtually meaningless to discuss changes in
fundamental physical constants such as the rest masses or electrical charges
of elementary particles in different states of relative motion. Any measured
change would represent either experimental error or a demonstration that
the theory of Relativity was wrong or incomplete.
The Strong Equivalence Principle implies that some frames of reference
must obey a non–Euclidean geometry, that matter and energy curve space-
time, and that gravity can be seen purely as a result of this geometry. This
 59

yields many predictions such as gravitational redshifts and light bending

around stars, black holes, time slowed by gravitational fields, and slightly
modified laws of gravitation even in weak gravitational fields. However, it
should be noted that the Strong Equivalence Principle does not uniquely
determine the field equations of curved spacetime and there is a parameter
known as the cosmological constant, which can be adjusted.
That we have actually returned to something like the Newtonian view-
point is not really so. Rather, the important aspects of gravitation are not
so much to do with first–order effects as second–order tidal forces. Tidal
forces cannot be transformed away and are the true signature of gravitating
mass. However, to say that gravity is not a real force is certainly true in
one sense. The gravitational acceleration is not derived from a 4–force and
transforms differently.
The stationary observer’s perspective corresponds to the local proper
time. Every infinitesimal region of spacetime may have its own proper
time that corresponds to the gravitational time dilation there. Because
electromagnetic radiation and matter are made of the same essence as shown
in many tests involving the equation E = mc2 , they may be equally affected
is such regions. A time delay is measured for signals that bend near the
Sun, headed towards Venus, and bounce back to Earth along more or less
a similar path. There is no violation of the speed of light in this sense, as
long as an observer is forced to observe only the photons that intercept the
observing faculties and not the ones that pass.
The Gravitation Redshift and Gravitation Time Dilation are often mis-
takenly confused as the same effect. The Weak Equivalence Principle, which
is similar to Newton’s equivalence principle, implies the photons moving in
a uniform gravitation field gain or loose energy that results in a blueshift
or redshift of light. The Strong Equivalence Principle is used to derive
the gravitational time dilation effect. The time dilation effect is that the
gravitation field changes the light or wave timing. The difference between
emitting field and receiving field causes the time dilation not the moving in
a gravitation field. The calculated effect of the time dilation effect is several
(5+) orders of magnitude smaller than the gravitation redshift of the Weak
equivalence Principle. Although the Strong Equivalence Principle is at the
heart of General Relativity, it has NOT been confirmed by experimental
evidence.
Not all gravitational fields are “curved” or “spherical”. Some are flat
such as an accelerating dragster or space shuttle. Any kind of g–load con-
tributes to gravitational time dilation.
60 CHAPTER 2. THE BIG: RELATIVITY AND COSMOLOGY

The first clear example of time dilation was provided over fifty years
ago by an experiment detecting muons. These particles are produced at the
outer edge of our atmosphere by incoming cosmic rays hitting the first traces
of air. They are unstable particles, with a “half-life” of 1.5 microseconds
and are constantly being produced many miles up. There is a constant rain
of them towards the surface of the Earth, moving at very close to the speed
of light. A detector placed near the top of Mount Washington (at 6000
feet above sea level) in 1941 measured about 570 muons per hour coming
in. These muons are dying as they fall. If the detector is moved to a
lower altitude, fewer muons should be detected because a fraction of those
that came down past the 6000 foot level will die before they get to a lower
altitude detector. They should reach the 4500 foot level 1.5 microseconds
after passing the 6000 foot level. If half of them die off in 1.5 microseconds,
as claimed above, we should only expect to register about 570/2 = 285
per hour with the same detector at this level. Only about 35 per hour are
expected to survive down to sea level. When the detector was brought down
to sea level, it detected about 400 per hour! The reason they didn’t decay
is that in their frame of reference, much less time had passed. Their actual
speed is about 0.994c, corresponding to a time dilation factor of about 9.
From the top of Mount Washington to sea level in the 6 microsecond trip,
their clocks register only 6/9 = 0.67 microseconds. Only about 428 per
hour of them are expected at sea level.
What does this look like from the muon’s point of view? How do they
manage to get so far in so little time? Mount Washington and the Earth’s
surface are approaching at 0.994c, or about 1,000 feet per microsecond.
But in the 0.67 seconds it takes them to get to sea level, it would seem
that to them sea level could only get 670 feet closer. How could they travel
the whole 6000 feet from the top of Mount Washington? The answer is the
Fitzgerald contraction–to them Mount Washington is squashed in a vertical
direction (the direction of motion) by a factor of (1 − V 2 /c2 )−0.5 , the same
as the time dilation factor, which for the muons is 9. So, to the muons,
Mount Washington is only 670 feet high. This is why they can get down it
so fast.
The twin paradox is a thought experiment in Special Relativity, in which
a twin makes a journey into space in a high–speed rocket and returns home
to find he has aged less than his identical twin that stayed on Earth. This
result appears puzzling because each twin sees the other twin as travel-
ing, and so, according to a naive application of time dilation, each should
paradoxically find the other to have aged more slowly. The result is not a
 61

paradox in the true sense, because it can be resolved within the standard
framework of Special and General Relativity. The effect has been verified
experimentally using measurements of precise clocks flown in airplanes and
satellites.
Starting with Paul Langevin in 1911, there have been numerous ex-
planations of this paradox, many based upon there being no contradiction
because there is no symmetry. Because only one twin has undergone accel-
eration and deceleration, the two cases differ. One version of the asymmetry
argument made by Max von Laue in 1913 is that the traveling twin uses
two inertial frames, one on the way up and the other on the way down. So
switching frames is the cause of the difference, not acceleration.
Other explanations account for the effects of acceleration. Einstein,
Born, and Möller invoked gravitational time dilation to explain the aging
based upon the effects of acceleration. Both gravitational time dilation and
Special Relativity can be used to explain the Hafele-Keating experiment on
time dilation using precise measurements of clocks flown in airplanes.
A hidden assumption is that physical clocks measure time. A clock is a
physical device that is supposed to reflect a constant duration between ticks.
That is, the model of how a clock works is vital to the data interpretation.
All processes (chemical, biological, measuring apparatus functioning,
human perception involving the eye and brain, the communication of force,
etc.) are constrained by the speed of light. There is clock functioning at
every level, dependent on light speed and the inherent delay at even the
atomic level. Thus, we speak of the “twin paradox”, involving biological
aging. It is in no way different from clock time keeping.
For example, consider a pendulum clock. Upon the airplane’s takeoff,
the acceleration may hold the pendulum to one side and thus slow the ticks.
The same happens upon landing. At the higher altitude, the pendulum
swings more slowly. The workings of a cesium or atomic clock are unknown.
That is, the cause of the level decay is unknown. Perhaps acceleration of
the atom causes decay rates to change.
Albert Einstein publishes the General Theory of Relativity in 1915,
showing that an energy density warps spacetime. Mass is a form of energy
density. Einstein noted the twin in the twin paradox must undergo an ac-
celeration to return. General Relativity or General Relativity Theory is a
fundamental physical theory of gravitation that corrects and extends New-
tonian gravitation, eSpecially at the macroscopic level of stars or planets.
General Relativity may be regarded as an extension of Special Relativity.
Special Relativity may be regarded as an extension Newtonian mechanics
62 CHAPTER 2. THE BIG: RELATIVITY AND COSMOLOGY

at high velocities. General Relativity has a unique role amongst physical

theories in the sense that it interprets the gravitational field as a geometric
phenomenon. More specifically, it assumes that any object possessing mass
curves the “space” in which it exists. This use of the term “space” may be
regarded as Einstein’s ether. The curvature of Einstein’s ether is equated to
gravity. It deals with the motion of bodies in such “curved spaces” and has
survived every experimental test performed on it since its formulation by
Albert Einstein in 1915. This is a proponent’s view and should be regarded
with a huge grain of salt.
General Relativity forms the basis for modern studies in fields such as as-
tronomy, cosmology and astrophysics. Its predictions include the perihelion
motion of planets (classical physics cannot fully account for the perihelion
shift of Mercury) and the bending of starlight by the Sun (again, classical
physics can only account for half the experimentally observed bending).
It also predicts phenomena such as the existence of gravitational waves
(unproven), black holes, the expansion of the universe, and the cosmic mi-
crowave background. It was adjusted for the accelerated expansion of the
universe. There exist many phenomena that are not consistent with Gen-
eral Relativity. Einstein himself initially believed that the universe cannot
be expanding, but experimental observations of distant galaxies by Edwin
Hubble finally forced Einstein to concede.
Observers making measurements in reference frames describe physical
phenomena. These reference frames in General Relativity are arbitrarily
moving relative to each other. Consider two such reference frames, for
example, one situated on Earth (the “Earth-frame”), and another in orbit
around the Earth (the “orbit-frame”). An observer (O) in the orbit-frame
will feel weightless as they fall towards the Earth. O’s motion in Newtonian
gravitation is explained by the action-at-a-distance formulation of gravity,
where it is assumed that a force between the Earth and O causes O to move
around the Earth. General Relativity views the situation in a different
manner by demonstrating that the Earth modifies (“warps”) the geometry
in its vicinity.
A straight line or geodesic has the properties of “straightness” that is
defined by “as we move along the line the direction remains the same”,
by “shortest distance”, and by “shortest travel time”. The first postulate
of Special Relativity the path of light between two points will mark the
shortest travel time. Therefore, in four–spacetime the path of light define
the geodesics. Because light bends around mass, the geodesics bend around
mass. Further, gravity is identified with the geometry of four-spacetime. O
 63

moves along straight lines in four–spacetime unless an accelerative force

in this geometry (e.g. rockets) is applied. More precisely, the presence
of matter and energy determines the geometry of spacetime, the physical
arena in which all events take place. This is a profound innovation in
physics. All other physical theories assume the structure of the spacetime
in advance. It is important to note that a given matter distribution will
fix the spacetime. There are a few caveats: (1) The spacetime within
which the matter is distributed cannot be properly defined without the
matter, so most solutions require Special assumptions, such as symmetries,
to allow the relativist to concoct a candidate spacetime, then see where
the matter must lie, then require its properties be “reasonable”, and so on.
(2) Initial and boundary conditions can also be a problem. Gravitational
waves may violate the idea of the spacetime being fixed. The motion of the
observer O in orbit is like a ping–pong ball being forced to follow the dent
or depression created in a trampoline by a relatively massive object. The
matter determines the geometry of the gravitational ether. The relatively
light ping–pong ball causes no significant change in the local geometry. (3)
The Strong Equivalence Principle is required. Thus, General Relativity
provides a simpler and more natural description of gravity than Newton’s
action-at-a–distance formulation.
An oft–quoted analogy used in visualizing spacetime curvature is to
imagine a universe of one–dimensional beings living in one dimension of
gravitational ether and one dimension of time. Each piece of matter is not
a point on any imaginable curved surface, but a world line showing where
that point moves as it goes from the past to the future. The precise means
of calculating the geometry of spacetime given the matter distribution is
encapsulated in Einstein’s field equation.
The Covariance Principle states that all coordinate systems are equiva-
lent for the formulation of the General laws of nature. Mathematically, this
suggests that the laws of physics should be tensor equations.
General Relativity’s mathematical foundations go back to the axioms of
Euclidean geometry. Many attempts have been made over the centuries to
prove Euclid’s fifth postulate, that parallel lines remain always equidistant.
Lobachevsky, Bolyai, and Gauss realized that this postulate need not be
true. It is an eternal monument to Euclid’s genius that he classified this
principle as a postulate and not as an axiom. Gauss’ student, Riemann,
developed the General mathematics of non–Euclidean geometries. These
were thought to be mostly inapplicable to the real world until Einstein
developed his theory of Relativity. The existing applications were restricted
64 CHAPTER 2. THE BIG: RELATIVITY AND COSMOLOGY

to the geometry of curved surfaces in Euclidean space and to the mechanics

of deformable bodies. While such applications seem trivial compared to
the calculations in the four dimensional spacetime of General Relativity,
they provided a minimal development and test environment for some of the
equations.
Gauss had realized that there is no a priori reason for the geometry of
the gravitational ether to be Euclidean. This means that if a physicist holds
up a stick, and a cartographer stands some distance away and measures its
length by a triangulation technique based on Euclidean geometry, then he
is not guaranteed to get the same answer as if the physicist brings the
stick to him and he measures its length directly. He could not in practice
measure the difference between the two measurements. However, there
are equivalent measurements that do detect the non–Euclidean geometry
of spacetime directly according to General Relativity such as the Pound-
Rebka experiment and the rate the atomic clocks in GPS satellites orbiting
the Earth have to be corrected for the effect of gravity.
Newton’s theory of gravity had assumed that objects had absolute ve-
locities: that some things really were at rest while others really were in
motion. He realized that these absolutes could not be measured. All the
laws of mechanics would appear to operate identically no matter how iner-
tial frames were moving. Newton believed, however, that the theory could
be made sensible by presupposing that there are absolute values.
Like any good scientific theory, General Relativity makes predictions
that can be tested. The predictions of General Relativity include the peri-
helion shift of Mercury’s orbit, the bending of starlight by a massive object
(Sun and gravitational lensing), and the existence of gravitational waves.
The first two of these tests were predicted by Newtonian mechanics. How-
ever, General Relativity calculated effects twice as large as Newtonian me-
chanics. The General Relativity calculation has been verified to a high
degree of accuracy and precision. Most researchers believe in the existence
of gravitational waves, but more experiments are needed to raise this pre-
diction to the status of the other two.
Other predictions include the expansion of the universe, the existence
of black holes, and possibly the existence of wormholes. The existence
of black holes is Generally accepted, but the existence of wormholes is still
very controversial. Many researchers believe that wormholes may exist only
in the presence of exotic matter. The existence of white holes (postulated
celestial body that spews out matter, in other words an anti-black hole,
or the time reversal of a black hole) is very speculative, as they appear to
 65

contradict the second law of thermodynamics.

Many other quantitative predictions of General Relativity have since
been confirmed by astronomical observations. One of the most recent, the
discovery in 2003 of PSR J0737-3039, a binary neutron star in which one
component is a pulsar and where the perihelion advances 16.88 degree per
year (or about 140,000 times faster than the precession of Mercury’s peri-
helion), enabled the most precise experimental verification yet of the effects
predicted by General Relativity.
There are good theoretical reasons for considering General Relativity
to be incomplete. General Relativity does not include quantum mechanics,
and this causes the theory to break down at sufficiently high energies. A
continuing unsolved challenge of modern physics is the question of how to
correctly combine General Relativity with quantum mechanics, thus apply-
ing it also to the smallest scales of time and space.
The field equations of General Relativity are a set of nonlinear partial
differential equations for the metric. This distinguishes the field equations
of General Relativity from some of the other important field equations in
physics such as Maxwell’s equations (which are linear in the electric and
magnetic fields) and Schrödinger’s equation (which is linear in the wave-
function).
Willem de Sitter (1872 - 1934) in 1913 produced an argument based on
double star systems that proved that the velocity of light was independent
of the velocity of the source. Einstein and de Sitter published in 1932 a
joint paper proposing the Einstein–de Sitter model of the universe. They
argued for an expanding universe, which de Sitter always held, and that
there might be large amounts of matter that does not emit light and has
not been detected. This is thought to be a reference to what is now called
“dark matter”. However, it could also refer as dust detectable by X-rays
in the 1990’s. He derives an isotropic static cosmology with a cosmological
constant as well as an empty expanding cosmology with a cosmological
constant, termed a de Sitter universe. A de Sitter universe is one with no
ordinary matter content but with a positive cosmological constant, which
sets the expansion rate. A larger cosmological constant leads to a larger
expansion rate.
Our universe may be approaching a de Sitter universe in the infinite
future. If the current acceleration of our universe is due to a cosmolog-
ical constant then as the universe continues to expand all of the matter
and radiation will be diluted. Eventually there will be nothing left but
the cosmological constant, and our universe will have become a de Sitter
66 CHAPTER 2. THE BIG: RELATIVITY AND COSMOLOGY

universe.
The exponential expansion of the scale factor means that the physi-
cal distance between any two non-accelerating observers will eventually be
growing faster than the speed of light. At this point those two observers
will no longer be able to make contact. Therefore any observer in a de
Sitter universe would see horizons beyond which that observer cannot see.
If our universe is approaching a de Sitter universe then eventually we will
not be able to observe any galaxies other than our own Milky Way.
Another application of de Sitter gravitational aether is in the early uni-
verse during cosmic inflation. Many inflationary models are approximately
a de Sitter gravitational aether and can be modeled by giving the Hub-
ble parameter a mild time dependence. For simplicity, some calculations
involving inflation in the early universe can be performed in a de Sitter grav-
itational aether rather than a more realistic inflationary universe. By using
the de Sitter universe instead, where the expansion is truly exponential,
there are many simplifications.
Harlow Shapley demonstrates in 1918 that globular clusters are arranged
in a spheroid or halo whose center is not the Earth. He decides that its
center is the center of the galaxy.
Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis in 1920 debate whether or not the spi-
ral nebulae lie within the Milky Way. Edwin Hubble resolves the Shapely-
Curtis debate in 1923 by finding Cepheids in Andromeda.
Vesto Slipher in 1922 summarizes his findings on the spiral nebulae’s
systematic redshift. Howard Percy Robertson in 1928 briefly mentions that
Vesto Slipher’s redshift measurements combined with brightness measure-
ments of the same galaxies indicate a redshift–distance relation. Edwin
Hubble in 1929 demonstrates the linear redshift-distance relation and thus
shows the expansion of the universe V = cz = Ho D where V is the receding
velocity, Ho is Hubble’s constant. This is Hubble’s Law. However, the as-
sumption of Hubble’s Law is that the redshift is caused by the Doppler shift.
The redshift could be caused by another mechanism. The nebulae thought
to be in the Milky Way’s halo are much further away and the universe is
much larger.
Spiral and elliptical galaxies differ significantly. The great majority of
elliptical galaxies are observed to be much poorer in cool gas and hydrogen
than spiral galaxies of comparable luminosity. The bulk of the interstellar
matter (ISM) in spiral galaxies is hydrogen. The bulk of the ISM in ellip-
tical galaxies consists of hot plasma distributed approximately spherically
rather than in a thin disk. A characteristic of elliptical galaxies not found
 67

in spiral galaxies is that the X-ray surface brightness is nearly proportional

to the optical surface brightness. The study of dust lanes suggests that gas
and dust are infalling in elliptical and lenticular galaxies and are formed in-
ternally in spiral galaxies. Some evidence has been presented that suggests
irregular galaxies will settle down to being a normal elliptical galaxy. The
outer rotation curve in low surface brightness (LSB) spiral galaxies Gener-
ally rises. “Ordinary” elliptical galaxies in contrast show a nearly Keplerian
decline with radius outside 2Reff , where Reff is the galaxy’s “effective radius”
enclosing half its projected light.
Aleksander Aleksandrovich Friedmann (1888 - 1925) was a fervent or-
thodox catholic. His father was a ballet dancer. He flew bombing missions
in WW1. The expanding universe and General Relativity suggested to him
creation of the universe by God, although he formulated only the first three
words of the Bible. His solution in 1922 to the General Relativity equa-
tions suggested a changing radius to the size of the universe and a General
expansion of gravitational ether.
Father Georges Henri Joseph Éduard Lemaı́tre (1894 - 1966) was a Bel-
gian Roman Catholic priest, honorary prelate, professor of physics and as-
tronomer. Fr. (later Msgr.) Lemaı́tre proposed what became known as
the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, although he called it
his ’hypothesis of the primeval atom’. Lemaı́tre was the first to propose
that the expansion explains the redshift of galaxies He was a pioneer in ap-
plying Einstein’s theory of General Relativity to cosmology: suggesting a
pre-cursor of Hubble’s law in 1927, and publishing his primeval atom theory
in the pages of Nature in 1931. At the time Einstein believed in an eter-
nal universe and had previously expressed his skepticism about Lemaı́tre’s
original 1927 paper. Lemaı́tre made the expanding universe theory famous
with his widely read papers and media appeal.
Lemaı́tre also proposed the theory at an opportune time because Ed-
win Hubble would soon release his velocity–distance relation that strongly
supported an expanding universe and, consequently, the Big Bang theory.
Lemaı́tre derived what became known as Hubble’s Law in his 1927 paper,
two years before Hubble.
Both Friedman and Lemaı́tre had found that the universe must be ex-
panding. Lemaı́tre went further than Friedman. He concluded that an
initial “creation–like” event must have occurred. This is the Big Bang the-
ory as we know it today and this is why he is credited with its discovery.
Einstein at first dismissed Friedman and Lemaı́tre out of hand, saying
that not all mathematics leads to correct theories. After Hubble’s discovery
68 CHAPTER 2. THE BIG: RELATIVITY AND COSMOLOGY

was published, Einstein quickly and publicly endorsed Lemaı́tre’s theory,

helping both theory and priest to get fast recognition.
Newton’s Euclidean universe was filled with gravitating matter. If the
universe were without limit or infinite, it would collapse. Therefore, each bit
of matter must have zero net force. Therefore, Newton’s Euclidean universe
must be homogeneous and isotropic. Homogeneity precludes pressure gra-
dients. A local inhomogeneity causes gravitational contraction to augment
the local inhomogeneity. Newton’s universe is too finely balanced. This
was viewed as inconsistent with Hubble’s observations. The mathematical
answer of infinity or zero for a physical parameter is only a mathematical
convenience. A physical infinity like a physical singularity is rejected by
current physics.
The Friedmann- Lemaı́tre -Robertson -Walker (FLRW) metric describes
a homogeneous, isotropic expanding/contracting universe. This is the Cos-
mological Principle. Depending on geographical/historical preferences, this
may be referred to under the names of a preferred subset of the four sci-
entists Friedmann, Lemaı́tre, Robertson, and Walker (FLRW), Friedmann-
Robertson- Walker (FRW) or Robertson-Walker (RW).
The FLRW metric is used as a first approximation for the standard
big bang cosmological model of the universe. Because the FLRW assumes
homogeneity, some popular accounts mistakenly assert that the big bang
model cannot account for the observed lumpiness of the universe. Because
it is simple to calculate, the FLRW is used as a first approximation for the
evolution of the universe. The lumpiness in the universe is added to FLRW
as extensions. The theoretical implications of the various extensions to
FLRW appear to be well understood. The goal is to make these consistent
with observations from COBE and WMAP.
The solution to the FLRW metric for a fluid with constant density and
pressure is given by the Friedmann equations. Most cosmologists agree that
the observable universe is well approximated by an almost FLRW model.
That is, a model that follows the FLRW metric apart from primordial
density fluctuations. There are no clusters of galaxies, stars, or people
in a strictly FLRW model, because these are objects much denser than a
typical part of the universe.
The Newtonian model has the gravitational potential proportional to
r −1 where r is the distance from the center of a mass. The problem is as
r → 0 implies an unlimited potential, a singularity. The FLRW metric
avoids this calculating problem by considering densities and pressures over
a sufficiently large volume.
 69

Edward Milne in 1933 names and formalizes the Cosmological Principle

that is on large scales, the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic.
Georges Lemaı́tre in 1934 interprets the cosmological constant as caused
by a vacuum energy with an unusual perfect fluid equation of state. Quan-
tum field theory considers the vacuum ground state not to be completely
empty, but to consist of a seething mass of virtual particles and fields.
Because these fields do not have a permanent existence, they are called
vacuum fluctuations. Two metal plates can cause a change in the vacuum
energy density between them that generates a measurable force. This is
called the Casimir effect. Some believe that vacuum energy might be the
“dark energy” or quintessence. Quintessence in physics is a hypothetical
form of energy postulated to exist as a possible explanation of observations
of an accelerating universe that is suggested by SN1a data. Quintessence
in alchemy, meaning “fifth element”, was another term for ether. It is the
substance of which the heavenly bodies were supposed to be composed.
Vacuum energy is associated with the cosmological constant in General
Relativity and thought to be similar to a negative force of gravity. But
this raises the question of why the cosmological constant is many orders of
magnitude smaller than even the electroweak scale (much less Planck scale
[1.6 × 10−35 m]). If the cosmological constant is so small, why is it not
zero? Observations that the expanding Universe appears to be accelerating
seem to support the cosmic inflation theory first proposed by Alan Guth
(1981) - in which the nascent universe passed through a phase of exponential
expansion driven by a negative vacuum energy density (positive vacuum
pressure).
Fritz Zwicky in 1937 states that galaxies could act as gravitational lenses
Paul Dirac in 1938 presents a cosmological theory in which the gravitational
constant decreases slowly so that the age of the universe divided by the
atomic light–crossing time always equals the ratio of the electric force to
the gravitational force between a proton and electron. Paul Dirac in 1937
observed the Large Numbers Hypothesis that relates ratios of size scales in
the universe to that of force scales. The constants in equations are exper-
imentally determined and some have significance in framing basic physical
laws. Because these numbers depend on the units of measure, these num-
bers themselves seem to have no absolute significance. However, certain
combinations of these physical constants have no units of measure. For
example, the fine structure constant α ≡ 2πe2 /hc = 7.29735 × 10−3 , where
e is the charge of the electron. Therefore, it expresses some physical fact
of absolute significance. Another is e2 /Gmp me = 2.3 × 1039 , where G is
70 CHAPTER 2. THE BIG: RELATIVITY AND COSMOLOGY

the gravitation constant and mp and me are the mass of the proton and
electron, respectively.
If any one of the constants changes over time or over distance, then at
least one other should change, also. The G is the constant of interest to
cosmologists. Measurements by Bahcall and Schmidt in 1967, by Roberts
in 1977, and others show α appears to not change over time. These mea-
surements were on an extragalactic scale (z ∼ 0.2). Modified Newtonian
Dynamics (MOND) suggests variation in the acceleration of Newton’s equa-
tions over galactic scale distances. If these ratios were constant over time,
distance, or other parameter, the connection between gravity and quantum
mechanics would be unmistakable and must be a part of a TOE.
Some scientists believe that the hypothesis is the result of a numero-
logical coincidence. Robert Dicke in 1961 argues that carbon-based life
can only arise when the Dirac large numbers hypothesis is true lest fusion
of hydrogen in stars and the creation of carbon would not occur. This is
the first use of the Weak Anthropic Principle. A few proponents of non-
standard cosmologies refer to Dirac’s cosmology as a foundational basis for
their ideas.
The Brans-Dicke theory and the Rosen bi-metric theory are modifica-
tions of General Relativity and cannot be ruled out by current experiments.
The Brans-Dicke theory introduces a long–range scalar field ϕ that acts as
a modifier to the gravitational constant. Specifically, the effective gravita-
tional constant is proportional to 1/ϕ. Thus, the gravitational “constant”
is a function of spacetime, specifically the totality of mass–energy in the
universe. The theory is characterized by a parameter, ω, called the Dicke
coupling constant, which describes the coupling between mass-energy and
the scalar field. ω is assumed to be a fundamental constant throughout
spacetime in the basic version of the theory. General Relativity is recov-
ered in the limit that ω tends to infinity.
The constancy of G is one of the basis of General Relativity and the
current standard cosmology. The variation of G (|Ġ/G|) has been tested.
Shapiro and his colleagues bounced radar signals off the inner planets. Com-
bined with other data from the Moon and outer planets gave |Ġ/G| ≈ 10−10
per year. Pulsar data indicate an upper limit of |Ġ/G| ≈ 10−12 per year.
Values of this order may rule out Brans-Dicke cosmology and imply a high
value of ω. van Flandern examined Earth-Moon-Sun motion using atomic
clocks and ephemeris time and found |Ġ/G| ≈ 10−10 per year Viking lan-
ders, Mariner 9, and radar bouncing from Mercury and Venus, and lunar
laser ranging, optical position measurements of the Sun and planets showed
 71

that |Ġ/G| ≈ 10−12 per year.

Nucleosynthesis is the process of creating new atomic nuclei either by
nuclear fusion or nuclear fission. One of the fundamental problems of astro-
physics is the problem of the origin of chemical elements. A cosmological
model must show the formation of hydrogen, the rest is astrophysics and
nuclear physics. However, this leaves the problem of the formation of the
other elements, rather important ones like carbon, oxygen, iron, and gold.
As it turns out, elements can be fabricated in a variety of astrophysical sites.
Most of these sites have been identified, isotope by isotope. The principal
modes of nucleosynthesis, along with isotopic abundances, for naturally–
occurring isotopes have been tabulated. There are a number of astrophysi-
cal processes that are believed to be responsible for nucleosynthesis in the
universe. Nucleosynthesis is one of the more notable triumphs of theoret-
ical astrophysics. The model is convincing because the steps of elemental
development are duplicated in Earth–born experiments.
The Big Bang model is praised for being consistent with nucleosynthesis
of elements. However, this does not “prove” the Big Bang model. Because
the Big Bang model posits a very high, initial temperature, elements such as
hydrogen, helium, and some lithium would have been formed just moments
after the Big Bang (Alpher et al. 1948). Big Bang nucleosynthesis occurred
within the first three minutes of the universe and is responsible for most
of the helium-4 and deuterium in the universe. Because of the very short
period in which Big Bang nucleosynthesis occurred, no elements heavier
than lithium could be formed. The predicted abundance of deuterium,
helium and lithium depends on the density of ordinary matter in the early
universe. The yield of helium is relatively insensitive to the abundance of
ordinary matter above a certain threshold. We generically expect about
24% of the ordinary matter in the universe to be helium produced in the
Big Bang. This is in very good agreement with observations and is another
major triumph for the Big Bang theory.
Stellar nucleosynthesis is believed to create many of the heavier elements
between lithium and iron. Particularly important is carbon. One important
process is the s-process that involves the slow absorption of neutrons.
Supernova nucleosynthesis produces most of the elements heavier than
iron (iron peak and r-process elements). Supernovae are also the most fa-
vored candidate of r-process which are elements produced by rapid absorp-
tion of neutrons, although there are still some major unanswered questions
about this.
Cosmic ray spallation (partial fragmentation) produces some lighter el-
72 CHAPTER 2. THE BIG: RELATIVITY AND COSMOLOGY

ements such as lithium and boron. This process was discovered somewhat
by accident. There was great interest in the 1970s in processes that could
generate deuterium. Cosmic ray spallation was suggested as a possible pro-
cess. However, that spallation could not generate much deuterium was later
found. However, it could generate much lithium and boron.
Fred Hoyle and Jayant Narlikar in 1963 show that the cosmological
Steady State Theory can explain the isotropy of the universe because de-
viations from isotropy and homogeneity exponentially decay in time. The
Steady State Theory provides for hydrogen creation between galaxies fol-
lowed by infall into galaxies.
George Gamow in 1948 predicts the existence of the Cosmic Microwave
Background radiation by considering the behavior of primordial radiation
in an expanding universe. Arno Penzias, Robert Wilson, and astronomers
at Bell Labs Bernie Burke, Robert Dicke, and James Peebles discover mi-
crowave radiation from all directions in the sky. This has been named the
“Cosmic Microwave Background” radiation in 1965.
Brandon Carter in 1968 speculates that perhaps the fundamental con-
stants of nature must lie within a restricted range to allow the emergence
of life. This is the first use of the Strong Anthropic Principle.
Robert Dicke in 1969 formally presents the Big Bang flatness problem.
Data in 2000 from several cosmic microwave background experiments give
strong evidence that the Universe is “flat” (space–time is not curved), with
important implications for the formation of large–scale structure. The flat-
ness problem is a cosmological problem with the Big Bang theory, which is
solved by hypothesizing an inflationary universe.
Charles Misner formally presents the Big Bang horizon problem in 1969.
The horizon problem is a problem with the standard cosmological model
of the Big Bang, which was identified in the 1970s. Because information
can travel no faster than the speed of light, there is a limit to the region of
gravitational ether that is in causal contact with any particular point in the
universe. The extent of this region is a function of how long the universe
has existed. Two entities are said to be in causal contact if there may be
an event that has affected both in a causal way. The particle horizon in
cosmology is the distance from which particles of positive mass or of zero
mass can have traveled to the observer in the age of the Universe. The Big
Bang model suggests the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation comes
from 15 billion light years away. When the light was emitted, the universe
was 300,000 years old. Light would not have been able to contact points
across the universe because their spheres of causality do not overlap. So
 73

why are they at the same temperature?

According to the Big Bang model, the recombining plasma that de-
coupled from the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation we currently
observe was about 1088 times the size of any causally connected region at
that time. Problematically, the near uniformity observed in the Cosmic
Microwave Background radiation suggests that this was not the case and
that the entire plasma was causally connected.
Inflationary theory allows for a solution to the problem along with sev-
eral others such as the flatness problem by positing a short 10−32 second
period of exponential expansion (dubbed inflation) within the first minute
or so of the history of the universe. During inflation, the universe would
have increased in size by an enormous factor. Large enough to account
for the observed isotropy of today’s particle horizon looking back to the
time the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. Before inflation, the
universe is causally connected and doesn’t come back into causal contact
until a much later time.
One consequence of cosmic inflation is that the anisotropies in the Big
Bang are reduced but not entirely eliminated. Differences in the tempera-
ture of the cosmic background are smoothed by cosmic inflation, but they
still exist. The theory predicts a spectrum for the anisotropies in the mi-
crowave background that is consistent with observations from WMAP and
COBE.
The gravity field created by the matter within the expanding universe
will tend to slow down its expansion. If there is enough matter, the ex-
pansion will eventually stop, and the universe will contract, returning to a
singularity at a hypothetical big crunch. If there is not enough matter, the
universe will simply expand forever. The critical density at which the ex-
pansion rate of the universe will tend asymptotically towards zero is about
10−29 grams per cubic centimeter. The ratio of the actual density of the
universe to this value is known as Ω. Currently, observations indicate that
Ω is between 0.98 and 1.06. The universe’s density is very close to or ex-
actly the critical value. An Ω in the very early universe only slightly above
1 would have resulted in a very rapid big crunch. If Ω is only very slightly
below one, the universe would have expanded so fast that stars and galaxies
could not have formed. The fact that approximately 14 billion years after
its formation, the universe still has an Ω so close to unity indicates that Ω
must have been within one part in 1015 of unity when the universe formed.
The problem is that a simple Big Bang theory cannot explain how Ω
so close to unity could arise. The problem is solved by the hypothesis
74 CHAPTER 2. THE BIG: RELATIVITY AND COSMOLOGY

of an inflationary universe, in which very shortly after the Big Bang, the
universe increased in size by an enormous factor. Such inflation would have
smoothed out any non–flatness originally present and resulted in a universe
with a density extremely close to the critical density.
Fritz Zwicky in 1933 applies the virial theorem to the Coma cluster and
obtains evidence for unseen mass. He dubbed this “Dark Matter” meaning
matter that did not reflect, refract, emit, or absorb light. The missing mass
was identified in 1997 as baryonic dust by X-ray observation.
Jeremiah Ostriker and James Peebles in 1973 discover that the amount
of visible matter in the disks of typical spiral galaxies is not enough for
Newtonian gravitation to keep the disks from flying apart or drastically
changing shape. The Dark Matter hypothesis and MOND model attempt
to reconcile this discrepancy.
Edward Tryon proposes in 1973 that the universe may be a large–scale
quantum mechanical vacuum fluctuation where positive mass–energy is bal-
anced by negative gravitational potential energy.
Sandra Faber and Robert Jackson in 1976 discover the Faber–Jackson
relation between the luminosity of an elliptical galaxy and the velocity dis-
persion in its center.
R. Brent Tully and Richard Fisher in 1977 publish the Tully–Fisher
relation between the luminosity of an isolated normal spiral galaxy and the
velocity of the flat part of its rotation curve. The Tully-Fisher relation
implies a tight relation between visible matter and absolute magnitude.
That there may be other matter (dark matter) in a galaxy is inconsistent
with this relation.
The discrepancy between the Newtonian estimated mass in galaxies and
galaxy clusters and the observation of star and gas kinematics is well estab-
lished. Vera Rubin, Kent Ford, N. Thonnard, and Albert Bosma in 1978
measure the rotation curves of several spiral galaxies. They find significant
deviations from what is predicted by the Newtonian gravitation of visible
stars. This discovery of what is known as “flat rotation curves” is the most
direct and robust evidence of dark matter.
The rotation velocity v (km s−1 ) of a particle in the plane of a spiral
galaxy (hereinafter galaxy) reflects the forces acting on the particle. An
explanation of v 2 as a function of radius r (kpc) from the center of a galaxy
(RC) requires a knowledge of galaxy dynamics and an explanation of radi-
cally differing slopes. The v and, thus, the RC is measured along the major
axis. Although v is non-relativistic, the result of calculations using RC
models are used in cosmological calculations. Thus, the RC is an excellent
 75

tool to evaluate galaxy models. Further, a complete explanation of the RC

must also explain black holes and observations of the center of galaxies.
Battaner and Florido (2000) and Sofue et al. (1999) provides an
overview of the current state of knowledge of RC’s in the outer bulge and
disk regions of galaxies. The particles most often measured in the disk
region of a galaxy are hydrogen gas by HI observation and stars by observing
the Hα line. The particles being measured in the inner bulge region are
stars by observation of the Hα , CO, and other spectral lines. Also, the RC
differs for different particles. For example, although the HI and Hα RCs for
NGC4321 (Sempere et al. 1995) in Fig. 8.4 differ in the outer bulge, they
approach each other in the outer disk region. Most models of RC monitor
the HI in the outer bulge and disk regions and ignore the differing Hα
RC. Also, when drawing the HI RC, a straight line is often drawn through
the center. This practice is inconsistent with stellar observations (Schödel
2002).
The observation of rising RCs in the outer bulge and rising, flat, or
declining RC’s in the disk region of galaxies poses a perplexing problem. If
most of the matter of a galaxy is in the bulge region, classical Newtonian
mechanics predicts a Keplerian declining RC in the disk.
Currently, a convention on how to calculate error (e.g. random or sys-
tematic) in RCs is lacking in the literature. One popular method is based
on the assumption of symmetry. This practice of averaging the v of the
approaching and receding sides of the RC is ignoring important informa-
tion (Conselice et al. 2000). Asymmetry appears to be the norm rather
than the exception (Jog 2002). The RC of all nearby galaxies for which
the kinematics have been studied have asymmetry (Jog 2002). At larger
distance, objects appear to become more symmetric as they become less
well resolved (HI resolution is typically 15 arcsec to 50 arcsec) (Conselice
et al. 2000).
A strong correlation between the core radius Rc and the stellar exponen-
tial scale length Rd was found by Donato and Salucci (2004). The Rd is de-
rived from photometric measurements. The Rc is obtained from kinematic
measurements. If this relationship holds for both high surface brightness
(HSB) galaxies, low surface brightness (LSB) galaxies, galaxies with rising
RCs, and galaxies with declining RCs, modeling such a relationship is very
difficult using current galaxy models.
Amos Yahil, David Walker, and Michael Rowan-Robinson in 1986 find
that the direction of the IRAS galaxy density dipole agrees with the di-
rection of the Cosmic Microwave Background temperature dipole. David
76 CHAPTER 2. THE BIG: RELATIVITY AND COSMOLOGY

Burstein, Roger Davies, Alan Dressler, Sandra Faber, Donald Lynden-Bell,

R.J. Terlevich, and Gary Wegner in 1987 claim that a large group of galaxies
within about 200 million light years of the Milky Way are moving together
towards the “Great Attractor” in the direction of Hydra and Centaurus.
Margaret Geller and John Huchra in 1989 discover the “Great Wall”, a
sheet of galaxies more than 500 million light years long and 200 million
wide, but only 15 million light years thick.
Preliminary results in 1990 from NASA’s COBE mission confirm the
Cosmic Microwave Background radiation is an isotropic blackbody to an
astonishing one part in 105 . Thus the possibility of an integrated starlight
model proposed for the background by Steady State enthusiasts is elimi-
nated. The first detection of large–scale structure in 1992 in the Cosmic
Microwave Background radiation indicated the seeds of the first clusters of
galaxies in the early Universe.
Karl Guthe Jansky in 1932 discovers radio noise from the center of
the Milky Way. Doppler measures of the matter surrounding the nucleus
of nearby galaxies have revealed a very fast motion. Richstone and others
suggested in 1992 that Sagittarius A* is a bright and very compact source of
radio emission at the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. A larger astronomical
feature is at Sagittarius A. Richstone noted that in current physics either
the mass in the central region is rotating fast enough to fly out of the center
or the mass exists as a black hole. Currently, the only known object that can
pack enough matter in such a small space is a black hole. A supermassive
black hole (SBH) is a black hole with a mass in the range of millions to
billions of solar masses. Although not completely certain, the central mass
is regarded by most astronomers to be a supermassive black hole, composed
of matter equivalent to about a million Suns. For active galaxies farther
away, the width of broad spectral lines is thought to be related to the mass of
the black hole that powers the active galaxy’s “engine”. Such supermassive
black holes in the center of many galaxies are thought to be the engine of
active objects such as seyfert galaxies and quasars. Most if not all galaxies
are thought to host a supermassive black hole in their center.
A supermassive black hole has some interesting properties differing from
its low–mass cousins:
1. The average density of a supermassive black hole can be very low, and
actually can be lower than the density of water. This happens because the
black hole event horizon radius increases linearly with mass. Consequently
density drops with the square of the mass.
2. The tidal forces in the vicinity of the event horizon are significantly
 77

weaker. Because the central singularity is so far away from the horizon, a
hypothetical astronaut traveling towards the black hole center would not
experience significant tidal force until very deep into the black hole.
3. The SBH at the center of the Milky Way is 10,000 times weaker than
theory predicts.

Current physics holds that black holes of this size can form in only three
ways:
1. by slow accretion of matter starting from a stellar size,
2. by galaxy merger that drives gas infall, or
3. directly from external pressure in the first instants after the Big Bang.

The first method requires a long time and large amounts of matter
available for the black hole growth.
Paolo Padovani and other leading astronomers announced in 2004 their
discovery of 30 previously hidden supermassive black holes outside the
Milky Way. Their discovery also suggests there are at least twice as many
of these black holes as previously thought.
Two competing groups of astronomers (one led by Andrea Ghez from
UCLA, the other by Reinhart Genzel from Germany) are tracking stars
rotation around the center of the Milky Way.
Andrea Mia Ghez’s current research involves using high spatial resolu-
tion imaging techniques to study star–forming regions and the suspected
supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy. She uses
the kinematics of stars near the center of the galaxy as a probe to investi-
gate this region. Her research finds the mass of approximately three million
Suns is within 60 AU of the center.
Ghez et al. (2000) and Ferrarese and Merritt (2002) have observed Ke-
plerian motion to within one part in 100 in elliptical orbits of stars that are
from less than a pc to a few 1000 pc from the center of galaxies.
The orbits of stars within nine light hours of the Galaxy center indicates
the presence of a large amount of mass within the orbits (Ghez et al. 2000,
2003a,b; Schödel 2002; Dunning-Davies 2004). To achieve the velocities of
1300 km s−1 to 9000 km s−1 (Schödel 2002) and high accelerations (Ghez
et al. 2000), there must be a huge amount of very dense particles such as
millions of black holes, dense quark stars (Prasad and Bhalerao 2003, and
references therein), and ionized iron (Wang et al. 2002) distributed inside
the innermost orbit of luminous matter. The mass M• (in M⊙ ) within a few
light hours of the center of galaxies varies from 106 M⊙ to 1010 M⊙ (Ferrarese
78 CHAPTER 2. THE BIG: RELATIVITY AND COSMOLOGY

& Merritt 2000; Gebhardt et al. 2000a). The M• can be distributed over
the volume with a density of at least 1012 M⊙ pc−3 (Ghez et al. 2000, 1998,
2003b; Dunning-Davies 2004). The orbits of stars closest to the center
are approximately 1,169 times (Schödel 2002) the Schwartschild radius of
the theorized supermassive black hole (SBH) (Ghez et al. 2000). However,
such large mass crowded into a ball with a radius of less than 60 AU must
either quickly dissipate, must quickly collapse into a SBH (Kormendy &
Richstone 1995; Magorrian et al. 1998), or there must exist a force in
addition to the centrifugal force holding the mass from collapse. Mouawad
et al. (2004) suggested there is some extended mass around Sgr A. Also,
models of supermassive fermion balls wherein the gravitational pressure
is balanced by the degeneracy pressure of the fermions due to the Pauli
exclusion principle are not excluded (Bilic et al. 2003). A strong repulsive
force at the center of galaxies would explain the shells of shocked gas around
galactic nuclei (Binney and Merrifield 1998, page 595)(Königl 2003), the
apparent inactivity of the central object (Baganoff et al. 2001; Baganoff
2003a; Nayakshin and Sunyaev 2003; Zhao et al. 2003), and the surprising
accuracy of reverberation mapping as a technique to determine M• (Merritt
& Ferrarese 2001b). However, discrepancies have been noted among the
methods used to measure M• (Gebhardt et al. 2000b; Merritt & Ferrarese
2001b, and references therein).
The first published calculation of the slope of the M• to velocity disper-
sion σv (in km s−1 ) curve (M• − σv relation) varied between 5.27±0.40 (Fer-
rarese and Merritt 2000a) and 3.75±0.3 (Gebhardt et al. 2000a). Refer-
ence Tremaine et al. (2002, and references therein) suggested the range
of slopes are caused by systematic differences in the velocity dispersions
used by different groups. However, the origin of these differences remains
unclear.
Ferrarese (2002) found the ratio of the M• to MDM of the theorized dark
matter halo around galaxies was a positive value that decreased with halo
mass. However, if the intrinsic rotation curve is rising (Hodge & Castelaz
2003b), the effect of the force of MDM in the equations implies the effect
of the center object must be repulsive. Such a repulsive force was called
a “wind” by Shu et al. (2003); Silk and Rees (1998). The “wind” (a gas)
exerted a repulsive force acting on the cross sectional area of particles.
Therefore, denser particles such as black holes move inward relative to less
dense particles.
A multitude of X-ray point sources, highly ionized iron, and radio flares
without accompanying large variation at longer wavelengths have been re-
 79

ported near the center of the Milky Way (Baganoff et al. 2001; Baganoff
2003a,b; Binney and Merrifield 1998; Genzel et al. 2003; Zhao et al. 2003;
Wang et al. 2002).
McLure & Dunlop (2002) found that the mass in the central region
is 0.0012 of the mass of the bulge. Ferrarese and Merritt (2002) reported
that approximately 0.1% of a galaxy’s luminous mass is at the center of
galaxies and that the density of SBH’s in the universe agrees with the
density inferred from observation of quasars. Merritt & Ferrarese (2001a)
found similar results in their study of the M• −σv relation. Ferrarese (2002)
found a tight relation between rotation velocity vc in the outer disk region
and bulge velocity dispersion σc (vc − σc ) which is strongly supporting a
relationship of a center force with total gravitational mass of a galaxy.
Wandel (2003) showed the M• of AGN galaxies and their bulge luminosity
follow the same relationships as their ordinary (inactive) galaxies, with
the exception of narrow line AGN. Graham et al. (2003, 2002); Graham
et al. (2003b) found correlations between M• and structural parameters of
elliptical galaxies and bulges. Either the dynamics of many galaxies are
producing the same increase of mass in the center at the same rate or a
feedback controlled mechanism exists to evaporate the mass increase that
changes as the rate of inflow changes as suggested by Merritt & Ferrarese
(2001b). The RCs imply the dynamics of galaxies differ so the former
explanation is unlikely.
The first detection of the small–scale structure in the Cosmic Microwave
Background and the confirmation that the Cosmic Microwave Background
radiation is black body radiation was in 1995.
Adam Riess in 1995 discovers a deviation from the Hubble Law in ob-
servations of Type Ia supernovae (SN1a) providing the first evidence for a
non–zero cosmological constant. The Universe expansion was found to be
accelerating by measuring Type 1a supernova in 1997.
The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey in 1998 maps the large–scale structure
in a section of the Universe close to the Milky Way. The plot of angle versus
redshift showed filaments and voids in the position of galaxies.
Evidence for the fine structure constant varying over the lifetime of the
universe is published in 2001. Recent improvements in astronomical tech-
niques brought first hints in 2001 that might change its value over time.
However in April 2004, new and more-detailed observations on quasars
made using the UVES spectrograph on Kueyen, one of the 8.2-m telescopes
of ESO’s Very Large Telescope array at Paranal (Chile), puts limits to any
change in at 0.6 parts per million over the past ten thousand million years.
80 CHAPTER 2. THE BIG: RELATIVITY AND COSMOLOGY

Because this limit contradicts the 2001 results, the question on whether is
constant or not is open again and the scientists involved hotly debate the
correctness of the contradicting experiments.
NASA’s WMAP takes first detailed picture of the Cosmic Microwave
Background radiation in 2003. According to the Lambda-CDM, Big Bang
model, the image supports a universe that is 13.7 billion years old within
one percent error and that is consistent with the inflationary theory. Take
this with extreme skepticism.
Although the concept of an isotropically expanding universe is straight-
forward enough to understand locally, there are a number of conceptual
traps lurking in wait for those who try to make global sense of the expan-
sion. The most common sources of error in thinking about the basics of
cosmology are discussed below. Some of these may seem rather elemen-
tary when written down, but they are all fallacies to be encountered quite
commonly in the minds of even the most able students.
(1) A common question asked by laymen and some physicists is what
does the universe expands into? The very terminology of the “big bang”
suggests an explosion, which flings debris out into some void. Such a picture
is strongly suggested by many semi-popular descriptions, which commonly
include a description of the initial instant as one “where all the matter in
the universe is gathered at a single point”, or something to that effect. This
phrase can be traced back to Lemaı́tre ’s unfortunate term “the primeval
atom”. Describing the origin of the expansion as an explosion is probably
not a good idea in any case. It suggests some input of energy that moves
matter from an initial state of rest. Classically, this is false. The expansion
merely appears as an initial condition. This might reasonably seem to be
evading the point. One of the advantages of inflationary cosmology is that
it supplies an explicit mechanism for starting the expansion, the repulsive
effect of vacuum energy. However, if the big bang is to be thought of
explosively, then it is really many explosions that happen everywhere at
once, Because the expansion fills all of space, it is not possible to be outside
the explosion. Because the density rises without limit as t → 0, the mass
within any sphere today including the size of our present horizon was once
packed into an arbitrarily small volume. Nevertheless, this does not justify
the “primeval atom” terminology unless the universe is closed. The mass
of an open universe is infinite however far back we run the clock. There is
infinitely more mass outside a given volume than inside it.
(2) For small redshifts, the interpretation of the redshift as a Doppler
shift is quite clear. What is not so clear is what to do when the redshift
 81

becomes large. Nevertheless, it is all too common to read of the latest

high–redshift quasar data as the quasar is receding at 95 per cent of the
speed of light. The reason the redshift cannot be interpreted in this way is
that a non–zero mass density must cause gravitational redshifts. Even this
interpretation is hard to apply rigorously when redshifts of order unity are
attained.
One interpretation is that 1 + z tells us only how much the universe
has expanded since the emission of the photons reaching Earth. Although
the redshift is not a global Doppler shift, it can be an accumulation of
infinitesimal Doppler shifts. This emphasizes that momentum is what gets
redshifted. Particle de Broglie wavelengths thus scale with the expansion.
This is independent of whether particle rest mass is non–zero.
(3) Many semi–popular accounts of cosmology contain statements to the
effect that “space itself is swelling up” is causing the galaxies to separate. A
common elementary demonstration of the expansion is an inflating balloon
with galaxies represented by ink drawings that spuriously expand with the
universe. This seems to imply that some mysterious force is stretching all
objects. Because Relativity teaches us that properties of objects in local
inertial frames are independent of the global properties of spacetime, this
would be a profoundly anti–relativistic notion. If objects separate now only
because they have done so in the past, there need be no confusion. A pair of
massless objects set up at rest with respect to each other in a uniform model
will show no tendency to separate. The gravitational force of the mass lying
between them will cause an inward relative acceleration. Galaxies should be
represented by glued–on coins in the inflating balloon demonstration. The
idea of “expanding space” may be defined as a set of comoving coordinates
wherein gravitational ether is like an expanding rubber sheet that carries
matter along with it. Gravitational ether is expanding between particles.
Alternatively, expanding gravitational ether may be like an expanding gas
in a vacuum. Gravitational ether exerts a force on particles causing matter
to be carried along with the expanding Space. An alternate idea is that
gravitational ether is an unobtrusive medium through which matter moves
in free particle motion with a certain initial velocity and inertia.
(4) A helpful tool is a universe containing only non–gravitating test
particles in uniform expansion and no matter. This is often called the Milne
model after E. Milne, who attempted to establish a kinematical theory of
cosmology (e.g. Milne 1948). His model is not relevant to reality, but it
has excellent educational value. Because the mass density is zero, there is
no spatial curvature and the metric is the familiar Minkowski spacetime of
82 CHAPTER 2. THE BIG: RELATIVITY AND COSMOLOGY

Special Relativity.
(5) If the Hubble Law implies expansion, projection backward in time
implies a time existed when all matter was at a point. This means current
physical laws as far as we know fail and not necessarily the creation of the
universe. The Steady State model has changed to the cyclic model of the
universe that also allows expansion and the Hubble Law.
As it stands today, the Standard Cosmological Model is dependent on
three assumptions:
1. The universality of physical laws.
2. The Cosmological Principle.
3. The Copernican Principle.

There are other hidden postulates:

1. Adiabatic universe - matter and energy are not being introduced or re-
moved from the universe. Therefore, the universe must have started at a
high temperature and is declining with the volume expansion.
2. Hubble redshift caused by only Doppler shift (velocity).
3. The strong equivalence principle holds which is still unproven.
4. Matter is continually condensing into galaxies.
5. Attractive gravity is the prime force influencing the large–scale structure
of the universe (no other 5th force).
6. General Relativity is the ultimate model of gravity.
7. Uniformity of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation is caused by
uniform expansion of space.
9. The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation is indeed cosmic and in the
background. These is no data concerning the distance between the Earth
and the origin of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation.

That there are three observational pillars that support the Big Bang
theory of cosmology is Generally accepted. These are the Hubble-type ex-
pansion seen in the redshift of galaxies, the detailed measurements of the
Cosmic Microwave Background, and the abundance of light elements. Ad-
ditionally, the observed correlation function of large–scale structure in the
universe fits well with standard Big Bang theory. If any of these is disproved,
the Standard Model of Cosmology collapses. Accordingly, any TOE must
replace each of these observational pillars with a model consistent with the
small.
Problems with the Standard Model as stated by proponents:
1. Historically, a number of problems have arisen within the Big Bang the-
 83

ory. Some of them are today mainly of historical interest, and have been
avoided either through modifications to the theory or as the result of better
observations.
2. The cuspy halo problem arises from cosmological simulations that seem
to indicate cold dark matter would form cuspy distributions. That is, dis-
tributions increasing sharply to a high value at a central point in the most
dense areas of the universe. This would imply that the center of our galaxy,
for example, should exhibit a higher dark–matter density than other ar-
eas. However, it seems rather that the centers of these galaxies likely have
no cusp in the dark–matter distribution at all. This is not an intractable
problem, however, because the relationships between the baryonic matter’s
distribution and the dark matter’s distribution in areas of high baryonic
matter concentration have not been adequately explored. A high density
of baryonic matter would have a different distribution due to the effects
of forces other than gravity. The distribution of baryonic matter, in turn,
might affect the cuspy nature of the density profile for dark matter and the
dwarf galaxy problem of cold dark matter.
3. The dwarf galaxy problem is one that arises from numerical cosmological
simulations that predict the evolution of the distribution of matter in the
universe. Dark matter seems to cluster hierarchically and in ever increasing
number counts for smaller and smaller sized halos. However, while there
seems to be enough observed normal–sized galaxies to account for this dis-
tribution, the number of dwarf galaxies is orders of magnitude lower than
expected from simulation.
There are a small number of proponents of non–standard cosmologies
who believe that there was no Big Bang at all. They claim that solu-
tions to standard problems in the Big Bang involve ad hoc modifications
and addenda to the theory. Most often attacked are the parts of Standard
Cosmology that include dark matter, dark energy, and cosmic inflation.
These features of the universe are each strongly suggested by observations
of the Cosmic Microwave Background, large–scale structure, and Type Ia
supernovae. While the gravitational effects of these features are understood
observationally and theoretically, they have not yet been incorporated into
the Standard Model of particle physics in an accepted way. Though such
aspects of standard cosmology remain inadequately explained, the vast ma-
jority of astronomers and physicists accept that the close agreement between
Big Bang theory and observation have firmly established all the basic parts
of the theory.
The following is a short list of standard Big Bang “problems” and puz-
84 CHAPTER 2. THE BIG: RELATIVITY AND COSMOLOGY

zles:
1. The horizon problem results from the premise that information cannot
travel faster than light, and hence two regions of gravitational ether that are
separated by a greater distance than the speed of light multiplied by the age
of the universe cannot be in causal contact. This is inconsistent with the
quantum entanglement observations. The observed isotropy of the Cosmic
Microwave Background is problematic because the horizon size at the time
of its formation corresponds to a size that is about 2 degrees on the sky.
If the universe has had the same expansion history since the Planck epoch,
there is no mechanism to cause these regions to have the same temperature.
2. This apparent inconsistency is resolved by inflationary theory in which a
homogeneous and isotropic scalar energy field dominates the universe at a
time 10−35 seconds after the Planck epoch. Heisenberg’s uncertainty prin-
ciple predicts that during the inflationary phase there would be quantum
thermal fluctuations, which would be magnified to cosmic scale. These fluc-
tuations serve as the seeds of all current structure in the universe. After
inflation, the universe expands according to a Hubble Law, and regions that
were out of causal contact come back into the horizon. This explains the
observed isotropy of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. Infla-
tion predicts that the primordial fluctuations are nearly scale invariant and
Gaussian that has been accurately confirmed by measurements of the Cos-
mic Microwave Background radiation.
3. The flatness problem is an observational problem that results from con-
siderations of the geometry associated with the FLRW metric. The uni-
verse can have three different kinds of geometries: hyperbolic geometry,
Euclidean geometry, or elliptic geometry. The density of the universe de-
termines the geometry: the hyperbolic geometry results from a density less
than the critical density, elliptic geometry results from a density greater
than the critical density, and Euclidean geometry results from exactly the
critical density. The universe is required to be within one part in 1015 of
the critical density in its earliest stages. Any greater deviation would have
caused either a Heat Death or a Big Crunch, and the universe would not
exist as it does today. The resolution to this problem is again offered by
inflationary theory. During the inflationary period, spacetime expanded to
such an extent that any residual curvature associated with it would have
been smoothed out to a high degree of precision. Thus, inflation drove the
universe to be flat.
4. The magnetic monopole objection was raised in the late 1970s. Grand
unification theories (see page 170)predicted point defects in the gravita-
 85

tional ether that would manifest as magnetic monopoles with a density

much higher than was consistent with observations Searches have never
found any monopoles. This problem is also resolvable by cosmic inflation,
which removes all point defects from the observable universe in the same
way that it drives the geometry to flatness.
5. During the 1970s and 1980s various observations (notably of galactic
rotation curves) showed that there was not sufficient visible matter in the
universe to account for the apparent strength of gravitational forces within
and between galaxies. This led to the idea that up to 90% of the matter
in the universe is not normal or baryonic matter but rather dark matter.
Assuming that the universe was mostly normal matter led to predictions
that were strongly inconsistent with observations. The universe is far less
lumpy and contains far less deuterium than can be accounted for with-
out dark matter. While dark matter was initially controversial, it is now
a widely accepted part of standard cosmology due to observations of the
anisotropies in the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, galaxy cluster
velocity dispersions, large-scale structure distributions, gravitational lens-
ing studies, and x-ray measurements from galaxy clusters. Dark matter has
been detected only through its gravitational signature. No particles that
might make it up have yet been observed in laboratories. However, there
are many particle physics candidates for dark matter, and several projects
to detect them are underway.
6. The mid-1990s observations of globular clusters appeared to be inconsis-
tent with the Big Bang. Computer simulations that matched the observa-
tions of the stellar populations of globular clusters suggested that they were
about 15 billion years old, which conflicted with the 13.7-billion-year age
of the universe. This issue was Generally resolved in the late 1990s when
new computer simulations, which included the effects of mass loss due to
stellar winds, indicated a much younger age for globular clusters. There
still remain some questions as to how accurately the ages of the clusters are
measured, but it is clear that these objects are some of the oldest in the
universe.
7. Detailed measurements in the 1990s of the mass density of the universe
revealed a value that the mass density was 30% that of the critical density.
Because the universe is flat, as is indicated by measurements of the cosmic
microwave background, fully 70% of the energy density of the universe was
left unaccounted. This mystery now appears to be connected to another
one. Independent measurements of Type Ia supernovae have revealed that
the expansion of the universe is undergoing a non–linear acceleration rather
86 CHAPTER 2. THE BIG: RELATIVITY AND COSMOLOGY

than following a strict Hubble Law. To explain this acceleration, General

Relativity requires that much of the universe consist of an energy compo-
nent with large negative pressure. This dark energy is now thought to make
up the missing 70%. Its nature remains one of the great mysteries of the
Big Bang. Possible candidates include a scalar cosmological constant and
quintessence. Observations to help understand this are ongoing.
Before observations of dark energy, cosmologists considered two scenar-
ios for the future of the universe according to the Big Bang theory. If
the mass density of the universe were above the critical density, then the
universe would reach a maximum size and then begin to collapse. It would
become denser and hotter again, ending with a state that was similar to that
in which it started-a Big Crunch. Alternatively, if the mass density in the
universe were equal to or below the critical density, the expansion would
slow down, but never stop. Star formation would cease, as the universe
grows less dense. The average temperature of the universe would asymp-
totically approach absolute zero. Black holes would evaporate. The entropy
of the universe would increase to the point where no organized form of en-
ergy could be extracted from it, a scenario known as heat death. Moreover,
if proton decay exists, then hydrogen, the predominant form of baryonic
matter in the universe today, would disappear, leaving only radiation.
Modern observations of accelerated expansion imply that more and more
of the currently visible universe will pass beyond our horizon and out of
contact with us. The eventual result is not known. The Lambda-CDM
model of the universe contains dark energy in the form of a cosmological
constant. This theory suggests that only gravitationally bound systems,
such as galaxies, would remain together, and they too would be subject
to heat death, as the universe cools and expands. Other explanations of
dark energy, the so-called phantom energy theories, suggest that ultimately
galaxy clusters and eventually galaxies themselves will be torn apart by the
ever–increasing expansion in a so-called Big Rip.
“Something is wrong with science - fundamentally wrong. Theories
keep getting stranger and stranger.” (van Flandern 1993, opening words of
Preface). This is true of physics that has backed itself into apparent con-
tradictions, leading directly to the dominant Copenhagen view that “there
is no deep reality to the world around us” and the standard cosmological
view that seems to ignore large amounts of data.
The advance in equipment technology has generated a considerable
amount of new data. Like the period immediately before Newton, the cur-
rently popular cosmological model is inconsistent with accumulating data.
 87

Major revisions in the past 20 years of the model considered the “standard”
have been necessary and accepted. The data requiring the major revisions
were the black body nature of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation,
temperature anisotropies of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation,
accelerated expansion of the universe, the flat universe, and the period of
deceleration of the cosmic expansion. The current standard model fails
to describe many galaxy and galaxy cluster observations. Note the “dark
matter” postulate created to explain the rotation curves of spiral galaxies
remains a hypothesis because it is inconsistent with rising rotation curves,
is inconsistent with the Tully-Fisher relation, and dark matter remains a
mystery. The Pioneer Anomaly and the Flyby Anomaly on the solar system
scale remain unexplained. Further, some observations appear to contradict
some of the fundamental postulates of the standard model.
The challenge is to develop a model that is consistent with all the ob-
servations that the standard model explains, that is consistent with much
of the additional data, and that is simpler than the standard model. New-
ton did this by redefining the important characteristic of matter to be mass,
redefining forces, redefining space, and reformulating the fundamental prin-
ciples. The stage of our understanding is reminiscent of the century before
Newton - a great enlightenment seems imminent.
The two main divisions of universe models are (1) the universe has a
beginning from Jewish heritage and (2) the universe always existed from
Hindu and Buddhist heritage. This discussion has been raging since before
the beginning of recorded time.
The following is a case against standard cosmology from an opponent’s
viewpoint. Some of the following is taken from Narlikar (2002). J. V.
Narlikar is a proponent of the Quasi-Steady State Cosmology (QSSC),
which is an always–existed model. Therefore, his view of the challenges
for the BIG BANG model is more critical than a proponents view.
The Big Bang models fail on galactic scale observations(Bell et al. 2003;
van den Bosch et al. 2001).
General Relativity has been tested only in the weak–field approxima-
tion. We have no empirical evidence regarding how the theory fares for the
strong–field scenarios of cosmology such as near the Supermassive Black
Hole in the center of spiral galaxies. Therefore, the standard models are to
be looked upon as extrapolations into speculative regions.
The Standard Model Dark Matter predictions are inconsistent with ob-
servations on a galactic scale (Bahcall et al. 1999; Bell et al. 2003; van den
Bosch et al. 2001; Sellwood and Kosowsky 2001b).
88 CHAPTER 2. THE BIG: RELATIVITY AND COSMOLOGY

The “Disk-halo conspiracy” is that the amounts of dark matter and

luminous matter must be “finely tuned” to produce a flat rotation curve.
The “finely tuned” phrase is used when parameters appear closely related
and when a causal relationship is unknown. This is usually interpreted as
a red flag for the model.
Extreme low surface brightness galaxies with rising rotation curves lie on
the same Tully–Fisher relation as high surface brightness galaxies with flat
or falling rotation curves. Again a need for a different type of fine–tuning
conflicting with the tuning required for the Disk–halo conspiracy.
Relativistic cosmologies in General and creation models in particular
have the curious and unsatisfactory feature of a spacetime singularity. The
appearance of infinities is considered disastrous in any physical theory. Be-
cause the singularity refers to the structure of space–time and the physical
content of the universe itself, the theoretical impact is worse in General
Relativity. Moreover, some adherents seek to elevate this defect out of the
reach of physics. Thus, that the big bang violates all basic conservation laws
of physics, such as the laws of conservation of matter and energy, should be
ignored. Rather, the creation event should be viewed as beyond the scope
of science.
There is a discrepancy between the astrophysical age estimates and the
Hubble age of the standard models. The discrepancy is made worse if
the Hubble constant is close to 100 km s−1 Mpc−1 rather than 50 km s−1
Mpc−1 . The recent revival of the cosmological constant is a symptom of
this problem. The “flat” universe space geometry in General Relativity
exacerbates the problem.
The present temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background radia-
tion of 2.725 K remains to be derived from a purely theoretical argument.
Where is all the hydrogen coming from? The nucleosynthesis of matter
has hydrogen burning to become heavier elements. This is depleting hydro-
gen. However, the amount of hydrogen appears high in close and distant
(older) galaxies.
The relation between the angular size of spiral galaxies grows by a factor
of z −1 (López–Corredoira 2010). This is inconsistent with the Big Bang
model. However, the angular size of elliptical galaxies versus z has a steeper
slope than spiral galaxies.
Graham et al. (2003, 2001, 2002) found correlations between the central
mass and structural parameters of elliptical galaxies and bulges of spiral
galaxies. The dynamics of many galaxies are producing the same increase
of mass in the center of galaxies at the same rate, there exists a mechanism
 89

to eject mass from galaxies, or a feedback–controlled mechanism exists to

evaporate the mass increase that changes as the rate of inflow changes as
suggested by Merritt & Ferrarese (2001).
What accounts for the differences between spiral and elliptical galaxies?
How did the galaxies evolve? The Standard Model has matter infalling and
condensing into galaxies. However, all such models are inconsistent with
observations. No model has been accepted. This study will require much
more data on the distribution of stars and their structure.
No major model describes the evolution or structure of galaxies. Spiral
galaxies have:
1. hydrogen throughout.
2. young stars far out in thin disk.
3. older (10 Gyr) inward in thin disk.
4. thicker disk with old stars with lower metallicity (lighter elements)than
old thin disk stars.
5. inward regions have more giant stars.
6. bulge with neutron stars, strange (quark) stars, and black holes.
7. central black hole (mass of millions to billions of Suns).
8. the mass of the supermassive black hole is closely correlated with peak
rotation velocity of disk, velocity dispersion of the bulge, mass of the bulge
and, perhaps, total galaxy mass.
9. gas and dust is outflowing.
10. high energy periodic (about 2/year) X-ray bursts lasting about 3 hours
with no energy in other bands (highly unusual) from the Galactic center.
11. the possibility of 10s of thousands of Sun–size, black holes near the
center of the Galaxy.

Elliptical galaxies have:

1. no disk
2. lacks stars like Cepheids and other variables (young to moderate age
stars)
3. dust and gas inflowing

Galaxy clusters have:

1. intragalaxy dust and gas - more than the total luminous content of
galaxies.
2. morphology-radius relation - ellipticals and SO in center, spirals farther
out. Galaxies with different physical properties are differently distributed
in space.
90 CHAPTER 2. THE BIG: RELATIVITY AND COSMOLOGY

3. observations of dust in galaxies suggest spiral galaxies are ejecting dust

and elliptical galaxies are injecting dust. This cools (called a Cooling Flow)
as it spirals inward. The amount of mass in the intergalactic dust is greater
that all the mass in the galaxies. The conundrum is “where does this mass
go?” There isn’t enough matter in the elliptical galaxies to account for
billions of years of infalling dust.
4. observed large–scale streaming motions (“Virgocentric infall” (Aaronson
et al. 1982) and “Great Attractor” (Lynden-Bell et al. 1988)) relative to
the Hubble flow.
5. observed motion of spiral cluster galaxies inward toward the elliptical
galaxies (Conselice et al. 2004).
Despite numerous attempts by so many experts in the field, the forma-
tion of large–scale structure in the universe is ill–understood, eSpecially in
the context of the extraordinary smoothness of the microwave background,
the filament structure, and the observed large–scale streaming motions.
The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation data shows an uncomfort-
able fit, at best, for the Cold Dark Matter model - the “second peak” is
where the cold dark matter should cause a higher peak (McGaugh 2003).
The evidence suggests the problem of a single model describing both
galactic scale observations and cosmological scale observations is fundamen-
tal (Sellwood & Kosowsky 2000, 2001a). However, the Pioneer Anomaly
data suggest such a link.
How homogeneous is matter in the universe? We need to know whether
above the scale of, say, 200 Mpc, the universe can safely be regarded as
homogeneous. For example, that there is no ultimate scale of inhomogeneity
and that the universe is fractal in nature (Roscoe 2004) has been claimed.
Analyses on larger scales have led to claims of a cellular/periodic structure
of the universe (Einasto 1997). There are also claims for a fractal universe
for which no “mean density” can be defined. Neither of these investigations
can be easily accommodated in the standard cosmology or in the QSSC.
Are the clusters dynamically relaxed? A part of the present argument
for dark matter comes from the virial theorem (Newtonian hydrostatic equi-
librium - gravitational force equal centrifugal force) for clusters. This model
is derived using galaxy dynamics that depend on the mass to luminosity
ratio that depends on stellar dynamics that depend on the Dark Matter
interpretation of the rotation curve. If the peculiar velocity distribution for
clusters can be determined or estimated with greater accuracy than it can
at present, we may be able to ascertain whether the clusters are virialized
or rather the clusters may have been created in explosive creation processes
 91

and that they are expanding as QSSC suggests. If the clusters are virialized
or rather the clusters may have been created in explosive creation processes
and that they are expanding as QSSC suggests, the virial theorem is not
valid for clusters. This takes away the strength of the present argument for
dark matter. Independent checks on whether the velocity distributions of
galaxies in clusters are in statistical equilibrium are necessary.
Does Hubble’s law hold for all extragalactic objects? If the answer is
“no”, then the Big Bang scenario fails with little hope of a modification such
as was done with the finding of universe acceleration and inflation. Current
cosmology takes it for granted that the redshift of an extragalactic object
is cosmological in origin, caused by the expansion of the universe described
as the Cosmological Hypothesis, and caused by the Doppler shift. Whereas
the Hubble diagram on which the Cosmological Hypothesis is based gives
a fairly tight magnitude - z relationship for first–ranked galaxies in clus-
ters, a corresponding plot for quasars has enormous scatter. The Big Bang
model with homogeneity must have either a static galaxy distribution or a
very Special velocity field obeying the Hubble Law. The Hubble constant
occupies a pivotal role in current cosmologies. The methods of calculat-
ing supernova distances, the Cosmological Microwave Background power
spectrum, weak gravitational lensing, cluster counts, baryon oscillation, ex-
pansion of the universe, and the fundamental aspects of the Big Bang model
depend on Hubble constant and the Hubble law.
Comparison of z with Cepheid based distance has enormous scatter.
The correlation coefficient is 0.75(Saha et al. 2006b) to 0.79 , which is poor.
The data for galaxies with Cepheid based distance up to 10 Mpc agrees
well with distances based on TRGB data. However, beyond 10 Mpc, the
correlation coefficients for both data sets is approximately 0.30.
Special efforts are needed in some cases to make the Cosmological Hy-
pothesis consistent with data on quasars. These included the supralimi-
nal motion of quasars, rapid variability, the absence of a Ly-α absorption
trough, etc. Some quasars and galaxies are found in pairs or groups of close
neighbors in the sky. If a quasar and a galaxy are found to be within a
small angular separation of one another, then it is very likely that they are
physical neighbors and, according to the Cosmological Hypothesis, their
redshift must be nearly equal. The quasar population is not a dense one.
The probability of finding a quasar projected by chance within a small an-
gular separation from a galaxy is very small. If the probability is < 0.01,
say, then the null hypothesis of projection by chance has to be rejected.
There must be a reason in that case to cause the quasar to be physically
92 CHAPTER 2. THE BIG: RELATIVITY AND COSMOLOGY

close to the galaxy. While evidence was found that in such cases the redshift
of the galaxy and the quasar were nearly the same, there have been data of
the other kind, also. H. C. Arp (Arp 1987, 1998) has described numerous
examples in which the chance–projection hypothesis is rejected.
There is growing evidence that large–redshift quasars are preferentially
distributed closer to low–redshift bright galaxies. There are alignments and
similarities of redshift among quasars distributed across bright galaxies.
There are filaments connecting pairs of galaxies with discrepant redshift.
There are continuing additions to the list of anomalous cases. They are not
limited to only optical and radio sources. They are also found among X-ray
sources. The supporters of the Cosmological Hypothesis like to dismiss all
such cases as either observational artifacts or selection effects or argue that
the excess number density of quasars near bright galaxies could be due to
gravitational lensing. While this criticism or resolution of discrepant data
may be valid in some cases, why this should hold in all cases is hard to
understand.
H. Arp further suggests the quasars are formed in and are ejected from
galaxies. He notes the several instances where multiple quasars form a line
through a central galaxy and the redshift decline with distance from the
host galaxy. Thus, he suggests, galaxy clusters are formed.
Another curious effect that was first noticed by Burbidge (1968) for
about 70 quasars concerns the apparent periodicity in the distribution of
redshift of quasars. The periodicity of z ∼ 0.06 is still present with the
population multiplied 30-fold (Duari et al. 1992). What is the cause of this
structure in the z distribution? Various statistical analyses have confirmed
that the effect is significant. This also is very puzzling and does not fit into
the simple picture of the expanding universe caused z.
For this to be due to “peculiar velocity”: (1) the peculiar velocity would
have to be incredibility high, (2) it would have to be directed only outward
from us, which is unlikely because such peculiar velocities are not found
directed toward us, (3) because the periodicity is undetected for angu-
lar variation, the effect is only along our line-of-sight, which violates the
Copernican Principle.
On a much finer scale Tifft (1996, 1997) has been discovering a redshift
periodicity cz = 72 km s−1 for double galaxies and for galaxies in groups.
The data have been refined over the years with accurate 21-cm redshift mea-
surements. If the effect were spurious, it would have disappeared. Instead
it has grown stronger and has withstood fairly rigorous statistical analyses.
Hodge (2006a) discovered discrete redshift behind elliptical galaxies
 93

among galaxies with small angular separation of one another.

For a universe regulated by the Hubble’s law and, therefore, the Cos-
mological Principle, it is hard to fit in these results. At the time of writing
this account, the data show no such tendency to disappear! The effects are
probability genuine. The explanation may bring in other non-cosmological
components in the observed z.
The “Pioneer Anomaly” is described in Anderson et al. (1998) as an
unmodeled constant acceleration towards the Sun of about ap ∼ 8.5 × 10−8
cm s−2 for the spacecrafts Pioneer 10 (launched 2 March 1972), Pioneer
11 (launched 4 December 1973), Galileo (launched 18 October 1989), and
Ulysses (launched 6 October 1990). They discussed in a subsequent report
(Anderson et al. 2002) in detail many suggested explanations for the effect
and gave the value ap ∼ 8.74 ± 1.33 × 10−8 cm s−2 directed towards the
Sun.
Soon after Anderson’s report many authors noted that there is a numer-
ical coincidence between ap /c and the Hubble constant. This observation
suggests that the Pioneer acceleration could be a short–range (the size of
the solar system) universal acceleration that is a constant acceleration un-
related with the masses of the test particles and the Sun. Because of the
apparent relation with the Hubble constant, a relation with cosmological
scale General Relativity effects is suggested. However, Cooperstock et al.
(1998) suggested such a relation is nearly prohibited by the short range of
inside a galaxy cluster.
The spacecraft masses were quite different. Galileo had a mass of 1298
kg (the orbiter mass at launch minus the propellant) while the Pioneers
had a mass of 223 kg. Their orbits were also quite different. Nevertheless
the same constant centripetal acceleration was detected. This acceleration
(the Pioneer anomaly) does not appear in the planet ephemeris or in the
accurate range measurement of the Viking mission. If confirmed, the effect
would imply a violation of the Equivalence Principle, as heavy bodies with
the mass of a planet would fall differently from lighter bodies like the space-
crafts. However, the different masses of the Galileo and Pioneer spacecrafts
show that the anomalous acceleration is independent of the mass of the free
falling bodies as long as they have a small mass, which does not help in
clarifying why the planets are not subject to the anomalous acceleration.
Therefore, the equivalence principle remains intact.
In addition to the General value of ap ,there are other characteristics
of the data including an annual periodicity; a sidereal day periodicity; the
differing ap between the spacecraft; the discrepancy between Sigma and
94 CHAPTER 2. THE BIG: RELATIVITY AND COSMOLOGY

CHASMP programs at P1O (I) and their closer agreement at P1O (III);
the slowly declining ap ; the low value of ap immediately before P11’s Saturn
encounter; and the high uncertainty in the value of ap obtained during and
after the P11’s Saturn encounter.
A systematic error would clearly solve this problem. So far none has
been found. The General scientific community in 2005 agreed that a sys-
tematic or spacecraft error was not responsible for the Pioneer Anomaly.
Further the direction the craft are moving in the solar system are different.
Most attempts to explain the Pioneer Anomaly are directed to only the
General value of ap and assume this value is constant. These attempts fail.
Turyshev et al. (2011) continues to analyze Pioneer data. His recent findings
are (1) ap is temporally declining rather than being constant which rejects
most of the attempts to model the pioneer Anomaly, (2) the data does not
favor a Sun-pointing direction over an Earth-pointing or spin-axis pointing
directions, and (3) support for an early “onset” of the acceleration remains
weak. The only model consistent with all the observed characteristics of
the Pioneer Anomaly is the Scalar Potential Model of Hodge (2006e).
The Flyby Anomalies are unexplained velocity increases observed near
closest approach during the Earth gravity assist flybys of the Galileo, Cassini,
NEAR, and Rosetta spacecrafts (Anderson et al. 2007).
Do gravity waves exist? Gravity fails to behave like the other forces
in the Grand Unified Theory (see page 170). Accordingly, the General
Theory of Relativity ascribes gravity to the geometry of gravitational ether
rather than to the interchange of particles in the Grand Unified Theory.
Newtonian mechanics suggested the effect of gravity was instantaneous.
Modern thought holds the speed of a gravity wave is either near the speed
of light or several billion times the speed of light.
Standard experimental techniques exist to determine the propagation
speed of forces. When we apply these techniques to gravity, they all yield
propagation speeds too great to measure, substantially faster than light
speed (van Flandern 1998; van Flandern & Vigier 2002). This is because
gravity, in contrast to light, has no detectable aberration or propagation
delay for its action, even for cases such as binary pulsars where sources of
gravity accelerate significantly during the light time from source to target.
By contrast, the finite propagation speed of light causes radiation pres-
sure forces to have a non–radial component causing orbits to decay (the
“Poynting-Robertson effect”). Gravity has no counterpart force propor-
tional to v/c to first order. General Relativity explains these features by
suggesting that gravitation (unlike electromagnetic forces) is a pure geo-
 95

metric effect of curved spacetime, not a force of nature that propagates.

Gravitational radiation, a fifth order effect in v/c, is too small to play
a role in explaining the difference in behavior between gravity and other
forces of nature. Problems with the causality principle also exist for General
Relativity such as explaining how the external fields between binary black
holes manage to continually update without benefit of communication with
the masses hidden behind event horizons. These causality problems would
be solved without any change to the mathematical formalism of General
Relativity, but only to its interpretation, if gravity is once again taken to be
a propagating force of nature in flat spacetime with the propagation speed
indicated by observational evidence and experiments: not less than 2×1010 c.
The main changes induced by this new perspective are beneficial to areas
where physics has been struggling, such as explaining experimental evidence
for non–locality in quantum physics, the dark matter issue in cosmology,
and the possible unification of forces.
There is no cause to doubt that photons arriving now from the Sun left
8.3 minutes ago, and arrive at Earth from the direction against the sky that
the Sun occupied that long ago. But the analogous situation for gravity is
less obvious, and we must always be careful not to mix in the consequences
of light propagation delays. Another way (besides aberration) to represent
what gravity is doing is to measure the acceleration vector for the Earth’s
motion, and ask if it is parallel to the direction of the arriving photons. If it
is, that would argue that gravity propagated to Earth with the same speed
as light, and conversely.
How then does the direction of Earth’s acceleration compare with the
direction of the visible Sun? By direct calculation from geometric ephemere-
des fitted to such observations, such as those published by the U.S. Naval
Observatory or the Development Ephemeredes of the Jet Propulsion Labo-
ratory, the Earth accelerates toward a point 20 arc seconds in front of the
visible Sun, where the Sun will appear to be in 8.3 minutes. The acceler-
ation now is toward the true, instantaneous direction of the Sun now, and
is not parallel to the direction of the arriving solar photons now. This is
additional evidence that forces from electromagnetic radiation pressure and
from gravity do not have the same propagation speed or direction. How-
ever, this measurement may not be the speed of a gravitational wave that
requires a change of gravity such as an acceleration of a changing mass po-
sition. The argument counter to this being the speed of a gravity wave is
to note the Sun is establishing a “static” gravitational field. Other tests of
the speed of gravity find the speed of gravity to be nearly the speed of light.
96 CHAPTER 2. THE BIG: RELATIVITY AND COSMOLOGY

However, these calculations involve the use of General Relativity. Hence,

these methods have been criticized as really measuring the speed of light.
A hidden assumption in these tests is that gravity is carried by a particle
like light is carried by a photon.
The following are some of the unsolved problems in physics. This is an
incomplete list of outstanding problems in physics. Some of these problems
are theoretical, meaning that existing theories seem incapable of explaining
some observed phenomenon or experimental result. Others are experimen-
tal, meaning that there is a difficulty in creating an experiment to test a
proposed theory or investigate a phenomenon in greater detail.
1. Accretion disc jets: Why do the accretion discs surrounding certain as-
tronomical objects, such as the nuclei of active galaxies, emit radiation jets
along their polar axes?
2. Arrow of time: Why did the universe have such low entropy in the past,
resulting in the distinction between past and future and the second law of
thermodynamics?
3. Electroweak force: Given that the theory behind the unification of the
electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces is based in part on a mathematical
trick called “renormalization” (which involves canceling infinities), what is
the reality behind this theory?
4. Gamma ray bursts: What is the nature of these extraordinarily energetic
astronomical objects?
5. GZK paradox: Why is it that some cosmic rays appear to possess energies
that are impossibly high, given that there are no sufficiently energetic cos-
mic ray sources near the Earth, and cosmic rays emitted by distant sources
should have been absorbed by the cosmic microwave background radiation?
6. Magnetic monopoles: Are there any particles that carry “magnetic
charge”, and if so, why are they so difficult to detect?
7. Proton decay: Do protons decay? If so, then what is its half-life?

ALTERNATE MODELS
The “non–standard cosmology” term has been used since the late 1960s.
The discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation combined
with the theory of big bang nucleosynthesis and other evidence that sug-
gested that the universe evolved caused most cosmologists to favor the Big
Bang theory over the steady state theory. Since around this time, a “non–
standard cosmology” has meant any description of cosmology that questions
the fundamental propositions of the Big Bang. Today, a few Generally
independent researchers and amateurs who disagree with foundational as-
 97

sumptions and so reject the idea of applying concordance criteria to their

models promote non–standard cosmologies. Within this category are many
different models that often contradict each other.
There have been a number of non–standard models which have been pro-
posed. Among these are the Steady State Model, the Cyclic Universe model,
MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics), Dirac’s Large–Numbers Hypoth-
esis including the variation of G, the Tired Light model and Arp’s “vari-
able mass hypothesis” to explain galaxy redshift, and Plasma Cosmology.
There are many other models currently being published in peer–reviewed
journals. Most are changes in the General Relativity equations, considering
the assumed constants such as the speed of light are not constant, Fractal
distribution of mass, adding dimensions to the standard 3+1, and adding
the existence of universes (multiverse or parallel universe models) beside
our universe.
The Scalar Theory of Everything is another non–standard model.
98 CHAPTER 2. THE BIG: RELATIVITY AND COSMOLOGY
Chapter 3

The small: light and quantum

mechanics

The study of the smaller world than our everyday world begins with chem-
istry and extends through elementary particles such as protons and quarks
to light as the smallest particle currently modeled.
Chemistry studies the structure and properties of matter as a conse-
quence of the physical properties of atoms and their interactions. Tra-
ditional chemistry starts with the study of elementary particles, atoms,
molecules, crystals, and other aggregates of matter. The earliest pioneers
of chemistry, and inventors of the modern scientific method, were medieval
Arab and Persian scholars. They introduced precise observation and con-
trolled experimentation into the field and discovered numerous chemical
substances.
The emergence of chemistry in Europe was primarily due to the recur-
rent incidence of the plague and blights during the so-called Dark Ages.
This gave rise to a need for medicines.
The scientific revolution in chemistry began with Robert Boyle (1627-
1691) who created an equation known as Boyle’s Law about the charac-
teristics of gaseous state. Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier (1743 - 1794) is
considered the “Father of Modern Chemistry”. Chemistry indeed came of
age when Antoine Lavoisier developed the theory of Conservation of Mass in
1783. He consistently used a more accurate weighing system of the chemical
balance, used oxygen to overthrow the phlogiston theory, and developed a
new system of chemical nomenclature.
Lavoisier’s use of more accurate weighing of chemicals before and after
reactions led to the development of the Atomic Theory by John Dalton
99
100 CHAPTER 3. THE SMALL: LIGHT AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

(1766 - 1844) around 1800. Dalton proceeded to print his first published
table of relative atomic weights. Six elements appear in this table, namely
hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, sulfur, and phosphorus, with the atom
of hydrogen conventionally assumed to weigh 1. Assisted by the assump-
tion that combination always takes place in the simplest possible way, he
arrived at the idea that chemical combination takes place between particles
of different weights, and it was this that differentiated his theory from the
historic speculations of the Greeks, such as Democritus and Lucretius.
The extension of this idea to substances in general necessarily led him to
the law of multiple proportions. The comparison with experiment confirmed
his deduction.
He listed compounds as binary, ternary, quaternary, etc. (molecules
composed of two, three, four, etc. atoms) depending on the number of
atoms a compound had in its simplest, empirical form. He hypothesized
the structure of compounds can be represented in whole number ratios. For
example, one atom of element X combining with one atom of element Y is
a binary compound. Furthermore, one atom of element X combining with
two elements of Y or vice versa, is a ternary compound.
Dalton used his own symbols to visually represent the atomic structure
of compounds. The five main points of Dalton’s atomic theory are:
1.Elements are made of tiny particles called atoms.
2.The atoms of a given element are different from those of any other ele-
ment; the atoms of different elements can be distinguished from one another
by their respective relative atomic weights.
3.All atoms of a given element are identical.
4.Atoms of one element can combine with atoms of other elements to form
chemical compounds; a given compound always has the same relative num-
bers of types of atoms.
5.Atoms cannot be created, divided into smaller particles, nor destroyed in
the chemical process; a chemical reaction simply changes the way atoms are
grouped together.
Dalton proposed an additional “rule of greatest simplicity” that created
controversy, because it could not be independently confirmed. When atoms
combine in only one ratio, “. . . it must be presumed to be a binary one, unless
some cause appear to the contrary.” This was merely an assumption, de-
rived from faith in the simplicity of nature. No evidence was then available
to scientists to deduce how many atoms of each element combine to form
compound molecules. But this or some other such rule was necessary to any
incipient theory, because an assumed molecular formula and structure were
 101

needed to calculate relative atomic weights. For example, Dalton’s “rule of

greatest simplicity” caused him to assume that the formula for water was
OH and ammonia was NH, quite different from our modern understanding.
Despite the uncertainty at the heart of Dalton’s atomic theory, the prin-
ciples of the theory survived. To be sure, the conviction that atoms cannot
be subdivided, created, or destroyed into smaller particles when they are
combined, separated, or rearranged in chemical reactions is inconsistent
with the existence of nuclear fusion and nuclear fission. The idea that all
atoms of a given element are identical in their physical and chemical prop-
erties is not precisely true. Different isotopes of an element have slightly
varying weights. However, Dalton had created a theory of immense power
and importance.
The discovery of the chemical elements has a long history from the
days of alchemy and culminating in the discovery of the periodic table of
the chemical elements by Dmitri Mendeleev and later discoveries of some
synthetic elements.
The corpuscular model of light was firmly entrenched by 1800, largely
through the status of Newton and the gravitational theory. However, the
wave theory of light became predominant in the 1800’s.
Newton’s optical researches are related to our present views, not by
a conscious return of 20th century physicists to the Newtonian ideas, but
rather through a chain that extends from one end of the 19th century to the
other. Thomas Young revived the wave theory of light in the opening years
of the 19th century. The electromagnetic theory derives in part from the
extension by Clerk Maxwell of Faraday’s notions concerning the propagation
of electric and magnetic effects through space as waves. The limitation of
this theory led to the quantum theory of Planck and the photon theory of
Einstein.
Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier (France)(1768 - 1830) - Trained for the
priesthood but did not take his vows. He became involved in politics and
joined the French Revolutionary Committee. He was almost sent to the
guillotine.
As part of his work on the propagation of heat in solids, he created the
Fourier series. The Fourier series is VERY IMPORTANT for understand-
ing many mathematical concepts involving periodic motion and for math-
ematically modeling of physical observations. The forces causing physical
phenomena are often balanced with other forces in an oscillating manner.
The Fourier transform is a conformal mapping of a complicated func-
tion, a nonperiodic function, the delta function, a discontinuous function,
102 CHAPTER 3. THE SMALL: LIGHT AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

and square functions into a series of simple harmonic waves. Because simple
harmonic waves are everywhere continuous and differentiable, the mathe-
matics of the transformed function is very easy. The Fourier transform is
unbounded with an unbounded number of coefficients and frequencies. Be-
cause the observations are of finite time and distance, the transformation
is limited. This results in a practical uncertainty of the waves. Therefore,
phenomena in the subatomic world of quantum mechanics can be described
only within a range of precision that allows for the uncertainty of waves in
the Schrödinger equation. This is known as the Uncertainty Principle first
formulated by Werner Heisenberg.
Thomas Young’s (English 1773 - 1829) initial contributions were made
as a result of studying a class of optical phenomena that we call today
interference and diffraction, but which Newton called the “inflection” of
light.
After Young had explained the production of “Newton’s rings” by the
application of his new principle of interference to the wave theory of light,
he used Newton’s data to compute the wavelength of different colors in the
visible spectrum and the wavenumbers (i.e. “Number of Undulations in an
inch”). Young’s computations, based on Newton’s measurements, yielded
a wavelength for the “Extreme red” of 0.000,026,6 inches, or a wavenumber
of 37640 “undulations per inch” and a frequency of 4.36 × 108 “undula-
tions per second”. The same quantities for the “extreme violet” had values
0.000,016,7 inches, 59750 undulations per inch, and 7.35 × 108 undulations
per sec, respectively. These numbers are in close agreement with present-
day accepted values.
Young was indebted to Newton for more than the data for computing
wavelengths, wavenumbers, and frequencies. Young developed the whole
wave theory of light from the suggestions in Newton’s Opticks. Young
made several important additions by considering the waves in the ether
to be transverse and by supplementing the wave theory by the principle of
interference. The 19th-century developments leading to the electromagnetic
theory might be said to have begun from Young’s work. Because Young’s
work was inspired by Newton’s, we have an historical chain leading from
Newton to Young, to Fresnel and Arago, to Maxwell, to Planck, and to
Einstein.
The prevailing view in Young’s time was that Newton’s corpuscular
model was “right” and “correct” and the wave model was “wrong”. There-
fore, a proponent of the wave model was a social outcast. Young was
extremely explicit about his debt to Newton. Thus, in the first of the three
 103

foundational papers in the Philosophical Transactions, Young stated:

“The optical observations of Newton are yet unrivalled; and, excepting
some casual inaccuracies, they only rise in our estimation as we compare
them with later attempts to improve on them. A further consideration of the
colours of thin plates, as they are described in the second book of Newton’s
Optics, has converted the prepossession which I before entertained for the
undulatory system of light, into a very strong conviction of its truth and
sufficiency; a conviction which has been since most strikingly confirmed by
an analysis of the colours of striated substances . . .
A more extensive examination of Newton’s various writings has shown
me that he was in reality the first that suggested such a theory as I shall
endeavour to maintain.”
Young suggested the wave theory of light should be given a hearty wel-
come because it originated with Newton who was universally venerated:
“Those who are attached, as they may be with the greatest justice, to ev-
ery doctrine which is stamped with the Newtonian approbation, will probably
be disposed to bestow on these considerations so much the more of their at-
tention, as they appear to coincide more nearly with Newton’s own opinions.
For this reason, after having stated each particular position of my theory, I
shall collect, from Newton’s various writings, such passages as seem to me
the most favourable to its admission . . . ”
In conformity with this plan, almost half of the article is made up of
quotations from Newton.
Young described the history of his ideas concerning light in his “Reply to
the Edinburgh Reviewers”, once again expressing the degree to which they
derived from Newton’s writings “by reflecting on the beautiful experiments
of Newton . . . ”.
Coherence is a property of waves that measures the ability of the waves
to interfere with each other. Two waves that are coherent can be com-
bined to produce an unmoving distribution of constructive and destructive
interference (a visible interference pattern) depending on the relative phase
of the waves at their meeting point. Waves that are incoherent, when
combined, produce rapidly moving areas of constructive and destructive
interference and, therefore, do not produce a visible (stable) interference
pattern. A wave can also be coherent with itself, a property known as tem-
poral coherence. The temporal coherence of a wave is related to the spectral
bandwidth of the source. A truly monochromatic (single frequency) wave
would have an infinite coherence time and length. No wave in practice is
104 CHAPTER 3. THE SMALL: LIGHT AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

truly monochromatic because this requires a wave train of infinite duration.

However, the coherence time of the source is inversely proportional to its
bandwidth. Waves also have the related property of spatial coherence. This
is the ability of any one spatial position of the wave front to interfere with
any other spatial position.
The distinction between incoherent and coherent light is whether the
light forms a diffraction / interference pattern when passed through one or
more slits in a mask. Because interference has been thought to be a wave
phenomenon, coherence is considered a property of waves. However, the
definition of coherence allows a distribution of particles to be coherent.
Coherence is obtained by light (1) traveling a long distance such as
from a star as seen in the Airy disk pattern in telescope images, (2) passing
through a pinhole in the first mask in Young’s experiment, and (3) from a
laser.
Young’s double-slit experiment in 1801 relies on spatial coherence of the
beam illuminating the two slits. If the beam were spatially incoherent, i.e.
if the sunlight was not first passed through a single slit, then no interference
pattern would be seen. Another observation is that when the eye is placed
in the region of the diffracted light, the diffracting edges appear luminous
even though precautions are taken to avoid reflection or scattering from
the mask. Perhaps this observation helped form Young’s model that the
diffraction pattern was formed by two waves, each emitted at the edges of
the slit. Light through the central area of the slit forms part of the central
part of the screen pattern. This observation and this model were ignored
for over 150 years.
Light passing the edge of an obstacle is less easily observed because of
the short wavelength of visible light. The edge of the shadow of an opaque
object casts a nearly sharp outline of the edge. However, the edge of the
shadow is not absolutely sharp. When examined closely, the shadow edge of
coherent light has diffraction fringes. Both Grimaldi and Newton attempted
to explain these small effects as caused by the deflection of light passing close
to the edge such as by gravitational effects. The interference of light from
variously distant areas accounts for the maximal and minimal observable as
diffraction fringes. This is the “bending of light around edges”. A pinhole
forms the coherence needed for interference. This view of wave propagation
helps to better understand a variety of wave phenomena such as diffraction.
Waves do go around corners.
Spatial coherence is high for spherical waves and plane waves, and there-
fore is related to the size of the light source. A point source of zero diame-
 105

ters emits spatially coherent light, while the light from a collection of point
sources or from a source of finite diameter would have lower coherence.
Spatial coherence can be increased with a spatial filter such as a very small
pinhole proceeded by a condenser lens. The spatial coherence of light will
increase as it travels away from the source and becomes more like a spherical
or plane wave. Thus, light from stars is coherent and produces a diffraction
pattern (Airy circle) when it passes through the telescope.
Young’s double-slit experiment has become a classic experiment because
it demonstrates the central mysteries of the physics and of the philosophy
of the very small.
Augustin Jean Fresnel (France 1788 - 1827) struggled with ill health
but maintained an exceptionally high workload. He died of tuberculosis.
Fresnel removed many of the objections to the wave theory of light. He put
forth the idea that the waves arise at every point along the wave front (a
modification of Huygens principle) and mutually interfere. He was able to
describe diffraction and interference with his mathematics.
The Huygens–Fresnel equation, describes the intensity pattern on the
screen of a slit experiment. The assumptions of Fresnel model of diffraction
include: (1) The part of Huygens’ Principle that each point in a wave front
emits a secondary wavelet. (2) The wavelets destructive and constructive
interference produces the diffraction pattern. (3) The secondary waves are
emitted in only the forward direction, which is the so called “obliquity
factor” (a cosine function). (4) The wavelet phase advances by one-quarter
period ahead of the wave that produced them. (5) The wave has a uniform
amplitude and phase over the wave front in the slit and zero amplitude and
no effect behind the mask. (6) The slit width is much greater than the
wavelength. (7) The Fresnel model has a slight arc of the wave front across
the slit. That is, the distribution of energy in the plane of the slit varies. (8)
There is a minimum distance between the mask and the screen within which
the Fresnel model fails. The Fresnel model with larger distance between the
mask and the screen or with condensing lenses before and after the mask
degenerates into the Fraunhofer diffraction model.
The intensity patterns produced by multiple slits can be compared to
the intensities of the single slit pattern of equal total width. Thus, the
resulting pattern may be regarded as due to the joint action of interference
between the waves coming from corresponding points in the multiple slits
and of diffraction from each slit. Diffraction in the Fresnel model is the re-
sult of interference of all the secondary wavelets radiating from the different
elements of the wave front. The term diffraction is reserved for the consid-
106 CHAPTER 3. THE SMALL: LIGHT AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

eration of the radiating elements that is usually stated as integration over

the infinitesimal elements of the wave front. Interference is reserved for the
superposition of existing waves, which is usually stated as the superposition
of a finite number of beams.
Later work by Kirchhoff, Rieman, and Sommerfeld extended Fresnel’s
model. Kirchoff’s extension changed the obliquity factor to 1+cos(θ) and
made certain simplifying assumptions that in the end yield little more than
the original Fresnel treatment because of uncertainty in the complex am-
plitude and its derivative over the wavefront surface.
Observations in the 20th century of microwaves of a few centimeters
wavelength has allowed measurements right up to the plane of the slit and
with apertures of only a fraction of the wavelength. These observations
show the need for further work. Sommerfeld in the 1950’s derived a model
using Maxwell’s equations of a straight edge for a mask of using infinitesimal
thickness and perfect reflectance. The geometrical shadow of the straight
edge was found to consist of a cylindrical wave apparently originating at the
edge. The diffraction fringes outside the shadow can be interpreted as the
interference of both the cylindrical wave and a direct wave. Sommerfeld’s
model derives the resultant wave arriving at a point in detail, including
its phase distribution which limited Frasnel’s and Kirchoff’s models. The
single slit pattern may be regarded as caused by the interference of the
direct wave and one cylindrical wave from each edge. Sommerfeld’s model
is nearly the original model of diffraction fringes given by Thomas Young
that had been regarded a too simplistic.
Fresnel undertook further work on light to explain the polarization of
light produced by reflection. Fresnel discovered what was later called “cir-
cular polarized light” that implied light was a transverse wave. This was a
step too far for his contemporaries. However, this idea was later confirmed
and light was accepted as a wave.
When light is produced in strong magnetic fields, it is often polarized
such as sunspots when viewed from above. Light reflected at high angles
reflects polarized light. The sky is blue because dust and water scatter little
red light. However, blue light is scattered by dust and gasses. Light that is
reflected from the flat surface of a dielectric (or insulating) material is often
partially polarized, with the electric vectors of the reflected light vibrating
in a plane that is parallel to the surface of the material.
Common examples of surfaces that reflect polarized light are undis-
turbed water, glass, sheet plastics, and highways. These polarized light
waves have the electric field vectors parallel to the surface and are reflected
 107

to a greater degree than those with different orientations. The polarization

effect on light reflected at a specific angle from a transparent medium is
called the Brewster angle.
Christian Andreas Doppler (1803 Austria - 1853 Italy) was a very orig-
inal thinker. He discovered the “Doppler shift” that relates the observed
frequency of a source to its velocity relative to an observer. He treated both
light and sound as longitudinal waves. A lowering of frequency implied a
velocity away from the observer. A rising of frequency implied a velocity
toward observer. Although the changes in the colors of stars were beyond
the instruments of the time, sound waves could be tested.
Gustav Robert Kirchhoff’s (1824 Prussia - 1887 Germany) laws relate
to calculating the voltage and current in electrical circuits. He related the
flow of current to the flow of water rather than the then popular analogy to
the flow of heat. Kirchhoff with William Weber discovered the velocity of
current in a highly conductive wire was almost exactly the velocity of light.
They both dismissed this as a coincidence. Kirchhoff’s work on black body
radiation (a term he introduced in 1862) contributed to the development
of quantum theory. Fraunhofer had observed bright lines in the spectrum
of the Sun. Because impurities would also produce lines in the spectrum,
further progress on spectrum analysis required pure substances, which were
unavailable at the time. Kirchhoff made purer substances and made a
fundamental discovery. He was noted that each element had a uniquely
characteristic spectrum in 1859. He presented a law that stated for a given
atom or molecule, the emission and absorption frequencies (wavelengths)
were the same.
While studying the spectrum of the Sun, Bunsen and he discovered two
new elements (cesium and rubidium). This work also furthered the under-
lying assumption that an experiment on Earth implies the same conditions
apply in the cosmos. An element identified through its spectrum on Earth
is also in the Sun if its spectrum is observed.
Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann’s (1826 Germany - 1866 Italy) work
was based on intuitive reasoning that fell below the rigor required by Eu-
clid reasoning. However, it did make his work clearer. He studied complex
variables and developed what are now called Riemann surfaces. This intro-
duced topological methods into complex function calculations. He asked,
if a function could be represented as a trigonometric series such as Fourier
series, what can be said about its behavior? This lead to what is called
Riemann Space that is how to define an n-dimensional space. This defined
a geodesic as a straight line in an arbitrary topology, which is invaluable to
108 CHAPTER 3. THE SMALL: LIGHT AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

General Relativity. Also, he started asking about the geometry of the space
in which we live. By a conformal transformation of complex equations to a
Riemann Space, one variable is eliminated that makes the resulting equa-
tions easier to solve.
If a periodic table is regarded as an ordering of the chemical elements
demonstrating the periodicity of chemical and physical properties, credit
for the first periodic table (published in 1862) probably should be given to
a French geologist, A.E.Beguyer de Chancourtois. De Chancourtois tran-
scribed a list of the elements positioned on a cylinder in terms of increasing
atomic weight. When the cylinder was constructed so that 16 mass units
could be written on the cylinder per turn, closely related elements were lined
up vertically. This led de Chancourtois to propose that “the properties of
the elements are the properties of numbers.” De Chancourtois was first to
recognize that elemental properties reoccur every seven elements, and us-
ing this chart, he was able to predict the stoichiometry (the determination
of the atomic weights of elements, the proportions in which they combine,
and the weight relations in any chemical reaction) of several metallic oxides.
Unfortunately, his chart included some ions and compounds in addition to
elements.
John Newlands, an English chemist, wrote a paper in 1863 which clas-
sified the 56 established elements into 11 groups based on similar physical
properties, noting that many pairs of similar elements existed which differed
by some multiple of eight in atomic weight. Newlands published his version
of the periodic table and proposed the Law of Octaves by analogy with the
seven intervals of the musical scale in 1864. This law stated that any given
element exhibits analogous behavior to the eighth element following it in
the table. Is the hidden structure like the Music of the Spheres?
Dmitriy Ivanovich Mendeleev (Russia) (1834 - 1907) wrote a textbook
on systematic inorganic chemistry, Principles of Chemistry, which appeared
in thirteen editions the last being in 1947. Mendeleev organized his mate-
rial in terms of the families of the known elements that displayed similar
properties. The first part of the text was devoted to the well-known chem-
istry of the halogens. Next, he chose to cover the chemistry of the metallic
elements in order of combining power – alkali metals first (combining power
of one), alkaline earths (two), etc. However, it was difficult to classify
metals such as copper and mercury that had multiple combining powers,
sometimes one and other times two. While trying to sort out this dilemma,
Mendeleev noticed patterns in the properties and atomic weights of halo-
gens, alkali metals and alkaline metals. He observed similarities between
 109

the series Cl-K-Ca, Br-Rb-Sr, and I-Cs-Ba. He created a card for each of
the 63 known elements in an effort to extend this pattern to other elements.
Each card contained the element’s symbol, atomic weight and its character-
istic chemical and physical properties. Atomic number was a concept yet
to be developed. When Mendeleev arranged the cards on a table in order
of ascending atomic weight grouping elements of similar properties together
in a manner not unlike the card arrangement in his favorite solitaire card
game, patience, the periodic table was formed. From this table, Mendeleev
developed his statement of the periodic law and published his work. The
advantage of Mendeleev’s table over previous attempts was that it exhibited
similarities not only in small units such as the triads, but showed similar-
ities in an entire network of vertical, horizontal, and diagonal groupings.
Mendeleev came within one vote of being awarded the Nobel Prize in 1906
for his work. Mendeleev predicted the existence and properties of unknown
elements from the gaps present in his table that he called eka-aluminum,
eka-boron, and eka-silicon. The elements gallium, scandium and germanium
were found later to fit his predictions quite well. Mendeleev’s table was pub-
lished before Meyers’. His work was more extensive in predicting new or
missing elements. Mendeleev predicted the existence of 10 new elements,
of which seven were eventually discovered – the other three, atomic weights
45, 146 and 175, do not exist. He was incorrect in suggesting that the el-
ement pairs of argon-potassium, cobalt-nickel and tellurium-iodine should
be interchanged in position due to inaccurate atomic weights. Although
these elements did need to be interchanged, it was because of a flaw in the
reasoning that periodicity is a function of atomic weight rather than the
then unknown atomic number. Although Mendeleev’s table demonstrated
the periodic nature of the elements, it remained for the discoveries of scien-
tists of the 20th Century to model the hidden structure of the elements that
caused their properties to recur periodically. Mathematically, the periodic
table is a simple form of Group Theory.
Thermodynamics (Greek: thermos = heat and dynamic = change) is
the physics of energy, heat, work, entropy and the spontaneity of processes.
Thermodynamics is the study of the inter-relation between heat, work and
internal energy of a system.
Thermodynamics is closely related to statistical mechanics from which
many thermodynamic relationships can be derived.
While dealing with processes in which systems exchange matter or en-
ergy, classical thermodynamics is not concerned with the rate at which
such processes take place, termed kinetics. The use of the term “thermody-
110 CHAPTER 3. THE SMALL: LIGHT AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

namics” usually refers to equilibrium thermodynamics. A central concept

in thermodynamics is that of quasistatic processes, which are idealized,
“infinitely slow” processes. Time-dependent thermodynamic processes are
studied by non-equilibrium thermodynamics.
Thermodynamic laws are of very general validity. They do not depend
on the details of the interactions or the systems being studied. This means
they can be applied to systems about which nothing is known other than
the balance of energy and matter transfer with the environment. Examples
of this include Einstein’s prediction of spontaneous emission around the
turn of the 20th century and the current research into the thermodynamics
of black holes.
A system may be measured by pressure and volume, or any pair of
energy measures such as the chemical potential and the number of particles.
An isotherm is the locus of all points representing states at which a
system is in thermal equilibrium with one state of another system.
All states of corresponding isotherms of all systems have something in
common, namely, that they are in thermal equilibrium with one another.
The systems themselves, in these states, may be said to possess a property
that ensures their being in thermal equilibrium with one another. We call
this property temperature. The temperature of a system is a property that
determines whether or not a system is in thermal equilibrium with other
systems. A number may represent the temperature of all systems in ther-
mal equilibrium. The establishment of a temperature scale is merely the
adoption of a set of rules for assigning one number to one set of correspond-
ing isotherms and a different number to a different set of corresponding
isotherms. Once this is done, the necessary and sufficient condition for
thermal equilibrium between two systems is that they have the same tem-
perature. Also, when the temperatures are different, we may be sure that
the systems are not in thermal equilibrium.
The preceding operational treatment of the concept of temperature
merely expresses the fundamental idea that the temperature of a system
is a property, which eventually attains the same value as that of other sys-
tems when all these systems are put in contact within an isolated enclosure.
The thermodynamic parameters used to describe the state of a sys-
tem generally depend on the exact system under consideration and the
conditions under which that system is maintained. The most commonly
considered parameters are Mechanical parameters, Pressure p, Volume V ,
Statistical parameters, Temperature T , and Entropy S.
Two more parameters can be considered for an Open system: the Num-
 111

ber of particles N of each component of the system and the Chemical po-
tential µ of each component of the system.
The mechanical parameters listed above can be described in terms of
fundamental classical or quantum physics, while the statistical parameters
can only be understood in terms of statistical mechanics.
In most applications of thermodynamics, one or more of these parame-
ters will he held constant, while one or more of the remaining parameters are
allowed to vary. Mathematically, this means the system can be described
as a point in n-dimensional mathematical space, where n is the number
of parameters not held fixed. Using statistical mechanics, combined with
the laws of classical or quantum physics, equations of state can be derived
which express each of these parameters in terms of the others. The simplest
and most important of these equations of state are the ideal gas law and
its derived equations pV = NRT .
Thermodynamic Potentials Four quantities, called Thermodynamic po-
tentials, can be defined in terms of the thermodynamic parameters of a
physical system:
Internal energy EI : dEI = T dS − pdV
Helmholtz free energy AH : dAH = −SdT − pdV
Gibbs free energy Gfe : dGfe = −SdT + V dp
Enthalpy HE : dHE = T dS + V dp

Using the above differential forms of the four thermodynamic potentials,

combined with the chain rule of product differentiation, the four potentials
can be expressed in terms of each other and the thermodynamic parame-
ters, as below: E = H − P V = A + T S
A = E − TS = G − PV
G = A + PV = H − TS
H = G + TS = E + PV

The above relationships between the thermodynamic potentials and the

thermodynamic parameters do not depend upon the particular system be-
ing studied. They are universal relationships that can be derived using
statistical mechanics, with no regard for the forces or interaction potentials
between the components of the system. However, the dependence of any
one of these four thermodynamic potentials cannot be expressed in terms
of the thermodynamic parameters of the system without knowledge of the
interaction potentials between system components, the quantum energy
levels, and their corresponding degeneracy, or the partition function of the
112 CHAPTER 3. THE SMALL: LIGHT AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

system under study. However, once the dependence of one of the thermody-
namic functions upon the thermodynamic variables (temperature and one
other variable such as volume or pressure) is determined, the three other
thermodynamic potentials can be easily derived using the above equations.
A thermodynamic system is that part of the universe that is under
consideration. A real or imaginary boundary separates the system from the
rest of the universe, which is referred to as the environment or as a reservoir.
A useful classification of thermodynamic systems is based on the nature of
the boundary and the flows of matter, energy and entropy through it.
There are three kinds of systems depending on the kinds of exchanges
taking place between a system and its environment:
1.Isolated systems do not exchange heat, matter, or work with their envi-
ronment. Mathematically, this implies that T dS = 0, dN = 0, pdV = 0,
and, therefore, dE = 0. An example of an isolated system would be an
insulated container, such as an insulated gas cylinder.
2.Closed systems exchange energy (heat and work) but not matter with
their environment. Only dN = 0 in closed systems. A greenhouse is an
example of a closed system exchanging heat but not work with its environ-
ment.
3. Open systems exchange energy (heat and work) and matter with their
environment. A boundary allowing matter exchange is called permeable.
The ocean is an example of an open system.
Whether a system exchanges heat, work, or both is usually thought of
as a property of its boundary, which can be:
An adiabatic boundary: not allowing heat exchange, T dS = 0. The universe
is assumed to be adiabatic.
A rigid boundary: not allowing exchange of work, pdV = 0.
In reality, a system can never be absolutely isolated from its environ-
ment, because there is always at least some slight coupling, even if only via
minimal gravitational attraction. The only exception in current models is
the universe. A steady-state system has the energy into the system is equal
to the energy leaving the system.
When a system is at equilibrium under a given set of conditions, it is
said to be in a definite state. The state of the system can be described
by a number of intensive variables and extensive variables. The properties
of the system can be described by an equation of state that specifies the
relationship between these variables such as between pressure and density.
The Laws of Thermodynamics
Zeroth law: Thermodynamic equilibrium. When two systems are put
 113

in contact with each other, there will be a net exchange of energy and/or
matter between them unless they are in thermodynamic equilibrium. Two
systems are in thermodynamic equilibrium with each other if they stay the
same after being put in contact. The zeroth law is stated as:
If systems A and B are in thermodynamic equilibrium, and systems B and
C are in thermodynamic equilibrium, then systems A and C are also in
thermodynamic equilibrium.
While this is a fundamental concept of thermodynamics, the need to
state it explicitly as a law was not perceived until the first third of the 20th
century, long after the first three laws were already widely in use, hence the
zero numbering. There is still some discussion about its status.
Thermodynamic equilibrium includes thermal equilibrium (associated to
heat exchange and parameterized by temperature), mechanical equilibrium
(associated to work exchange and parameterized generalized forces such as
pressure), and chemical equilibrium (associated to matter exchange and
parameterized by chemical potential).
First Law: Conservation of energy. This is a fundamental principle of
mechanics, and more generally of physics. However, remember quantum
mechanics and currently popular cosmology have trouble with this. It is
used in thermodynamics to give a precise definition of heat. It is stated as
follows:
The work exchanged in an adiabatic process depends only on the initial and
the final state and not on the details of the process.
or
The net sum of exchange of heat and work of a system with the environment
is a change of property. The amount of property change is determined only
by the initial and final states and is independent on the path through which
the process takes place.
or
The heat flowing into a system equals the increase in internal energy of the
system plus the work done by the system.
or
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only modified in form.
The First Law of thermodynamics is an exact consequence of the laws
of mechanics - classical or quantum.
Second Law: The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the
tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical
potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system. From the state of ther-
modynamic equilibrium, the law deduced the principle of the increase of
114 CHAPTER 3. THE SMALL: LIGHT AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

entropy and explains the phenomenon of irreversibility in nature. The sec-

ond law declares the impossibility of machines that generate usable energy
from the abundant internal energy of nature by processes called perpetual
motion of the second kind.
The law is usually stated in physical terms of impossible processes. Clas-
sical thermodynamics holds the second law as a basic postulate applicable
to any system involving measurable heat transfer. The second law defines
the concept of thermodynamic entropy. Entropy in statistical mechanics
can be defined from information theory, known as the Shannon entropy.
The second law of thermodynamics is a far–reaching and powerful law.
It is typically stated in one of two ways:
It is impossible to obtain a process that, operating in cycle, produces no
other effect than the subtraction of a positive amount of heat from a reser-
voir and the production of an equal amount of work. (Kelvin-Planck State-
ment).
or
No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of
lower temperature to a body of higher temperature. (Clausius Statement)
Constantin Carathéodory formulated thermodynamics on a purely math-
ematical axiomatic foundation. His statement of the second law is known
as the Principle of Carathéodory, which may be formulated as follows:
In every neighborhood of any state S of an adiabatically isolated system
there are states inaccessible from S.
With this formulation he described the concept of adiabatic accessibility
for the first time and provided the foundation for a new subfield of classical
thermodynamics, often called geometrical thermodynamics.
The entropy of a thermally isolated macroscopic system never decreases
(see Maxwell’s demon). However a microscopic system may exhibit fluctua-
tions of entropy opposite to that dictated by the second law (see Fluctuation
Theorem).
The mathematical proof of the Fluctuation Theorem from time-reversible
dynamics and the Axiom of Causality constitutes a proof of the Second Law.
The Second Law in a logical sense thus ceases to be a “Law” of Physics and
becomes a theorem which is valid for large systems or long times. A theorem
has more fundamental postulates and hidden assumptions. For example,
the Big Band model holds the universe is closed and adiabatic. The steady
state model holds that hydrogen is being injected into the universe that
would require a reevaluation of the second law.
According to the second law the entropy of any isolated system, such as
 115

the entire universe of the Big Bang model, never decreases. If the entropy of
the universe has a maximum upper bound then when this bound is reached
the universe has no thermodynamic free energy to sustain motion or life,
that is, the heat death is reached.
Third Law: This law explains why it is so hard to cool something to
absolute zero: All processes cease as temperature approaches zero. The
entropy of a system as T → 0 approaches a constant.
These laws have been humorously summarized as Ginsberg’s theorem:
(1) you can’t win, (2) you can’t break even, and (3) you can’t get out of
the game.
Alternatively: (1) you can’t get anything without working for it, (2) the
most you can accomplish by working is to break even, and (3) you can only
break even at absolute zero.
Or, (1) you cannot win or quit the game, (2) you cannot tie the game
unless it is very cold, and (3) the weather doesn’t get that cold.
More about the 2nd Law The Second Law is exhibited (coarsely) by
a box of electrical cables. Cables added from time to time tangle, inside
the ’closed system’ (cables in a box) by adding and then removing cables.
The best way to untangle is to start by taking the cables out of the box
and placing them stretched out. The cables in a closed system (the box)
will never untangle, but giving them some extra space starts the process of
untangling by going outside the closed system.
C.P. Snow said the following in a lecture in 1959 entitled “The Two
Cultures and the Scientific Revolution”.
“A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who,
by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and
who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the il-
literacy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked
the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermo-
dynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative.”
James Bradley, a British astronomer, noted in 1728 that the direction
of observation of a star varies periodically in the course of a year by an
amount of the same order as the ratio of orbital velocity of the Earth to
c (10−4 ). The corpuscular model of light explained this observation easily.
Thomas Young and Augustin Fresnel saved the wave model by assuming
the ether was completely undisturbed by the motion of the Earth. Fresnel’s
assumption implied the existence of an ether wind on the Earth’s surface
and the mass of the Earth was completely transparent to the ether wind.
George Stokes suggested in 1846 the ether was a jelly-like substance that
116 CHAPTER 3. THE SMALL: LIGHT AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

behaved as an incompressible fluid under slow motion of immersed bodies

and rigidity under fast vibrations of light. Consequently, the propagation of
light remains rectilinear in flowing ether and the wave model is consistent
with Bradley’s observation.
Hippolyte Fizeau performed an experiment in 1850 in which a light
beam was split into two beams. The separate beams were directed through
water flowing in opposite directions. Their phase difference was measured
by interference. The result confirmed the partial drag of light predicted by
Fresnel.
James Clerk Maxwell (1831 Scotland - 1879 England) was shy and a
poor orator that restricted his teaching and university promotion. He, in-
dependently of Boltzman, developed the kinetic theory of gases by treating
gasses statistically (Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics). He showed tempera-
ture and heat involve only molecular movement. The movement of heat
and temperature (measurable quantities) was reduced to statistics where
there is only probability of moving toward a give temperature. His work
on electricity and magnetism produced the now famous four differential
equations of electricity and magnetism known as Maxwell’s equations. The
speed of the current flow being the speed of light Kirchhoff noted was used
to suggest light is electromagnetic radiation. Maxwell’s field equations were
the natural form of discussing both electrodynamics and the optics of mov-
ing bodies. Maxwell’s equations were a result of empirical observations of
electric and magnetic fields. The convective derivative in Maxwell’s equa-
tions derived from his understanding that the polarizations were states of
a single medium composed of ether and matter moving with a well-defined
velocity. That is, the ether was considered as a quasi-material substance.
The ether was fully dragged by moving matter. Maxwell’s equations in
a homogenous insulator imply the existence of transverse electromagnetic
waves propagating with a velocity c that Maxwell identified as light waves.
This theory was inconsistent with optical dispersion, with magneto-optics,
and with the optics of moving bodies.
Several experiments in the 1870s confirmed the absence of an effect of
the Earth’s motion on terrestrial optics.
Albert A. Michelson (1852 Poland - 1931 US) - Attended the US Navel
Academy where he did well in mathematics and poorly in seamanship. The
passion of his life was the speed of light. He was a Nobel laureate for his
measurement of the speed of light. He determined the length of a meter in
terms of the wavelength of cadmium light. If the similarity of atoms in the
universe is assumed, this provides a standard measuring rod without the
 117

necessity to transport it. General Relativity suggests wavelength of emitted

light depends on the gravitational potential in which the emitter exists.
Albert Michelson conceived of an interferometer in 1871 to decide be-
tween Fresnel’s and Stokes’ competing theories. If the ether was stationary,
Michelson reasoned the duration of a round trip of the light in the arm par-
allel to the Earth’s motion would be increased by a factor depending on the
velocity u of the Earth through the ether. His calculation also assumed the
u would add and subtract the velocity of light. The calculated factor was
1/(1 − u2 /c2 ). Alfred Potier noted Michelson’s derivation overlooked the
increase
√ of the round trip of light perpendicular arm of the interferometer
of 1/ (1 − u2 /c2 ). This factor is derived using the Pythagorean theorem
and Euclidean geometry. Michelson with Morley’s help repeated the experi-
ment with greater accuracy. While Fizeau’s experiment supported Fresnel’s
model, the Michelson-Morley experiment contradicted it.
The following is the model used today to describe the Michelson-Morley
experiment. It has many hidden assumptions.
Each year, the Earth travels a tremendous distance in its orbit around
the Sun, at a speed of around 30 km/second, over 100,000 km per hour. The
Sun rotates around the galaxy at approximately 250 km/second (a recent
result). It was reasoned that the Earth would at all times be moving through
the ether and producing a detectable “ether wind”. At any given point on
the Earth’s surface, the magnitude and direction of the wind would vary
with time of day and season. By analyzing the effective wind at different
times, it should be possible to separate out components due to motion of
the Earth relative to the Solar System from any due to the overall motion
of that system.
The effect of the ether wind on light waves is assumed to be like the effect
of wind on sound (longitudinal) waves. Sound waves travel at a constant
speed relative to the medium that they are traveling through (this varies
depending on the pressure, temperature etc., but is typically around 340
m/s). So, if the speed (not frequency) of sound in our conditions is 340
m/s, when there is a 10 m/s wind relative to the ground, into the wind it
will appear that sound is traveling at 330 m/s (340 - 10). Downwind, it
will appear that sound is traveling at 350 m/s (340 + 10). Measuring the
speed of sound compared to the ground in different directions will therefore
enable us calculate the speed of the air relative to the ground.
If the speed of the sound cannot be directly measured, an alternative
method is to measure the time that the sound takes to bounce off of a
reflector and return to the origin. This is done parallel to the wind and
118 CHAPTER 3. THE SMALL: LIGHT AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

perpendicular (because the direction of the wind is unknown before hand,

just determine the time for several different directions). The cumulative
round trip effects of the wind in the two orientations slightly favors the
sound traveling at right angles to it.
Similarly, the effect of an ether wind on a beam of light would be for the
beam to take slightly longer to travel round-trip in the direction parallel to
the “wind” than to travel the same round-trip distance at right angles to
it. “Slightly” is key because over a distance on the order of a few meters,
the difference in time for the two round trips would be on the order of only
a millionth of a millionth of a second. At this point the only truly accurate
measurements of the speed of light were those carried out by Michelson,
which had resulted in measurements accurate to a few meters per second.
While a stunning achievement in its own right, this was certainly not nearly
enough accuracy to be able to detect the ether.
His design, later known as an interferometer, (An interferometer works
on the principle that two waves that coincide with the same phase will
amplify each other while two waves that have opposite phases will cancel
each other out) sent a single source of monochromatic light through a half-
silvered mirror that was used to split it into two beams traveling at right
angles to one other. After leaving the splitter, the beams traveled out to
the ends of long arms where they were reflected back into the middle on
small mirrors. They then recombined on the far side of the splitter in an
eyepiece, producing a pattern of constructive and destructive interference
based on the length of the arms. Any slight change in the amount of time
the beams spent in transit would then be observed as a shift in the positions
of the interference fringes. If the ether were stationary relative to the Sun,
then the Earth’s motion would produce a shift of about 0.04 fringes.
Michelson had made several measurements with an experimental device
in 1881, in which he noticed that the expected shift of 0.04 was not seen, and
a smaller shift of about 0.02 was. However, his apparatus was a prototype,
and had experimental errors far too large to say anything about the ether
wind. For this measurement a much more accurate and tightly controlled
experiment would have to be carried out. It was, however, successful in
demonstrating that the basic apparatus was feasible.
He then combined with Edward Morley and spent a considerably amount
of time and money creating an improved version with more than enough
accuracy to detect the drift. The light in their improved experiment was
repeatedly reflected back and forth along the arms, increasing the path
length to 11m. At this length the drift would be about 1/6th of a fringe.
 119

To make that easily detectable the apparatus was located in a closed room
in the basement of a stone building, eliminating most thermal and vibration
effects. Vibrations were further reduced by building the apparatus on top
of a huge block of marble that was then floated in a pool of mercury. They
calculated that effects of about 1/100th of a fringe would be detectable.
The mercury pool allowed the device to be turned, so that it could be
rotated through the entire range of possible angles to the ether wind. Even
over a short period of time some sort of effect would be noticed simply by
rotating the device, such that one arm rotated into the direction of the wind
and the other away. Over longer periods day/night cycles or yearly cycles
would also be easily measurable
This result was rather astounding and not explainable by the then–
current theory of wave propagation in a static ether. Several explanations
were attempted. Among them, that the experiment had a hidden flaw (ap-
parently Michelson’s initial belief), or that the Earth’s gravitational field
somehow “dragged” the ether around with it in such a way as to locally
eliminate its effect. Dayton Miller (who purported to have observed a vari-
ation with season) argued that, in most if not all experiments other than his
own, there was little possibility of detecting an ether wind because it was
almost completely blocked out by the laboratory walls or by the apparatus
itself. Miller’s result of a slight shift has not been duplicated. Be this as it
may, the idea of a simple ether, what became known as the First Postulate,
had been dealt a serious blow.
A number of experiments were carried out to investigate the concept of
ether dragging or entrainment. Hamar performed the most convincing by
placing one arm of the interferometer between two huge lead blocks. If the
ether were dragged by mass, the blocks would, it was theorized, have been
enough to cause a visible effect. Once again, no effect was seen.
Walter Ritz’s emitter theory (or ballistic theory) was a competing the-
ory for Special Relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson-Morley
experiment. Emitter theory keeps part of the principle of relativity but
postulates the speed of light is c only relative to its source, instead of the
invariance postulate.
Thus, emitter theory combines electrodynamics and mechanics with a
simple Newtonian theory that has no paradoxes in it. Testing this theory
became practical in the 1960s. Particles called neutral pions were acceler-
ated to near the speed of light in a particle accelerator, and the speed of
the photons emitted by decay of those particles was measured. The speed
was found to be exactly the same as that of light emitted by the decay of
120 CHAPTER 3. THE SMALL: LIGHT AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

stationary particles.
Emitter theory was also consistent with the results of the experiment,
did not require an ether, was more intuitive, and was paradox free. This
became known as the Second Postulate. However it also led to several
“obvious” optical effects that were not seen in astronomical photographs,
notably in observations of binary stars in which the light from the two stars
could be measured in an interferometer.
The Sagnac experiment placed the apparatus on a constantly rotating
turntable. Any ballistic theories such as Ritz’s could be tested directly.
The light going one way around the device would have different length to
travel than light going the other way (the eyepiece and mirrors would be
moving toward/away from the light). Ritz’s theory suggested there would
be no shift because the net velocity between the light source and detector
was zero (they were both mounted on the turntable). However, an effect
was seen in this case, thereby eliminating any simple ballistic theory. This
fringe-shift effect is used today in laser gyroscopes.
The Fitzgerald contraction was another possible solution. Fitzgerald
contraction suggests all objects physically contract along the line of motion
relative to the ether. While the light may indeed transit slower on that
arm, it also ends up traveling a shorter distance that exactly cancels out
the drift.
The Kennedy-Thorndike experiment in 1932 modified the Michelson-
Morley experiment by making the path lengths of the split beam unequal
with one arm being very long. The two ends of the experiment were at dif-
ferent velocities due to the rotation of the Earth Therefore, the contraction
should not exactly cancel the result. Once again, no effect was seen.
Ernst Mach was among the first physicists to suggest that the exper-
iment actually amounted to a disproof of the ether theory. The devel-
opment of what became Einstein’s Special Relativity had the Fitzgerald-
Lorentz contraction derived from the invariance postulate and was also
consistent with the apparently null results of most experiments (though
not with Miller’s observed seasonal effects). Today, relativity is generally
considered the “solution” to the Michelson-Morley experiment’s null result.
The Trouton-Noble experiment is regarded as the electrostatic equiva-
lent of the Michelson-Morley optical experiment, though whether or not it
can ever be done with the necessary sensitivity is debatable.
A suggested Theory of Everything must account for the Michelson-
Morley experimental result. However, the null result is an “ambiguous
zero”, which causes the experiment to be repeated over the decades with
 121

greater accuracy.
Another way to attack the experimental result is to suggest one of the
hidden assumptions is false.
Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (Netherlands)(1853 - 1928) proposed that light
waves were due to oscillations of an electric charge in the atom before the
existence of electrons was proved. He developed his mathematical theory
of the electron for which he received the Nobel Prize.
He developed a molecular theory of optical dispersion in 1878 in which
elastically bound, charged particles (“ions”) vibrated under the action (the
“Lorentz force”) of an electromagnetic wave that generated a secondary
wave. He assumed the ether around the ions had the same properties as
the ether in a vacuum. He considered in 1892 that the ions and molecules
moved through the ether at the velocity of Earth. The resulting wave
traveled at the velocity predicted by Fresnel’s model. This reduced the
Fresnel ether drag to molecular interference in a stationary ether and gave
a proof that optical phenomena were unaffected by the Earth’s motion
through the ether.
George FitzGerald suggested the longitudinal arm of the interferome-
ter underwent a physical contraction when moving through the ether as
Alfred
√ Potier noted for the perpendicular arm of the interferometer of
1/ (1 − u2 /c2 ). Lorentz was also famed for his work on the Fitzgerald-
Lorentz contraction, which is a contraction in the length of an object at
relativistic speeds. Lorentz transformations, which he introduced in 1904,
form the basis of the theory of relativity. They describe the increase of mass,
shortening of length, and time dilation of an object moving at speeds close
to the speed of light. The Lorentz contraction appears to result from an
assumed similarity between molecular forces of cohesion and electrostatic
forces. His and similar theories benefited from experimental microphysics,
including the discovery of x-rays (1895), radioactivity (1896), the electron
(1897), and the spectral splitting of spectral lines (1896). He never fully
accepted quantum theory and hoped it could be incorporated into classical
physics.
Jules Henri Poincaré (France) (1854 - 1912) - He was ambidextrous, had
poor muscular coordination, and was nearsighted. His memory was linked
with an outstanding ability to visualize the ideas he heard. He tended
to develop his results from first principles and not from previous results.
Among his first principles were the Principle of relativity, the Principle
of Action/Reaction, and the Principle of Least Action. Therefore, he at-
tacked problems from many different angles. He made contributions to
122 CHAPTER 3. THE SMALL: LIGHT AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

mathematics, celestial mechanics, fluid mechanics, Special Relativity, and

the philosophy of science. His work expanded on the non-Euclidean func-
tions. This brings Riemann geometry into relativity. He is acknowledged
as a co-discover, with Albert Einstein and Hendrik Lorentz, of Special Rel-
ativity. He invoked an analogy of fluid flow to characterize all motions of
mechanical systems. Poincaré wrote a paper in 1898 in which he asked: (1)
is it meaningful say that one second today is equal to one second tomorrow?
and (2) is it meaningful to say two events that are separated in space occur
at the same time? He discussed the possibility that simultaneity is little
more than the exchange of signals between two clocks, taking into account
the duration of transfer between them at a finite speed of an electrical signal
or of light.
Electromagnetic mass was initially a concept of classical mechanics, de-
noting as to how much the electromagnetic field, or the self-energy, is con-
tributing to the mass of charged particles. J. J. Thomson in 1881 and oth-
ers noticed that a charged sphere moving in a space filled with a medium
of a specific inductive capacity (the electromagnetic ether of James Clerk
Maxwell) is harder to set in motion than an uncharged body. Similar con-
siderations were already made by George Gabriel Stokes (1843). Stokes
showed that the inertia of a body moving in an incompressible perfect fluid
is increased. Due to this self-induction effect, electrostatic energy behaves
as having some sort of momentum and “apparent” electromagnetic mass
that can increase the ordinary mechanical mass of the bodies. The electro-
magnetic energy–mass–relation was calculated to be mem = (4/3)Eem /c2 ,
where Eem is the electrostatic energy and mem is the electrostatic mass of
an electron at rest.
This was discussed in connection with the proposal of the electrical ori-
gin of matter. Wilhelm Wien (1900) and Abraham (1902) came to the con-
clusion that the total mass of the bodies is identical to its electromagnetic
mass. Wien stated, that if it is assumed that gravitation is an electromag-
netic effect too, then there has to be proportionality between electromag-
netic energy, inertial mass, and gravitational mass. When one body attracts
another one, the electromagnetic energy store of gravitation is according to
Wien diminished.
Henri Poincaré in 1906 argued that when mass is in fact the product
of the electromagnetic field in the ether and because matter is inseparably
connected with mass, then also matter doesn’t exist at all and electrons are
only cavities in the ether.
Thomson (1893) noticed that electromagnetic momentum and energy
 123

of charged bodies and, therefore, their masses depend on the speed of the
bodies as well. He wrote:
“When in the limit v = c, the increase in mass is infinite, thus a charged
sphere moving with the velocity of light behaves as if its mass were infinite,
its velocity therefore will remain constant, in other words it is impossible to
increase the velocity of a charged body moving through the dielectric beyond
that of light.”
Lorentz in 1899 assumed that the electrons undergo length contraction
in the line of motion.
The predictions of the theories of Abraham and Lorentz were supported
by the experiments of Walter Kaufmann (1901), but the experiments were
not precise enough, to distinguish between them. Experiments lacked the
necessary precision until 1940 when Lorentz’s formula was eventually sup-
ported.
The idea of an electromagnetic nature of matter, however, had to be
given up. Abraham (1904, 1905) argued that non-electromagnetic forces
were necessary to prevent Lorentz’s contractile electrons from exploding.
He also showed that different results for the longitudinal electromagnetic
mass can be obtained in Lorentz’s theory, depending on whether the mass
is calculated from its energy or its momentum, so a non-electromagnetic
potential (corresponding to 1/3 of the Electron’s electromagnetic energy)
was necessary to render these masses equal. Abraham doubted whether it
was possible to develop a model satisfying all of these properties.
To solve those problems, Henri Poincaré in 1905 and 1906 introduced
some sort of pressure (“Poincaré stresses”) of non–electromagnetic nature.
Abraham required these stresses contribute non–electromagnetic energy to
the electrons, amounting to 1/4 of their total energy or to 1/3 of their
electromagnetic energy. The Poincaré stresses remove the contradiction in
the derivation of the longitudinal electromagnetic mass, they prevent the
electron from exploding, they remain unaltered by a Lorentz transformation
(i.e. they are Lorentz invariant), and were also thought as a dynamical
explanation of length contraction. However, Poincaré still assumed that
only the electromagnetic energy contributes to the mass of the bodies.
As it was later noted, the problem lies in the 4/3 factor of electromag-
netic rest mass when derived from the Abraham-Lorentz equations. How-
ever, when it is derived from the electron’s electrostatic energy alone, we
have mes = Eem /c2 , where the 4/3 factor is missing. This can be solved
by adding the non–electromagnetic energy Ep of the Poincaré stresses to
Eem , the electron’s total energy Etot = mem c2 . Thus the missing 4/3 factor
124 CHAPTER 3. THE SMALL: LIGHT AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

is restored when the mass is related to its electromagnetic energy, and it

disappears when the total energy is considered.
Another way of deriving some sort of electromagnetic mass was based on
the concept of radiation pressure. James Clerk Maxwell (1874) and Adolfo
Bartoli (1876) derived these pressures or tensions in the electromagnetic
field. Lorentz recognized in 1895 that those tensions also arise in his theory
of the stationary ether. If the electromagnetic field of the ether is able to
set bodies in motion, the action/reaction principle demands that the ether
must be set in motion by matter as well. However, Lorentz pointed out
that any tension in the ether requires the mobility of the ether parts, which
is not possible in his theory because the ether is immobile. This represents
a violation of the reaction principle that Lorentz consciously accepted. He
continued by saying that because fictitious tensions are only mathematical
models in his theory to ease the description of the electrodynamic interac-
tions, they are not real.
Poincaré in 1900 studied the conflict between the action/reaction princi-
ple and Lorentz’s theory. He tried to determine whether the center of gravity
still moves with a uniform velocity when electromagnetic fields and radia-
tion are involved. He noticed that the action/reaction principle does not
hold for matter alone, but that the electromagnetic field has its own momen-
tum. Thomson in 1893 derived such a momentum in a more complicated
way. Poincaré concluded the electromagnetic field energy behaves like a fic-
titious fluid (“fluide fictif”) with a mass density of Eem /c2 or mem = Eem /c2 .
If the center of mass frame is defined by both the mass of matter and the
mass of the fictitious fluid and if the fictitious fluid is indestructible, then
the motion of the center of mass frame remains uniform.
However, because this electromagnetic fluid can be absorbed by matter,
it is not indestructible, which according to Poincaré was the reason why he
regarded the em-fluid as “fictitious” rather than “real”. Thus the center of
mass principle would be violated again. As Einstein would later do, an easy
solution of this would be to assume that the mass of em-field is transferred
to matter in the absorption process. But Poincaré created another solution.
He assumed that there exists an immobile non-electromagnetic energy fluid
at each point in space, also carrying a mass proportional to its energy.
When the fictitious em–fluid is destroyed or absorbed, its electromagnetic
energy and mass is not carried away by moving matter, but is transferred
into the non-electromagnetic fluid and remains at exactly the same place
in that fluid. Poincaré added that these assumptions are not too surprising
because they are only mathematical fictions. Therefore, the motion of the
 125

center of mass frame, including matter, fictitious em–fluid, and fictitious

non-em–fluid, should theoretically remain uniform.
However, because only matter and electromagnetic energy are directly
observable by experiment (not the non-em–fluid), Poincaré’s resolution still
violates the reaction principle and the center of mass theorem, when an
emission / absorption process is practically considered. This leads to a
paradox when changing frames: if waves are radiated in a certain direction,
the device will suffer recoil from the momentum of the fictitious fluid. Then,
Poincaré performed a Lorentz boost (to first order in v/c) to the frame of
the moving source. He noted that energy conservation holds in both frames,
but that the law of conservation of momentum is violated. This would allow
perpetual motion, a notion that he abhorred. The laws of nature would have
to be different in the frames of reference, and the relativity principle would
not hold. Therefore, he argued, that in this case there has to be another
compensating mechanism in the ether, also.
Poincaré came back to this topic in 1904. This time he rejected his
own solution that motions in the ether can compensate the motion of mat-
ter, because any such motion is unobservable and, therefore, scientifically
worthless. He also abandoned the concept that energy carries mass and
wrote in connection to the recoil:
“The apparatus will recoil as if it were a cannon and the projected en-
ergy a ball, and that contradicts the principle of Newton, since our present
projectile has no mass; it is not matter, it is energy.”
However, Poincaré’s idea of momentum and mass associated with radi-
ation proved to be fruitful, when Abraham introduced the term “electro-
magnetic momentum”, having a field density of Eem /c2 per cm3 and Eem /c
per cm2 . Contrary to Lorentz and Poincaré, who considered momentum
as a fictitious force, Abraham argued that it is a real physical entity, and,
therefore, conservation of momentum is guaranteed.
By studying the dynamics of a moving cavity, Friedrich Hasenöhrl (1904)
concluded that radiation and thus temperature contribute to the inertia
of bodies. He derived the formula mea = (8/3)Eem /c2 , where mea is the
“apparent mass” due to radiation. This was corrected in 1905 by Abraham
and him to mea = (4/3)Eem /c2 = mem .
Poincaré wrote in his philosophical writing on time measurements (1898)
that astronomers like Ole Römer, in determining the speed of light, simply
assume that light has a constant speed, and that this speed is the same
in all directions. Without this postulate it would not be possible to infer
the speed of light from astronomical observations, as Römer did based on
126 CHAPTER 3. THE SMALL: LIGHT AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

observations of the moons of Jupiter. Poincaré went on to note that Römer

also had to assume that Jupiter’s moons obey Newton’s laws, including the
law of gravitation, whereas it would be possible to reconcile a different speed
of light with the same observations if we assumed some different (probably
more complicated) laws of motion. According to Poincaré, this illustrates
that we adopt for the speed of light a value that makes the laws of mechanics
as simple as possible. (This is an example of Poincaré’s conventionalist
philosophy.) Poincaré also noted that the propagation speed of light could
be (and in practice often is) used to define simultaneity between spatially
separate events. However, in that paper he did not go on to discuss the
consequences of applying these “conventions” to multiple relatively moving
systems of reference. This next step was done by Poincaré in 1900, when he
recognized that synchronization by light signals in Earth’s reference frame
leads to Lorentz’s local time. And in 1904 Poincaré wrote:
“From all these results, if they were to be confirmed, would issue a wholly
new mechanics which would be characterized above all by this fact, that there
could be no velocity greater than that of light, any more than a temperature
below that of absolute zero. For an observer participating in a motion of
translation of which he has no suspicion, no apparent velocity could surpass
that of light. This would be a contradiction, unless this observer does not use
the same sort of timepiece as that used by a stationary observer, but rather
a watch giving the “local time”. Perhaps, likewise, we should construct
a whole new mechanics, of which we only succeed in catching a glimpse,
where inertia increasing with the velocity, the velocity of light would become
an impassable limit. The ordinary mechanics, more simple, would remain
a first approximation, since it would be true for velocities not too great, so
that we should still find the old dynamics under the new...I hasten to say in
conclusion we are not yet there, and as yet nothing proves that the principles
[of ordinary mechanics] will not come forth from the combat victorious and
intact.”
Poincaré argued in 1895 that experiments like that of Michelson-Morley
show that it seems to be impossible to detect the absolute motion of matter
or the relative motion of matter in relation to the ether. Although most
physicists had other views, Poincaré in 1900 stood to his opinion and alter-
nately used the expressions “principle of relative motion” and “relativity of
space”. He criticized Lorentz by saying, that it would be better to create
a more fundamental theory, which explains the absence of any ether drift,
than to create one hypothesis after the other. He used for the first time the
expression “principle of relativity” in 1902. He appreciated the work of the
 127

mathematicians in 1904, which saved what he now called the “principle of

relativity” with the help of hypotheses like local time. However, he confessed
that this venture was possible only by an accumulation of hypotheses. And
he defined the principle in this way (according to Miller based on Lorentz’s
theorem of corresponding states): “The principle of relativity, according to
which the laws of physical phenomena must be the same for a stationary
observer as for one carried along in a uniform motion of translation, so
that we have no means, and can have none, of determining whether or not
we are being carried along in such a motion.”
Referring to the critique of Poincaré from 1900, Lorentz wrote in his
famous paper in 1904, where he extended his theorem of corresponding
states: “Surely, the course of inventing special hypotheses for each new
experimental result is somewhat artificial. It would be more satisfactory,
if it were possible to show, by means of certain fundamental assumptions,
and without neglecting terms of one order of magnitude or another, that
many electromagnetic actions are entirely independent of the motion of the
system.”
One of the first assessments of Lorentz’s paper was by Paul Langevin
in May 1905. According to him, this extension of the electron theories
of Lorentz and Larmor led to “the physical impossibility to demonstrate
the translational motion of the Earth”. However, Poincaré noticed in 1905
that Lorentz’s theory of 1904 was not perfectly “Lorentz invariant” in a
few equations such as Lorentz’s expression for current density (it was ad-
mitted by Lorentz in 1921 that these were defects). As this required just
minor modifications of Lorentz’s work, Poincaré asserted that Lorentz had
succeeded in harmonizing his theory with the principle of relativity: “It
appears that this impossibility of demonstrating the absolute motion of the
Earth is a general law of nature.”
Poincaré in his Palermo paper (1906) called this “the postulate of relativ-
ity” and he stated that it was possible this principle might be disproved at
some point. He mentioned at the paper’s end that the discovery of magneto-
cathode rays by Paul Ulrich Villard (1904) seems to threaten it. He believed
it was interesting to consider the consequences if we were to assume the pos-
tulate of relativity were valid without restriction. This would imply that
all forces of nature (not just electromagnetism) must be invariant under the
Lorentz transformation. Lorentz credited Poincaré in 1921 for establishing
the principle and postulate of relativity and wrote: “I have not established
the principle of relativity as rigorously and universally true. Poincaré, on
the other hand, has obtained a perfect invariance of the electro-magnetic
128 CHAPTER 3. THE SMALL: LIGHT AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

equations, and he has formulated ’the postulate of relativity’, terms which

he was the first to employ.”
Poincaré wrote in the sense of his conventionalist philosophy in 1889:
“Whether the ether exists or not matters little - let us leave that to the
metaphysicians; what is essential for us is, that everything happens as if it
existed, and that this hypothesis is found to be suitable for the explanation
of phenomena. After all, have we any other reason for believing in the
existence of material objects? That, too, is only a convenient hypothesis;
only, it will never cease to be so, while some day, no doubt, the ether will
be thrown aside as useless.”
Poincaré also denied the existence of absolute space and time by saying
in 1901: “1. There is no absolute space, and we only conceive of relative
motion; and yet in most cases mechanical facts are enunciated as if there is
an absolute space to which they can be referred. 2. There is no absolute time.
When we say that two periods are equal, the statement has no meaning, and
can only acquire a meaning by a convention. 3. Not only have we no direct
intuition of the equality of two periods, but also we have not even direct
intuition of the simultaneity of two events occurring in two different places.
I have explained this in an article entitled ’Mesure du Temps’ [1898]. 4.
Finally, is not our Euclidean geometry in itself only a kind of convention
of language?”
Although he admitted the relative and conventional character of space
and time, he believed that the classical convention is more “convenient” and
continued to distinguish between “true” time in the ether and “apparent”
time in moving systems. Addressing the question if a new convention of
space and time is needed he wrote in 1912: “Shall we be obliged to modify our
conclusions? Certainly not; we had adopted a convention because it seemed
convenient and we had said that nothing could constrain us to abandon it.
Today some physicists want to adopt a new convention. It is not that they
are constrained to do so; they consider this new convention more convenient;
that is all. And those who are not of this opinion can legitimately retain
the old one in order not to disturb their old habits, I believe, just between
us, that this is what they shall do for a long time to come.”
Lorentz argued during his lifetime that in all frames of reference the
preferred one is the one in which the ether is at rest. Clocks in this frame
are showing the “real” time and simultaneity is not relative. However, if
the correctness of the relativity principle is accepted, it is impossible to find
this system by experiment.
Poincaré came very close to the theory of Special Relativity in 1904
 129

when he pointed out “. . . observers in different (inertial) frames will have

clocks which will mark what one may call the local time. . . ”. As demanded
by the relativity principle the observer cannot know whether he is at rest
or in absolute motion. Yet Poincaré couldn’t bring himself to discard the
fundamental distinction between “true time” (in the frame of the ether)
and “apparent time”, as measured in any other inertial frame. Nor could
he discard the notion of the ether. Einstein did away with both.
Ludwig Boltzmann’s (1844 Austria - 1906 Italy) nature made him sub-
ject to rapid swings between happiness and sadness. He was very soft-
hearted. He committed suicide just before experiment verified his work. He
was short and stout. He disliked working with Mach. Boltzmann’s fame
is because of his invention of statistical mechanics independent of William
Gibbs. Boltzmann obtained the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, that the
average energy of motion of a molecule is the same in each direction. Their
theories connected the properties and behavior of atoms and molecules with
the large-scale properties and behavior of the substances of which they were
the building blocks. His work relates to the Second Law of Thermodynam-
ics. Many scientists opposed his theories because of the statistical rather
than deterministic nature of his theory. His theory also implied an atomic
structure of objects. His differential equations proposed to represent the
macroscopic view without determining the underlying atomic structure.
The particular energy of some wave can have any value from zero to
infinity according to classical physics. The actual value is proportional to
the square of its average amplitude. But, if we have a system containing a
large number of physical entities of the same kind that are in thermal equi-
librium with each other at a temperature T , such as the system of standing
waves in equilibrium in the black body cavity, the classical theory of statis-
tical mechanics demands that the energies of these entities be distributed
according to a definite probability distribution whose form is specified by
T.
Because the entities could presumably be distinguished experimentally
when in different energy states even though they are of the same kind, they
are counted as a new division. Any rearrangement of entities in the same
energy state is not counted because entities in the same energy state could
not be distinguished. The final assumption is all possible divisions of the
total energy occur with the same probability (also known as Equipartition
of Energy). Then the probability that the divisions of a given type will
occur is proportional to the number of duplicate divisions of that type, and
the relative probability is just equal to that number divided by the total
130 CHAPTER 3. THE SMALL: LIGHT AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

number of duplicate divisions.

Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck (Germany) (1858 - 1947) - Planck re-
ceived the Nobel Prize in 1918 for his theoretical deduction of the quanta
of energy. The equation is now known as Planck’s radiation equation or
Planck’s law.
A “black body” is a source of radiation that is characterized by only
the temperature T of the body. Examples of black bodies include a cavity
in a material held at T , stars, and the universe’s microwave background
radiation. A black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all inci-
dent electromagnetic radiation. The model of blackbody radiation assumes
the radiation is wavelike. Because of this perfect absorptivity at all wave-
lengths, a black body is also the best possible emitter of thermal radiation,
which it radiates incandescently in a characteristic, continuous spectrum
that depends on the body’s temperature. The radiation from a black body
shows a particular curve of intensity versus wavelength.
Blackbody radiation has a frequency distribution with a characteristic
frequency of maximum radiative power that shifts to higher frequencies
(shorter wavelengths) with increasing temperature.
The study of blackbody cavities resulted in two empirical laws. The
Stefan-Boltzmann law states that the power emitted per unit area of the
surface of a black body is directly proportional to the fourth power of its
absolute temperature. Wien’s displacement law shows how the spectrum of
black body radiation at any temperature is related to the spectrum at any
other temperature. If we know the shape of the spectrum at one tempera-
ture, we can calculate the shape at any other temperature. A consequence
of Wien’s displacement law is that the wavelength at which the intensity of
the radiation produced by a black body is at a maximum is inversely propor-
tional to its temperature. The area for the hot star Spica with T ≈ 23, 000
K is 2094 times the area for the cool star Antares with T ≈ 3, 400 K.
Rayleigh and Jeans classical equation for blackbody radiation was based
on Boltzman statistics and classical theory that the energy spectrum was
continuous. This resulted in the ultra-violet catastrophe. The Rayleigh and
Jeans classical equation failed to match experiment at short wavelengths.
Planck’s postulate may be stated as any physical entity whose single
“coordinate” executes simple harmonic motion (i.e. is a sinusoidal function
of time) can possess total energies e = nhν, where n is an integer number,
h is a constant known as Planck’s constant and is assumed to be universal,
and ν is the frequency of oscillation.
Planck’s postulate is able to produce a remarkable change in the re-
 131

sults of the calculation and has outstanding agreement with observation.

Planck’s postulate in terms of the mathematics has the effect of only re-
placing integrals by sums. The failure of the Rayleigh–Jeans theory is
essentially due to the rapid increase in the number of energy states in a
frequency interval as the frequency becomes large. Because the classical
law of equipartition of energy requires that the average energy in a system
be independent of ν, the spectrum itself will also increase rapidly with in-
creasing ν. Planck’s postulate has the effect of putting a cut–off into the
average energy in a system so that it does not obey the classical law. This
keeps the spectrum bounded and brings the spectrum to zero as ν → 0.
The decrease in the average energy as ν → 0 comes about in the fol-
lowing way. Under Planck’s postulate, the energy of the standing waves is
either e = 0, or e = hν, or e = 2hν, etc. If we now consider the Boltzmann
probability distribution, we see that for ν large enough that hν ≫ kT the
probability that a standing wave will have an energy other than e = 0 be-
comes negligible. Consequently, when we evaluate the average energy for
standing waves whose ν is large, we find the average energy ≈ 0. On the
other hand, for the very low frequency standing waves in which hν ≈ kT ,
the quantum states are so close together that they behave as if they were
continuously distributed, as in the classical theory. Thus Planck’s value of
the average energy in the low frequency limit approaches the classical value
of the average energy = kT .
Planck’s postulate in its original form was not so far reaching as it is in
the modern form. Planck’s initial work was done with the theory in which
the energy in a particular frequency component of the black body radiation
is related to the energy of a (charged) particle in the wall of the black body
cavity oscillating sinusoidally at the same frequency. He postulated only
that the energy of the oscillating particle is quantized. After the develop-
ment of the Rayleigh–Jeans theory it became apparent that it is equivalent
to quantize the oscillating electromagnetic waves directly. The postulate
was broadened to include any entity whose single “coordinate” oscillates
sinusoidally. Planck’s first step consisted of finding, by trial and error, an
empirical equation that agreed with the experimental spectra. Then he set
about finding what modifications of the classical theory were required to
yield this equation. The derivation of the Boltzmann probability distri-
bution suggested to Plank to hold the difference of energy between states
(δe) constant instead of taking it to zero as required by classical theory.
Although the probability of a given state then has values only for discrete
e, these values are not changed. However the average energy is changed.
132 CHAPTER 3. THE SMALL: LIGHT AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

Its new value depends on δe. Planck soon found that the desired spectral
distribution is obtained if δe is proportional to the oscillation frequency
ν. Then the possible energies e = nδe become e = nhν, as stated in his
postulate.
The success of Planck’s postulate in leading to a theoretical blackbody
spectrum that agrees with experiment requires that its validity is tentatively
accepted until such time as it may be proved to lead to conclusions that
disagree with experiment. The behavior of some physical systems appears to
be in disagreement with the postulate. For instance, an ordinary pendulum
executes simple harmonic oscillations. This system appears to be capable of
possessing a continuous range of energies. Consider a pendulum consisting
of a 1-gm weight suspended from a 10-cm string. The oscillation frequency
of this pendulum is about 1.6/sec. The energy of the pendulum depends
on the amplitude of the oscillations. Assume the amplitude to be such that
the string in its extreme position makes an angle of 0.1 radians with the
vertical. Then the energy E is approximately 50 ergs. If the energy of the
pendulum is quantized, any decrease in the energy of the pendulum, for
instance caused by frictional effects, will take place in discontinuous jumps
of magnitude hν. If we consider that hν = 6.63 × 10−27 × 1.6 ≈ 10−26
ergs, then even the most sensitive experimental equipment is incapable of
resolving the discontinuous nature of the energy decrease. No evidence,
either positive or negative, concerning the validity of Planck’s postulate is
to be found from experiments involving a pendulum. The same is true of all
other macroscopic mechanical systems. Only when we consider systems in
which ν is so large and/or E is so small that hν is of the order of E are we
in a position to test Planck’s postulate. One example is the high frequency
standing waves in black body radiation.
Black body radiation causes the continuous spectrum against which the
bands of absorption or emission are seen. The microwave background radi-
ation is the closest to black body radiation than other measurement (stars,
hot material on Earth, etc.). Therefore, a candidate model for the Theory
of Everything must model the black body nature of the universe.
Philosophically, Planck’s derivation is statistical thermodynamics. As
the idea of a quanta or discrete energy levels evolves into Quantum Me-
chanics, so to does the statistical nature of the calculations. Note that
the radiation is electromagnetic (light). This tends to support the photon
model of light.
The Sun’s visible photosphere (after the atmosphere) is at a T = 5770
K (about 5497 ◦ C) that implies wavelength of about 5500 Å.
 133

The photoelectric effect is the emission of electrons from a surface (usu-

ally metallic) upon exposure to, and absorption of, electromagnetic radia-
tion (such as visible light and ultraviolet radiation) that is above the thresh-
old frequency particular to each type of surface. No electrons are emitted
for radiation below the threshold frequency, as they cannot gain sufficient
energy to overcome their atomic bonding. The electrons that are emitted
are often termed “Photoelectrons” in many textbooks.
The photoelectric effect helped further wave–particle duality, whereby
physical systems (such as photons in this case) can display both wave–
like and particle–like properties and behaviors. The creators of quantum
mechanics used this concept.
The first recorded observation of the photoelectric effect was by Heinrich
Hertz in 1887 in the journal Annalen Der Physik when he was investigating
the production and reception of electromagnetic (EM) waves. His receiver
consisted of a coil with a spark gap, whereupon a spark would be seen
upon detection of EM waves. He placed the apparatus in a darkened box
in order to see the spark better. He observed that the maximum spark
length was reduced when in the box. The glass panel placed between the
source of EM waves and the receiver absorbed ultraviolet radiation that
assisted the electrons in jumping across the gap. When removed, the spark
length would increase. He observed no decrease in spark length when he
substituted quartz for glass, as quartz does not absorb UV radiation.
Hertz concluded his months of investigation and reported the results
obtained. He did not further pursue investigation of this effect, nor did he
make any attempt at explaining how the observed phenomenon was brought
about.
In 1902 Philipp von Lenard observed the variation in electron energy
with light frequency. He used a powerful electric arc lamp that enabled
him to investigate large changes in intensity and that had sufficient power
to enable him to investigate the variation of potential with light frequency.
His experiment directly measured potentials, not electron kinetic energy.
He found the electron energy by relating it to the maximum stopping po-
tential (voltage) in a phototube. He found that the calculated maximum
electron kinetic energy is determined by the frequency of the light. How-
ever, Lenard’s results were qualitative rather than quantitative because of
the difficulty in performing the experiments. The experiments need to be
done on freshly cut metal so that the pure metal was observed, but it oxi-
dized in tens of minutes even in the partial vacuums he used. The current
emitted by the surface was determined by the light’s intensity, or bright-
134 CHAPTER 3. THE SMALL: LIGHT AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

ness. Doubling the intensity of the light doubled the number of electrons
emitted from the surface. Lenard did not know of photons.
Albert Einstein (1879 Germany - 1955 USA) acknowledged “Above all,
it is my disposition for abstract and mathematical thought, and my lack of
imagination and practical ability.” Because of a mediocre scholastic record,
he had difficulty finding a job at universities. Einstein worked in the Bern
patent office from 1902 to 1909, holding a temporary post. By 1904 the
position was made permanent He was promoted to technical expert second–
class in 1906. While in the Bern patent office he completed an astonishing
range of theoretical physics publications, written in his spare time without
the benefit or hindrance of close contact with scientific colleagues.
In the first of three papers, all published in 1905, Einstein examined the
phenomenon discovered by Max Planck, according to which electromagnetic
energy seemed to be emitted from radiating objects in discrete quantities.
The energy of these quanta was directly proportional to the frequency of the
radiation. This seemed to contradict classical electromagnetic theory based
on Maxwell’s equations and the laws of thermodynamics that assumed that
electromagnetic energy consisted of waves that could contain any small
amount of energy. Einstein used Planck’s quantum hypothesis to describe
the electromagnetic radiation of light.
Einstein’s mathematical description in 1905 of how the photoelectric
effect was caused by absorption of what were later called photons, or quanta
of light, in the interaction of light with the electrons in the substance. The
simple explanation by Einstein in terms of absorption of single quanta of
light explained the features of the phenomenon and helped explain the
characteristic frequency.
The idea of light quanta was motivated by Max Planck’s published law
of black-body radiation [“On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Nor-
mal Spectrum” Annalen der Physik 4 (1901)] by assuming that Hertzian
oscillators could only exist at energies E = hf . Einstein, by assuming that
light actually consisted of discrete energy packets, wrote an equation for
the photoelectric effect that fit experiments. This was an enormous theo-
retical leap. Even after experiments showed that Einstein’s equations for
the photoelectric effect were accurate, the reality of the light quanta was
strongly resisted. The idea of light quanta contradicted the wave theory
of light that followed naturally from James Clerk Maxwell’s equations for
electromagnetic behavior and, more generally, the assumption of infinite
divisibility of energy in physical systems, which were believed to be well
understood and well verified.
 135

Einstein’s work predicted that the energy of the ejected electrons would
increase linearly with the frequency of the light. Surprisingly, that had
not yet been tested. That the energy of the photoelectrons increased with
increasing frequency of incident light was known in 1905, but the manner
of the increase was not experimentally determined to be linear until 1915
when Robert Andrews Millikan showed that Einstein was correct.
The photoelectric effect helped propel the then–emerging concept of the
dual nature of light (light exhibits characteristics of waves and particles at
different times). That the energy of the emitted electrons did not depend on
the intensity of the incident radiation was difficult to understand in terms
of the classical wave description of light. Classical theory predicted that
the electrons could “gather up” energy over a period of time and then be
emitted. A pre–loaded state would need to persist in matter for such a
classical theory to work. The idea of the pre–loaded state was discussed
in Millikan’s book Electrons (+ & -) and in Compton and Allison’s book
X-Rays in Theory and Experiment. The classical theory was abandoned.
The photons of the light beam have a characteristic energy given by the
wavelength of the light. If an electron absorbs the energy of one photon
in the photoemission process and has more energy than the work function
(the minimum energy needed to remove an electron from a solid to a point
immediately outside the solid surface), it is ejected from the material. If
the photon energy is too low, however, the electron is unable to escape the
surface of the material. Increasing the intensity of the light beam does not
change the energy of the constituent photons, only their number. Thus
the energy of the emitted electrons does not depend on the intensity of the
incoming light. Electrons can absorb energy from photons when irradiated,
but they follow an “all or nothing” principle. All of the energy from one
photon must be absorbed and used to liberate one electron from atomic
binding or the energy is re-emitted. If the photon is absorbed, some of the
energy is used to liberate it from the atom, and the rest contributes to the
electron’s kinetic energy as a free particle.
Einstein’s second 1905 paper proposed what is today called Special Rel-
ativity. He based his new theory on a reinterpretation of the classical prin-
ciple of relativity, namely that the laws of physics had to have the same
form in any frame of reference. As a second fundamental hypothesis, Ein-
stein assumed that the speed of light without matter remained constant in
all frames of reference, as required by Maxwell’s theory.
Eventually, Albert Einstein (1905) drew the conclusion that established
theories such as:
136 CHAPTER 3. THE SMALL: LIGHT AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

(1) Maxwell-Lorentz’s electrodynamics (independence of the speed of light

from the speed of the source),
(2) the negative ether drift experiments (no preferred reference frame)
(3) Moving magnet and conductor problem (only relative motion is rele-
vant)
(4) the Fizeau experiment, and the aberration of light (no complete ether
drag)

form a logical coherent system only when the concepts of space and time
are subjected to a fundamental revision. The result is Special Relativity
theory. Here, the Lorentz transformation is not a mere collection of aux-
iliary hypotheses, but is reflecting a fundamental Lorentz symmetry, and
forms the basis of successful theories such as Quantum electrodynamics.
Special Relativity offers a large number of testable predictions, such as the
Principle of relativity, the constancy of the speed of light, and the rate of
a clock C (any periodic process) traveling between two synchronized clocks
A and B at rest in an inertial frame, is retarded with respect to the two
clocks.
Einstein showed how mass and energy was equivalent. Einstein was not
the first to propose all the components of Special Relativity. His contri-
bution was unifying important parts of classical mechanics and Maxwell’s
electrodynamics.
This paper examined the fundamental meanings of the space and time
coordinates used in physical theories. Einstein showed that the “effective”
coordinates given by the Lorentz transformation were the inertial coordi-
nates of relatively moving frames of reference. From this followed all of the
physically observable consequences of Lorentz’s Ether Theory (LET), along
with others, all without the need to postulate an unobservable entity (the
ether).
Einstein identified two fundamental principles, each founded on experi-
ence, from which all of Lorentz’s electrodynamics follows:
1. The laws by which physical processes occur are the same with respect
to any system of inertial coordinates (the principle of relativity).
2. Light propagates in empty space at an absolute speed c in any system of
inertial coordinates (the principle of the constancy of light). Empty space
means lacking any mass and, therefore, without a gravitational field.
Taken together and along with a few other tacit assumptions such as
isotropy and homogeneity of space and the isotropy of light velocity in
space, these two postulates lead uniquely to the mathematics of Special
 137

Relativity. Lorentz and Poincaré had also adopted these same principles,
as necessary to achieve their final results, but didn’t recognize that they
were also sufficient. Therefore they obviated all the other assumptions
underlying Lorentz’s initial derivations (many of which later turned out to
be incorrect). The stationary, immaterial, and immobile ether of Poincaré
was little different than “space”. Therefore, Special Relativity very quickly
gained wide acceptance among physicists, and the 19th century concept of
luminiferous ether was no longer considered useful.
Lorentz’s ether theory (LET) and Special Relativity are similar. The dif-
ference is that LET assumes the contraction and develops the constancy of c
whereas Special Relativity develops the contraction. Further, LET assumes
the undetectable ether and the validity of Poincaré’s relativity seems coin-
cidental. Experiments that support Special Relativity also support LET.
However, Special Relativity is preferred by modern physics because the un-
derstanding of spacetime was fundamental to the development of General
Relativity.
Einstein’s 1905 presentation of Special Relativity was soon supplemented,
in 1907, by Hermann Minkowski, who showed that the relations had a very
natural interpretation in terms of a unified four-dimensional “spacetime”
in which absolute intervals are seen to be given by an extension of the
Pythagorean theorem. Poincaré in 1906 anticipated some of Minkowski’s
ideas. The utility and naturalness of the representations by Einstein and
Minkowski contributed to the rapid acceptance of Special Relativity, and
to the corresponding loss of interest in Lorentz’s ether theory.
Einstein in 1907 criticized the “ad hoc” character of Lorentz’s con-
traction hypothesis in his theory of electrons, because according to him it
was only invented to rescue the hypothesis of an immobile ether. Einstein
thought it necessary to replace Lorentz’s theory of electrons by assuming
that Lorentz’s “local time” can simply be called “time”. Einstein explained
in 1910 and 1912 that he borrowed the principle of the constancy of light
from Lorentz’s immobile ether, but he recognized that this principle to-
gether with the principle of relativity makes the ether useless and leads to
Special Relativity. Although Lorentz’s hypothesis is “completely equivalent
with the new concept of space and time”, Minkowski held that it becomes
much more comprehensible in the framework of the new spacetime physics.
However, Lorentz disagreed that it was ad-hoc and he argued in 1913 that
there is little difference between his theory and the negation of a preferred
reference frame, as in the theory of Einstein and Minkowski, so that it is a
matter of taste which theory is preferred.
138 CHAPTER 3. THE SMALL: LIGHT AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

Einstein in 1905 derived that as a consequence of the relativity prin-

ciple, inertia of energy is actually represented by E/c2 , but in contrast to
Poincaré’s 1900-paper, Einstein recognized that matter itself loses or gains
mass during the emission or absorption. So the mass of any form of matter
is equal to a certain amount of energy, which can be converted into and
re-converted from other forms of energy. This is the mass-energy equiva-
lence, represented by E = mc2 . Einstein didn’t have to introduce fictitious
masses and also avoided the perpetual motion problem, because according
to Darrigol, Poincaré’s radiation paradox can simply be solved by applying
Einstein’s equivalence. If the light source loses mass during the emission by
E/c2 , the contradiction in the momentum law vanishes without the need of
any compensating effect in the ether.
Similar to Poincaré, Einstein concluded in 1906 that the inertia of (elec-
tromagnetic) energy is a necessary condition for the center of mass theorem
to hold in systems in which electromagnetic fields and matter are acting on
each other. Based on the mass–energy equivalence he showed that emission
and absorption of em radiation and, therefore, the transport of inertia solves
all problems. On that occasion, Einstein referred to Poincaré’s 1900-paper
and wrote: “Although the simple formal views, which must be accomplished
for the proof of this statement, are already mainly contained in a work by H.
Poincaré [Lorentz-Festschrift, p. 252, 1900], for the sake of clarity I won’t
rely on that work.”
Also, Poincaré’s rejection of the reaction principle due to the violation of
the mass conservation law can be avoided through Einstein’s E = mc2 , be-
cause mass conservation appears as a special case of the energy conservation
law.
The third of Einstein’s papers of 1905 concerned statistical mechanics,
a field that had been studied by Ludwig Boltzmann and Josiah Gibbs.
Special Relativity is a fundamental theory in the description of physical
phenomena in its domain of applicability. Many experiments played impor-
tant roles in its development and justification. The strength of the theory
lies in that it is the only one that can correctly predict to high precision
the outcome of all known (and very different) experiments in its domain of
applicability. Its domain of applicability is when no considerable influence
of gravitation or forces occurs. It is restricted to flat spacetime. Many
of those experiments are still conducted with increased precision, and the
only area, where deviations of the predictions of Special Relativity are not
completely ruled out by experiment, is at the Planck scale and below.
Tests have been conducted concerning refutations of the ether and ether
 139

drag, isotropy of the speed of light, time dilation and length contraction,
relativistic mass and energy, Sagnac and Fizeau experiments, and the one–
way speed of light.
The effects of Special Relativity can phenomenologically be derived from
the Michelson-Morley experiment that tests the dependence of the speed of
light on the direction of the measuring device, Kennedy-Thorndike experi-
ment that tests the dependence of the speed of light on the velocity of the
measuring device, and the Ives-Stilwell experiment that tests time dilation.
The combination of these effects is important, because most of them can
be interpreted in different ways, when viewed individually. For example,
isotropy experiments such as Michelson-Morley can be seen as a simple con-
sequence of the relativity principle, according to which any inertially moving
observer can consider himself as at rest. Therefore, it is also compatible to
Galilean-invariant theories like emission theories or complete ether drag,
which also contain some sort of relativity principle. Other experiments ex-
clude the Galilean-invariant theories such as the Ives-Stillwell experiment
which assumes a fixed c, refutations of emission theories and complete ether
drag. Lorentz-invariance and thus Special Relativity remains as the only
theory that explains all those experiments.
To measure the isotropy of the speed of light, variations of the Michelson–
Morley and Kennedy–Thorndike experiments are still under way. The
Kennedy-Thorndike experiments employ different arm lengths and the eval-
uations are lasting over several months. Therefore, the influence of differ-
ent velocities during Earth’s orbit around the Sun can be observed. Laser,
maser, and optical resonators are in use in modern variants of Michelson-
Morley and Kennedy–Thorndike experiments, which diminishes the possi-
bility of any anisotropy of the speed of light. Lunar Laser Ranging Ex-
periments are being conducted as a variation of the Kennedy-Thorndike
experiment.
Because periodic processes and frequencies can be considered as clocks,
extremely precise clock–comparison experiments such as the Hughes–Drever
experiments are also still conducted. An underlying assumption of these ex-
periments is that the clock process is unchanged by the surrounding energy
field.
Emission theories, according to which the speed of light depends on the
velocity of the source, can explain the negative outcome of the ether drift
experiments. A series of experiments definitely ruled out these models.
Examples are the Alväger experiment where the photons don’t acquire the
speed of the decaying mesons; the Sagnac experiment in which the light rays
140 CHAPTER 3. THE SMALL: LIGHT AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

are moving independently of the velocity of the rotating apparatus; and the
de Sitter double star experiment showing that the orbits of the stars don’t
appear scrambled because of different propagation times of light. Other
observations also demonstrated that the speed of light is independent of
the frequency and energy of the light.
A series of one–way speed of light measurements were undertaken that
confirm the isotropy of the speed of light. Because the one–way speed de-
pends on the definition of simultaneity and, therefore, on the method of
synchronization, only the two–way speed of light (from A to B back to A)
can directly be measured. Assuming the Poincaré–Einstein synchronization
makes the one–way speed equal to the two-way speed. Yet different synchro-
nizations, which also give an isotropic two–way speed, but an anisotropic
one–way speed can be conceived. That synchronization by slow clock trans-
port is equivalent with Einstein synchronization and also non-standard syn-
chronization was also shown, as long as the moving clocks are subjected to
time dilation. Because the one–way speed depends on the definition of si-
multaneity, only the two–way speed is directly accessible by experiment.
There are many models with anisotropic one–way speed of light that is
experimentally equivalent to Special Relativity. However, only Special Rel-
ativity is acceptable for the overwhelming majority of physicists. All other
synchronizations are much more complicated than Einstein’s and the other
models such as Lorentz Ether Theory are based on extreme and implausible
assumptions concerning some dynamical effects, which are aimed at hiding
the “preferred frame” from observation.
Time dilation is interpreted to be directly observed in the Ives-Stilwell
experiment (1938) for the first time by observing the transverse Doppler
effect, where the displacement of the center of gravity of the overlapping
light waves was evaluated. Another variant is the Moessbauer rotor experi-
ment, in which gamma rays were sent from the middle of a rotating disc to
a receiver at the edge of the disc so that the transverse Doppler effect can
be evaluated by means of the Moessbauer effect. Time dilation of moving
particles was also verified by measuring the lifetime of muons in the at-
mosphere and in particle accelerators. The Hafele-Keating experiment on
the other hand confirmed the twin paradox, i.e., that a clock moving from
A to B back to A, is retarded with respect to the initial clock. Because
the moving clock undergoes acceleration, the effects of General Relativity
play an essential role. Because the particle decay mechanism is unmod-
eled, acceleration and changing gravitational potential may play a role in
these experiments. These experiments have hidden assumptions such as the
 141

constancy of the speed of light.

Because the dimensions of the observed particles are vanishingly small,
direct confirmation of length contraction is harder to achieve in practice.
However, there are indirect confirmations. For example, the behavior of
colliding heavy ions can be explained, if their increased density due to
Lorentz contraction is considered. Contraction also leads to an increase of
the intensity of the Coulomb field perpendicular to the direction of motion,
whose effects have already been observed. Consequently, both time dilation
and length contraction must be considered when conducting experiments
in particle accelerators.
A series of measurements starting in 1901 were conducted aimed at
demonstrating the velocity dependence of the mass of cathode rays. The
results actually showed such a dependency, but the precision necessary to
distinguish between competing theories, was disputed for a long time. Even-
tually, it was possible to unambiguously rule out all competing models ex-
cept Special Relativity.
Today, Special Relativity’s predictions are routinely confirmed in parti-
cle accelerators such as the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. For example,
the increase of relativistic momentum and energy is not only precisely mea-
sured, but also necessary to understand the behavior of cyclotrons and
synchrotrons etc., by which particles are accelerated near to the speed of
light.
Special Relativity also predicts, that two light rays traveling in opposite
directions around a loop or closed path, require different flight times to
come back to the moving emitter/receiver. This is a consequence of the
independence of the speed of light from the velocity of the source. This
affect is called the Sagnac effect. Today, the consideration of this effect is
necessary for many experimental setups and for the correct functioning of
GPS.
If such experiments are being conducted in moving media, it is also
necessary to consider Fresnel’s dragging coefficient, as demonstrated by
the Fizeau experiment. Although this effect was initially understood as
giving evidence of a nearly stationary ether or a partial ether drag, it can
easily explained with Special Relativity by using the composition law for
velocities.
Einstein was recognized as a leading scientific thinker by 1909. He re-
signed from the patent office in that year. He was appointed a full professor
at the Karl-Ferdinand University in Prague in 1911. 1911 was a very signif-
icant year for Einstein because he was able to make preliminary predictions
142 CHAPTER 3. THE SMALL: LIGHT AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

about how a ray of light from a distant star, passing near the Sun would
appear to be bent slightly in the direction of the Sun. This would be highly
significant, as it would lead to the first experimental evidence in favor of
Einstein’s theory. Although Newton hypothesized gravitational light bend-
ing, Einstein calculated a nearly correct value.
Einstein received the Nobel Prize in 1921 but not for relativity rather
for his 1905 work on the photoelectric effect.
Charles Barkla discovers in 1906 that each chemical element has a char-
acteristic X-ray and that the degree of penetration of these X-rays is related
to the atomic weight of the element.
Hans Geiger and Ernest Marsden in 1909 discover large angle deflections
of alpha particles by thin metal foils.
Ernest Rutherford and Thomas Royds in 1909 demonstrate that alpha
particles are doubly ionized helium atoms.
Ernest Rutherford in 1911 explains the Geiger–Marsden experiment by
invoking a nuclear atom model and derives the Rutherford cross section
Max von Laue in 1912 suggests using lattice solids to diffract X-rays.
The Laue X-ray diffraction pattern is obtained by directing an X-ray beam
through a crystal.
Walter Friedrich and Paul Knipping in 1912 diffract X-rays in sphalerite
(zinc blende).
Sir W.H. Bragg and his son Sir W.L. Bragg in 1913 derived Bragg’s law,
the condition for strong X-ray reflection off crystal surfaces at certain angles.
Although simple, Bragg’s law confirmed the existence of real particles at the
atomic scale, as well as providing a powerful new tool for studying crystals
in the form of x-ray diffraction. The Braggs were awarded the Nobel Prize
in physics in 1915 for their work in determining crystal structures beginning
with NaCl, ZnS, and diamond.
When X-rays hit an atom, they make the electronic cloud move, as does
any electromagnetic wave. The movement of these charges re-radiate waves
with the same frequency (blurred slightly due to a variety of effects); this
phenomenon is known as the Rayleigh scattering (or elastic scattering).
These re-emitted X-rays interfere, giving constructive or destructive inter-
ferences. This is a wave description rather than a photon description. How
photons form constructive or destructive interferences remains a mystery.
Henry Moseley in 1913 shows that nuclear charge is the basis for num-
bering the elements.
Niels Bohr in 1913 presents his quantum model of the atom. Bohr’s
model improves Rutherford’s original nuclear model by placing restrictions
 143

on the possible orbits of the electron. Energy is released or required in

discrete levels as electrons move from an outer or inner orbit, respectively.
This results in the observed spectral lines. The classical mystery is why are
the orbits quantized.
Robert Millikan measures the fundamental unit of electric charge in
1913. Johannes Stark demonstrates that strong electric fields will split the
Balmer spectral line series of hydrogen in 1913. James Franck and Gustav
Hertz observe atomic excitation in 1914. Ernest Rutherford suggests that
the positively charged atomic nucleus contains protons in 1914. Arnold
Sommerfeld in 1915 develops a modified Bohr atomic model with elliptic
orbits to explain relativistic fine structure. Gilbert Lewis and Irving Lang-
muir in 1916 formulate an electron shell model of chemical bonding. Albert
Einstein introduces the idea of stimulated radiation emission in 1917. Alfred
Lande introduces the Lande g–factor in 1921.
Arthur Compton in 1922 studies X-ray photon scattering by electrons.
The experiment shows that X-Rays and electrons behave exactly like ball
bearings colliding on a tabletop using the same two dimension vector di-
agrams. They enter the graphite at one wavelength and leave at a longer
wavelength as they have transferred both momentum and kinetic energy
to an electron. Momentum and energy are conserved in the collision if we
accept the equation for momentum of light.
Otto Stern and Walter Gerlach discovered quantization in another in-
trinsic property of classical particles called spin in the Stern–Gerlach ex-
periment in 1922. The experiment is normally conducted using electrically
neutral particles or atoms. This avoids the large deflection to the orbit of a
charged particle moving through a magnetic field and allows spin-dependent
effects to dominate. If the particle is treated as a classical spinning dipole,
it will precess in a magnetic field because of the torque that the magnetic
field exerts on the dipole. If it moves through a homogeneous magnetic
field, the forces exerted on opposite ends of the dipole cancel each other
out and the trajectory of the particle is unaffected. If the magnetic field is
inhomogeneous, the force on one end of the dipole will be slightly greater
than the opposing force on the other end, so that there is a net force that
deflects the particle’s trajectory. If the particles were classical spinning
objects, their spin angular momentum vectors are expected to be random
and continuous. Each particle would be deflected by a different amount,
producing a smooth distribution on the detector screen. Instead, the par-
ticles passing through the Stern–Gerlach apparatus are deflected either up
or down by a discrete amount. This result indicates that spin angular mo-
144 CHAPTER 3. THE SMALL: LIGHT AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

mentum is quantized. Therefore, there is not a continuous distribution of

possible angular momenta. If we link multiple Stern–Gerlach apparatuses,
the apparatuses do not act as simple selectors, but alter the states observed
as in light polarization.
Louis de Broglie (1892 - 1987) suggested in 1923 that electrons have
wavelike properties. Wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, no matter
what medium they are traveling through, are usually quoted in terms of the
vacuum wavelength, although this is not always explicitly stated. Louis de
Broglie discovered that all particles with momentum have a wavelength as-
sociated with their quantum mechanical wavefunction, called the de Broglie
wavelength. Given the relationship between wavelength and frequency, it
follows that short wavelengths are more energetic and massive than long
wavelengths. The orbits of electron waves in the de Broglie atom must
be an integer number of wavelengths long, which produces the discrete
spectrum. Thus, the quantization of the spectral lines is explained at the
expense of the particle model of the electron.
Lise Meitner in 1923 discovers the Auger process. Auger emission (pro-
nounced Oh-jhay) is a phenomenon in physics in which the emission of an
electron from an atom causes the emission of a second electron. This second
ejected electron is called an Auger electron.
Satyendra Bose (1894 - 1974) and Albert Einstein introduce Bose–
Einstein statistics in 1924. Bose-Einstein statistics (or B–E statistics)
in statistical mechanics determines the statistical distribution of identi-
cal, indistinguishable bosons over the energy states in thermal equilibrium.
Bosons are particles with an integer spin. Examples of bosons include the
photon and the W and Z bosons. Bosons are allowed to share quantum
states. They may be either elementary such as the photon or composite
such as mesons. All force carrier particles are bosons.
Wolfgang Pauli (1900 - 1958) states the quantum exclusion principle in
1925. The Pauli exclusion principle was originally formulated as an em-
pirical principle. It was invented in 1924 to explain experimental results
in atomic spectroscopy that was well known before the 1925 formulation
of the modern theory of quantum mechanics by Werner Heisenberg and
Erwin Schrödinger. However, this does not mean that the principle is in
any way approximate or unreliable. It is one of the most well–tested and
commonly accepted results in physics. The Pauli exclusion principle, com-
monly referred to simply as the exclusion principle, is a quantum mechanical
principle that states that no two identical fermions may occupy the same
quantum state. It is one of the most important principles in physics, pri-
 145

marily because the three types of particle from which ordinary matter is
made - electrons, protons, and neutrons - are all subject to it. The Pauli
exclusion principle underlies many of the characteristic properties of mat-
ter, from the large–scale stability of matter to the existence of the periodic
table of the elements.
Particles obeying the Pauli exclusion principle are called fermions and
are described by Fermi–Dirac statistics. Apart from the familiar electron,
proton and neutron, fermions include the neutrinos, the quarks (from which
protons and neutrons are made), as well as atoms like helium-3. All fermions
possess “half-integer spin”, meaning that they possess an intrinsic angular
momentum whose value is Planck’s constant divided by 2π times a half-
integer (1/2, 3/2, 5/2, etc. Fermions in quantum mechanics theory are
described by “antisymmetric states”. Particles that are not fermions are
almost invariably bosons. The expected number of particles in an energy
state for B-E statistics reduces to M-B statistics for energies ≫ kT .
Molecules or crystals are atoms maintaining a nearly constant space re-
lationship at a temperature. The atoms are said to be bonded with one
another. A chemical bond may be visualized as the multipole balance be-
tween the positive charges in the nuclei and the negative charges oscillating
about them. More than simple attraction and repulsion, the energies and
distributions characterize the availability of an electron to bond to another
atom.
A chemical bond can be a covalent bond, an ionic bond, a hydrogen
bond, or just because of Van der Waals force. Each kind of bond is as-
cribed to some potential. John Lennard–Jones in 1924 proposed a semi
empirical, interatomic force law. These are fundamentally electrostatic in-
teractions (ionic interactions, hydrogen bond, dipole-dipole interactions) or
electrodynamic interactions (van der Waals/London forces). Coulomb’s law
classically describes electrostatic interactions. The basic difference between
them is the strength of their bonding force or, rather, the energy required
to significantly change the special relationship that is called “breaking” the
bond. Ionic interactions are the strongest with integer level charges, hydro-
gen bonds have partial charges that are about an order of magnitude weaker,
and dipole-dipole interactions also come from partial charges another order
of magnitude weaker.
These potentials create the interactions that hold atoms together in
molecules or crystals. Valence Bond Theory, the Valence Shell Electron
Pair Repulsion model (VSEPR), and the concept of oxidation number can
be used to explain molecular structure and composition in many simple
146 CHAPTER 3. THE SMALL: LIGHT AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

Table 3.1: A very approximate strength order.

Bond type Relative strength

Ionic bonds 1000
Hydrogen bonds 100
Dipole-dipole 10
London Forces 1

compounds. Similarly, theories from classical physics can be used to pre-

dict many ionic structures. With more complicated compounds, such as
metal complexes, valence bond theory is less applicable and alternative ap-
proaches, such as the molecular orbital theory, are generally used.
A figure in geometry is chiral (and said to have chirality) if it is not
identical to its mirror image, or, more precisely, if it cannot be mapped to its
mirror image by rotations and translations alone. For example, a right shoe
is different from a left shoe, and clockwise is different from counterclockwise.
Handedness (also referred to as chirality or laterality) is an attribute of
matter where an object is not identical to its mirror image. A chiral object
and its mirror image are called enantiomorphs (Greek opposite forms) or,
when referring to molecules, enantiomers. A non–chiral object is called
achiral (sometimes also amphichiral) and can be superposed on its mirror
image. Human hands are perhaps the most universally recognized example
of chirality. The left hand is a non–superimposable mirror image of the
right hand.
A chiral molecule in chemistry is a type of molecule that lacks an inter-
nal plane of symmetry and thus has a non–superimposable, mirror image.
A chiral molecule is not necessarily asymmetric (devoid of any symmetry
element), as it can have, for example, rotational symmetry. The feature
that is most often the cause of chirality in molecules is the presence of an
asymmetric carbon atom. Most life that we know is made of carbon atoms.
Is there a cause and effect?
The right–hand rule imposes the following procedure for choosing one
of the two directions. One form of the right–hand rule is used in situations
in which an ordered operation must be performed on two vectors ~a and ~b
that has a result which is a vector ~c perpendicular to both ~a and ~b. The
most common example is the vector cross product.
A different form of the right-hand rule, sometimes called the right-hand
grip rule, is used in situations where a vector must be assigned to the
 147

rotation of a body, a magnetic field, or a fluid. The right–hand rule is

applied to motion produced with screw threads. Alternatively, when a
vector specifies a rotation and it is necessary to understand the way in which
the rotation occurs, the right–hand grip rule is applicable. This version of
the rule is used in two complementary applications of Ampère’s circuital
law. The principle is also used to determine the direction of the torque
vector. If you grip the imaginary axis of rotation of the rotational force
so that your fingers point in the direction of the force, then the extended
thumb points in the direction of the torque vector. The right hand grip rule
is a convention derived from the right-hand rule convention for vectors not
an underlying physical phenomenon.
The helix (and by extension a spun string, a screw, a propeller, etc.) and
Mobius strip are chiral two-dimensional objects in three-dimensional am-
bient space. If all four substituents are different for tetrahedral molecules,
the molecule is chiral. The J, L, S and Z-shaped tetrominoes of the popu-
lar video game Tetris also exhibit chirality, but only in a two-dimensional
space. Many other familiar objects exhibit the same chiral symmetry of the
human body, such as gloves, glasses (for two lenses of different prescription),
and shoes.
The helicity of a particle is right-handed if the direction of its spin is
the same as the direction of its motion. It is left-handed if the directions
of spin and motion are opposite. By convention for rotation, a standard
clock, tossed with its face directed forwards, has left–handed helicity. Math-
ematically, helicity is the sign of the projection of the spin vector onto the
momentum vector - left is negative, right is positive.
For massive particles such as electrons, quarks, and neutrinos chirality
and helicity must be distinguished. An observer may change to a reference
frame that overtakes these spinning particles. Therefore, the particle will
then appear to move backwards, and its helicity (which may be thought of
as “apparent chirality”) will be reversed.
For massless particles such as the photon, the gluon, and the (hypo-
thetical) graviton chirality is the same as helicity. A given massless particle
appears to spin in the same direction along its axis of motion regardless of
point of view of the observer.
A massless particle moves with the speed of light, so a real observer
(who must always travel at less than the speed of light) cannot be in any
reference frame where the particle appears to reverse its relative direction,
meaning that all real observers see the same chirality. Because of this,
the direction of spin of massless particles is not affected by a Lorentz boost
148 CHAPTER 3. THE SMALL: LIGHT AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

(change of viewpoint) in the direction of motion of the particle, and the sign
of the projection (helicity) is fixed for all reference frames. The helicity is
a relativistic invariant.
With the discovery of neutrino oscillation, which implies that neutri-
nos have mass. The photon and gluon also are expected to be massless,
although the assumption that they are massless has not been well tested.
Hence, these are the only two particles now known for which helicity could
be identical to chirality, and only one that has been confirmed by measure-
ment. An underling assumption is the Lorentz equations for mass and the
measurement mechanism for mass. That is, a measuring frame must travel
slower than c in Special Relativity. All other observed particles have mass
and thus may have different helicities in different reference frames. As–yet
unobserved particles, like the graviton, might be massless, and hence have
invariant helicity like the photon.
Only left–handed fermions interact with the weak interaction has been
observed. Two left–handed fermions interact more strongly than right–
handed or opposite–handed fermions in most circumstances. Experiments
sensitive to this effect imply that the universe has a preference for left–
handed chirality, which violates asymmetry of the other forces of nature.
A theory that is asymmetric between chiralities is called a chiral theory,
while a parity symmetric theory is sometimes called a vector theory. Most
pieces of the Standard Model of physics are non–chiral, which may be due
to problems of anomaly cancellation in chiral theories. Quantum chromo-
dynamics is an example of a vector theory because both chiralities of all
quarks appear in the theory and couple the same way.
The electroweak theory developed in the mid 20th century is an example
of a chiral theory. Originally, it assumed that neutrinos were massless, and
only assumed the existence of left–handed neutrinos (along with their com-
plementary right–handed antineutrinos). After the observation of neutrino
oscillations, which imply that neutrinos are massive like all other fermions,
the revised theories of the electroweak interaction now include both right-
and left-handed neutrinos. However, it is still a chiral theory, as it does not
respect parity symmetry.
The exact nature of the neutrino is still unsettled and so the electroweak
theories that have been proposed are different. Most accommodate the
chirality of neutrinos in the same way as was already done for all other
fermions.
Science in general deals with many complex and, hopefully, precise con-
cepts. Therefore, symbols are defined in scientific papers to be precise
 149

Table 3.2: Light wave or particle evidence. Some tests such as atomic line spectra do
not reject either model.

Reject PARTICLE Reject WAVE

REFRACTION BLACK BODY
DIFFRACTION PHOTOELECTRIC EFFECT
INTERFERENCE X-RAY PRODUCTION
POLARIZATION COMPTON EFFECT

and complete without very long repetition each time a concept is invoked.
Popular texts then use the symbols such as “light wave” without the long
repetition of the data and equation set.
We see ripples of the surface of fluids such as water. Careful plotting of
the amplitude and the change in amplitude over duration (time indicated
by clocks) and position results in a mathematical relation among the am-
plitude, position, and duration. This relation is a most simply stated as a
Fourier series. The first order term of a Fourier series is a sine curve. This
equation set is called a “transverse wave” or simply “wave”.
Saying “light wave” or “light is a wave” means (1) observations of some
of the measured behavior of light is consistent with the “wave” equation
set, (2) light may be hypothesized to behave according to other relations
suggested by the wave equation set, and (3) there are tests that do not
reject this hypothesis. Note the popular interpretation of “light is a wave”
is the philosophical use of the word “is”.
There are other observations of light that obey the equation set of parti-
cles. The popular terminology is “light is a photon” or “photon”. Further,
there are tests that do not reject the photon hypothesis.
The problem is that the “wave” equation set and the “photon” equation
set are incompatible. That is, the tests that do not reject the “wave”
equation set do reject the “particle” equation set and visa versa.
Dr. de Broglie presented his pilot wave theory at the 1927 Solvay Con-
ference, after close collaboration with Schrödinger. Schrödinger developed
his wave equation for de Broglie’s theory. The pilot wave model is that
particles have a unique position and momentum and are guided by a “pilot
wave” in a Ψ - field. TheΨ - field satisfies the Schrödinger equation, acts on
the particles to guide their path, is ubiquitous, and is non-local. The origin
of the Ψ - field and the dynamics of a single photon are unmodeled. The pi-
lot wave theory is a causal, “hidden variable”, and, perhaps, a deterministic
150 CHAPTER 3. THE SMALL: LIGHT AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

model.
Erwin Schrödinger (1887 - 1961) stated his nonrelativistic quantum
wave equation and formulated quantum wave mechanics in 1926. The
Schrödinger equation describes the time-dependence of quantum mechani-
cal systems. It is of central importance to the theory of quantum mechanics,
playing a role analogous to Newton’s second law in classical mechanics.
The de Broglie’s pilot wave model suggests matter is particles and mea-
surements are limited in the ability to determine position and momentum
of small particles. The de Broglie theory suggests each particle does have a
unique position and momentum, but our measurements have considerable
uncertainty. Therefore, the state vector encodes the PROBABILITIES for
the outcomes of all possible measurements applied to the system. As the
state of a system generally changes over time, the state vector is a function
of time. The Schrödinger equation provides a quantitative description of
the rate of change of the state vector of de Broglie’s Ψ.
Using Dirac’s bra-ket notation, (bra < | and ket | > ) the instantaneous
state vector at time t is denoted by |Ψ(t) >. The Schrödinger equation is:
δ
H(t)|Ψ(t) >= ih̄ |Ψ(t) > (3.1)
δt
where I is the unit imaginary number, h̄ is Planck’s constant divided by
2π, and the Hamiltonian H(t) is a self–adjoint operator acting on the state
space. The Hamiltonian describes the total energy of the system. As with
the force occurring in Newton’s second law, its exact form is not provided by
the Schrödinger equation and must be independently determined (assumed)
based on the physical properties of the system. Although this appears to
be an ordinary differential equation, the Hamiltonian operator typically
includes partial derivatives with respect to the position variable r. This
usually leaves a difficult nonlinear partial differential equation to solve. The
solution uses a Fourier transform. Hence, the wave terminology is used.
When the state of the system can be characterized by position, the
Schrödinger equation may be conveniently reformulated as a partial dif-
ferential equation for a wavefunction that is a complex scalar field that
depends on position as well as time. This form of the Schrödinger equation
is referred to as the Schrödinger wave equation. The absolute square of
the wavefunction, integrated over all space, must be equal to 1. Thus the
absolute square of the wavefunction is interpreted as the probability density
for the particle to be found at each point in space. That is, |Ψ(r, t)|2d3 r is
the probability, at time t, of finding the particle in the infinitesimal region
of volume d3 r surrounding the position r.
 151

The energy eigenstates vary only by a complex phase as time progresses.

Therefore, the absolute square of their wavefunctions does not change with
time. Energy eigenstates thus correspond to static probability distributions.
Quantum mechanics means we want to calculate the mechanics of quanta–
discrete parameters. The problem is that discrete parameters are very diffi-
cult to handle mathematically. The situation is analogues to trying to send
digital electronic signals over a phone line. Nature responds in an analog
(sine curve) manner not digitally. The purpose of a modem is to transform
digital to analog, send over a phone line, and transform back to digital.
Because the particles exhibit wave characteristics, the Fourier transform
is very convenient. Also, the Fourier transform converts discrete and step
functions into a continuously differential form. Hence, the QM model is the
simple harmonic oscillator. The Fourier transform is an expansion of simple
harmonic series, each frequency is orthogonal (a frequency is not expressible
by other frequencies and non-interacting with other frequencies), and the
identity condition is meet (sin2 (a) + cos2 (a) = 1). Note i2 = (−1).
Because the wave function may be interpreted as the probability den-
sity, the next statistical step is to find the “expected value” of a function
(parameter) such as position or momentum, etc. The expectation of a value
of a function (finding a particle at some location, etc.) in statistics is the
sum (integral) of the probability of each state multiplied by the value of
each state divided by the sum of the probabilities.
The transformed wave function of a physical parameter is totally lacking
in intuitive understanding. This has resulted in a debate as to whether the
wave function is real in the classical sense such as de Broglie’s “pilot wave”
or a mathematical convenience such as Dirac’s measurement probability.
Considering the wave as real leads to many non-intuitive concepts such as
Schrödinger’s cat. As has been remarked by Feynman to the world: “Shut
up and calculate.”
The operators that represent observables in the mathematical formalism
are also linked to our perception of the macroscopic world through prob-
ability distributions. The mathematical formalism of the Stern-Gerlach
experiment allows the beam trajectories to be computed. A comparison
of the quantum and classical calculations of the trajectories yields a rela-
tion between a quantum operator and a classical quantity called the spin
“magnetic moment”. Hence, the quantum coefficient is called “spin”.
Werner Heisenberg (1901 -1976), Max Born, and Pascual Jordan formu-
late quantum matrix mechanics in 1925. Matrix mechanics involve associ-
ating the properties of matter with probabilistic matrices. Though matrix
152 CHAPTER 3. THE SMALL: LIGHT AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

mechanics does not include concepts such as the wave function of Erwin
Schrödinger’s wave equation, the two approaches were proven to be math-
ematically equivalent by mathematician David Hilbert.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is one of the cornerstones of quan-
tum mechanics and was discovered by Werner Heisenberg in 1927. The
Heisenberg uncertainty principle in quantum physics, sometimes called the
Heisenberg indeterminacy principle, expresses a limitation on the accuracy
of (nearly) simultaneous measurement of observables such as the position
and the momentum of a particle. The objective of “measurement” in quan-
tum mechanics is to determine the properties between the parameter and
the interacting dynamical system. The joke is “Heisenberg may have done
something”. The uncertainty principle quantifies the imprecision by provid-
ing a lower bound for the product of the dispersions of the measurements.
For instance, consider repeated trials of the following experiment: By
an operational process, a particle is prepared in a definite state and two
successive measurements are performed on the particle. The first one mea-
sures its position and the second immediately after measures its momentum.
Suppose that the operational process of preparing the state is such that on
every trial the first measurement yields the same value, or at least a distri-
bution of values with a very small dispersion dp around a value p. Then the
second measurement will have a distribution of values whose dispersion dq
is at least inversely proportional to dp. The operational process in quantum
mechanical terminology has produced a particle in a possibly mixed state
with definite position. Any momentum measurement on the particle will
necessarily yield a dispersion of values on repeated trials. Moreover, if we
follow the momentum measurement by a measurement of position, we will
get a dispersion of position values. More generally, an uncertainty relation
arises between any two observable quantities defined by non-commuting
operators.
The uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics is sometimes explained
by claiming that the measurement of position necessarily disturbs a parti-
cle’s momentum. Heisenberg himself may have offered explanations that
suggest this view, at least initially. That the role of disturbance is not es-
sential can be seen as follows: Consider an ensemble of (non-interacting)
particles all prepared in the same state. We measure the momentum or the
position (but not both) of each particle in the ensemble. Probability dis-
tributions for both these quantities are obtained. The uncertainty relations
still hold for the dispersions of momentum values dp and position values
dx.
 153

The Heisenberg uncertainty relations are a theoretical bound over all

measurements. The wave–particle duality concept is that any one particle
cannot be described simultaneously as a “classic point particle” and as a
wave. A change of appropriate descriptions according to measured values is
known as wavefunction collapse. The uncertainty principle (as initially con-
sidered by Heisenberg) is concerned with cases in which neither of these two
descriptions is fully and exclusively appropriate, such as a particle in a box
with a particular energy value. That is, systems are characterized neither
by one unique “position” (one particular value of distance from a potential
wall) nor by one unique value of momentum (including its direction).
The de Broglie pilot wave concept considers there is a precise, quanti-
tative analogy between the Heisenberg uncertainty relations and properties
of waves or signals. Consider a time–varying signal such as a sound wave.
It is meaningless to ask about the frequency spectrum of the signal at a
moment in time. To determine the frequencies accurately, the signal must
be sampled for some duration, thereby losing time precision. A sound mea-
surement cannot have both a precise time measurement, as in a short pulse,
and a precise frequency measurement, as in a continuous pure tone. The
duration and frequency of a wave in time are analogous to the position and
momentum of a wave in space.
Also, if a limit is placed on the mathematical infinity in the Fourier
integration, the uncertainty principle results as shown in Tang (2007, section
2.9). Accordingly, the Fourier method is very appropriate for analyzing
measurements.
The uncertainty principle alternatively derives as an expression of the
Cramer–Rao inequality of classical measurement theory. This is in the case
where a particle position is measured. The mean-squared particle momen-
tum enters as the Fisher information in the inequality. Fisher information is
thought of as the amount of information that an observable random variable
carries about an unobservable parameter upon which the probability distri-
bution depends. The extreme physical information (EPI) principle builds
on the well–known idea that the observation of a “source” phenomenon is
never completely accurate. That is, information is inevitably lost in transit
from source to observation. Furthermore, the random errors that creep in
are presumed to define the distribution function of the source phenomenon.
That is, the physics lies in the fluctuations. Finally, the information loss
may be shown to be an extreme value. The extremum is a minimum in
most problems, meaning that there is a tendency for any observation to
faithfully describe its source, which is comforting.
154 CHAPTER 3. THE SMALL: LIGHT AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

The uncertainty principle does not just apply to position and momen-
tum. It applies to every pair of conjugate variables. Conjugate variables are
a pair of variables mathematically defined in such a way that they become
Fourier transform duals of one–another. A “duality” translates concepts,
theorems, or mathematical structures into other concepts, theorems, or
structures, in a one-to-one fashion. An example is exchanging the terms
“point” and “line” everywhere results in a new, equally valid theorem. An
example of a pair of conjugate variables is the x-component of angular mo-
mentum (spin) vs. the y-component of angular momentum. Unlike the
case of position versus momentum discussed above, in general the lower
bound for the product of the uncertainties of two conjugate variables de-
pends on the system state. The uncertainty principle becomes a theorem
in the theory of operators.
Paul Dirac introduces Fermi-Dirac statistics in 1926. Max Born inter-
prets the probabilistic nature of wavefunctions in 1927.
Albert Einstein was not happy with the uncertainty principle, and he
challenged Niels Bohr with a famous thought experiment: we fill a box
with a radioactive material that randomly emits radiation. The box has a
shutter, which is opened and immediately thereafter shut by a clock at a
precise duration, thereby allowing some radiation to escape. So the duration
is already known with precision. We still want to measure the conjugate
variable energy precisely. Einstein proposed doing this by weighing the box
before and after. The equivalence between mass and energy from Special
Relativity will allow you to determine precisely how much energy was left
in the box. Bohr countered as follows: if energy should leave, then the now
lighter box will rise slightly on the scale. That changes the position of the
clock. Thus, the clock deviates from our stationary reference frame, and
again by Special Relativity, its measurement of duration will be different
from ours, leading to some unavoidable margin of error. A detailed analysis
shows that Heisenberg’s relation correctly gives the imprecision.
The Copenhagen Interpretation assumes that there are two processes
influencing the wavefunction: (1) the unitary evolution according to the
Schrödinger equation and (2) the process of the measurement. While there
is no ambiguity about the former, the latter admits several interpretations,
even within the Copenhagen Interpretation itself. The wavefunction is a real
object that undergoes the wavefunction collapse in the second stage, or the
wavefunction is an auxiliary mathematical tool (not a real physical entity)
whose only physical meaning is our ability to calculate the probabilities.
Niels Bohr emphasized that it is only the results of the experiments
 155

that should be predicted and, therefore, the additional questions are not
scientific but philosophical. Bohr followed the principles of positivism from
philosophy that implies that the scientists should discuss only measurable
questions.
Within the widely, but not universally, accepted Copenhagen Interpre-
tation of quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is taken to mean
that on an elementary level, the physical universe does not exist in a de-
terministic form, but rather as a collection of probabilities or potentials.
For example, the pattern (probability distribution) produced by billions of
photons passing through a diffraction slit can be calculated using quantum
mechanics, but the exact path of each photon cannot be predicted by any
known method. The Copenhagen Interpretation holds that it cannot be
predicted by any method. It is this interpretation that Einstein was ques-
tioning when he said “I cannot believe that God would choose to play dice
with the universe.” Bohr, who was one of the authors of the Copenhagen
Interpretation responded, “Einstein, don’t tell God what to do.”
Einstein was convinced that this interpretation was in error. His rea-
soning was that all previously known probability distributions arose from
deterministic events. The distribution of a flipped coin or a rolled dice can
be described with a probability distribution (50% heads, 50% tails). But
this does not mean that their physical motions are unpredictable. Ordinary
mechanics can be used to calculate exactly how each coin will land, if the
forces acting on it are known. And the heads/tails distribution will still line
up with the probability distribution given random initial forces. Einstein
assumed that there are similar hidden variables in quantum mechanics that
underlie the observed probabilities.
Neither Einstein nor anyone since has been able to construct a satisfy-
ing hidden variable theory. Although the behavior of an individual particle
is random in the Copenhagen Interpretation, it is also correlated with the
behavior of other particles. Therefore, if the uncertainty principle is the
result of some deterministic process as suggested by de Broglie’s pilot wave
model, it must be the case that particles at great distances instantly trans-
mit information to each other to ensure that the correlations in behavior
between particles occur.
Bohr and others created the Copenhagen Interpretation to counter Ein-
stein’s hidden variable suggestion. The Copenhagen Interpretation Princi-
ples are:
1. A system is completely described by a wave function Ψ, which represents
an observer’s knowledge of the system. (Heisenberg):
156 CHAPTER 3. THE SMALL: LIGHT AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

2. The description of nature is essentially probabilistic. The probability

of an event is related to the square of the amplitude of the wave function
related to it. (Max Born)
3. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle states the observed fact that it is not
possible to know the values of all of the properties of the system at the
same time. Those properties that are not known with precision must be
described by probabilities.
4. (Complementary Principle) Matter exhibits a wave–particle duality. An
experiment can show the particle–like properties of matter or the wave–like
properties, but not both at the same time.(Niels Bohr)
5. Measuring devices are essentially classical devices, and measure classical
properties such as position and momentum.
6. The Correspondence Principle of Bohr and Heisenberg: the quantum
mechanical description of large systems should closely approximate to the
classical description.

The popular view of the Copenhagen Interpretation seems to be light

“is” (philosophically) both a wave and a particle depending on the experi-
ment. The only data known in quantum mechanics is the initial condition
and the measurement (“collapse of the wave function”). The Copenhagen
Interpretation posits that a model should use either the “wave” or “pho-
ton” equation set. A change of equation set requires a “collapse of the wave
function”.
The traditional definition of “measurement” and the “collapse of the
wave function” is a physical process by which quantitative knowledge is
obtained about a particular property of the entity studied. This process in-
volves an irreversible and destructive change in the property measured and
possibly in other properties. For instance, the energy of a particle can be
measured by bringing it to a halt in a scintillator, which transfers the parti-
cle’s energy to the instrument. This process irreversibly destroys the energy
content of the particle. Another type of measurement called nondemolition
measurements can preserve a particular property at the irreversible expense
of other properties. Therefore, the state, or wave function, of the particle
is changed. Hence, the term “collapse of the wave function” is used.
The typical measurement of microscopic entities is done with macro-
scopic instruments. Therefore, the reading of the measurement is of a
multi–particle, or ensemble, property. The result is often spoken of as a
measurement of a single particle. The ensemble measurement need not be
destructive. That is, a “measurement” need not collapse the wave func-
 157

tion. However, there is a price to pay. That price involves the ambiguous
zero such as in the Michelson-Morley experiment. That is, the ensemble
measurement is done where the model expectation is a zero result. For ex-
ample, the interference experiment expects to yield bands of light (the sum
of an ensemble of light particles/waves) separated by bands of zero light.
The width and spacing of the bands, which the wave model suggests carries
information about the energy of the light, may be measured by measuring
the spacing of the dark bands rather than the light bands.
The Copenhagen Interpretation ignores the zero measurement and tends
to treat ensemble measurements as single particle measurements. Such ex-
periments raise credibility questions. The need for a correct model and
for a zero measurement (very sensitive equipment with some assurance the
equipment is operational) places very difficult restrictions on the interpre-
tation of such data. Its easily understood why physics tends toward the
traditional method of measurement.
On a philosophical note, an increasing area of research is based on the
concept that “information” is the true quantum mechanical content of our
universe. This concept of obtaining data (information) without the collapse
of the wave function presents some difficulty for information models. The
popular conclusion of the Michelson–Morley experiment is that there was
no wave function to collapse (no ether).
When coherent light passes through double slits in the classic double–
slit experiment onto a screen, alternate bands of bright and dark regions
are produced. These can be explained as areas in which the superposition
(addition) of light waves reinforce or cancel. However it became experimen-
tally apparent that light has some particle–like properties and items such
as electrons have wave–like properties and can also produce interference
patterns.
Consider the double slit experiment with the light reduced so that the
model considers that only one photon (or electron) passes through the slits
at a time. The electron or photon hit the screen one at a time. However,
when the totals of where the photons have hit, the interference patterns
emerge that appear to be the result of interfering waves even though the
experiment dealt with only one particle at a time. The Pilot Wave model
suggests the probability statements made by quantum mechanics are irre-
ducible in the sense that they don’t exclusively reflect our limited knowledge
of some hidden variables. Classical physics uses probabilities to describe the
outcome of rolling a die, even though the process was thought to be deter-
ministic. Probabilities were used to substitute for complete knowledge.
158 CHAPTER 3. THE SMALL: LIGHT AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

By contrast, the Copenhagen Interpretation holds that in quantum me-

chanics, measurement outcomes are fundamentally indeterministic.
1. Physics is the science of outcomes of measurement processes. Spec-
ulation beyond that cannot be justified. The Copenhagen Interpretation
rejects questions like “where was the particle before I measured its posi-
tion” as meaningless.
2. The act of measurement causes an instantaneous collapse of the wave
function. This means that the measurement process randomly picks out ex-
actly one of the many possibilities allowed for by the state’s wave function,
and the wave function instantaneously changes to reflect that pick.
3. The original formulation of the Copenhagen Interpretation has led to
several variants; the most respected one is based on Consistent Histories (a
system’s history is considered in the wave equations) (“Copenhagen done
right?”) and the concept of quantum decoherence (a system interacts with
its environment without wavefunction collapse) that allows us to calculate
the fuzzy boundary between the microscopic and the macroscopic worlds.
Other variants differ according to the degree of reality assigned to the wave-
form.
Many physicists and philosophers have objected to the Copenhagen In-
terpretation on the grounds that it is non–deterministic and that it in-
cludes an undefined measurement process that converts probability func-
tions into non–probabilistic measurements. Erwin Schrödinger devised the
Schrödinger’s cat experiment that attempts to illustrate the incomplete-
ness of the theory of quantum mechanics when going from subatomic to
macroscopic systems.
The completeness of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum me-
chanics is that the mapping of the observable parameters to wave parame-
ters is complete.
The EPR paradox is a thought experiment that demonstrates that the
result of a measurement performed on one part of a quantum system can
have an instantaneous effect on the result of a measurement performed on
another part, regardless of the distance separating the two parts. This runs
counter to the intuition of Special Relativity, which states that information
cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light. “EPR” stands for
Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen, who introduced the
thought experiment in a 1935 paper to argue that quantum mechanics is not
a complete physical theory. The EPR paradox was intended to show that
there have to be hidden variables in order to avoid non–local, instantaneous
effects at a distance. It is sometimes referred to as the EPRB paradox for
 159

David Bohm, who converted the original thought experiment into something
closer to being experimentally testable.
The EPR paradox is a paradox in the following sense: if some seem-
ingly reasonable conditions (referred to as “locality”, “realism”, and “com-
pleteness”) are added to quantum mechanics, then a contradiction results.
However, quantum mechanics by itself does not appear to be internally in-
consistent, nor does it contradict relativity. However, experimental tests
of the EPR paradox using Bell’s inequality (outcomes by two observer in
two experiments may not be equivalent) have supported the predictions
of quantum mechanics, while showing that local hidden variable theories
fail to match the experimental evidence. As a result of further theoret-
ical and experimental developments since the original EPR paper, most
physicists today regard the EPR paradox as an illustration of how quan-
tum mechanics violates classical intuitions, and not as an indication that
quantum mechanics is fundamentally flawed. However, it means quantum
mechanics and relativity will never get together.
The EPR paradox draws on a phenomenon predicted by quantum me-
chanics, known as quantum entanglement, to show that measurements per-
formed on spatially separated parts of a quantum system can apparently
have an instantaneous influence on one another. This effect is now known as
“nonlocal behavior” or colloquially as “quantum weirdness”. For example,
consider a simplified version of the EPR thought experiment put forth by
David Bohm.
Many types of physical quantities can be used to produce quantum
entanglement. The original EPR paper used momentum for the observable.
Experimental realizations of the EPR scenario often use the polarization
of photons, because polarized photons are easy to prepare and measure.
Many experiments in recent years have repeated the quantum entanglement
observation.
Bell’s theorem is the most famous legacy of the late Northern Irish physi-
cist John Bell. It is notable for showing that the predictions of quantum
mechanics are not intuitive. It is simple, elegant, and touches upon funda-
mental philosophical issues that relate to modern physics. Bell’s theorem
states: “No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all
of the predictions of quantum mechanics”.
The principle of locality states that physical processes occurring at one
place should have no immediate effect on the elements of reality at another
location. At first sight, this appears to be a reasonable assumption to
make, as it seems to be a consequence of Special Relativity, which states
160 CHAPTER 3. THE SMALL: LIGHT AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

that information can never be transmitted faster than the speed of light
without violating causality. It is generally believed that any theory that
violates causality would also be internally inconsistent, and thus deeply
unsatisfactory.
However, the usual rules for combining quantum mechanical and classi-
cal descriptions violate the principle of locality without violating causality.
Causality is preserved because there is no way (or so current thought holds
but the speed of gravity waves has not been measured) to transmit informa-
tion by manipulating measurement axis. That is, the principle of locality
heavily depends on the speed of information transmittal.
The principle of locality appeals powerfully to physical intuition, and
Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen were unwilling to abandon it. Einstein de-
rided the quantum mechanical predictions as “spooky action at a distance”.
However, doubt has been cast on EPR’s conclusion in recent years due
to developments in understanding locality and especially quantum deco-
herence. The word locality has several different meanings in physics. For
example, in quantum field theory locality means that quantum fields at dif-
ferent points of space do not interact with one another. Supporters of the
Copenhagen Interpretation suggest quantum field theories that are local in
this sense appear to violate the principle of locality as defined by EPR, but
they nevertheless do not violate locality in a more general sense. Wavefunc-
tion collapse can be viewed as an epiphenomenon of quantum decoherence,
which in turn is nothing more than an effect of the underlying local time
evolution of the wavefunction of a system and all of its environment. Be-
cause the underlying behavior doesn’t violate local causality, it follows that
neither does the additional effect of wavefunction collapse, whether real or
apparent. Therefore, the EPR experiment (nor any quantum experiment)
does not demonstrate that faster–than–light signaling is possible. I think
there are two possibilities. One is that the statistical assembly of enough
events to determine that a wavefunction collapse has occurred is the mean-
ing of information or signal transfer. The other is there is a mechanism for
faster than light transfer such as gravity waves.
There are several ways to resolve the EPR paradox. The one suggested
by EPR is that quantum mechanics, despite its success in a wide variety of
experimental scenarios, is actually an incomplete theory. That is, there is
some yet undiscovered theory of nature to which quantum mechanics acts
as a kind of statistical approximation albeit an exceedingly successful one.
Unlike quantum mechanics, the more complete theory contains variables
corresponding to all the elements of reality. There must be some unknown
 161

mechanism acting on these variables to give rise to the observed effects

of non-commuting quantum observables, i.e. the Heisenberg uncertainty
principle. Such a theory is called a hidden variable theory.
John Bell in 1964 showed that the predictions of quantum mechanics in
the EPR thought experiment are actually slightly different from the predic-
tions of a very broad class of hidden variable theories. Roughly speaking,
quantum mechanics predicts much stronger statistical correlations between
the measurement results performed on different axes than the hidden vari-
able theories. These differences, expressed using inequality relations known
as “Bell’s inequalities”, are experimentally detectable in principle.
After the publication of Bell’s paper, a variety of experiments were de-
vised to test Bell’s inequalities. As mentioned above, these experiments
generally rely on photon polarization measurements. All the entanglement
experiments conducted to date have found behavior in line with the predic-
tions of standard quantum mechanics.
However, Bell’s theorem does not apply to all possible realist theories. It
is possible to construct theories that escape its implications, and are there-
fore indistinguishable from quantum mechanics. Although these theories
are generally non-local, they are believed to violate both causality and the
rules of Special Relativity. Some workers in the field have also attempted
to formulate local hidden variable theories that exploit loopholes in actual
experiments, such as the assumptions made in interpreting experimental
data. However, no one has been able to formulate a local realist theory
that can reproduce all the results of quantum mechanics.
There are also individual EPR–like experiments that have no local hid-
den variables explanation. David Bohm and Lucien Hardy have suggested
examples.
Most physicists today believe that quantum mechanics is correct, and
that the EPR paradox is a paradox only because classical intuitions do
not correspond to physical reality. How EPR is interpreted regarding lo-
cality depends on the interpretation of quantum mechanics used. That
instantaneous wavefunction collapse does occur is usually understood in
the Copenhagen Interpretation. However, the view that there is no causal
instantaneous effect has also been proposed within the Copenhagen Inter-
pretation. Measurement affects our ability to define and measure quantities
in the physical system, not the system itself. A kind of locality is preserved
in the many–worlds interpretation, because the effects of irreversible oper-
ations such as measurement arise from the relativization of a global state
to a subsystem such as that of an observer.
162 CHAPTER 3. THE SMALL: LIGHT AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

The EPR paradox has deepened our understanding of quantum me-

chanics by exposing the fundamentally non–classical characteristics of the
measurement process. Prior to the publication of the EPR paper, a mea-
surement was often visualized as a physical disturbance inflicted directly
upon the measured system. For instance, when measuring the position of
an electron, imagine shining a light on it. Thus the electron is disturbed and
the quantum mechanical uncertainties in its position are produced. Such
explanations, which are still encountered in popular expositions of quantum
mechanics, are debunked by the EPR paradox, which shows that a mea-
surement can be performed on a particle without disturbing it directly by
performing a measurement on a distant entangled particle.
Technologies relying on quantum entanglement are now being developed.
Entangled particles in quantum cryptography are used to transmit signals
that cannot be eavesdropped upon without leaving a trace. Entangled
quantum states in quantum computation are used to perform computations
in parallel, which may allow certain calculations to be performed much more
quickly than they ever could be with classical computers.
A direct or many worlds interpretation view that classical physics and
ordinary language are only approximations to quantum mechanics and that
insisting on applying the approximation in the same ways all the time leads
to strange results is understandable. For example, use of geometric optics
to describe the optical properties of a telescope might be expected, because
it is large with respect to the wavelength of light. However, telescopes
(especially if space based) are designed to measure such small angles that
wave effects are significant. Similarly, when EPR designed their experiment
to be sensitive to subtleties of quantum mechanics, they made it sensitive
to how the classical approximation is applied.
An interpretation of quantum mechanics is an attempt to answer the
question: what exactly is quantum mechanics talking about? Quantum
mechanics, as a scientific theory, has been very successful in predicting ex-
perimental results. The close correspondence between the abstract, mathe-
matical formalism, and the observed facts is not generally in question. That
such a basic question is still posed in itself requires some explanation.
The understanding of the theory’s mathematical structures went through
various preliminary stages of development. Schrödinger at first did not un-
derstand the probabilistic nature of the wavefunction associated to the elec-
tron; it was Max Born who proposed its interpretation as the probability
distribution in space of the electron’s position. Other leading scientists,
such as Albert Einstein, had great difficulty in coming to terms with the
 163

theory. Even if these matters could be treated as “teething troubles”, they

have lent importance to the activity of interpretation.
That most physicists consider quantum mechanics as requiring inter-
pretation should not be assumed, other than very minimal instrumentalist
interpretations. The Copenhagen Interpretation still appears to be the most
popular interpretation among scientists followed by the many-worlds inter-
pretation. However, that most physicists consider non–instrumental ques-
tions including ontological questions to be irrelevant to physics is also true.
They fall back on Paul Dirac’s point of view, later expressed in Richard
Feynman’s famous dictum: “Shut up and calculate”.
The difficulties of intuitive interpretation reflect a number of points
about the orthodox description of quantum mechanics. Firstly, the ac-
cepted mathematical structure of quantum mechanics is based on abstract
mathematics, such as Hilbert spaces and operators on those Hilbert spaces.
Properties of a point mass or properties of a field in classical mechanics
and electromagnetism are described by real numbers or functions defined
on sets and are more intuitive.
Further, the process of measurement plays an essential role in the theory.
It relates the abstract elements of the theory such as the wavefunction to
operational definable values such as probabilities. Measurement interacts
with the system state in somewhat peculiar ways as is illustrated by the
double–slit experiment.
A restricted version of the problem of interpretation in quantum me-
chanics consists in providing some sort of plausible picture. This problem
may be addressed by purely mathematical reductions, for example by the
many-worlds or the consistent histories interpretations.
There are other elements of quantum physics in addition to the non–
deterministic and irreversible character of measurement processes that dis-
tinguish it sharply from classical physics and that cannot be represented
by any classical picture. One of these is the phenomenon of entanglement,
which violates principles of local causality. A hidden variable model with
the speed of gravity much greater than the speed of light may be part of
the TOE.
Another obstruction to direct interpretation is the phenomenon of com-
plementarity, which seems to violate basic principles of prepositional logic.
Complementarity says there is no logical picture (obeying classical preposi-
tional logic) that can simultaneously describe and be used to reason about
all properties of a quantum system. This is often phrased by saying that
there are “complementary” sets of propositions that can describe a quan-
164 CHAPTER 3. THE SMALL: LIGHT AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

tum system, but not at the same time. Examples are propositions involving
a wave description of a quantum system and a corpuscular description of
a quantum system. The latter statement is one part of Niels Bohr’s origi-
nal formulation, which is often equated to the principle of complementarity
itself.
Some physicists, for example Asher Peres and Chris Fuchs, seem to
argue that an interpretation is nothing more than a formal equivalence be-
tween sets of rules for operating on experimental data. This would suggest
that the whole exercise of interpretation is unnecessary (i.e. “shut up and
calculate”).
Any modern scientific theory requires at the very least an instrumen-
talist description that relates the mathematical formalism to experimen-
tal practice. The most common instrumentalist description in the case of
quantum mechanics is an assertion of statistical regularity between state
preparation processes and measurement processes. This is usually glossed
over into an assertion regarding the statistical regularity of a measurement
performed on a system with a given state. The quantum mechanics meth-
ods are like the methods of thermostatistics. Statistical mathematics is
used where the underlying structure is unknown. The problem is that per-
haps we lack the necessary probing particle to really see Einstein’s hidden
structure.
The Pilot Wave theory was the first known example of a hidden vari-
able theory. Its more modern version, the Bohm Interpretation, remains
a controversial attempt to interpret quantum mechanics as a deterministic
theory and avoiding troublesome notions such as instantaneous wavefunc-
tion collapse and the paradox of Schrödinger’s cat.
The Pilot Wave theory uses the same mathematics as other interpre-
tations of quantum mechanics. Consequently, the current experimental
evidence supports the Pilot Wave theory to the same extent as the other
interpretations. The Pilot Wave theory is a hidden variable theory. Con-
sequently: (1) the theory has realism meaning that its concepts exist inde-
pendently of the observer and (2) the theory has determinism.
The position and momentum of every particle are considered hidden
variables; they are defined at all times, but not known by the observer; the
initial conditions of the particles are not known accurately, so that from the
point of view of the observer, there are uncertainties in the particles’ states
which conform to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.
A collection of particles has an associated wave, which evolves according
to the Schrödinger equation. Each of the particles follows a deterministic
 165

(but probably chaotic) trajectory that is guided by the wave function. The
density of the particles conforms to the magnitude of the wave function.
The particles are guided by a “pilot wave” in a Ψ - field that satisfies the
Schrödinger equation, that acts on the particles to guide their path, that
is ubiquitous, and that is non-local. The origin of the Ψ – field and the
dynamics of a single photon are unmodeled.
In common with most interpretations of quantum mechanics other than
the Many-worlds interpretation, this theory has nonlocality. The Pilot Wave
Theory shows that it is possible to have a theory that is realistic and deter-
ministic, but still predicts the experimental results of Quantum Mechanics.
Claus Jönsson of Tübingen in 1961 finally performed an actual double–
slit experiment with electrons (Zeitschrift für Physik 161 454). He demon-
strated interference with up to five slits. The next milestone (an experiment
in which there was just one electron in the apparatus at any one time) was
reached by Akira Tonomura and co-workers at Hitachi in 1989 when they
observed the build up (large ensemble) of the fringe pattern with a very
weak electron source and an electron biprism (American Journal of Physics
57 117-120). Whereas Jönsson’s experiment was analogous to Young’s orig-
inal experiment, Tonomura’s was similar to G I Taylor’s. (Note added on
May 7: Pier Giorgio Merli, Giulio Pozzi, and GianFranco Missiroli carried
out double–slit interference experiments with single electrons in Bologna in
the 1970s; see Merli et al. in Further reading and the letters from Steeds,
Merli et al., and Tonomura.)
Since then, particle interference has been demonstrated with neutrons,
atoms, and molecules as large as carbon-60 and carbon-70. However, the
results are profoundly different this time because electrons are fermions and,
therefore, obey the Pauli exclusion principle whereas photons are bosons
and do not.
Aim an electron gun at a screen with two slits and record their positions
of detection at a detector behind the screen. An interference pattern will be
observed just like the one produced by diffraction of a light or water wave
at two slits. This pattern will even appear if you slow down the electron
source so that only one electron’s worth of charge per second comes through.
Classically speaking, every electron is a point particle and must either travel
through the first or through the second slit. So we should be able to produce
the same interference pattern if we ran the experiment twice as long, closing
slit number one for the first half, then closing slit number two for the second
half. But the same pattern does not emerge. Furthermore, if we build
detectors around the slits in order to determine which path a particular
166 CHAPTER 3. THE SMALL: LIGHT AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

electron takes, this very measurement destroys the interference pattern as

well. But this is a classical explanation and something much more profound
is taking place.
If either slit is covered, the individual photons hitting the screen, over
time, create a pattern with a single peak – much as if gunshot were being
poorly aimed at a target.
If both slits are left open, the pattern of photons hitting the screen, over
time, again becomes a series of light and dark fringes.
This result seems to both confirm and contradict the wave theory. The
interference pattern confirms that light still behaves much like a wave, even
though we send it one particle at a time. Each time a photon with a cer-
tain energy is emitted, the screen detects a photon with the same energy.
Because the photons are emitted one at a time, the photons are not inter-
fering with each other – so exactly what is the nature of the interference?
However, I note the experiment is to reduce the intensity of the beam so
that one electron goes through he slit at a time not one is emitted at a time.
Modern quantum theory resolves these questions by postulating prob-
ability waves that describe the likelihood of finding the particle at a given
location. These waves interfere with each other just like ordinary waves do.
The Afshar experiment is a big problem for the Copenhagen Interpreta-
tion (Afshar 2005). Shahriar Afshar in March 2004 announced at Harvard
University the results of a variation on the similar two-pinhole “which–way”
experiment. He claims to have disproved Bohr’s Principle of Complemen-
tarity that light cannot exhibit both wave and particle characteristics in
the same experiment.
Afshar created an arrangement similar to the double-slit experiment.
Coherent light generated by a laser is passed through two closely spaced
pinholes. After this dual pinhole setup, Afshar places a lens, which refocuses
the light so that the image of each pinhole is received by a separate photo-
detector. Because there is a one–to–one relationship between the images
and the pinholes, a photon that goes through pinhole number one would
be seen only by detector number one, and if it goes through pinhole two,
it would be seen only by detector number two. Therefore, the setup at
the image plane is such that the light behaves as particles and can be
assigned to a particular pinhole. When the light acts as waves, instead of
particles, there are special regions that the photons avoid, called the dark
fringes. Afshar attempts to check for the wave characteristics of the light
in the same experiment by placing a grid of thin wires just before the lens.
These wires are carefully placed in previously measured positions of the
 167

dark fringes of an interference pattern that is produced by the dual pinhole

setup when observed directly.
The test of complementarity is: (a) Control configuration, with both
pinholes open and no wire grid in place. (b) Simulation of decoherence is
achieved by closing pinhole 1, and placing the wire grid in the path of the
light. The total radiant flux in detector 2 is reduced by 6.6 ± 0.2%. Com-
pared to control data the loss of resolution of the image due to diffraction
caused by the wire grid is clear. (c) Both pinholes are open and the wire
grid is placed at the dark fringes of the interference pattern. The attenu-
ation of the radiant flux in detector 2 is found to be −0.1 ± 0.2%, which
is negligible. Also the resolution of the image is only slightly reduced com-
pared to control. This is assumed to indicate no diffraction takes place by
the wire grid.
The crux of the controversy is do the wires collapse the wave function?
Remember the description of a measurement and how the Copenhagen In-
terpretation tends to ignore the zero measurement type of experiments.
Afshar argues that if there is no energy at the wire, there is nothing to
collapse. If one of the pinholes is blocked, the interference pattern can no
longer be formed, and the wires will block some of the light, and the im-
age quality would be reduced. At this point, Afshar compares the results of
what is seen at the photo-detectors when one slit is closed with what is seen
at the photo–detectors when both slits are open. When one slit is closed,
the grid of wires causes some diffraction in the light, and blocks a certain
amount of light received by the corresponding photo–detector. When both
slits were open, however, the effect of the wires is minimized, so that the
results are comparable to the case in which there are no wires placed in
front of the lens.
The light in this experiment seems to exhibit a wave–like behavior when
going through the wires because the light goes through the spaces between
the wires when both slits were open. Light also exhibits a particle–like
behavior after going through the lens with photons going to a given photo–
detector. Thus, this experiment seems to contradict the principle of Com-
plementarity because it shows both complementary wave and particle char-
acteristics in the same experiment for the same photons. This experiment
has also been conducted with single photons and the results are identical
to the high flux experiment.
Because the Principle of Complementary is a widely held principle in
quantum mechanics, Afshar’s experiment (2002-3) has generated consider-
able controversy. Using his experiment, detecting interference fringes even
168 CHAPTER 3. THE SMALL: LIGHT AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

when observing the path of a photon stream is possible. If his results are
verified, it has far–reaching implications for the understanding of the quan-
tum world and potentially challenges the Copenhagen Interpretation and
the Many–worlds interpretation However, it lends support to the Trans-
actional Interpretation and the Bohm Interpretation, which are consistent
with the results. Newton’s suggestion that Corpuscles travel in streams and
the idea that the streams may interact like waves may also be consistent
with the Afshar experiment.
The following is another experiment done by Afshar in 2005 to answer
some criticisms (Afshar 2005). He and others have suggested other experi-
ments to demonstrate single-photon diffraction behavior. The experimenter
argues the intensity of light is so low and the detector so sensitive that only
one photon passes through the slit(s) at time. The decoherent distribution
of photons lacks the dark fringes. The hidden assumption is that only the
photons passing through the slit(s) affects the pattern on the screen.
The distinction between incoherent and coherent light is whether the
light forms a diffraction/interference pattern when passed through one or
more slits in a mask. Because interference has been thought to be a wave
phenomenon, coherence is considered a property of waves. However, the
definition of coherence allows a distribution of particles to be coherent. A
continuous screen pattern when passed through one or more slits in a mask
is formed for even very weak incoherent source.
Afshar compared weak coherent source and a weak decoherent source.
The weak source is sometimes labeled a “single-photon” source. After 30
photons were registered from each source, there was no distinction in the
screen patterns. After 3000 photons were registered from each source, the
distinction between coherent source and decoherent source became appar-
ent. Therefore, the interference phenomenon requires coherence. Coherence
is a relationship of light particles or parts of the wave front. Because only
one photon passes through the slits at a time does not imply that there
are not other photons blocked by the mask. Therefore, coherence is not a
single particle property. It is a multi-particle property.
However, the coherence requirement is inconsistent with the Copen-
hagen Interpretation.
Afshar seems to be saying Einstein was right, there are hidden variables
(hidden structure), and quantum mechanics is a statistical treatment of this
structure.
The introduction of particle accelerators in the 1930s and their develop-
ment produced many new particles. Various schemes of classifying particles
 169

were developed based on the particles interaction with other matter. M.

Gell–Mann and Y. Ne’eman in the 1960s used group theory to classify all
the hadrons known at the time into multiplets using isospin and strangeness.
When the positions of the hadron groups were plotted on an isospin versus
strangeness graph, a hexagon with two in the center was formed. This is
known as an octet and the classification scheme is known as the “eightfold
way”. The membership of particles in an octet was sufficient proof to de-
termine unknown characteristics of smaller particles. For example, Ξ− and
Ξ0 were later confirmed by experiment to have the eightfold way prediction
of their spin. Because none of the multiplets were completely filled at the
time, the eightfold way predicted the existence many particles. A similar
construction of particle types that did not fit the octet grouping was found
to fit a decuplet (10-particle) structure. The decuplet graph formed a point
down triangle. It was used to predict the existence and properties of the
Ω− particle.
The standard model arranges the particles in a “periodic table” format.
The predictions are made like those used by Mendeleev, by filling in the
holes consistent with the holes’ position in the table.
A further development was to note the joining of lines between the
particles on the graph led to the observation that the octet and decuplet
are constructed of triangles. This suggested a yet more basic structural
particle called the quark. The quark model allowed the understanding of
the collision chemistry of hadrons.
However, the leptons do not form particles, as do quarks. No struc-
ture has been found inside leptons. This suggests leptons are fundamental
particles as of 1970.
The Standard Model of particle physics is a theory that describes the
strong, weak, and electromagnetic fundamental forces, as well as the fun-
damental particles that make up all matter. Developed between 1970 and
1973, it is a combination of quantum field theory and electroweak theory
and is consistent with both quantum mechanics and Special Relativity. The
Standard Model includes the photon and other gauge bosons. To date, al-
most all experimental tests of the three forces described by the Standard
Model have agreed with its predictions. However, the Standard Model is
not a complete theory of fundamental interactions, primarily because it
does not describe gravity.
Although the Standard Model has had great success in explaining ex-
perimental results, it has never been accepted as a complete theory of fun-
damental physics. This is because it has two important defects:
170 CHAPTER 3. THE SMALL: LIGHT AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

1. The model contains 19 free parameters, such as particle masses, which

must be determined experimentally (plus another 10 for neutrino masses).
These parameters cannot be independently calculated.
2. The model does not describe the gravitational interaction.
Since the completion of the Standard Model, many efforts have been
made to address these problems. One attempt to address the first defect is
known as grand unification. The so-called grand unified theories of forces as
particles (GUTs) hypothesized that the strong, weak, and electromagnetic
forces (SU(3), SU(2), and U(1) groups) are actually subgroups of a single
large symmetry force . The interaction energies as particles increase and
approaches a common interaction energy value of 1015 GeV that is greater
than can be reached on Earth. At high energies (far beyond the reach of
current experiments), the symmetry of the unifying group is preserved. If
gravity also is a particle, its projected to have an interaction energy at
1019 GeV. At low energies, it reduces to SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) by a process
known as spontaneous symmetry breaking. The first theory of this kind
was proposed in 1974 by Georgi and Glashow, using SU(5) as the unifying
group. A distinguishing characteristic of these GUTs is that, unlike the
Standard model, they predict the existence of proton decay. The Super–
Kamiokande neutrino observatory reported in 1999 that it had not detected
proton decay, establishing a lower limit on the proton half–life of 6.7 × 1032
years. This and other experiments have falsified numerous GUTs, including
SU(5).
The GUT has not been as successful as the electroweak model. Also,
Cosmological reasons suggest the standard model is believed to be incom-
plete. Within it, matter and antimatter are symmetric. While the pre-
ponderance of matter in the universe can be explained by saying that the
universe just started out this way, this explanation strikes most physicists
as inelegant. Furthermore, the Standard Model provides no mechanism
to generate the cosmic inflation that is believed to have occurred at the
beginning of the universe, a consequence of its omission of gravity.
The weak and strong forces exist only on atomic nuclei. The electro-
magnetic force can be canceled by opposite charges. However, every bit of
matter attracts every other bit of matter. Gravity seems to be ever–present
and is not neutralized.
Test theories of Special Relativity give a mathematical framework for
analyzing results of experiments to verify Special Relativity. An experi-
ment to test the theory of relativity cannot assume the theory is true, and
therefore needs some other framework of assumptions that are wider than
 171

those of relativity. For example, a test theory may have a different postu-
late about light concerning the one–way speed of light vs. two–way speed
of light, may have a preferred frame of reference, and may violate Lorentz
invariance in many different ways. Test theories predicting different ex-
perimental results from Einstein’s Special Relativity, are Robertson’s test
theory (1949), and the Mansouri-Sexl theory (1977) that is equivalent to
Robertson’s theory. Another, more extensive model is the Standard-Model
Extension, which also includes the Standard Model and General Relativity.
Some fundamental experiments to test those parameters, still repeated
with increased accuracy such as the Michelson–Morley experiment, the
Kennedy–Thorndike experiment, and the Ives-Stilwell experiment.
Another, more extensive, model is the Standard Model Extension (SME)
by Alan Kostelecký and others. Contrary to the Roberson–Mansouri–Sexl
(RMS) framework, which is kinematic in nature and restricted to Special
Relativity, SME not only accounts for Special Relativity, but for dynamical
effects of the standard model and General Relativity as well. It investigates
possible spontaneous breaking of both Lorentz invariance and CPT sym-
metry. RMS is fully included in SME, though the latter has a much larger
group of parameters that can indicate any Lorentz or CPT violation.
A couple of SME parameters were tested in a 2007 study sensitive to
10−16 . It employed two simultaneous interferometers over a year’s observa-
tion: Optical in Berlin at 52◦ 31’N 13◦ 20’E and microwave in Perth at 31◦
53’S 115◦ 53E. A preferred background leading to Lorentz Violation could
never be at rest relative to both of them.
Viewed as a theory of elementary particles, Lorentz’s electron/ether
theory was superseded during the first few decades of the 20th century, first
by quantum mechanics and then by quantum field theory. As a general
theory of dynamics, Lorentz and Poincaré had already (by about 1905)
found it necessary to invoke the principle of relativity itself in order to
make the theory match all the available empirical data. By this point,
the last vestiges of substantial ether had been eliminated from Lorentz’s
“ether” theory, and it became both empirically and deductively equivalent
to Special Relativity. The only difference was the metaphysical postulate
of a unique absolute rest frame, which was empirically undetectable and
played no role in the physical predictions of the theory. As a result, the
term “Lorentz Ether Theory” is sometimes used today to refer to a neo-
Lorentzian interpretation of Special Relativity. The prefix “neo” is used
in recognition of the fact that the interpretation must now be applied to
physical entities and processes (such as the standard model of quantum field
172 CHAPTER 3. THE SMALL: LIGHT AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

theory) that were unknown in Lorentz’s day.

Subsequent to the advent of Special Relativity, only a small number of
individuals have advocated the Lorentzian approach to physics. Many of
these, such as Herbert E. Ives (who, along with G. R. Stilwell, performed
the first experimental confirmation of time dilation) have been motivated by
the belief that Special Relativity is logically inconsistent, and so some other
conceptual framework is needed to reconcile the relativistic phenomena. For
example, Ives wrote, “The ’principle’ of the constancy of the velocity of light
is not merely ’ununderstandable’, it is not supported by ’objective matters
of fact’; it is untenable. . . ”. However, the logical consistency of Special
Relativity (as well as its empirical success) is well established, so the views
of such individuals are considered unfounded within the mainstream scien-
tific community. A few physicists, while recognizing the logical consistency
of Special Relativity, have nevertheless argued in favor of the absolutist
neo-Lorentzian view. Some (like John Stewart Bell) have asserted that the
metaphysical postulate of an undetectable absolute rest frame has pedagog-
ical advantages. Others have suggested that a neo-Lorentzian interpretation
would be preferable in the event that any evidence of a failure of Lorentz
invariance was ever detected. However, no evidence of such violation has
ever been found despite strenuous efforts.
Chapter 4

Scalar Theory of
Everything(STOE)

Explaining and predicting observations that are unsatisfactorily accounted

by the cosmological standard model and by General Relativity motivates
the investigation of alternate models. Examples of these future model chal-
lenges are
(1) the need for and the ad hoc introduction of dark matter and dark en-
ergy,
(2) the Pioneer Anomaly (PA),
(3) the incompatibility of General Relativity with observations of subatomic
particles,
(4) the need for fine - tuning of significant parameters,
(5) the incompatibility of General Relativity with galactic scale and galaxy
cluster scale observations (Sellwood and Kosowsky 2001b),
(6) the poor correlation of galactocentric redshift z of galaxies to distances
D (Mpc) > 10 Mpc measured using Cepheid stars (Freedman et al. 2001;
Macri et al. 2001; Saha et al. 2006a),
(7) the lack of a galaxy and galaxy cluster evolution model consistent with
observations, and
(8) the lack of application of Mach’s Principle.
Other examples (Arp 1998; Pecker and Narklikar 2006) that proponents
of the standard model dispute the interpretation of the observational data
include evidence
(1) for discrete redshift
(2) for QSO association with nearby galaxies,
(3) that galaxies are forming by ejection of matter from other galaxies rather
173
174 CHAPTER 4. SCALAR THEORY OF EVERYTHING(STOE)

than merging, and

(4) that z may be caused by a phenomena other than Doppler shift, called
“intrinsic” z.
The popular model(s) of the small also have unsatisfactory features:
(1) It is a statistical treatment that lacks conceptual insight.
(2) An underlying physical model remains elusive.
(3) A physical model of light to describe both wave-like and particle-like
behavior is lacking.
(4) The more popular Copenhagen Interpretation may be falsified by the
Afshar Experiment (Afshar 2005).
(5) The Bohm Interpretation lacks a cause for the Ψ field.

Physics in the western tradition is “math first”. Mathematics plays a

major role in physics today as a calculation tool and to provide a more accu-
rate and reproducible description. Algebra is the study of the relationship of
numbers and operations. A number derives from counting discrete objects.
Geometry is the study of the properties of shapes and their relationships.
Physics uses math by adding (1) standards of measure, (2) proportionality
constants, (3) a causation sequence, and (4) abstract transformations to
simplify the calculations.
Observations involve measurements that consist of standard units and
the number of standard units. The standard units should be unchanging for
the physical measurement. However, this is rarely the case. For example,
if a standard of length is a bar of material, the material is subject to tem-
perature and other variations. Special Relativity suggests these standards
change with relative velocity. A measurement requires the standard used
to be unchanged or at least change much less than the uncertainty of the
measurement.
The number models are often non-local abstractions that frequently
yield non–physical results of infinity, of singularities, and of negative num-
bers for physical parameters. They often require “virtual” or other non–
physical objects. A physical parameter is a scalar that is invariant in dif-
fering reference frames with an observable effect. A negative number differs
from a subtraction operation.
A problem encountered is “What does ‘=’ mean?” There are two pos-
sible physical interpretations. (1) The mapping is merely a mathematical
convenience. “=” means mathematical counting. (2) The mapping and
“=” means a “real” physical description of underling physics. For example,
a board 2 feet long plus another board 3 feet long (right hand side) is not
 175

a single board 5 feet long (left hand side). If the need is to span a distance
of 4 feet, the right hand side fails. If the need is to be a spacer, then either
side may suffice.
Equality in math means the result of calculation on the right hand
and the left hand sides of an equation are the same number, set, group,
property, etc. Equality does not mean the physical objects represented on
the right hand and the left hand sides of an equation can be interchanged
or can be the same object. However, the equality in physics requires some
understanding of the use of math. For example, the interpretation of E =
mc2 may mean the energy content of a mass is mc2 . If a body is composed
of indestructible smallest objects as Democritus suggests, then E is the
energy content of the body.
Causality means an effect is obtained by direct cause. An effect may also
be a cause for another effect. Two similar effects may be in a chain of causes
or be the result of similar causes. The problem with “action-at-a-distance”
is the chain of causes is lacking.
Transformations are used in mathematical physics to render equations
into a more easily solvable form. Great care must be exercised to assure that
there is not a hidden infinity, a divide by zero operation (singularity), or a
negative physical reality; that the mapping is conformal and invertible; and
that the mapping is complete for the calculation. Once a transformation is
preformed in a calculation sequence, the reality of the result must again be
established by observation. Further, the reality of intervening operations is
considered unreal until reestablished by observation.
Poincaré pointed out that any physical model admits an unlimited num-
ber of valid mathematical transformations, all equivalent and deducible
from each other. However, they are not all equally simple. Therefore, sci-
entists choose the transformation for the physical situation. However, the
performance of the transformation does not guarantee that all the physi-
cal observations have been included. Hence, the reality of the transformed
numbers is questionable. This seems to be the case for the lack of an equiva-
lent transformation between the General Relativity transformation and the
Quantum Mechanical transformation.
Newtonian physics transforms the movement measurements such as ac-
celeration a of distance and duration into a “force” Fa number with an
appropriate scaling by use of an operation of multiplication by a propor-
tionality constant mi , Fa = mi a. Physics also notes the tendency of two
bodies of mass mg and Mg at a distance r between their centers of mass tend
toward each other. Another transformation into a “force” Fg is obtained by
176 CHAPTER 4. SCALAR THEORY OF EVERYTHING(STOE)

noting the interrelation of the physical parameters and by use of an opera-

tion of multiplication by a proportionality constant G, Fg = Gmg Mg /r 2. If
no other causes are present, the transformed forces are equal by Newton’s
law, Fa = Fg . Because Fa and Fg are transformed numbers, the causation
link may not be real. However, the next equation of mi a = Gmg Mg /r 2 may
not be real in the sense of causation. The physics adds the Equivalence
principle transformation (not causation) mi = mg , the appropriate defini-
tion of G to say the equation is valid in the sense of observable, and the
interpretation that gravitation “causes” the motion. Two different obser-
vations are transformed, the equality in transformed numbers are linked,
a physics Principle is included, and the resulting numbers are judged as
cause and effect despite the intervening unreal transformation. Hence, the
final cause and effect is also an assumption that must be observed to be
considered valid and a description of nature.
The physics Principles are the concepts of the nature of our universe
that are like the axioms of math. Because of the importance of math pro-
cedures, phrasing the Principles in such a way as to be amenable to math
is important. Standards, permissible operations, and causality must be
established.
The goal of the science of physics is to predict the outcome of obser-
vations and experiments. Human use of physics models is to cause the
outcome of experiments that aids our survival. Understanding is the ability
to predict observations. Understanding is a conceptual exercise. Measure-
ment and calculation are mathematical exercises. Increased dependence
on math increases specialization and the need for “expert judgment” and,
therefore, decreases understanding of the universe. Understanding aids our
survival.
Today’s mathematical models require experts to compute predictions.
The mathematical models have become more abstract and devoid of the
way nature is actually thought to operate. Hence, they become devoid of
intuitive understanding and very weird to our sensibilities. Further, the
statement of an experiment in mathematical terms often involves expert
human judgment to configure the problem. Because we are a part of the
universe, physics should be consistent with our intuitive understanding and
our sensibilities.
Physics in so far as we can predict outcomes is limited. The limita-
tion produces anomalies in our measurement of the universe. If we concern
ourselves with complexities of the transformation that “may” exist, we are
distracted from determining a new, real model of unknown anomalies. Sim-
 177

ilarly, our minds and ability to grasp concepts is limited. Therefore, we

seek fewer models that cover larger domains of observations. This require-
ment for an “economy of thought” suggests a value of a model is to predict
observations with little redundancy. Hypotheses that are unsupported by
any known observation should be discarded especially those suggested by
transformations.
The Chinese gave convincing arguments using analogy of concepts within
our (nearly) everyday life to describe concepts outside our everyday life.
The western tradition has been proof–by–logic. The STOE postulates all
levels of scale are repetitions of our scale as suggested by fractals. There-
fore, the proof–by–analogy is the fundamental proof of a model and the
proof–by–logic is valid only as the proof–by–analogy allows.
The basis of the “expert human judgment” is the universe our senses
directly detect. These observations over time form a sense in us of a physical
reality. These physical models are more intuitive for us.
The Greeks of Aristotle’s time suggested the physical laws of each planet
differed from each other and our experience. Today’s physics assumes the
opposite viewpoint. The STOE postulates an even stronger link between
our physical experience and the big and the small.
Newton’s action–at–a–distance is not within our direct experience and
is not intuitive. The idea of action–at–a–distance implies anything can and
does influence everything else instantly without any intervening medium or
object. The forces from all other bodies in Newtonian mechanics combine
by vector analysis. The future movement is obtained by inverting the trans-
formation to position coordinates. By converting the gravitational field into
force, the calculation could include inertial mass, gravitational mass treated
by forces, electric charge, friction, etc..
Solutions of problems in Newtonian mathematics are very difficult for
three or more bodies. To address such problems, the analyst uses “virtual”
bodies such as barycenters. Virtual bodies are another characteristic of
mathematical, unreal solutions and depend on “expert human judgment”
to “properly” frame the problem.
The necessary inclusion of all other bodies in the universe triggers a
conceptual and a physical problem for Newtonian mechanics. The universe
must be infinite. The analysis of any given problem such as planetary mo-
tion includes an intuitively inspired “expert judgment” about which other
bodies and other forces to include. If this selection is incorrect, the predic-
tion will be incorrect. As greater accuracy is required, more inclusions must
be made. Eventually, inaccuracy is caused either by insufficient inclusion
178 CHAPTER 4. SCALAR THEORY OF EVERYTHING(STOE)

or by the mathematical model. The social pressure among the experts is

to continue with what they know and suspect insufficient inclusion rather
than rethink the mathematical model from scratch. Thus, mathematical
models become more complex and esoteric.
The STOE resolves the action–at–a–distance issue by postulating the
more intuitive action–by-contact. One “real” object contacts another “real”
object iteratively until the single mathematical step of r −2 is accounted.
The idea of gravity is also an abstract mathematical construct. The same
iterative steps must also yield gravity of the big and light diffraction of the
small.
The statistical measurements of quantum mechanics are transformed
into a Fourier series of waves. The series is without limit and each wave
is infinite. This is convenient for mathematical analysis because waves are
understood mathematically and physically. However, the resulting form
yields unwieldy physical concepts such as entanglement, particles are waves
of infinite extent, and the measurement limitation yields a limit on the
infinite integration required by Fourier analysis that implies the Heisenberg
Uncertainty.
General Relativity is a transformation of the stress–energy measure-
ments to the geometry of gravitational ether. The gravitational ether is
a transformed construct with the physical characteristic of action between
matter bodies. Matter causes a change in the gravitational ether and the
gravitational ether causes a change in matter motion. It is still action–at–
a-distance. Its physical effect is to account for the r −2 characteristic. An-
other characteristic of the transformed construct is to suggest the universe
is closed in a mathematical 3 dimensional surface, which avoids the infinite
universe of Newtonian mechanics. The measured flatness of the gravita-
tional ether is a problem. The Big Bang model has many assumptions
unsupported by physical observation such as the location of the microwave
background and the redshift of galaxies being principally caused by Doppler
velocity. The mathematics of General Relatively yields nonphysical math-
ematical constructs such as wormholes and a singularity at the center of
black holes.

4.1 STOE PRINCIPLES

The Reality Principle states that results of any action must be real. Calcu-
lations that yield results of infinity, of singularities, or of negative numbers
for physical conditions are not real. The Strong Reality Principle states that
4.1. STOE PRINCIPLES 179

any step in the calculation that yield results of infinity, of singularities, or

of negative for physical parameters yields unreal results.
What our senses detect is real and our goal is survival. However, our
perceptions can misinterpret the sensory input. The struggle for existence,
for survival, has formed our senses to detect only certain phenomena. The
restriction of “only certain phenomena” is efficiency of resource use. The
addition of instruments and recorded images aids our perception and inter-
pretation. Instruments readings depend on the model of their operation.
The instruments also have limitations. Ultimately the interpretation of
instrument readings must be reproducible to our senses and helps us un-
derstand the impact of the model on our survival.
A corollary of the Reality Principle is that all the mathematics of the
models in modern physics has their analogy in our everyday life. Therefore,
a conceptual statement of modern models can be built by analogy to every-
day experience. For example, the application of General Relativity to the
Big Bang concept uses the math of the macro properties of gases or fluids.
The Principal of Fundamental Principles is that a Fundamental Princi-
ple, and the models developed from it, is a meaningful and useful principle
that applies to all scales of physical systems. To be meaningful is to be
able to be used to describe and predict the outcome of experiments and
observations. To be useful is to be able to be used to cause desired out-
comes. The desired outcome for us is survival. Therefore, to be useful is to
aid our survival. An outcome of an experiment includes placing bounds on
what (parameter or event), where (position coordinates), and when (time
coordinate).
Corollary I is if a candidate to be a Fundamental Principle is found
to not apply in a level of a physical system, then it is not a Fundamental
Principle. The scale of a physical system refers to the size of the domain of
applicability over which a set of physical theories applies such as galaxies
versus atoms and Newtonian versus Special Relativity. Corollary II is if a
principle is found in all of physical systems, then it is likely to apply to
larger and smaller levels and to new concepts.
The Principle of Superposition, the Correspondence Principle, and Prin-
ciple of Minimum Potential Energy are such Fundamental Principles. The
Correspondence Principle is an interpolation of the Fundamental Principles.
Corollary II is an extrapolation of the Fundamental Principle.
A “scientific model” (theory) is derived from the transcendent idea of
the Fundamental Principle and is applicable to a defined domain. Because
life and social systems are physical systems, by Corollary II, the transcen-
180 CHAPTER 4. SCALAR THEORY OF EVERYTHING(STOE)

dent idea of the Fundamental Principles must also apply to life and to
social systems. The more fundamental scientific models have larger do-
mains. A proposal becomes a scientific model when a deduction from it
is observed. This concept does not require a candidate model to include
“falsifiable predictions” and does not invalidate the usefulness of a scien-
tific model for a domain because of the existence of falsifying observations
in another domain. For instance, Newtonian dynamics is a valid scientific
model. Observations in the domain including relative velocities approach-
ing the speed of light falsify Newtonian dynamics. However, this only limits
the Newtonian dynamics domain. Religious ideology models based on belief
and philosophy models may be scientific models provided they are useful
and meaningful with restricted what, where, and when bounds. To survive,
a scientific model must compete for attention. The concept of a scien-
tific model survives because the human mind is limited in the ability to
maintain a catalog of the nearly infinite number of possible observations.
Scientific models with empty or more limited domains have little usefulness
and meaningfulness.
The Universality Principle states that the physics must be the same
at all positions in the universe. A Theory of Everything must exist. The
only difference from one place and time to another is a question of scale
and history. For example, the physics that states all objects fall to earth
was found to be limited to the Earth domain when Galileo noted moons
rotating around Jupiter. Newton’s restatement of physics was more cos-
mological, was simpler, and corresponded to Aristotle’s model. However,
the Universality Principle is not extended to imply the universe is isotropic
and homogeneous. Near a star is a unique position. The physics must
explain other positions. The physical theories must explain any isotropies
and anisotropies. Our presence may change the outcome of experiments
according to quantum mechanics. However, this is true for any observer.
If, in some set of observations, we appear privileged, the privilege must be
incorporated in the model. For example, we are in a galaxy disk and are
close to a sun. We are in a highly unique and privileged area. Just because
we are carbon based does not imply all intelligent life is carbon based.
The Universality Principle appears to be a combination of the Cos-
mological Principle in the form that states that observers of the physical
phenomena produced by uniform and universal laws of physics and the
Copernican Principle in the form that states observers on Earth are not
privileged observers of the universe. However, the STOE rejects both the
Cosmological Principle and the Copernican Principle because they are lim-
4.1. STOE PRINCIPLES 181

ited to cosmology and inapplicable to the small. Our solar system is not
isotropic and homogeneous. Variation in physical structures cannot be over-
looked because the greater physical models must describe these variations
to be a Theory of Everything. The physics is in the details.
Physicists have used the concept that observations of the cosmos have
their counterpart in earthborn experiments. For example, the observed
spectra from galaxies are assumed to be the same spectra produced by
elements on Earth with a frequency shift. The model of the frequency
shift is the same as can be produced in Earth laboratories by the Doppler
shift model. The STOE suggests this is not always true. For example,
much higher temperatures have been modeled in the universe than can be
produced on Earth. However, the STOE should have the capability to
describe both conditions.
The Anthropic Principle is accepted to the extent that what is observed
must have been created and have evolved to the present. What is observed
must be able to be observed. Note this statement of the Anthropic Prin-
ciple omits the requirement that it depend on an assumption of “life” and
“intelligence” because life and intelligence are inadequately defined. The
existence of life, social systems, and intelligence are observations of our
universe and, therefore, must be able to exist. An unobserved parameter
may or may not be able to be observed. Therefore, the negative model
candidates are not useful.
The Anthropic Principle is expanded to include not only our physical
existence but also our successful social and economic creations. By “suc-
cessful” I mean the set of rules that allow survival in competition with other
sets of rules. That is, the rules for the successful functioning of social and
economic structures may be the same as the functioning of physical cosmol-
ogy. Conversely, the determination of the functioning of physical cosmology
may point the way to a more successful set of social and economic rules.
Some argue (Smolin 2004, and references therein) the Anthropic Princi-
ple cannot be part of science because it cannot yield falsifiable predictions.
The Change Principle states that all structures change by a minimum
step change. What exists will change. A structure is a relationship of the
components of the universe. Change involves modifying the influence of one
structure on another structure. A rigid structure maintains the relation of
the components while the relation with the rest of the universe changes. If
the influence between components is large, the structure behaves as a rigid
structure. Particles became a hydrogen atom followed by evolution of other
atoms. Atoms became molecules. A model that requires a large step where
182 CHAPTER 4. SCALAR THEORY OF EVERYTHING(STOE)

there are possible intervening steps is not observed and is forbidden.

A corollary of the Change Principle is that all components are injected
into our universe. We observe in our domain that all structures have a
beginning and an end. After a rigid structure is formed, it is either growing
by acquiring components or ending by losing components. Also, all com-
ponents are ejected from our universe. All structures have an end. The
components that are injected into our universe are balanced by the compo-
nents that are ejected from our universe in the very long term.
The Limited Resources Principle states components of the universe and
rigid structures are resources for building other structures. Most rigid struc-
tures become larger at the expense of other structures.
The Limited Resources Principle combined with the Change Principle
is the Principle of Minimum Potential Energy. Can we see the competition
need in this principle? Could the Principle of Minimum Potential Energy
be expanded to include the idea of profit?
The Competition Principle states all things are competing for the limited
resources. Those rigid structures that are not gaining components from
other structures are losing components to other structures. Gaining means
the total internal energy is increasing. That is, the energy used to gain
is less than the energy gained. Each rigid structure is acquiring profit.
Competition is a feedback mechanism to control parameters such as the
relation between mass of the Supermassive black hole and galaxy mass and
velocity dispersion. Centers of energy (stars) are in competition to gain
mass for greater energy production. Are nucleons and quarks in some form
of competition? There are three ways to effectively compete for limited
resources: form new relations, repeat or reproduce the same structure, or
to destroy competitors.
The Repetition Principle states that there are two ways to repeat a
Change: (1) If conditions allow an observable change, then the change will
occur again under similar conditions. (2) The repeated Changes have a
common cause (reproduction). A corollary is that if two systems have the
same observable results, then similar conditions exist or the systems were
reproduced. A strong statement of the Repetition Principle is that the
amount of increase of a parameter by the Repetition Principle depends on
the size of the parameter. Destruction of objects to have “room” for “the
new” is a Repetition because the only objects that can be built from the
pieces are a Repetition of objects.
The Negative Feedback Principle states that any system with relatively
narrow parameter relationships must evolve from a broader system and
4.1. STOE PRINCIPLES 183

must have a negative feedback loop to maintain the narrow parameters and
achieve balance between the Change and Competition processes. Otherwise,
the system is unstable and transitory. The effects of the unstable system
will cease to exist without consequential fallout or permanent change. Tran-
sitory means the structure can exist but is ending. Therefore, there will be
very few observations of the transitory type of rigid structure. We observe
objects that have limited size. So, there is a limiting force or negative feed-
back condition controlling the size of each object. So too must black holes
have a size limitation and a negative feedback condition. When the size
of a structure of an object becomes limited, a new structure comprising a
combination of existing structures can occur. Alternatively, the structure
may be dissolved into smaller structures.
Conversely, if a functional relationship is measured between two param-
eters, then there exists a negative feedback physical mechanism such that a
change in one parameter produces only the amount of change in the other
parameter allowed by the relationship. For example, the ratio of the central
mass to the mass of the bulge is constant. Therefore, there exists a physical
mechanism to cause this to happen (Merritt & Ferrarese 2001b).
Because all structures have parametric relations with other structures,
all processes of change are part of a Negative Feedback loop. The problem of
physics is to identify the Negative Feedback loops. Each complete Negative
Feedback loop is a fractal.
The Local Action Principle states influence is only upon the immediate
adjacent volume by contact. This action is then iteratively transmitted to
other volumes. The summation or integration of this local action is calcu-
lated with nonlocal models. The calculation must take care that the Reality
Principle is obeyed. The integration of actions results in the abstract mod-
els such as action–at–a–distance.
The Minimum Action Principle can be stated as a Principle of Minimum
Potential Energy, which states the path of least energy expenditure will be
followed during the change from one state to another.
The Fractal (or Self-similarity) Principle states that the universe has
a fractal structure. There is no natural system in our universe including
our universe as a whole that is totally adiabatic. Even laboratory-isolated
systems have some energy leakage. The Universality Principle combined
with the Fractal Principle implies physics models are analogies of the world
we can experience. We directly experience approximately 10 powers of two
larger to 10 powers of two smaller than our size (2 meters). Instrumentation
technology allows the expansion of our knowledge approximately as many
184 CHAPTER 4. SCALAR THEORY OF EVERYTHING(STOE)

powers of two larger as powers of two smaller.

For instance, if we can see the tree in the distribution of matter in the
voids and filaments of the universe, then may we postulate the universe is
distributing matter according to the same underlying rules and solving the
same problems as the tree. The physics problem is to identify the common
principles.
What is the tree doing?
1. To survive it has to be competitive, it must use limited resources (en-
ergy) efficiently to produce food.
2. It must do this more efficiently than other trees.
3. It gets the sun’s energy over a surface area. It must use its resource
(wood) to produce the maximum surface area for the wood used - be more
profitable.
4. So the fractal structure is efficient for a tree. What does such a structure
do for the distribution of matter in the universe?
5. Perhaps the energy in the physical world has an analog of resources in
the economic world.

The Principle of Geometric Rules states that the observed geometric

relationships apply in all levels of systems. Hence, the conservation of
energy/mass must be related to geometric rules we observe in our universe.
Hence, π = circumference / radius in two dimensions must be the same
number in three dimensions. π is not only a universal constant in our
universe, it is a constant in all the universes. The division by two is another
universal concept. The division by two for each dimension into equal angles
yields the right angle.

4.2 STOE
The scalar potential model (STOE) was conceived by considering the ob-
servation anomalies and the observation data that current models describe.
The current models were considered only to the extent they are consistent
with data and the STOE must correspond to them with simplifying param-
eters. The current explanations were ignored. Further, some observations
are so entwined with a model that the data was restated. For example,
galaxy redshift observations are often referred to as “Doppler shift” that
implies a relative velocity.
Secondly, the simplest structure that can conceptually produce a wide
range of differing observation is an interaction and two structures. There
4.2. STOE 185

are two types of energy, potential and kinetic. The two types of light be-
havior suggests one must be discrete and particle–like. The other must
be continuous and able to support wave–like behavior. The interaction of
the particle–like and wave–like behaviors produce differing and ever larger
structures. The differing structures produce variety. For example, both
particle–like and wave–like things are needed to produce diffraction pat-
terns. This is unlike the Copenhagen Interpretation, which suggests an
“or” relation.
A search was made in accordance with the Principle of Fundamental
Principles for a physical process in the Newtonian physical domain that may
model and explain the observed data of spiral galaxies. Such a system was
found in the fractional distillation process (FDP). A FDP has a Source of
heat plenum (energy) and material input (matter) at the bottom (center of
galaxies) of a container. The heat of the FDP is identified with a constituent
of our universe that is not matter and is identified as plenum (in units of
“que”, abbreviated as “q”, - a new unit of measure) whose density ρ is a
potential energy. The term “plenum” will mean the amount of plenum in
ques. Temperature in the FDP decreases with height from the Source. The
opposing forces of gravity and the upward flow of gas acting on the cross
section of molecules in an FDP cause the compounds to be lighter with
height and lower temperature. Heavy molecules that coalesce and fall to
the bottom are re-evaporated and cracked. The heat equation with slight
modification rather than gas dynamics modeled the flow of heat (plenum
energy). Temperature decline of the FDP was modeled as dissipation of
matter and plenum energy into three dimensions.
The Principles of Change and Repetition requires that the three dimen-
sions (3D) be created from two dimensions (2D). The creation of 3D from
zero dimensions (0D) is not only unlikely but forbidden. The universe be-
gins with a Change that may be a rupture of 0D. The Change itself is a
beginning of time. The 0D ruptures to create one dimensional (1D) points
and plenum between the points on a line. The 0D is a Source of 1D and
continually ejects plenum into one end of the 1D line. The other end must
expand into the void. Thus, the 1D line is continually growing. The 1D line
has only one direction. Therefore, the 1D line is straight. The 1D energy
is τ1 t = ρ1 l where τ1 is the point tension, t is time elapsed between point
eruption, ρ1 is the line plenum density, and l is the length between points.
The first transition creates length and time

l = ct, (4.1)
186 CHAPTER 4. SCALAR THEORY OF EVERYTHING(STOE)

where c = τ1 /ρ1 is the constant of proportionality.

When points in 1D rupture, the 2D plenum is inserted into 2D at many
points along the 1D line. The rupture can have no component remaining in
1D. Thus, a right angle is defined and the metric coefficients equal one (a
Cartesian plane). Accordingly, 2D is flat. The 2D energy for each transition
is τ2 l = ρ2 S where τ2 is the line tension, l is the line length, ρ2 is the area
plenum density, and S is the area.
A 2D Sink is at a place in 2D that has plenum tightly contained in
a line. The line is a one-dimensional border in 2D. If a line with a “line
tension” compressing plenum is deformed perpendicular to the line, an arc
of height h is formed. The geometric constant of the line is its length l. If
a condition of l = πh is reached, a bubble in 2D is formed. The end points
of the line are coincident. This rupture causes plenum to be removed from
the 2D plane. This 2D Sink becomes a Source in 3D of all matter and of
Plenum. The line becomes an object in 3D called a hod. The hod is the
smallest piece of matter from which all other matter is constructed. The
hod is supple so that its shape may change in 3D. The edge of the 2D
plane expands into the void. Hence, the distance between the points that
rupture into 3D is increasing. The expansion is recurrent and is in 2D, not
3D. Because the rupture into 3D is orthogonal to 2D, 3D is flat (Cartesian
three space dimensions), also. The l becomes area α. The plenum area in
2D becomes the volume V of plenum density ρ in 3D. One que is the amount
of plenum released by one hod in the transition. The ρ of Plenum forms a
scalar potential field. Energy is conserved in the emission of matter/energy
and plenum from the Source. The unit of measure of ǫ is in the amount of
que released per second that is proportional to the amount of mass released
per second, ǫm in units of M⊙ s−1 .
Because nothing exists in 3D except because of the transitions, the en-
ergy for a transition is
τ α = ρI VI , (4.2)

where ρI and VI are the initial ρ and V at the transition, respectively, and
τ is the proportionality constant called surface tension.
Similarly, corollary II of the Fundamental Principle implies a 3D Sink
of strength η is formed.
Succeeding ruptures at the same point adds plenum and hods to the
universe. Because we observe there is plenum and ρ in our neighborhood,
the plenum and hods then flow from the Source and creates the galaxy
around the Source.
4.2. STOE 187

The total energy transferred into 3D from Eq. (4.2) is

Nt τ α = Nt ρI VI , (4.3)

where Nt is the total number of hods in the universe.

The 2D plane in the observed universe is common for all Sources. As
the plenum from a Source expands into the void, it encounters other plenum
from other Sources. Because all plenum originates from one 0D Source, the
merged plenum is causally correlated and coherent. However, 2D plenum
is distinct from 3D plenum.
The surface in 2D was a tightly bound line on the outside of plenum.
The plenum in 3D is on the outside of a hod surface. The ~τ on the 2D
plenum was high enough to contain the plenum. Now ~τ acts to attract 3D
plenum. Because the hod formed in the extreme pressure of the Source, the
~τ maximum ability to act on plenum exceeds the pressure of plenum on the
hod away from the Source. Because τ and α are constant, as the extent
of the volume V increases so ρ must decrease. Therefore, the hod applies
its energy, τ α, on the plenum immediately surrounding the hod. Because
the hod contained the plenum before release and the plenum was at a much
higher ρ than is surrounding the hod in 3D, all the hod’s tensional energy
is exerted on plenum. A hod is a 2D discontinuity in the continuity of
3D plenum. These discontinuities are surfaces in plenum with an edge not
containing loops.
Hods are discrete. The mathematics of integer numbers can then be used
to count hods. Hods can combine, one with another. The number of hods
and the structure of the combinations of hods create the different particles
and forces, except gravity, of the universe. Therefore, the language of hods
is integer numbers, structures, counting, subtraction, and summation.
The plenum is continuous (infinitely divisible), perfectly elastic, and
compressible. The plenum transmits the hod’s tension. The plenum con-
tinuously fills the region it occupies. The transformation of plenum over
time is continuous. Hods and the outer edge of plenum as it expands into
the void are discontinuities in the plenum. Water in our scale is modeled
as continuous and we speak of the water as transmitting waves. However,
water on a smaller scale is modeled as being composed of discrete molecules
with a surface tension. The plenum really can meet the mathematical cri-
teria of considering an arbitrarily small volume. Therefore, the language
of the plenum is real numbers, tensors, field theories, differentiation, and
integrals.
The three interactions of concern are that each hod exerts a tension
188 CHAPTER 4. SCALAR THEORY OF EVERYTHING(STOE)

force on the plenum, the plenum exerts a pressure force on the hod, and the
plenum exerts pressure and tension forces on adjacent plenum. A hod is
not attracted or repelled by other hods through a field or other action at a
distance device. Because τ can act only perpendicular to the hod’s surface,
the force the plenum exerts on the hod is perpendicular to the surface of
the hod.
There are three dimensions in our universe. Counting is a characteristic
of hods. Therefore, that our universe is three–dimensional is a characteristic
of the hods and not of the plenum.
There are two concepts of distance. Distance can be by reference to a
fixed grid. Traditional methods have used the plenum as the fixed grid.
Distance in this model is a multiple of the average diameter a hod. Because
α is a constant and the hod may be deformed, the hod average diameter
will be considered a constant throughout the universe beyond the Source
and in moving and accelerating reference frames. The measure of distance
will be a “ho”, which is defined as the average diameter of the hod. The
STOE uses ho distance to form a grid in a flat universe with
α
1 ho = 2 ( )1/2 . (4.4)
π
Another concept of distance is the amount of plenum between two sur-
faces. By analogy, this type of distance in gas is the amount of gas between
two surfaces. Increasing the amount of gas between the two surfaces in-
creases the distance. One way to do this is by movement of the surfaces.
Another way is to add more gas from a source. If the medium is compress-
ible, the distance measured by the amount of gas varies with the change in
density of the medium. The STOE model allows plenum to be compress-
ible. Therefore, the amount of plenum between two surfaces can change if
the ρ (que ho−3 ) of the plenum between two surfaces changes.
All hods are the same and no plenum action changes their dimension.
Therefore, the hods’ dimension is the only fixed standard of length. All
other standards of length are subject to environmental conditions. The
terms distance, length, area, and volume will refer to ho measurements.
The unit of measure of distance is usually expressed in km, pc, kpc, or
Mpc. If the measurement is taken by means of angular observation or time-
between–events observations such as using Cepheid variables that do not
depend on the amount of plenum, the units of pc are proportional to the
ho unit. Because the proportionality constant is unknown, the units of pc
will be used. However, if the measurement such as redshift depends on the
amount of plenum, the units of pc should be used with caution.
4.2. STOE 189

Because the hods are discrete, ǫ(t) is a digital function in time. The
hod exerts a tremendous τ to hold the plenum in its 2D surroundings.
Upon transition, the plenum immediately around the hod experiences an
instantaneous addition to the amount of plenum in the 3D universe. This
step function creates a shockwave in the surrounding plenum. The plenum
then flows out into the void causing the V of plenum to increase and a ρ
variation in the V .
If plenum has no relaxation time and no maximum gradient, the erup-
tion of plenum from a Source would spread out instantly so that ρ would
be virtually zero everywhere. Because we observe plenum in our region of
the universe, the Anthropic Principle implies plenum flow must have a re-
laxation time and a maximum ρ gradient (∇ ~ m ρ) that is a constant of the
universe.
Because plenum has a relaxation time, the plenum carries the inertia
in matter. A hod is an object with an area α, a surface tension per unit
area ~τ . The α and the magnitude of ~τ are the same for all hods and are
universal constants.
The ∇ρ~ = ∇ ~ m ρ in the region around an active Source. The plenum
expands into the void where ρ = 0 and ∇ρ ~ = 0. Therefore, at some radius
rsc from the Source, ρ becomes another function of time and distance from
the Source. The ∇ρ~ must be continuous at rsc , ∇ρ~ =∇ ~ m ρ and ∇2 ρ > 0. If
ǫ(t) changes, then rsc changes.
The plenum increases between the hods as the plenum increases V ,. The
hods move and attain a velocity dd~ij /dt where d~ij is the vector distance
from the ith hod to the j th hod. The plenum’s relaxation time causes the
hod’s movement to be inhibited, an inertia ι. Thus, a feedback condition
is established wherein the dd~ij /dt is balanced by ι. Therefore, the hods
movement is proportional to the velocity of the hod. The momentum p~ij
between the of the ith and j th hods is defined as

dd~ij
p~ij ≡ Kp ια , (4.5)
dt
where Kp is the proportionality constant and ≡ means “is defined as” and
Kp ια is the inertial mass mi of the plenum around the hod.
The energy Tij expended by the plenum expansion of V upon the hod
is
 dd 2
 
d
Z Z
ij
Tij = ~pij • dd~ = Kp ια  dt. (4.6)
 
dt dt 


190 CHAPTER 4. SCALAR THEORY OF EVERYTHING(STOE)

Thus,
 dd 2
 
 ij 
Tij = Kt Kp ια  , (4.7)
 dt 


where Kt is the proportionality constant.

The Tij is a scalar quantity and is the kinetic effect of the ith hod on the
j th hod. The total Tij energy Tj exerted on the j th hod by all other hods is
N(t)
X
Tj = Tij . (4.8)
i6=j i=1

Because the amount of energy added by the movement of ια must be

the negative of energy due to position and by the inertia which inhibits
hod movement, the Negative Feedback Principle applies. The energy the
hods exert on each other must increase as plenum is added between hods.
Because the ρ term of Eq. (4.2) does not apply to the hod, the loss of energy
must be due to τ α. Call this energy between the of the ith and j th hods
the potential energy Uij . The Uij is proportional to τ α by the Negative
Feedback Principle and is a function f (dij ) of dij between hods

Uij = −Ku τ α f (dij ), i 6= j (4.9)

where Ku is the proportionality constant and the negative sign is because

the hods exert an attraction to each other. Call the Ku τ α the gravitational
mass mg of the hod.
The total Uij energy Uj exerted on the j th hod by all other hods is
Nt
X
Uj = Uij . (4.10)
i6=j i=1

The j th hod’s ια inhibits the changing p~ij . The inertia of the hods results
in work W done on the hod in time dt
Nt
e d
Z
~
X
Wj = − p~ij • dd, (4.11)
b dt i6=j i=1

d2 deij d2 dbij
!
Wj = −Kp ια de − d b , (4.12)
dt2 dt2
where subscript “b” and subscript “e” indicate the beginning and ending
positions in the time period, respectively.
4.2. STOE 191

Therefore, the total energy equation in 3D is Eq. (4.3) with Tj and Uj

is
Nt
X ZZZ
Nt τ α + (Tj + Uj ) − ρ dV = 0. (4.13)
i6=j j=1 plenum

Implied in Eqs. (4.3) and (4.13) is

Nt Nt
!2 Nt Nt
X X ddij X X
Kt Kp ια = Ku τ α f (dij ). (4.14)
i6=j j=1 i=1
dt i6=j j=1 i=1

“Flatness” is a fundamental condition of the creation of matter and

plenum. Therefore, the Cartesian coordinate system with four equal angles
to define a complete circle is the form of the “flat” measuring system.
Note, d~ij is between hods. The process of summing over all hods provides
a reference frame similar to Mach’s principle. Also, because there is distance
between galaxies, the Uij and Tij of hods in different galaxies includes a
heritage from 1D and 2D.
The plenum produces wave-like behavior and inertial mass. The hods
produce particle-like behavior and gravitational mass.

4.2.1 Energy continuity equation

The classical development of an energy continuity equation includes the as-
sumption that energy is neither created nor destroyed. An arbitrary volume
according to the STOE may include insertion into our universe of energy
(Sources) or the removal from our universe of energy (Sinks).
Consider an arbitrary volume △V bounded by a surface △s. The
plenum will be in △V . Hods, Sources, and Sinks may be in △V . Equa-
tion (4.7) implies Tij = Tji . Equation (4.9) implies Uij = Uji . Therefore,
the total energy Ev in △V is
ZZZ
Ev = Nτ α + ρdV
△V
N
X
+ (Tj + Uj + Wj ),
j=1

where N is the number of hods in △V and the integration is over △V .

Following the usual procedure for the development of an energy con-
tinuity equation such as the heat equation for the temporal evolution of
temperature; remembering hods have no volume and, therefore, the region
192 CHAPTER 4. SCALAR THEORY OF EVERYTHING(STOE)

can be made regular and simply connected by mathematically drawing cuts

around the hod discontinuities; and using the Minimum Potential Energy
Principle, the Negative Feedback Principle, and Minimum Action Principle
gives the integral form of the energy continuity equation
d
ZZZ ZZ
C Ev dV = S ~ • ~nds
∇ρ
dt  
ZZ  N 
~
 X 
+ Su ∇  Uj  • ~n ds
i6=j j=1 
 
ZZ  N 
~
 X 
+ St ∇  Tj  • ~n ds
i6=j j=1 
 
 N
ZZ  X 
~

+ Sw ∇  Wj  • ~n ds
i6=j j=1 
ZZ
+ [τ αNtuw (t)~vn ] • ~n ds
Nǫ
ZZZ X Nη
X
+ ( ǫk + ηl ) dV , (4.15)
k=1 l=1

where: (1) The S is a constant of proportionality. Call S the conductivity.

S is the ability of energy to flow and is assumed to be independent of po-
sition or direction. S is a factor that slows the flow of plenum. The idea of
their being some kind of viscosity or friction associated with plenum would
require the expenditure of energy. Because Equation (4.13) lacks such a
term, plenum energy dissipates without loss of total energy. Therefore,
there is a relaxation time associated with plenum. This means that the
stress created by the sudden entry of plenum upon a transition must relax
asymptotically with time. The compression of the transition is dissipated
by the flow of plenum into the void.
(2) The Su is a constant of proportionality. Call Su the potential conduc-
tivity. Su is the ability of energy to flow and is assumed to be independent
of position or direction.
(3) The St is a constant of proportionality. Call St the kinetic conductivity.
St is the ability of kinetic energy to flow and is assumed to be independent
of position or direction.
(4) The Sw is a constant of proportionality. Call Sw the work conductivity.
Sw is the ability of work energy to flow and is assumed to be independent
of position or direction.
4.2. STOE 193

(5) The Ntuw = N + N j=1 (Tj + Uj + Wj )|Tj ,Uj ,Wj is the number of hods
P

which leave the △V with the energy associated with each hod and |Tj ,Uj ,Wj
means that Tj , Uj , and Wj are constant with respect to the differentiation.
(6) The ~vn is the velocity vector of the Ntuw .
(7) The Nǫ is the number of Sources in △V , Nη is the number of Sinks in
△V , ǫk is the strength of the k th Source, and ηl is a negative number which
is the strength of the lth Sink.
Applying Gauss’s divergence theorem to the surface integrals of Equa-
tion (4.15), and noting that the volume could be chosen to be a region
throughout which the integrand has a constant sign yields the differential
form of the energy continuity equation
 
 N
dEv Su ~ 2 

2 ~2
 X 
= D ∇ ρ+ ∇  Uj 
dt C i6=j j=1 
   
N N
St ~ 2  Sw ~ 2 
 X   X 
   
+ ∇  Tj  +
 ∇  Wj 
C i6=j j=1  C i6=j j=1 
~ • [τ αNtuw (t)~vn ]
+ ∇
Nǫ Nη
+ C −1 (
X X
ǫk + ηl ), (4.16)
k=1 l=1

where D 2 = S/C and is called the diffusivity constant of plenum.

The presence of Sources and Sinks leads to a non-homogeneous equation.
Note the similarity of this equation to the diffusion equation for the tem-
poral evolution of the concentration of chemical species in a fluid and the
heat equation for the temporal evolution of distributions of temperature.
Like the molecular diffusivity and thermal diffusivity, D 2 has its origins in
the dynamics and interactions that transfer energy.

4.2.2 Forces
The ρ terms and Uj term in Eq. (4.15) change by spatial movement and
are called impelling forces because they cause an energy change. The Nτ α
term, the Wj term, and Tj term in Eq. (4.15) change by temporal differences
and are called nurturing forces because their movement carries energy.

plenum

Define a volume V containing plenum for the distances being considered

and throughout which the terms of Eq. (4.16) except ρ terms are constant.
194 CHAPTER 4. SCALAR THEORY OF EVERYTHING(STOE)

The force of plenum at a point F~sp is defined as

F~sp ≡ − D 2 ∇ρ,
~ (4.17)

where the negative sign means the force is directed opposite to increasing
ρ.
Because there is no shear stress in plenum, the force exerted by plenum
is exerted only normal to surfaces. Consider a cylinder of cross section ds
around a regular, simply connected volume with the ends of the cylinder
normal to F~sp . The ds has a difference of force △F~s on each end of the
cylinder. Allow the height of the cylinder to become arbitrarily small. The
△F~s → dF~s and
dF~s = − D 2 (~n • ∇ρ)
~ d~s, (4.18)
where ~n is the outward unit normal of d~s.
Integrating Eq. (4.18) over a surface, the plenum force on the surface F~s
becomes ZZ
F~s = − D 2 ~ • ~n d~s.
∇ρ (4.19)

The force of plenum on a surface is proportional to the cross section of

~
the surface perpendicular to ∇ρ.
The ρ due to Sources and Sinks can be calculated from Eq. (4.16). If all
terms of Eq. (4.16) are constant except the ρ, ǫ, and η terms, the average η
of each Sink remains constant over a long period of time, and the average
ǫ of each Source, each galaxy, remains constant over a long period of time,
then Eq. (4.16) can be solved for a steady-state condition. The range of
distance from Sources and Sinks will be assumed to be sufficient such that
the transition shock is dissipated and r > rsc . We can consider ρ at a
point to be the superposition of the plenum effects of each Source and Sink.
Therefore, for ρ from the j th galaxy and k th Sink at the ith point (ρi ),
Eq. (4.16) becomes
d
(rij ρi ) = D 2 ∇2 (rij ρi ), (4.20)
dt
d
(rik ρi ) = D 2 ∇2 (rik ρi ) (4.21)
dt
in spherical coordinates, where rij is the distance from the j th galaxy
Source and rik is the distance from the k th Sink to the ith point, and ρi
depends entirely on rij and rik .
4.2. STOE 195

The boundary conditions are:

ρi (rij , 0) = a function of distance, only, (4.22)
ρi (rij , t) → 0, as r → ∞, (4.23)
ρi (rik , 0) = a function of distance, only, (4.24)
ρi (rik , t) → 0, as r → ∞. (4.25)
This is analogous to the problem of heat flow in a spherical solid with
a continuous Source of strength ǫj at rij = 0 or with a continuous Sink
of strength ηk at rik = 0. By superposition the total ρi (x, y, z) may be
calculated (Carslaw and Jeager 2000) for rij and rik outside the ∇~m ρ volume
of the Sources and Sinks as
 
1 all Sources
X ǫj allXSinks
|ηk | 
ρi (r) = 2
− . (4.26)
4πD j=1 rij k=1
rik

At rij = rsc of the j th galaxy , the effect of the other Sources and Sinks
is very small. Therefore,
~ i = ǫj ∇r
∇ρ ~ scj
−1
= ∇~m ρ, (4.27)
4πD 2

where rscj is the rsc for the j th galaxy.

At the j th Source, the nearly instantaneous transition of the hods and
plenum into 3D creates a shock wave zone of radius rswj , where the tran-
~ is greater than ∇
sition forced ∇ρ ~ m ρ. The assumption of constant D is no
longer valid. The ǫj can be considered to be a time average of the nearly
digital transitions and ∇ρ~ i=∇ ~ m ρ in the region rswj < rij < rscj .
th
At the Source of the j galaxy rij = 0, ρi (rij = 0) is a maximum value
~ i and ∇2 ρi are discontinuous. For periods of the time required
ρmaxj and ∇ρ
for plenum to flow to rscj , ǫj can be considered a constant. All the plenum
from the Source is flowing through the surface of the sphere of radius rscj .
Because the volume of a sphere ∝ r 3 and ǫ is a volume per unit time,
ǫ ∝ r. Further, this proportionality holds for any radius determined by
ǫ. If ǫj increases, rscj increases proportionally as suggested by Eq. (4.27).
Therefore,
Ksc
rscj =  ǫ , (4.28)
~m ρ j
∇

where Ksc is the proportionality constant which depends on how D varies

~ m ρ zone around the Source and ρmaxj = Ksc ǫj .
in the ∇
196 CHAPTER 4. SCALAR THEORY OF EVERYTHING(STOE)

The force F~ts exerted on an assembly of hods by the plenum force due
to Sources and Sinks is calculated by combining Eq. (4.19) and (4.26) and
integrating over the cross section of the assembly yields
 
all galaxies allXSinks
ǫj |ηk | 
F~tsi = Gs ms 
X
~
r
3 ij
− 3
~rik , (4.29)
j=1 rij k=1
rik

where ms is the plenum effective cross section of the assembly of hods and
Gs = (4π)−1 .

Interaction of plenum and hods

The hod in 2D is transformed into 3D because of the energy pressure of

surrounding hods. The transition releases this energy into 3D. The τ acts
on plenum uniformly across the surface of the hod and exerts an attractive
pressure on plenum normal to the surface of the hod. Because the hods in
2D are closed loops in a plane, the hods arrive in 3D as surfaces oriented
flat-to-flat. The VI = 2dI α at the transition where dI is the initial distance
that plenum extends from a hod’s surface. The plenum has expanded and
the ρi (rh ) < ρI at the radius rh > rsw of the hod from the Source. However,
within 0 < rh < rsw , ∇ρ ~ = ∇~m ρ and ρh < ρi where ρh is the maximum
plenum density the hod can attract to its surface. All the plenum energy
in the shock wave zone is within a zone with ∇ρ ~ =∇ ~ m ρ. Therefore, all the
ρI VI is “bound” to the hods ρI VI = τ α = τb α, where τb is the amount of
surface tension used to bind plenum to the hod.
Define a Cartesian coordinate system in a volume V with the origin at
the center of a circular hod with diameter a, with the z-axis perpendicular
to the plane of the hod, and with the x-axis and y-axis in the plane of the
hod.
At a radius rh from the Source outside the shock wave zone, the maxi-
mum distance d~h (ho) from the hod surface along the z axis within which
~ =∇
∇ρ ~ m ρ is directed away from the hod surface has a value
ρh − ρd
dh =   , ρ = ρi (dh ) < ρh , rsw < rh , (4.30)
∇~m ρ d

where ρd is the plenum density at dh .

Hods that are within 2dh of each other form an assembly of hods within a
~ =∇
volume with a ρ = ρd equipotential surface. For rsw < rh ≤ rsc , ∇ρ ~ mρ
everywhere.
4.2. STOE 197

For rh > rsc , volumes more than dh from a hod surface have ∇ρ ~ < ∇~m ρ,
ρ = ρi , Eq. (4.30) applies, and τb α < τ α. Therefore, there is an amount of
“free” surface tension energy τf such that
τ α = τb α + τf α (4.31)
τf = dh (ρh − ρd ), rh > rsc , (4.32)
τb = 2dI − τf , (4.33)
τf = 0, rh ≤ rsc . (4.34)
The τf is exerted on ρi . For the remainder of this book, unless otherwise
stated, the region under consideration is with ρi < ρh . Those hods that are
oriented flat-to-flat emerge from the rsc zone as assemblies of hods. Other
hods become independent.
Because the energy at the Source upon transition is high and because
we observe plenum to be more extensive than the hods, 0 < dh ≪ 1 ho.
Consider the method of conjugate functions of a complex variable with
a transformation a
t = cosh(w), (4.35)
2
where t = x + iz and w = u + iv. Therefore,
x2 z2 a2
+ = , (4.36)
cosh2 u sinh2 u 4
x2 z2 a2
− = . (4.37)
cos2 v sin2 v 4
Geometrically, the strip in the w-plane between the lines v = 0 and v = π
transforms into the entire t plane. The line at u = 0 between v = 0 and
v = π transforms to the surface of the hod. The lines v =constant are
transformed into confocal hyperbolae lines which are streamlines of the ρij
field where ρij is the ρ at the j th point due to the ith hod. The lines
u=constant are transformed into confocal ellipses with the foci at the ends
of the hod. Because τ acts normally to the surface of the hod, u=constant
are equipotential lines of ρij caused by τ [see Eq. (4.9)].
If the hod is circular around the z-axis, the ρij streamlines and equipo-
tential lines are also circular around the z-axis. The ρij equipotential lines
form oblate spheroids with the minor axis along the z-axis.
Consider a point at a large distance from the hod, r ≫ a, the u of
Eq. (4.36) is very large. Equation (4.36) becomes x2 + z 2 = d2 where d is
the distance from the center of the hod. At large d the ρij equipotential
lines are concentric spheres. The ρij streamlines are the radii of the spheres.
198 CHAPTER 4. SCALAR THEORY OF EVERYTHING(STOE)

Because the equipotential volume surrounded by ρd is an oblate spheroid,

the distance dx (in ho) in the plane of the hod to ρ = ρd is
q
dx = d2h + 0.25 − 0.5, (4.38)

which is much smaller than a.

Therefore, the ρ = ρd equipotential may be approximated as a cylinder
with height 2dh and end area = α.
~ s > 0 across a hod, the ∇ρ
If ∇ρ ~ on one side of the hod at an infinitesimal
~ s1 (d + dr) differs from the other side
distance dd from the ρ = ρd surface ∇ρ
~ s2 (d − dr). Because the ∇ρ
∇ρ ~ is limited to ∇~ m ρ, the force of plenum from
Eq. (4.18) is transferred to the hod surface. Therefore, the net force dF~s of
plenum on an element of surface ds of the hod is

dF~s = ~ s2 )d~s − D 2 (~n • ∇ρ

D 2 (~n • ∇ρ ~ s1 )d~s, (4.39)
dF~s ≈ ~ s )d~s,
−D 2 (~n • ∇ρ (4.40)

where ∇ρ~ s is considered approximately constant over the small 2d distance.

This approximation fails in volumes close to rsc .
Unless otherwise stated, when distances greater than one ho are implied,
d ≪ 1 ho and ρ = ρs will be considered to be at the hod surface.
Because the hod is supple, the application of dF~s on d~s of the hod in
the x-y plane will cause d~s to move normal to the hod surface. If dF~s = 0
everywhere else, a deformation, du, of the hod surface normal to hod surface
will occur. Because α and τ are constant, the edge of the hod must change
shape. A small deformation allows movement in only the z direction. The
edge stays in the x-y plane. However, because edges of a free, individual
hod are not constrained and τ is very strong, the hod membrane does not
oscillate normal to the hod surface as it would for a stretched membrane.
Therefore, dF~s will cause the hod to tend to conform to the ∇ρ
~ s streamlines.
Because plenum has a relaxation time, the movement of hods will cause the
streamlines to be continually shifting. A slight delay, caused by ι and by
S, in adjusting to a change in the streamline will allow interesting effects.
~ s • ~n 6= 0 for a brief instant on only one edge of the hod and if the
If ∇ρ
other edge experiences a force parallel to the surface ∇ρ~ s • ~n = 0. The
hod will travel along the streamline at the maximum allowed velocity. If
the streamline the hod is following has a very sharp bend, such as at the
edge of another hod where the hod is much stronger than anywhere except
near the Source, the inertia energy of the hod will let it continue. For an
4.2. STOE 199

~ h • ~n 6= 0. The hod will slow or even reverse direction. This

instant, ∇ρ
allows the transfer of energy between hods.
~ field of plenum varies little over the surface of the hod, the
If the ∇ρ
deformations become a general shaping of the hod causing the hod to tend
to conform to the force lines, or streamlines, of ρ. The hod will move to
make ∇ρ~ • ~n = 0 on the surface of the hod.
~ • ~n = 0 from some direction, the hod will experience zero plenum
If ∇ρ
~ field changes little over a
impelling force from that direction. If the ∇ρ
range of several hod diameters, small deformations with ∇ρ ~ • ~n 6= 0 will
cause the hod to have a forward inertia.

Gravity

Call F~gk the force of gravity on the k th hod,

Nt
Su
F~gk ≡ − ~ kj ,
X
∇U (4.41)
C k6=j j=1

where the negative sign means the force is directed opposite to increasing
U and the sum is over the other (j th ) hods.
Define a volume V containing plenum for the distances being consid-
ered and throughout which the terms of Eq. (4.16) except the U terms are
constant. By the Principle of Superposition, this allows the examination of
just one force. Equation (4.16) can be solved for a steady-state condition.
We can consider ρ at a point to be the superposition of the effects of each
hod. Therefore, Eq. (4.16) at the ith point due to the j th hod becomes
d Su 2
(dij Uj ) = ∇ (dij Uj ) (4.42)
dt C
in spherical coordinates.
The boundary conditions are:
Ui (dij , 0) = a function of distance, only, (4.43)
Ui (dij , t) → 0 as r → ∞. (4.44)
Analogus to Section 4.2.2,
Ku C τf α
Uj = − . (4.45)
4πSu dij
The |Uij | is highest in a volume with a given τf > 0 value when the
k and j th hods have a shared ρ = ρd oblate spheroid surface and are
th
200 CHAPTER 4. SCALAR THEORY OF EVERYTHING(STOE)

orientated flat-to-flat. Because dij is the distance to the center of the hod,
dij 6= 0 and a singularity problem is non-existent.
Chose two assemblies of hods where Nt is the number of hods in one
assembly and Ns is the number of hods in the other assembly. Let each
assembly have a very small diameter compared to the distance ~rts =<
P Nt P Ns ~
j=1 k=1 dkj > where < > means “average of”. The force of gravity of
the hods in an assembly is greater on each other than the force of gravity
of hods in the other assembly. Therefore, the hods of an assembly will act
as a solid body relative to the other assembly of hods. Because hods act on
plenum, plenum acts on plenum and plenum acts on hods, only the local
τf for each hod determines the N τf α on the hod. Therefore, the force of
gravity F~g on each assembly due to the other assembly is
2
(Ku α)
F~g = − 3
(Ns τfs ) (Nt τft ) ~rts , (4.46)
4πrts
where τfs is the τf for the assembly with Ns hods and τft is the τf for the
assembly with Nt hods.
For the simplified case of two symmetric distribution of hods with a
distance ~r12 between them, with τfs = τft , and with similar structures (the
orientation of the hods is approximately uniform)
mg1 mg2
F~g = −G 3
~r12 , (4.47)
r12
where G = (4π)−1 (Ku α)2 , ms1 = Ng τfg , and mg2 = Ns τfs . The Ku has an
average hod surface orientation factor. The experimental determination of
mg1 and mg2 must use a method depending on Uij and no other factor such
as motion which will involve ια forces.
Note, in volumes within a sphere with a radius of rsc from a galaxy’s
Source, τf = 0 and, therefore, F~g = 0 and mg = 0. Volumes with rsc < rh ,
τf increases as rh increases.

4.2.3 Particles
Define a particle to be an assembly of hods surrounded by a ρ = ρd equipo-
tential surface (ES) that forms a connected volume around the hods in the
particle within which plenum is totally bound to the hods by τb . Therefore,
ρs outside the ES equals ρd within the ES of the particle. If the ES is simply
connected, the particle is called a simple particle and the distance for grav-
ity potential calculations is to the center of the particle. The potential on
4.2. STOE 201

a surface element of the ES is determined by the distribution of hods inside

the surface. However, the volume occupied by the bound plenum is the
same for each hod. Therefore, the hods are uniformly distributed over the
volume inside a simply connected ES. Because the hods of a simple particle
have a minimum distance between them, the hods are tightly bound and
respond as a single entity. By the Principle of Minimum Potential Energy,
the hods of a simple particle have a more stable structure with a maximum
Nτb α per unit surface area ratio (P/S).
Hods are unable to join outside the Source region to form a particle but
may be able to join an existing particle. The existing particle must have
sufficient N(τf α) to overcome the ια of the joining hod. Also, this implies
there is a minimum number Nmin of hods which must be combined before
other hods may join it outside the Source region.
When the distance between the flat of the hods ≤ 2dh , the ∇ρ ~ between
~
them will change sign and become ∇m ρ which will cause a net repulsive
force between hods. Therefore, the distance between the flat of the hods
will stabilize at a distance 2dh when the repulsion due to ∇ ~ m ρ will equal
Fg . If the distance between the flat of the hods > 2dh , the hods will be
independent.
Also, because dh ≪ 1 ho, hods may form in a column arrangement.
Call this type of structure Family 1 (F1) Type 1 (T1) structures with the
length L = 2Nc dh where Nc is the number of hods in the F1T1 structure.
The potential can become large enough that hods can be added without
being in a Source rsc zone. The P/S of the F1T1 structure will be least
when 2Nmin dh = 1 ho The addition of hods to the column also produces
stable, cylinder structures because each additional hod is oriented flat-to-
flat. Therefore, the addition of hods to column length decreases the P/S.
However, for a large number of hods, the outer hods are easier to remove.
~ •~n = 0 so Fs = 0 and maximal
The direction parallel to the surface has ∇ρ
speeds can be achieved in a direction parallel to the surface. This structure
is a photon. The direction along the axis has a one-hod surface. Hence, Fs
along the cylinder axis is as if only one hod were present.
If the inertia and external forces cause the hods in the F1T1 to start to
~ field at the edges of hods will push them back.
loose overlap, the sharp ∇ρ
The total overlap condition is a minimum potential energy position.
Any deformation in the surface from a ripple in plenum will tend to
bend the hod surfaces to lose total overlap. Because this causes a force
to reestablish overlap, this structure is much more rigid than a single hod.
Because this structure is rigid, a ∇ρ ~ across the structure can impart a
202 CHAPTER 4. SCALAR THEORY OF EVERYTHING(STOE)

torque on the particle.

As more hods are added, the Nc (τ α) increases. The energy of the photon
hν is
hν = Nc (τ α). (4.48)
Ripples in plenum will cause ripples in the surface of the outer hod.
This will slow the photon structure and cause a shearing Fs on the outer
hod. Thus, if Nc > Nmin in a photon, the photon can loose hods or gain
hods.
Two cylindrical photons may join as side-by-side cylinders caused by
~ s • ~n = 0 for both.
Fg . Parallel to the surface, ∇ρ
Also, two cylindrical photons may join in a T formation if L > 1 ho
as the Principle of Change requires. By extension, if L ≈ 2 ho, there may
be other cylinders added to form II, III, etc. structures. This requires the
photons in the vertical columns to have approximately, if not exactly, the
same number of hods. Otherwise, one or more of the photons will experience
~ • ~n 6= 0. There will still be a direction where ∇ρ
a ∇ρ ~ • ~n = 0. Call this
structure a F1, Type 2 (T2) structure. Perhaps this is the structure of a
lepton.
Consider a F1T2 structure made of several columns and a cross member
at each end. If an end column does not overlap the cross member column,
an extremely unstable condition exists. The end column would be freed. If
a cross member is longer than the width of the row of columns, the particle
could acquire another column. The most stable structure would be when L
is an integer multiplier I of the average diameter of a ho
α
L = 2I( )1/2 . (4.49)
π
Similarly, a third photon can join the T structure so that the three
are mutually orthogonal, as the Principle of Repetition allows. However,
~ n 6= 0 in all directions. Call this structure a F1, Type 3 (T3) structure.
∇ρ•~
A cross cylinder on a cross cylinder of a F1T2 structure makes the F1T3 box
structure very dense and very stable because there is little “free” surface
(unattached hod faces) compared to the τf α energy contained and P/S is
minimal. Perhaps this is the structure of quarks, quark stars, and black
holes.
The F1T3 cube in small structures has the least P/S. However, this
allows “corners”. A rounding effect in larger structures such as found in
crystal structures produces a more spherical ES, which will have a lower
P/S. This could be a mechanism to fracture some combinations (particles)
and cause faceting in all combinations like in crystals.
4.2. STOE 203

As crystals and compounds have a structure and a handedness or charil-

ity, so to do particles have a structure and therefore a handedness. The
handedness of particles results in the particle–antiparticle observations. As
in chemical compounds where one handedness comes to dominate, so too in
particles does one handedness dominate. Thus, baryonic particles dominate
and anti–baryonic particles are much less numerous.
Another possible structure of hods with a position of least P/S and
stable ∇ρ~ field is with each inserted through and normal to each other.
Call the particles formed with this structure Family 2 (F2) particles. The
particle so formed has a direction along the line where they join where
~ • ~n = 0 can occur. These may be the Muon family of particles.
∇ρ
By a similar argument, with less probability, three hods may come to
form a particle with three mutually orthogonal hods. Call the particles
formed with this structure Family 3 (F3) particles. These may be the Tau
family of particles.
However, a 4th mutually orthogonal hod construction in 3D outside the
immediate area of a Source is not feasible because one of the hod’s surfaces
will face another hod surface.
Therefore, because the hod defines 3D, there are three, and only three,
families of particles.
Our volume of the universe contains particles of the same type with
consistent mass. Particles become larger from gravitational attraction of
additional hods as the Repetition Principle allows. The observed consistent
mass of like particles implies the existence of the Principle of Negative
Feedback to limit the size. For T2 and T3 particles, if L > I(α/π)1/2
from Eq. (4.49), attracted hods may be added to the particle. As noted
previously, the attracted hod will be traveling at the maximum speed which
implies a maximum T . Thus, the attracted hod has energy great enough to
break the gravitational bond and facet the outlying hods from the particle.
If L < I(α/π)1/2 , the energy of the attracted hod may cause the column to
facet.
A volume with slow changing ρi has ρd = ρi . Therefore, L is a function of
ρi . A volume with rapidly changing ρi , ρd may lag the change in ρi because
τb may be absorbing or releasing plenum. Such may be the situation for
neutron stars, possible quark stars, and black holes, which exist near the
Source of the Galaxy.
If the particles are to have more hods (energy/mass) as the Anthropic
Principle requires, there must be another binding mechanism less sensitive
to faceting as the Change Principle requires. The flat side of the end hods
204 CHAPTER 4. SCALAR THEORY OF EVERYTHING(STOE)

on a photon would be attracted to and could be bound to other particles.

If quarks are the largest Family “type” particles, baryons must be quarks
and leptons joined by another means such as directly to each other or by
photons. The particle will be in a connected volume, but not a simply
connected volume. By the Repetition Principle, the atom is electrons, neu-
trons, and protons joined by photons. The photon is similar to a rod in
these structures.

4.2.4 Chirality of matter

CP violation is a puzzle in modern physics, where “C” is “charge conjuga-
tion” and “P” is “parity inversion” such a observed in a mirror reflection.
There is no parity between matter and antimatter. Our universe contains a
vast excess of matter over antimatter. A chemical compound that has chi-
ral structure will adopt one or the other handedness when right- and left-
handed versions are mixed. This suggests that the structure of particles
has chirality.

4.2.5 Source characteristics

The gradient of the ρ field in Source galaxies repels matter from the Source.
Some matter coalesces to form stars. The nucleosynthesis of stars causes a
decrease in the surface area to gravitational effect ratio. Therefore, the stars
fall to the center of the spiral galaxy where the high rho causes black holes
to disintegrate as detected by periodic radiation pulses from the center. A
mature spiral galaxy is formed when the matter distribution remains stable.
Before the matter distribution becomes stable, the spiral galaxy is growing.

4.2.6 Sink characteristics

If a Source ceases to erupt or if some matter is repelled to the low ∇ρ ~
distances between Sources, gravity will cause the hods to coalesce. A vol-
ume where ∇ρ ~ becomes near zero, the attraction of hods will cause a high
hod density. If the number of hods is greater than in a black hole in this
intergalactic volume, the intense force on the supple hods may cause the
hods to form spheres like bubbles. With increased pressure from a huge
number of hods, the hod can go only out of our universe and turn into a
four dimensional 4D object like 2D turned to 3D.
Because the Sink requires mass to form, the Sink’s age is considerably
less than spiral galaxies. Therefore, the delay before matter and plenum is
4.2. STOE 205

sent into the 4D allows 3D to accumulate mass.

These are characteristics of cooling flows, radio galaxies, early type
galaxies, lenticular galaxies, irregular galaxies, and elliptical galaxies.
The Sink requires a minimum mass to send hod bubbles into 4D. There-
fore, the mass Msink around the Sink has an upper limit. If the Sink is
sending hods to 4D, then a negative feedback condition is formed and the
rate η of transition of the hods is dependant on the rate of accretion of
hods. Therefore, η ∝ Msink . This is in elliptical galaxies.
The ∇ρ~ acts in the same direction as the gravity force. The Sink can
send hods to 4D if the hods are close. Therefore, the ∇ρ ~ =∇ ~ m ρ around
the Sink like around the Source.
The plenum has a physical presence, a density, and an ability to ex-
ert a force on the α of hods (matter) without being matter. The plenum
in this book looks like the aether with added properties. The Michelson-
Morley experiments (Michelson 1881) applied to the velocity of photons.
To achieve the results of Michelson-Morley’s experiments, photons must
have zero surface area presented to their direction of travel. Hence, pho-
tons must be hods arranged in a column. However, recent re-examination
of the Michelson-Morley data (Consoli and Costanzo 2003) and more accu-
rate measurements (Müller et al. 2003) suggests a preferred reference frame
may exist. The STOE suggests these findings indicate ripples on the hods
of photons provide a dragging force on the photon. Therefore, in addition
to testing the aether model, Lorentzian relativity (LET), and Special Rel-
ativity, the Michelson-Morley type experiment may be testing the ρ, ∇ρ, ~
~
and d(∇ρ)/dt in our solar system. The ratio of the diameter of the Earth’s
orbit to the distance from the center of the Galaxy suggests the Michelson-
Morley experiment may require greater precision and appropriate timing to
~ and d(∇ρ)/dt.
test the ρ, ∇ρ ~
Therefore, the STOE plenum force on matter is a broader model of
gravity rather than a “fifth force” model.

4.2.7 Equivalence Principle

The concept of two forms of energy was born in Galileo’s free fall exper-
iments. The interaction of the plenum and matter produces two forms of
energy. One depends on the action of the ρ field on matter that is kinetic
energy. The other is the effect of matter on the ρ field that produces the
potential energy field. Because T ≈ 2.718 K, the relative Source and Sink
strengths are balanced by a feedback mechanism to maintain the potential
206 CHAPTER 4. SCALAR THEORY OF EVERYTHING(STOE)

and kinetic energy balance. Thus, the resolution of the flatness problem is
a natural consequence of the STOE.
The General Relativity WEP implies that a kinetic property measured
by acceleration and a charge-type property measured by gravitational po-
tential are equal (Unzicker 2007). A type of redshift in General Relativity
dependent on the gravity potential field (GM/R) derives from the WEP. If
the emitter and observer are in a uniform gravitational field ∝ −R−1 , the
electromagnetic EM signal acquires or looses energy because of the change
in gravitational field potential. The Pound-Rebka experiment of 1959-1960
measured the WEP redshift (Pound & Rebka 1960)1 . The WEP suggests
the integral of the EM frequency change experienced at each small incre-
ment along the path could be used to calculate aP . The STOE uses the
gravitational potential from all matter at each point along the EM signal’s
path to calculate aP . The difference between General Relativity and the
STOE is that the STOE also considers the inhomogeneity of the gravita-
tional field in the Ki I term and the amount of plenum the EM signal passes
through in the Kdp Dl P term. Without the Ki I term or Kdp Dl P term in the
calculation, the correlation of measured and calculated aP would be much
poorer to the degree the WEP method fails.
The STOE postulates matter experiences a force F~ = Gs ms ∇ρ. ~ A ρ
field variation produced solely by matter,
Gg Mg
 
F = (Gs ms ) , (4.50)
R
where Gg and Mg are the proportionality constant and bulk property of
matter of the upper case particle M called mass, respectively, and Gs is the
proportionality constant of ms property of lower case particle m of matter.
The Gg Mg /R factor is interpreted as characterizing the acceleration field.
For an assembly of gravitationally bound particles, the total ms is the
sum of the total number of the LP upon which the ρ field acts as individual
particles.
The semi empirical mass for the internal energy E A generated for atomic
weight Z and atomic number A indicates a gravitational effect for differing
nuclei (Will 2001, Equations 2.5 to 2.12) and is thought to place an upper
limit on the WEP violation if any. Further, isotopes with the same Z and
different A have differing E A values. The bulk property of the masses (mg
and Mg ) are used in the calculations in experiments performed to examine
1 Thisshould not be confused with the theorized General Relativity time dilation effect (1 + z) caused
by the differing gravitation fields of emitter and observer.
4.2. STOE 207

such factors. Equation (4.50) implies the WEP test should be done with
the same attractor and with the same number of atoms in the pendulum
or free-fall body for the differing isotopes. Maintaining equal mg considers
only the bulk property of matter that reduces the STOE effect.
Because F is symmetric, (Gs ms )(Gg Mg ) = (Gg mg )(Gs Ms ) = Gmg Ms . If
the LP is quarks, the (Gg /Gs ) ratio indicates the relative volume to cross-
section that may differ for quarks and larger structures. For example, if the
LP are quarks, differing A/Z ratios with equal Z will determine differing
G values. For elements the number of protons and the number of neutrons
are approximately equal. Therefore, the G varies little among atoms.
However, the WEP deals with inertial mass mi rather that ms . There-
fore, the STOE suggests a test of the WEP different from those done previ-
ously is required to differentiate the three mass interaction parameters mi ,
mg , and ms .
The plenum characteristics describe:
(1) the Ψ–field of de Broglie-Bohm quantum mechanics,
(2) the gravitational aether of General Relativity,
(3) the dark matter of galaxy rotation curves,
(4) the dark energy of SN1a data,
(5) the major cause of galactic redshift, and (6) the major cause of the
pioneer anomaly blueshift.
The Brans-Dicke model suggests G ∝ ϕ−1 , where ϕ is a scalar field. This
implies G is a function of the mass-energy of the universe that is measured
by the temperature of the universe. The STOE suggests the temperature
of galaxy cluster cells is finely controlled by a feedback mechanism. There-
fore, G and fine structure constant α are finely controlled by this feedback
mechanism.
208 CHAPTER 4. SCALAR THEORY OF EVERYTHING(STOE)
Chapter 5

Photon diffraction by modified

Bohmian mechanics

A single model of light has remained a mystery. Black body radiation, the
photoelectric effect, the Compton effect, and atomic line spectra observa-
tions reject the wave-in-space model of light. The reflection, diffraction,
interference, polarization, and spectrographic observations reject the tradi-
tional particle model of light. The challenge of uniting the Newtonian and
quantum worlds is to develop laws of motion of photons that obtain the
diffraction experimental observations. The goal is to model a set of photon
characteristics that can produce interference patterns.
The popular Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics suggests
the simultaneous existence of both apparently mutually exclusive concepts
resulting in the principle of complementarity (wave–particle duality).
The Afshar experiment (Afshar 2005) may challenge the principle of
complementarity in quantum mechanics.
The Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics is an alternative to
the Copenhagen interpretation (Dürr,et al. 2009; Goldstein 2009). It is a
causal, “hidden variable”, and, perhaps, a deterministic model. Physics in
the Newtonian and cosmological scales revolve around the concept that the
motion of a single particle can be modeled. The Bohm interpretation posits
particles have a definite position and momentum at all times. Particles are
guided by a “pilot wave” in a Ψ–field that satisfies the Schrödinger equation,
that acts on the particles to guide their path, that is ubiquitous, and that
is non-local. The probabilistic nature of the Schrödinger equation results
because measurements detect a statistical distribution. The origin of the
Ψ–field and the dynamics of a single photon are unmodeled. The Ψ–field
209
210 CHAPTER 5. PHOTON DIFFRACTION

of Bohmian mechanics acts on particles and produces interference patterns

with photons through slits. The photon paths in diffraction experiments
start at the slit and follow straight lines to the screen.
Democritus of Abdera speculated that because different animals ate
similar food, matter consists of an assembly of identical, smallest particles
that recombine to form other types of matter. His term “atom” has been
applied to an assembly of nucleons and electrons. Today, the Democritus
concept applies as well to nucleons and smaller particles. Therefore, the
Democritus “atom” is a still smaller, single type of particle.
Newton in his book Opticks speculated light was a stream of particles
with substance that traveled faster than light and that directed corpusules
(see page 41). By the 19th century, the prevailing models considered light
to be a wave. The Maxwell equations followed by the Special Theory of
Relativity posited the velocity ~c of light was constant in the absence of
matter.
That light moves slower through denser materials is well known. The
index of refraction is the ratio of the speeds of light in differing media.
Frizeau’s experiment (Sartori 1996) measured a different speed of light be-
tween a medium moving toward a source and a medium moving away from
a source. Both the “ether drag” model of Fresnel and the Special Theory
of relativity are consistent with Frizeau’s result. Because the index of re-
fraction varies with the wavelength of light, refraction causes the analysis
of light into its component wavelengths. This experimental observation is
considered to decisively rule out the corpuscular model of light.
The gravitational lens phenomena may have two causes (Will 2001).
The model for the gravitational lens phenomenon is that the convergent
gravitational field (1) attracts light, (2) causes the curvature of coherent
light, or (3) both. The gravitational attraction of photons was suggested
in Newton’s Opticks speculations. This produces a velocity ~v perpendicu-
lar to ~c. This gravitational affect on light alone is insufficient to explain
the gravitational lens phenomena yielding a calculated angular deviation
approximately half the observed value.
The curvature-of-coherent-light model is that the light from stars is
coherent and that coherence implies mutual attraction. An analogy is that
of a rod with its axis maintained along the streamlines of the gravitational
field. The rod travels perpendicular to its axis. The inner part of the rod
slows or has a time dilation relative to the outer part. As light emerges from
the convergent gravitational field, the rate of change in the direction of ~c
and ~v decreases or is dampened. This is similar to the refraction of light by
 211

differing “media” densities. This model can account for the observed value
of gravitational lensing (Eddington 1920, p. 209).
Models of photons have assumed the photon structure to be similar
to other matter particles. That is, photons are assumed to be three-
dimensional. The conclusion drawn from the well-known Michelson-Morley
experiment’s null result was that light is a wave, that there is no aether
for light to “wave” in, and that a Fitzgerald or Lorentz type of contraction
existed.
Fractal cosmology has been shown to fit astronomical data on the scale of
galaxy clusters and larger (Baryshev and Teerikorpi 2002). At the opposite
extreme, models such as Quantum Einstein Gravity have been presented
that suggest a fractal structure on the near Planck scale (Lauscher and
Reuter 2005). However, the Democritus’ concept of the smallest particle
suggests a lower limit of the fractal self-similarity.
The distinction between incoherent and coherent light is whether the
light forms a diffraction/interference pattern when passed through one or
more slits in a mask. Because interference has been thought to be a wave
phenomenon, coherence is considered a property of waves. However, the
definition of coherence allows a distribution of particles to be coherent.
Coherence is obtained (1) by light traveling a long distance such as from
a star as seen in the Airy disk pattern in telescope images, (2) by the pinhole
in the first mask in Young’s experiment, and (3) from a laser.
Young’s double-slit experiment has become a classic experiment because
it demonstrates the central mysteries of the physics and of the philosophy
of the very small. Incoherent light from a source such as a flame or incan-
descent light impinges on a mask and through a small pinhole or slit. The
light through the first slit shows no diffraction effects. The light that passes
through the slit is allowed to impinge on a second mask with two narrow,
close slits. The light that passes through the two slits produces an inter-
ference pattern on a distant screen. The first slit makes the light coherent.
The intensity pattern on the screen is described by the Huygens-Fresnel
equation.
The assumptions of Fresnel model of diffraction include: (1) The Huy-
gens’ Principle that each point in a wave front emits a secondary wavelet.
(2) The wavelets destructive and constructive interference produces the
diffraction pattern. (3) The secondary waves are emitted in only the for-
ward direction, which is the so called “obliquity factor” (a cosine function).
(4) The wavelet phase advances by one-quarter period ahead of the wave
that produced them. (5) The wave has a uniform amplitude and phase
212 CHAPTER 5. PHOTON DIFFRACTION

over the wave front in the slit and zero amplitude and no effect behind the
mask. (6) Note the Fresnel model has a slight arc of the wave front across
the slit. That is, the distribution of energy in the plane of the slit varies.
The Fresnel model with larger distance between the mask and the screen
or with condensing lenses before and after the mask degenerates into the
Fraunhofer diffraction model.
The intensity patterns produced by multiple slits can be compared to
the intensities of the single slit pattern of equal total width. Thus, the
resulting pattern may be regarded as due to the joint action of interference
between the waves coming from corresponding points in the multiple slits
and of diffraction from each slit. Diffraction in the Fresnel model is the re-
sult of interference of all the secondary wavelets radiating from the different
elements of the wave front. The term diffraction is reserved for the consid-
eration of the radiating elements that is usually stated as integration over
the infinitesimal elements of the wave front. Interference is reserved for the
superposition of existing waves, which is usually stated as the superposition
of a finite number of beams.
Sommerfield (1954) gave a more refined, vector treatment for phase
application. However, these other more complex models make many sim-
plifying assumptions. When the apertures are many wavelengths wide and
the observations are made at appreciable distance from the screen, intensity
results are identical to the Fresnel model.
This chapter proposes a model of light that postulates the necessary
characteristics of photons to satisfy observations and yield diffraction phe-
nomenon. The model combines Newton’s speculations, Democritus’s spec-
ulations, the Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics, and the fractal
philosophy. The wave–like behavior of light results from the photons chang-
ing the Ψ–field that guides the path of the photons. The resulting model
is tested by numerical simulation of diffraction and interference, with ap-
plication to the Afshar experiment. Therefore, the wave characteristics of
light may be obtained from the interaction of photons and Ψ–field.

5.1 Model
Newton’s third law suggests that if the Ψ–field acts on photons, the photons
and other matter should act on the Ψ–field.
Compare coherent light passing through multiple slits in a mask to light
passing through a single slit. The slits may be viewed as transmitters of light
that produces a diffraction pattern in the Ψ–field if the incoming light is
5.1. MODEL 213

coherent. The fractal philosophy of self-similarity suggests that the photons

passing through a slit have similar elements that emit waves. If light is
a particle, then the energy of a photon is smaller than the other known
particles. Differing energy levels (color) among photons suggests light is
an assembly of smaller, identical particles (hods). Like the Democritus’s
argument, the proportionality of mass and energy suggests mass is also
an assembly of hods. Each photon must be coherent, must be emitting a
diffraction pattern into the Ψ–field, and be composed of smaller emitters.
That is, moving photons emit coherent forward waves in the Ψ–field like
multiple slits. The analogy of a photon, of a slit, and of multiple slits is
analogous to a linear antenna array of smaller emitters in a photon.
Photons exhibit gravitational effects caused by matter perpendicular to
their direction of travel. The Michelson-Morley experiment suggests the
hods and the photon have no resistance or drag in the Ψ–field in the direc-
tion of movement. This suggests the hod has zero thickness. Asymmetry in
photon behavior near mass suggests asymmetry in photon structure. There-
fore, the hod is a two dimensional object. The simplest structure that can
produce a coherent wave is one hod next to another. Additional hods create
a column of hods.
Each hod of a photon attracts Ψ at its surface to its maximum value.
Between these hod surfaces and very near the hods of a photon, a Ψ = 0
surface is created. Beyond this surface, ∇Ψ~ is directed first toward then
away from a hod by the other hods. This holds the hods together. The
Ψ–field cavitates as hods travel through the Ψ–field like an air foil traveling
at the maximum speed through a gas.
If a hod transmits Ψ changes into the Ψ–field, the hod also receives
changes in Ψ. The resulting force F~s of the Ψ–field acts on a hod to change
~v and to rotate the hod. The ~v is the result of a force F~s acting on the
~ on the cross-section ms of matter
hod cross–section proportional to ~n • ∇Ψ
where~ indicates a vector in 3–space,
F~s ∝ ms (~n • ∇Ψ)~
~ n, (5.1)
where ~n is the surface, normal, unit vector. A vector without the~ indicates
the value of the vector.
The Ψ change that results from the effect of other matter M on the
Ψ–field is
N
X
Ψ= GMi /Ri , (5.2)
i
where N is the number of bodies used in the calculation and R is the distance
214 CHAPTER 5. PHOTON DIFFRACTION

from the center of mass of M to the point where Ψ is measured. The R

is large enough that the equipotential surfaces are approximately spherical.
The M is linearly related to Nh where Nh is the number of hods in the
body.
The gravitational lens phenomena suggest the photon’s response to ∇Ψ ~
changes relative to the direction of ~c. The Shapiro delay phenomena could
be modeled as a decrease of c in a gravitational field. This also suggests
c is a function of the gravitational field. The lower c suggested by the
Shapiro delay in a lower Ψ–field causes a refraction in the direction of ~c.
The matter caused variation of the Ψ–field and the action of the Ψ–field
on light causes ~c to change. The plane of the Michelson-Morley experiment
was perpendicular to the Earth’s surface and, therefore, in a nearly constant
Ψ–field.
The ∇Ψ~ produces the effect of gravity. The speed of the gravity wave (Ψ
wave) that are changes in the force exerted by ∇Ψ ~ is much greater than c
(van Flandern 1998). The development of Special Relativity was done using
electromagnetic experimental results. The speed limit of electromagnetic
force changes is c. The higher speed of the ∇Ψ ~ wave is consistent with
the quantum entanglement phenomena and is necessary if photons are to
project the changing Ψ–field forward.
The redshift and blueshift of the Pound-Rebka experiment suggests a
dependence of photon energy shift on the changing Ψ–field. That is, the
energy of a photon is partly composed of the Ψ–field between the hods
of the column as well as the number of hods in a photon. If the hods in
a photon have no Ψ–field between them, the photon would have no third
dimensional characteristics. Because a blueshift increase of energy occurs
when Ψ decreases, because c decreases with Ψ, and if number Nh of hods in
a photon remains constant, the inertial mass mI of kinetic energy is posited
to be
Ψmax
mI = Nh (1 + KΨ ), (5.3)
Ψ
where KΨ is a proportionality constant.
If c is much lower than the wave velocity of the Ψ–field, then the limiting
factor of c may be like a terminal velocity. The Shapiro delay and the well
known E = mc2 relation combined with the lower Ψ near mass suggest for
short range experiments,
Ψ 2
c = Kc ( ) , (5.4)
Ψmax
where Kc is the proportionality constant and Ψmax is the maximum Ψ in
5.1. MODEL 215

the path of light wherein c is measured. Because the hod has no surface
area in the direction of motion, c is the maximum speed a particle may
have.

5.1.1 Hod action on Ψ–field

The action of all matter (hods) causes the Ψ to change. Therefore, the
motion of a hod is relative to the local Ψ–field variation.
Matter causes the Ψ to decrease. Therefore the hod motion which pulls
the Ψ to zero displaces the Ψ–field. The Ψ–field then flows back when the
hod passes a point. That is, the hod’s motion within a volume neither in-
creases nor decreases the amount of Ψ–field in that volume. The cavitation
in the Ψ–field produces a wave in the Ψ–field. The cavitation limits the
c. The cavitation depends on the density of the Ψ–field, higher density
allows a faster refresh of the Ψ round the hod and, therefore, a faster c
than in a low Ψ–field. The wave has a − cos(kr) affect from the point of
the hod center. Because the Ψ–field wave travels faster than the hod, the
Ψ–field flows around the hod to fill in the depression behind the hod. If the
speed of the wave in the Ψ–field is much larger than c, the harmonic wave
is transmitted forward and the Ψ level behind the wave reaches a stable,
non-oscillating level very rapidly and is the effect of gravity. This can be
modeled as a cos(Kβ β) decrease of Ψ’s value, where β is the angle between
the direction ~c of a hod and the direction of the point from the hod center
where Ψ is calculated. The angle at which the Ψ–field no longer oscillates
has the cos(Kβ β) = 0. This is analogous to the Fresnel model that sec-
ondary wavelets are emitted in only the forward direction. Therefore, the
effect on the Ψ–field of a single hod is
 
Ψsingle = − Krr cos 2πr
λT
cos(Kβ β) exp−j(ωt) Kβ β < π/2
−1
Ψsingle = −Kr r Kβ β ≥ π/2, (5.5)
√
where Kr is a proportionality constant, j = (−1), exp−j(ωt) is the wave
time dependent component in the Ψ–field, and λT is the radial wavelength
of the forward wave.

5.1.2 Ψ–field action on a hod

If energy may be transferred to the hods from the Ψ–field, then the motion
of the hods may be dampened by the Ψ–field. Posit the dampening force
is proportional to the Ψ, ms , and ~v in analogy to non–turbulent movement
216 CHAPTER 5. PHOTON DIFFRACTION

through a medium. Non–turbulent flow is because the Ψ–field is ubiquitous

and the speed of changes in the Ψ–field is much greater than c. Therefore,
mI v̇ = Kv Fst − Kd ms Ψv, (5.6)
where the over dot means a time derivative, Kv and Kd are proportionality
~ sin(θ), and θ is the angle between ∇Ψ
constants, Fst ∝ ms |∇Ψ| ~ and ~c.
Solving for v yields:
(Avh + Bvh vi ) expBvh ∆t −Avh
vf = , (5.7)
Bvh
where t is the time of measurement, vi = v(time = t), vf = v(time = t+∆t),
Avh = Kv ms ∇Ψ ~ sin(θ)/mI , and
Bvh = −Kd ms Ψ/mI .
Posit the action of the Ψ–field on a single hod is acting with the same
radial r component of the hod. The ~r is directed along the hod surface in
the direction of ~c. If the hod has a ms and circular shape, ṙ = 0. The ms and
r are constant and the same for all hods. Because the hod is free to move,
a change in orientation of the hod results in the hod changing direction.
A differing F~s from one side of the hod surface to the other along ~r will
cause a rotation of the hod. Assuming the hod is rigid is unnecessary, but
convenient. If the F~s is close to ~c, the rotation will be to align ~c with F~s . If
the F~s is close to the axis of the photon, the rotation will be to align the axis
of the photon with F~s . Define α as the critical angle between ~c and the angle
at which F~s changes from acting to align with the axis to acting to align
with ~c. Because the dampening is in only the axial direction, the dampening
caused by rotation is also proportional to the Ψ, ms , and rotational velocity
θ̇ in analogy to non–turbulent movement through a medium.
The torque from F~s is rFsa = Kθs ms r|∇Ψ|~ sin(θ) or
d 2
(r mI θ̇) = rFsa − Kθd rms Ψθ̇, (5.8)
dt
Solving for θ̇ yields:
(Aθh + Bθh θ̇i ) expBθh ∆t −Aθh
θ̇f = , (5.9)
Bθh
where θ̇i = θ̇(time = t), θ̇f = θ̇(time = t + ∆t),
~ sin(θ)/rmI ,
Aθh = Kθs ms |∇Ψ|
Bθh = −Kθd mrs mΨI − (ṁI /mI ), and
ṁI /mI is small and nearly constant.
5.2. SIMULATION 217

5.1.3 Photon action on Ψ–field

The suggested structure of the photon in Hodge (2004) implies each hod
is positioned at a minimum Ψ because the hod surface holds the Ψ = 0.
Therefore, the distance between hods in a photon is one wavelength λT
of the emitted Ψ–field wave. Also, the hods of a photon emit in phase.
Further, the number of hods in a photon and the Ψ–field potential Ψmax
due to all other causes around the hod effects this distance. Therefore, the
transmitted potential ΨT from a photon is
Kr
ΨT = − NeffT , (5.10)
r
where
   
NeffT = cos 2πr
cos(Kβ β)  sin[N hT π sin(β)]
Kβ β < π/2
 
λT sin[π sin(β)]

NeffT = NhT Kβ β ≥ π/2 (5.11)
and λT = Kλ /(Ψmax NhT ) and NhT is the number of hods in the transmitting
photon.
These equations apply to the plane that includes the center of the pho-
ton, the direction vector, and the axis of the photon.

5.1.4 Ψ–field action on a photon

The Ψ–field wave from each cause impinges on a photon through the hods.
Because the photon is linearily extended, the photon is analogous to the
receiving antenna. Therefore,
 
N πλ 2πλ
 sin[ hRλR Ti sin(β + λRTi )] 
 
~ effi =
∇Ψ ~
∇Ψi 
 , (5.12)
 sin[π sin(β + 2πλ
λ
Ti
)] 

R

where NhR is the number of hods in the receiving photon; λR is the wave-
length, which is the distance between hods, of the receiving photon; and Ψi ,
~ effj is the effective Ψ, λT , ∇Ψ,
λTi , and ∇Ψ ~ respectively, for the ith cause.
Using Eq. (5.12) in Eqns. (5.7) and (5.9) and summing the effect of all
causes yields the total change in a ∆t.

5.2 Simulation
A particle in the computer experiment was a set of numbers representing
the points in position and momentum space whose motion was advanced
218 CHAPTER 5. PHOTON DIFFRACTION

in discrete time intervals of one calculation cycle. The particles position at

the previous interval determines Ψ–field effect by the equations developed
in section 5.1. The limitations of a computer experiment are caused by
(1) noise from using a relatively small number of particles and the relative
distances used, (2) bias caused by the approximate solution limitation of
the number of digits, (3) the discrete time interval rather than continuous
time progression, and (4) other possible effects. Understanding the results
requires insight that can be obtained by experimental observation in the
real world.
The simulation was conducted using a PC running a Visual Basic V
program on the Windows XP platform. The horizontal axis (Y -axis) was
the initial direction of the photons. The vertical axis (X-axis) was per-
pendicular to the initial photon direction. The nth photon pn had X and
Y position coordinates, Px (pn ) and Py (pn ), respectively, and the parameter
values required by the equations. “Masks” were simulated by a range of y
values at specified Y coordinates for all x values, a zone wherein photons
were deleted, and a gap wherein photons were unchanged that defined the
“slit”. Each calculation was an “interval”. Each “step” was one unit of
distance measure along the X-axis or Y-axis. The values of ∆t = ms = 1
were used. The y = 0 was the initial value of introduced photons. The
x = 0 was the center of the initial photon distribution, the center of the
one slit gap, and the center of the two slit gaps.
A “screen” was a virtual, vertical column positioned at a constant Y
wherein the lower X coordinate xs of the bin range determines the value
that was recorded. Each X step was divided into 50 bins. As photons pass
through the screen, the number B(xs ) of photons at each bin was counted.
Each photon was eliminated after being counted. Therefore, the accumula-
tion of the number of photons through each bin over several intervals was
the intensity of light at each bin. After 1000 photons were counted, xs and
B(xs ) were recorded in an Excel file.
Because of the sampling error and of calculation errors noted above, the
calculation of the best-fit Fresnel curve used an average
i=xX
s +0.1

B̄(xs ) = B(i)/11, (5.13)

i=xs −0.1

where i increments by 0.02 steps.

All the photons in these experiments were identical. That is, NhT =
NhR = 10 and λT = λR . The constants in the equations are listed in Ta-
ble 5.1 and were determined by trial and error. The difficulty in determining
5.2. SIMULATION 219

the constants was so the angle (xs /L), where L (step) is the distance from
the last mask to the screen, corresponded to the Fresnel equations. That
is, so that x = 1 step and y = 1 step was the same distance of photon
movement for the calculations, which is a Cartesian space.
Table 5.2 lists the curve fit measurements for the plots shown in the ref-
erenced figures. The first column is the figure number showing the curve.
The second column is the number Nc of photons counted at the screen. The
third column is the center of the theoretical curve (Kcent ). The fourth col-
umn is the asymmetry Asym of the data points (number of photons counted
greater than Kcent minus number of photons counted less than Kcent )/Nc .
The fifth column is the sum of the least squares Lsq between the B̄(xs ) and
the theoretical plot for -5 steps≤ xs ≤ 5 steps divided by Nc . The sixth
column is the correlation coefficient between B̄(xs ) and the theoretical plot
for -5 steps ≤ xs ≤ 5 steps.

Table 5.1: The values of the constants.

Parameter value units

Kc 1 × 10−8 step interval−1
KΨ 1 × 101 gr. hod−1
Kβ 1.1
Kr −8 × 10−11 erg step
Kv 1 × 10−5
Kd 2.4 × 10−4 gr. step−2 erg−1 interval−1
α 5 × 10−1 radian
Kθs 6 × 101 gr. interval−2 erg−1
Kθd 2 × 101 gr. step−2 erg−1 interval−1
Kλ 1 × 10−4 erg step hod
Ψmax 1 × 103 erg
220 CHAPTER 5. PHOTON DIFFRACTION

5.3 Photons traveling a long distance

The initial distribution of photons was within a 60 steps by 60 steps sec-
tion. One photon was randomly placed in each 1 step by 1 step part. The
equations were applied to each of the photons in the section. Because the
section has an outer edge, additional virtual photons were necessary to cal-
culate the Ψ. Therefore, [Px (pn ), Py (pn )], [Px (pn ), Py (pn ) + 60], [Px (pn ),
Py (pn ) − 60], [Px (pn ) + 60, Py (pn )], [Px (pn ) − 60, Py (pn )] [Px (pn ) + 60,
Py (pn ) + 60], [Px (pn ) − 60, Py (pn ) + 60], [Px (pn )-60, Py (pn ) − 60], and
[Px (pn )+60, Py (pn )−60] were included in the calculation of Ψ. Only photons
and virtual photons within a radius of 30 steps were used in the calculation
of Ψ at a point.
The equations were developed without consideration of photons collid-
ing. That is, some photons were too close which generated very large,
unrealistic Ψ values. Another characteristic of the toy model is that each
interval moves a photon a discrete distance that occasionally places pho-
tons unrealistically close. When this happened, one of the close photons
was eliminated from consideration. The initial distribution started with
3600 photons from which 111 were eliminated because of collision.
Figure 5.1(left) is a plot of the NeffT versus β with NhT = 10. The
first five peaks are at β = 0 rad, 0.144 rad (a), 0.249 rad (b), 0.355 rad.
(c), 0.466 rad (d), and π/2 rad (e). This pattern is similar to the antenna
emission pattern.
After 1000 intervals, a pattern of photon position developed as seen in
Fig.5.1(right). The photons positions were recorded. The photons were
organizing themselves into recognizable patterns of lines with angles to the
direction of travel (Y axis) corresponding to the minima of Fig. 5.1(left).
A mask with a single slit with a width Ws = 1 step was placed at
y = 100 steps and a screen was placed at y = 140 steps (L = 40 steps).
The positions of the photons were read from the recording. The group of
photons were placed in 60 steps increments rearward from the mask. The
photons were selected from the recording to form a beam width Win (step)
centered on the x = 0 step axis. Because the incoming beam had edges, the
calculation for Pyold (pn ) < 100 was Pynew (pn ) = Pyold (pn ) + Kc ∗ 1 interval,
where Pyold (pn ) is the position of the nth photon from the last calculation
and Pynew (pn ) is the newly calculated position. The Px (pn ) remained the
same. If Pyold (pn ) ≥ 100, the Pynew (pn ) and Px (pn ) were calculated according
to the model.
Figure 5.2 shows the resulting patterns for varying Win . The thicker,
5.3. PHOTONS TRAVELING A LONG DISTANCE 221

Figure 5.1: The left figure is a plot of the NeffT versus angle from the direction of the
photon β NhT = 10. The first six minima are at β = 0 rad, 0.144 rad (a), 0.249 rad
(b), 0.355 rad. (c), and 0.466 rad (d). The right figure is a plot of the longitudinal vs.
latitudinal position of photons after 1000 intervals. The line labeled “e” is β = π/2.
The lines are labeled as the angles in the left plot. The position of photons along lines
corresponding to minima of a photons transmission pattern is what determines coherence.

solid line in each figure is the result of a Fresnel equation fit to the data
points. Although each plot shows a good fit to the Fresnel equation, the
fit differs among the plots and depends on Win . Because the calculation
includes all photons, the photons that were destined to be removed by the
mask have an affect on the diffraction pattern beyond the mask.
Figure 5.3 shows the resulting patterns for varying L. The mask, screen,
and photon input was the same as the previous experiment with Win =
6 steps. Comparing Fig. 5.3(A), Fig. 5.2(D), and Fig. 5.3(B) shows the
evolution of the diffraction pattern with L = 30 steps, L = 40 steps, and
L = 50 steps, respectively. Fig. 5.3(C) and Fig. 5.3(D) show the Fraunhofer
equation fits. The greater L produces a closer match between the Fresnel
and Fraunhofer equation fits.
Figure 5.4 shows an expanded view of Fig. 5.3(B). The center area,
first ring, and second ring of Fig. 5.3(B) and Fig. 5.4 has 954 photons, 20
photons, and 4 photons, respectively, of the 1000 photons counted.
Figure 5.5 shows the screen pattern with the mask from the previous
experiment replaced by a double slit mask. Figure 5.5(A) was with the slits
placed from 0.50 step to 1.00 step and from -1.00 step to -0.50 step. The
best two slit Fresnel fit (a cosine term multiplied be the one slit Fresnel
equation) is expected for slits with a ratio of the width b of one slit to the
width d between the centers of the slits (the “d/b ratio”). Figure 5.5(B)
222 CHAPTER 5. PHOTON DIFFRACTION

Table 5.2: The measurements of the curve fit.

Fig. Nc a Kcent b Asym c Lsq d Cc e

5.2A 1000 0.585 0.014 0.219 0.96
5.2B 1000 0.605 -0.028 0.199 0.97
5.2C 1000 0.408 0.000 0.247 0.96
5.2D 1000 0.383 0.006 0.259 0.96
5.3A 1000 0.259 0.084 0.360 0.97
5.3B 1000 0.426 0.050 0.021 0.92
5.3Cf 1000 0.271 0.060 0.185 0.98
5.3Df 1000 0.535 0.006 0.246 0.83
5.5A 438 0.187 -0.046 0.178 0.92
5.5B 1000 0.314 -0.070 0.717 0.82
5.8 400 0.850 -0.320 0.221 0.68
5.9 1000 0.145 -0.122 0.909 0.79
5.11 1000 0.273 -0.074 0.895 0.81

a
The number of photons counted at the sceen.
b
The center of the theoretical curve.
c
The (number of photons counted greater than Kcent minus number of photons
counted less than Kcent )/Nc .
d
The sum of the least squares between the B̄(xs ) and the theoretical plot for -5 steps
≤ xs ≤ 5 steps.
e
The correlation coefficient between B̄(xs ) and the theoretical plot for -5 steps
≤ xs ≤ 5 steps.
f
This curve is relative to a Fraunhofer equation fit.
5.3. PHOTONS TRAVELING A LONG DISTANCE 223

Figure 5.2: The single slit width Ws = 1.0 step screen patterns for L = 40 steps: (A)
input beam width Win = 1.0 step which is the same as the slit width, (B) Win = 2.0
steps, (C) Win = 4.0 steps, and (D) Win = 6.0 steps. The filled squares are the data
points, the thin line connects the data points, and the thick line marks the theoretical
calculation. Although each plot shows a good fit to the Fresnel equation, the fit differs
among the plots and depends on Win . Because the calculation includes all photons, the
photons that were destined to be removed by the mask have an effect on the diffraction
pattern beyond the mask.

shows the screen pattern with the slits placed from 0.75 step to 1.25 steps
and from -1.25 steps to -0.75 step.
Figure 5.6 shows the paths traced by 10 consecutive photons through
the slits at two different intervals that form part of the distribution of
Fig. 5.5A. The traces are from the mask to the screen. The θ for each photon
is established after y = 130 steps. Before y = 120, there is considerable
change in θ, which is consistent with Fig. 5.3. That is, the photon paths
do not start at the slit and follow straight lines to the screen. The Fresnel
224 CHAPTER 5. PHOTON DIFFRACTION

Figure 5.3: Resulting patterns for varying L. The mask, screen, and photon input was
the same as the previous experiment with Win = 6 steps. The single slit Ws = 1.0 step
screen patterns for L = 30 steps (left figures A and C) and for L = 50 steps (right
figures B and D). The top row is the Fresnel calculation plots and the bottom row is
the Fraunhofer calculation plots. The filled squares are the data points, the thin line
connects the data points, and the thick line marks the theoretical calculation. Comparing
Fig. 5.3(A), Fig. 5.2(D), and Fig. 5.3(B) shows the evolution of the diffraction pattern
with L = 30 steps, L = 40 steps, and L = 50 steps, respectively. Fig. 5.3(C) and
Fig. 5.3(D) show the Fraunhofer equation fits. The greater L produces a closer match
between the Fresnel and Fraunhofer equation fits.

equation applies only after some distance from the mask.

The numbers in Fig. 5.6 mark the following occurrences: (1) One photon
follows another and traces the same path. The following photon travels a
longer path before path merging. (2) One photon follows another and traces
a parallel and close path. (3) A photon experiences an abrupt change in θ
as it passes close to another photon. These events were probably a result
5.3. PHOTONS TRAVELING A LONG DISTANCE 225

Figure 5.4: Plot of Fig. 5.3B with an expanded scale to show the second and third
diffraction rings. The filled squares are the data points, the thin line connects the data
points, and the thick line marks the theoretical calculation. The center area, first ring,
and second ring of Fig. 5.3(B) and Fig. 5.4 has 954 photons, 20 photons, and 4 photons,
respectively, of the 1000 photons counted. The number of photons in each ring agrees
with the theoretical calculation of the relative intensity of the diffraction rings.

Figure 5.5: Plot of the double slit screen pattern at L = 40 steps and Win = 8 steps.
The A figure is with the slits placed from 0.50 step to 1.00 step and from -1.00 step to
-0.50 step. The B figure is with the slits placed from 0.75 step to 1.25 steps and from
-1.25 steps to -0.75 step. The filled squares are the data points, the thin line connects the
data points, and the thick line marks the theoretical calculation. The model produces
the double slit interference pattern.

of the discrete nature of the simulation like the collision condition noted
previously. (4) A photon from one slit follows another from the other slit.
The leading photon determines the xs and θ at the screen.
226 CHAPTER 5. PHOTON DIFFRACTION

Figure 5.6: Traces of 10 consecutive photon paths between the mask and screen at two
different intervals. The numbers mark the following occurrences: (1) One photon follows
another and traces the same path. The following photon travels a longer path before
path merging. (2) One photon follows another and traces a parallel and close path. (3)
A photon experiences an abrupt change in θ as it passes close to another photon. These
events were probably a result of the discrete nature of the simulation like a collision
condition. (4) A photon from one slit follows another from the other slit. The leading
photon determines the xs and θ at the screen. The photon’s path continues to change
direction for a short distance after the mask.
5.4. YOUNG’S EXPERIMENT 227

5.4 Young’s experiment

The input to Young’s experiment was at 0 step ≤ y ≤ 1 step and -3 steps
≤ x ≤ 3 steps. A photon is placed at random in each 1 step X 1 step
area. The input was repeated every 100 intervals. The first mask was place
at y=100 steps with Ws = 1 step centered on the X-axis. If a photon’s
Py (pn ) ≤ 100 step, then Pynew (pn ) = Pyold (pn )+Kc ∗1 interval. If a photon’s
Pyold (pn ) > 100 step, then the new position was calculated in accordance
with the model.
A screen placed at y= 140 steps showed a rounded pattern between -4
steps ≤ xs ≤ 4 steps. Comparison with Fig. 5.2 diffraction patterns shows
Fig. 5.7 is not a diffraction pattern for L = 40 steps.
Figure 5.7 (right) shows the distribution of photons between the first
mask and the screen. The lines and the lower case letters are as in Fig. 5.1.

Figure 5.7: The right figure is a plot screen pattern of Young’s experiment at L = 40
steps after the first mask and Win = 6 steps. The filled squares are the data points.
The thin line connects the data points. The Fresnel equation fit is poor. Therefore, the
pattern is not a diffraction pattern. The right figure shows the distribution of photons
from the first mask to the screen. The lines and the lower case letters are as in Fig. 5.1.
Random photons through a first slit fail to produce a diffraction pattern that indicates
incoherence. However, the position distribution shows coherence (see Fig. 5.1B).

The screen was removed and the second mask was placed at y= 140
steps. The second mask had two slits placed 0.5 step ≤ x ≤ 1.0 step and at
-1.0 step ≤ x ≤ -0.5 step. The screen was placed at y= 180 steps (L = 40
steps). Figure 5.8 shows the resulting distribution pattern.
Although the statistics for Fig. 5.8 are poorer than previous screen in-
terference patterns, inspection of Fig. 5.8 indicates an interference pattern
228 CHAPTER 5. PHOTON DIFFRACTION

Figure 5.8: Plot of the double slit screen pattern at L = 40 steps from the second
mask and 80 steps beyond the first mask. The slits were placed from 0.50 step to 1.00
step and from -1.00 step to -0.50 step. The filled squares are the data points, the thin
line connects the data points, and the thick line marks the theoretical calculation. The
position distribution after the first mask is coherent.

was obtained. Figure 5.3(B and D) after 50 steps of calculation compared

with Figure 5.3(A and C) after 30 steps of calculation indicates that the
calculation errors are causing increased and noticeable scatter after 50 steps
of calculation. Figure 5.8 is after 80 steps of calculation.
5.5. LASER 229

5.5 Laser
The initial, overall photon density in the previous sections was approxi-
mately uniform and incoherent. The photons in the distance simulation or
the slit in the Young’s simulation formed the coherent distribution. These
coherent distributions resulted from an application of the model to an initial
random distribution.
The popular model of a laser is that a seed photon in a medium stim-
ulates the emission of more photons. Because the photons from a laser
impinging on a slit(s) produces a diffraction pattern, the laser simulation
must produce the coherent distribution of photons. Because of the diversity
of materials that produce laser emissions, the laser must form an ordered
distribution within the light.
The Fourier transform of a triangular function is the sinc-type function.
Another function with a Fourier transform of the sinc-type function is the
rectangular function. If the slit acts as a Fourier transform on the stream
of photons, a pulse pattern with high density and a low duty cycle may also
produce the diffraction pattern.
A simple model of the simulation of the laser light is several photons
followed by a delay between pulses. Figure 5.9 shows the result of passing
a pulse through a double slit. The pulse is formed by positioning a photon
randomly in half step x intervals and randomly within a 1.1 steps y interval.
These pulses were three steps apart and Win = 6 steps. Several other
pulse configurations were tried and yielded a poorer fit. The parameters
are unique. Also, the fit is inconsistent with observation of interference
patterns for a d/b ratio of 3/1. That this is what lasers in general produce
seems unlikely.
That the photons form lines with a set angle to ~c was noted in Fig. 5.1
and Fig. 5.7. Posit that a seed photon follows a free photon in the laser
material. These photons form themselves at an angle noted in Fig. 5.1. The
angles are related to Nh . These photon then exert a force along the angle
to free weakly bound photons. Thus, a line of photons is formed. The lines
are then emitted.
The experiment was to create two seed photons at y = 0 and randomly
between -3 steps ≤ x ≤ 3 steps. A line of 13 additional photons was intro-
duced from each of the seed photons at one of the four angles, which was
randomly chosen, progressing positively or negatively. Figure 5.10 depicts
a plot of such a distribution at one interval. This model has the advantage
of being dependent on Nh and the form of the distribution produced by
230 CHAPTER 5. PHOTON DIFFRACTION

Figure 5.9: Plot of the pattern on a screen at L = 40 steps of a laser pulse input Win = 6
steps through a double slit. The slits were placed from 0.50 step to 1.00 step and from
-1.00 step to -0.50 step. The filled squares are the data points, the thin line connects the
data points, and the thick line marks the theoretical calculation.

distant travel and by the first slit in Young’s experiment.

Figure 5.10: Plot of the position of photons between 0 step≤ y ≤ 100 steps and Win = 6
steps.

The photons were then directed to a mask at y = 100 with a double slit.
The slits placed from 0.50 step to 1.00 step and from -1.00 step to -0.50
step.
The fit is consistent with observation of interference patterns for a d/b
ratio of 3/1.
5.5. LASER 231

Figure 5.11: Plot of the pattern on a screen at L = 40 steps of a line laser input (see
Fig. 5.10) Win = 6 steps through a double slit. The slits placed from 0.50 step to 1.00
step and from -1.00 step to -0.50 step. The filled squares are the data points, the thin
line connects the data points, and the thick line marks the theoretical calculation.
232 CHAPTER 5. PHOTON DIFFRACTION

5.6 Afshar experiment

The Afshar experiment involves a wire grid and lenses in addition to a
screen. Placing thin wires of one bin thickness at minima is possible in the
present experiment. The B̄(xs ) values averaged 11 bins. There were bins
with no photons near the minima.
The modeling of the photon interacting with matter and lenses is for a
future paper. Therefore, the xs and the angle φs of ~c to the Y axis was also
recorded when a photon was counted at the screen.
Figure 5.12 shows a plot of φs vs. xs for the photons that passed through
the slit at 0.5 steps ≤ xs ≤ 1.0 steps (the “Positive Slit”) and the photons
that passed through the slit at -1.0 steps ≤ xs ≤ -0.5 steps (the “Negative
Slit”).

Figure 5.12: Plot of φs vs. xs for the photons that passed through the Positive Slit (left)
and the photons that passed through the Negative Slit (right). The groups of photons
with -3 steps ≤ xs ≤ 3 steps to have a nearly linear distribution. A linear regression was
done on the data of each of the groups. Photons existed outside this range. However,
occurrences (1) and (2) of Fig. 5.6, which was considered an artifact of the simulation,
caused errors. The distribution outside this range became non-linear. Over 86% of the
recorded photons were in this range.

Figure 5.12 shows the groups of photons with -3 steps ≤ xs ≤ 3 steps

to have a nearly linear distribution. A linear regression was done on the
data of each of the groups. Photons existed outside this range. However,
occurrences (1) and (2) of Fig. 5.6, which was considered an artifact of
the simulation, caused errors. The distribution outside this range became
non-linear. Over 86% of the recorded photons were in this range.

φs = mxs + b, (5.14)
where m is the slope and b is the intercept of the linear regression.
5.6. AFSHAR EXPERIMENT 233

Table 5.3 lists the resulting values of the linear regression equation for
each of the data sets and the calculated φs at xs = 2 steps and xs = 2 steps.
The majority of the photons impinge on the screen at angles that would
cause a condensing lens to focus them at different points associated with the
slits. Figure 5.6, occurrence (4) showed some photons from one slit follow
another photon from the other slit and, therefore, were recorded with the
φs as if from the wrong slit. This occurred for both slits. Therefore, the
statistical effect would balance.

Table 5.3: The values of the constants in the linear regression Eq. 5.14.
slit m b φs (xs = 2 steps) φs (xs = −2 steps)
rad. step−1 rad. rad. rad.
Positive Slit 0.0428 -0.0177 0.068 -0.10
Negative Slit 0.0348 0.00512 0.074 -0.065

The majority of the photons impinge on the screen at angles that would
cause a condensing lens to focus them at different points associated with
the slits. The model produces the Afshar experiment.
234 CHAPTER 5. PHOTON DIFFRACTION

5.7 Discussion
The constants were determined iteratively and with few significant figures.
The solution presented may not be unique or optimal.
The E = mc2 relation was used to derive Eq. (5.3) and (5.4). This
suggests a way to relate measurable quantities to the constants E = mc2 =
hν. Further, Ψ is responsible for inertial mass. Thus, Ψ is a wave in a
“real” physical entity.
The “wave” in quantum mechanics is a wave in the Ψ–field. The hod
causes the wave and the wave directs the hod. The speed of the wave in the
Ψ–field is much greater than c. Because the number of hods in a moving
photon determines the wavelength of the Ψ–field wave, the photon causally
interacts with other similar hods. Because the wave is a sine or cosine
function, matter producing equal wavelength in the Ψ–field can “tune” into
each other. This produces the interference pattern. Therefore, quantum
entanglement may be a causal and connected observation.
This chapter suggests the transverse and longitudinal position of pho-
tons undergo forces that may be treated as Fourier transforms with each
encounter with more massive particles. The varying Ψ–field experienced by
photons causes a Fourier transform on the distribution of photons. There-
fore, the probability distribution of the position and movement of the large
number of photons may be treated as in quantum mechanics.
The flow of photons through a volume with matter would produce a
pattern of waves from each matter particle. Therefore, the Huygen’s model
of each point being a re-emitter of waves is justified if “each point” means
each matter particle such as atoms.
Fourier mathematics assumes an infinite stream of particles obeying a
given function for all time. Each encounter with other matter produces
a different function. The mathematics of the Fourier transform includes
the integration in both time and distance from −∞ to +∞. Therefore,
observations made over a region or over a shorter interval allows for the
uncertainty of waves. This non-uniformity of the time and distance of
the particle stream distribution is Fourier transformed into the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle (Tang 2007, see, for example, Section 2.9).
The change in the diffraction pattern upon the change in the width
of the photon stream that the mask blocks (see Fig. 5.2) suggests these
photons have an influence on the photons that go through the slit. This
differs from the traditional wave model of diffraction. It also suggests the
photon diffraction experiment is an experiment of quantum entanglement.
5.7. DISCUSSION 235

Indeed, the photons blocked by the mask are non-local to the transmitted
photons beyond the mask.
Bell’s inequality includes the assumption of locality (Dürr,et al. 2009;
Goldstein 2009). Because the present model is intrinsically nonlocal, it
avoids Bell’s inequality.
The calculation equations allow several negative feedback loops. For
example, c is dependent on Ψ. If a photon is at a high Ψ region, c is high.
This causes the photon to be faster then the photon producing the wave
and move to a lower Ψ. The lower Ψ slows the photon to match the speed
of the photon producing the wave. This mechanism exists in θ and vt .
The present concept of “coherent” differs from the traditional model.
The photons interact through the Ψ–field and tend toward lower Ψ. Coher-
ence in the sense of interaction of photons is when the photons are main-
tained at a position and momentum relative to other photons through the
feedback mechanisms. For a photon, this occurs when a photon distribution
causes a constant relative, moving minima. That is when cos(Kβ β)/r <
1/r. This also implies there are constant relative forbidden zones where
cos(Kβ β)/r > 1/r and Ψ ≈ Ψmax . Thus, position and momentum are
quantized.
As noted in Young’s experiment, knowledge of the density of particles is
insufficient to determine the Bohmian quantum potential. The structure of
hods must also be known to provide the Ψ–field. For example, the Ψ–field
wave caused by a photon structure of Nh1 hods differs from the Ψ–field
wave caused by a photon structure of Nh2 hods where Nh1 6= Nh2 .
Gravity is another manifestation of the Ψ–field–hod interaction. Moving
particles produce “pilot waves” (gravity waves) in the Ψ–field. The wave–
particle duality of the Copenhagen interpretation may be viewed as which
of the two entities (Ψ–field or particle) predominates in an experiment.
The cosmological, scalar potential model (SPM) was derived from con-
siderations of galaxies and galaxy clusters (Hodge 2004, 2006a; Hodge and
Castelaz 2003b; Hodge & Castelaz 2003b; Hodge 2006c,e). The SPM
posits a plenum exists whose density distribution creates a scalar poten-
tial ρ (erg) field. The term “plenum” was chosen to distinguish the concept
from “space” in the relativity sense and from “aether”. The term “space”
is reserved for a passive backdrop to measure distance, which is a mathe-
matical construct. The plenum follows Descartes (1644) description of the
plenum. The plenum is infinitely divisible, fills all volume between matter
particles, is ubiquitous, flows to volumes according to the heat equation,
is influenced by matter, is compressible in the sense that the amount of
236 CHAPTER 5. PHOTON DIFFRACTION

plenum in a volume may change, and influences matter.

The Sources of the plenum are in the center of spiral galaxies. Sinks
are in elliptical and other galaxies. The plenum was posited to flow from
Sources to Sinks modeled with the heat equation. Because of the Sink
concept, the extent of matter in the universe may be bounded unlike the
Newtonian model of gravity. Distance measuring space may be unbounded,
but the plenum may be bounded if the distribution of Sources is bounded.
The SPM proposed the ρ field caused a non–Doppler redshift z or
blueshift of photons traveling through it. The resulting equation was ap-
plied to light by calculating the z and discrete z of galaxies (Hodge 2006a).
The equation has terms that are functions of the amount of plenum the
photon passes though and a term that depends on the rate of change of ρ
along the path of the photon. Like the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, de-
clining ρ results in an increase in photon energy (blueshift) and a rising ρ
results in a decrease in photon energy (redshift).
Consideration of the electromagnetic signal of the Pioneer Anomaly led
to the postulate that matter caused a depression in the plenum (Hodge
2006e). The redshift of the Pioneer Anomaly on the solar system scale ig-
nored several terms because they had significant values only on the galactic
scale (Hodge 2006e). In addition to the propositions of the galactic SPM,
matter is posited to cause a static1 warp in the ρ field in accordance with
the Newtonian spherical property. “Static” because matter is neither a
Source nor a Sink of energy. Because the ρ field near matter must attract
other matter, the matter decreases the ρ field. The ρ field then causes mat-
ter attraction according to established gravitational physics and causes the
frequency change of the EM signal2 . Matter merely modifies the ρ energy
flowing from Sources to Sinks. The SPM of the Pioneer Anomaly is an ef-
fect on only the EM signal and is a blueshift superimposed on the Doppler
redshift of the receding spacecraft.
Hodge (2004) showed that if the surface of the hod held ρ = 0, the
ρ equipotential surfaces were ellipsoidal near the surface of the hod. The
streamlines terminated on and perpendicular to the surface. Farther from
the hod, the equipotential surfaces become spheres and the hod appears as
a point at the center of the sphere. Newtonian equations apply at larger
distance. The ρ ≥ 0 always including the scale of photons and, possibly,
atomic nuclei3 . Because the hod has extent, the effect on ρ from a distance
1 “Static” such as caused by a stationary electron in a stationary EM field.
2 This concept is from General Relativity where matter shapes the geometrical “space” and “space”
directs matter.
3 The action of the plenum on atomic nuclei at the largest was suggested by the differing Hα and HI
5.7. DISCUSSION 237

is treated as a negative ρ value at the center of the hod. Therefore, the

ρ < 0 in matter equations reflects the hod having a surface area.
For θ > α the photon’s tendency is to align its axis along streamlines
of the Ψ–field and axes of other photons. Because of the symmetry of
the photon, a converging Ψ–field such as from Sinks and matter and a
diverging Ψ–field such as from Sources and galaxy clusters have the same
angle changing effect on a photon.
Comparing the SPM and the present model yields the conclusions that
the plenum is the Ψ–field and the ρ is the Ψ. A possible addition to the
concept of the plenum is that the Ψ–field in the present model supports a
transverse wave.
The SPM of the gravitational lens phenomena is that of gravitational
attraction changing vt and of θ̇ changing the direction of ~c.
Conceptualizing the macroscopic scale of everyday experience, the galac-
tic scale, and the quantum scale can now be done with a single concept as
fractal cosmology suggests. The SPM view strengthens the determinis-
tic philosophy. Therefore, the Schrödinger equation represents our lack of
knowledge or inability to measure the initial and evolving parameters. The
SPM solution for the Bohmian trajectory(Goldstein 2009) is unique for each
particle. The uncertainty of the measurement of position and momentum
produces other possible trajectories.
Our measuring instruments measure particles that consist of hods and
bound Ψ–field. That is, we measure only particles and their behavior. The
properties of the Ψ–field are inferred from how the particles are guided by
the Ψ–field and not by measurement of the Ψ–field itself.
Because the plenum is real and because the structure of the photon is
consistent with the Michealson-Morley and diffraction experiments, there is
no need to introduce action-at-a-distance, length contraction, time dilation,
or a single big bang. Because of the unity of concepts between the big and
the small, the SPM may be a Theory of Everything.
Newton’s speculations, Democritus’s speculations, the Bohm interpre-
tation, and the fractal philosophy were combined with the cosmological
Scalar Potential Model (SPM). The resulting model of photon structure
and dynamics was tested by a toy computer experiment.
The simulation of light from a distance produced the diffraction pattern
after passing through one and two slit masks. The screen patterns were
determined to be diffraction patterns by fitting the pattern on a screen to
the Fresnel equation. The distribution that was interpreted as coherent was
galactic rotation curves (Hodge & Castelaz 2003b).
238 CHAPTER 5. PHOTON DIFFRACTION

formed by several lines of photons at angles to ~c consistent with the antenna

pattern for the photons with the given Nh . The photons impinging on the
opaque portion of the mask were necessary in the calculation. Tracing the
path of the photons showed the Fresnel pattern forms after a number of
steps from the mask. Also, by varying the distance between the mask and
the screen, the Fresnel pattern became the Fraunhofer pattern.
The simulation of Young’s experiment showed randomly distributed
photons were not coherent but became coherent after passing through one
slit. The distribution of photons after the first slit resembled the line pat-
tern of the light from a distance. This pattern was shown to be coherent
after passing through a double slit. Young’s experiment was duplicated.
The simulation of laser light examined two possible photon distributions.
One considered the laser to be emitting pulses of random composition. A
Fresnel fit was found. However, the number of minima was inconsistent
with the physical structure of the mask. The second posited seed photons
formed lines of photons at angles related the Nh . This distribution was also
fit by the Fresnel equation and the number of minima was consistent with
the mask construction.
Because a model for photon interaction with lenses is lacking, the slit
the photon passed through and the position and angle the photons strike
the screen were recorded. The average difference of angle depending on the
slit the photon passed through could produce the Afshar result. The model
is consistent with the Afshar experiment.
Laser light according to the STOE is produced by photon forcing another
photon from its atom. The relation that produces the maximum force is
on a line as seen in Fig. 5.10. The model of the single-photon experiments
is that only one of the photons passes through the slit(s) at a time. The
simulation of Fig. 5.2 suggests the photons that are destined to impinge on
the mask affect the photon passing through the slit(s). Therefore, the same
behavior results as with the higher intensity light.
Chapter 6

Galaxy redshift and discrete

redshift

1
The evidence suggest the problem of a single model explaining both galac-
tic scale and cosmological scale observations is fundamental (Sellwood and
Kosowsky 2001b). Among a variety of models that have been suggested to
link cosmological scale and galactic scale observations are models using a
scalar field. A scalar field has been linked to dark matter (Fay 2004; Pirogov
2005), a cosmological model (Aguilar et al. 2004), the rotational curves of
spiral galaxies (Mbelek 2004), and axisymmetric galaxies (Rodriguez-Meza
et al. 2005).
The great majority of elliptical galaxies are observed to be much poorer
in cool gas and hydrogen than spiral galaxies of comparable luminosity
(Binney and Merrifield 1998, pages 527-8). The bulk of the interstellar
matter (ISM) in spiral galaxies is HI and hydrogen. In elliptical galax-
ies, the bulk of the ISM consists of hot plasma distributed approximately
spherically rather than in a thin disk (Binney and Merrifield 1998, pages
525-6). A characteristic of elliptical galaxies not found in spiral galaxies
is that the X-ray surface brightness is nearly proportional to the optical
surface brightness (Binney and Merrifield 1998, pages 526). The study of
dust lanes suggests that gas and dust are falling into elliptical and lenticular
galaxies (Binney and Merrifield 1998, pages 513-6) and are formed internally
in spiral galaxies (Binney and Merrifield 1998, pages 528-9). Some evidence
has been presented that suggests irregular galaxies will settle down to be-
ing a normal elliptical galaxy (Binney and Merrifield 1998, page 243). In
1 Reprintedfrom New Astronomy, vol. 11, Author: John C. Hodge, Scalar potential model of redshift
and discrete redshift, Pages 344-358 with permission of Elsevier(Hodge 2006a).

239
240 CHAPTER 6. GALAXY REDSHIFT AND DISCRETE REDSHIFT

low surface brightness (LSB) spiral galaxies, the outer rotation curve (RC)
generally rises (de Block et al. 2001, and references therein). In contrast,
“ordinary” elliptical galaxies, with luminosities close to the characteristic
L∗ (=2.2 ×1010 LB,⊙ in B band solar units for a Hubble constant Ho = 70
km s−1 Mpc−1 ) show a nearly Keplerian decline with radius outside 2Reff ,
where Reff is the galaxy’s “effective radius” enclosing half its projected light
(Romanowsky et al. 2003).
Battaner and Florido (2000) and Sofue et al. (1999) provides an
overview of the current state of knowledge of RCs of spiral galaxies. The
RCs of spiral galaxies have a high rotation velocity of over 1000 km s−1 near
the nucleus (Ghez et al. 2000; Takamiya and Sofue 2000). Ghez et al. (2000)
and Ferrarese and Merritt (2002) have observed Keplerian motion to within
one part in 100 in elliptical orbits of stars that are from a few 100 pc to a
few 1000 pc from the center of spiral galaxies. The Keplerian characteristic
decline in rotation velocity is sometimes seen in Hα RCs. This is followed
by gradual rise to a knee or sharp change of slope at a rotation velocity
of less than 300 km s−1 . The outer RC is beyond the knee. Interacting
galaxies often show perturbed outer RCs. The outer part of an RC is often
relatively flat with rising and falling RCs occasionally being found.
The particles most often measured in the disk region of a galaxy are
hydrogen gas by HI observation and stars by observing the Hα line. The
particles being measured in the inner bulge region are stars by observation of
Hα , CO, and other spectral lines. Also, the RC differs for different particles.
For example, the HI and Hα RCs for NGC 4321 (Sempere et al. 1995) differ
in the outer bulge and approach each other in the outer disk region.
McLure & Dunlop (2002) found that the mass in the central region of
spiral galaxies is 0.0012 of the mass of the bulge. Ferrarese and Merritt
(2002) reported that about 0.1% of a spiral galaxy’s luminous mass is at
the center of galaxies and that the density of supermassive black holes
SBH’s in the universe agrees with the density inferred from observation of
quasars. Merritt & Ferrarese (2001a) found similar results in their study
of the relationship of the mass M• of the central supermassive black hole
and the velocity dispersion σv (M• − σv relation). Ferrarese (2002) found a
tight relation between rotation velocity vc in the outer disk region and bulge
velocity dispersion σc (vc − σc ) which is strongly supporting a relationship
of a center force with total gravitational mass of a galaxy. Wandel (2003)
showed M• of AGN galaxies and their bulge luminosity follow the same
relationships as their ordinary (inactive) galaxies, with the exception of
narrow line AGN. Graham et al. (2003, 2002); Graham et al. (2003b) found
 241

correlations between M• and structural parameters of elliptical galaxies

and bulges. Either the dynamics of many spiral galaxies are producing the
same increase of mass in the center at the same rate, a feedback controlled
mechanism exists to evaporate the mass increase that changes as the rate
of inflow changes as suggested by Merritt & Ferrarese (2001b), or sufficient
mass is ejected from spiral galaxies to maintain the correlations. The RCs
imply the dynamics of spiral galaxies differ so the former is unlikely. The
study of dust lanes suggests mass is ejected from spiral galaxies.
The following is taken from Binney and Merrifield (1998). Galaxies in
groups and clusters (“clusters”) are much more likely to be elliptical or
lenticular than in the field. Spiral galaxies lie farther from the center of
clusters than do elliptical galaxies. The fraction f (E) of galaxies that are
elliptical galaxies in clusters varies from 15% to 40%. Clusters with a large
value of f (E) tend to have a regular, symmetric appearance, often with
a large cD galaxy at its center. Clusters with a low value of f (E) gen-
erally have a ratty appearance. The fraction f (Sp) of spiral galaxies in
centrally-concentrated clusters increases with radius R from the center of
the cluster. The observations are consistent with the model of their being no
spiral galaxies in the cores of regular clusters. The lenticular (S0) galaxies
become increasingly dominant at small radii. Nearer the core the fraction
f (S0) of S0 galaxies declines sharply as f (E) increases sharply. Also, the
f (E) increases and f (Sp) decreases as the projected number Nd density of
galaxies increases. There appears to be a close relation between Nd and R.
The morphology of galaxies appears strongly correlated with the current
surrounding density. A galaxies radius within a cluster appears to be the
primary factor that dictates its morphology except where a spiral galaxy has
a nearby companion. The nearby companion has a disproportionate proba-
bility of being elliptical. Studies of HI in spiral galaxies show the average HI
deficiency varies monotonically with R. Most rich clusters of galaxies are
filled with plasma with temperature > 107 K (intracluster medium). The
intracluster medium mass exceeds the total mass in the luminous parts of
cluster galaxies. The intracluster medium is composed of hydrogen-helium
plasma and significant numbers of heavy-element ions, which were probably
formed in galaxies. The hot plasma may be condensing into galaxies (S0
and E) that are found at the center of clusters.
That the redshift z of emitted photons from galaxies generally increases
with the extragalactic distance D (Mpc) between the emitting galaxy and
observer is well known (z − D relationship). Currently fashionable, cosmo-
logical models attributes z to a Doppler shift of a light wave. The assump-
242 CHAPTER 6. GALAXY REDSHIFT AND DISCRETE REDSHIFT

tion of homogeneity in cosmological scale volumes is compatible with either

a static galaxy distribution or with a very special velocity field obeying the
Hubble Law (Binney and Merrifield 1998, page 396)
c
D= z, (6.1)
Ho
where Ho (km s−1 Mpc−1 ) is the Hubble constant and c (km s−1 ) is the speed
of light. The Ho occupies a pivotal role in current cosmologies. The methods
of calculating supernova distances, the cosmological microwave background
(CMB) power spectrum, weak gravitational lensing, cluster counts, baryon
oscillation, expansion of the universe, and the fundamental aspects of the
Big Bang model depend on Ho and the Hubble law.
However, the determination of Ho has a large uncertainty and differ-
ent researchers calculate different values. Figure 6.1 shows the calculated
redshift zH using Eq. (6.1), Ho = 70 km s−1 Mpc−1 , and the distance Da
calculated using Cepheid variable stars for 32 galaxies (Freedman et al.
2001; Macri et al. 2001) versus the measured galactocentric redshift zm .
The correlation coefficient of zH versus zm is 0.80.
The deviation of the recession velocity of a galaxy from the straight
line of the Hubble Law is ascribed to a “peculiar velocity” of the photon
emitting galaxy relative to earth (Binney and Merrifield 1998, page 439).
The deviation from the Hubble Law is the only means of determining the
peculiar velocity of a galaxy. The average peculiar velocity for all galaxies
is assumed to be zero on the scale that the universe appears homogenous.
The 2dFGRS (Peacock et al. 2001) suggests this scale is z > 0.2.
The circles in Fig. 6.1 denote data for galaxies in the general direction
of (l, b) = (290◦ ± 20◦ , 75◦ ± 15◦ ). Aaronson et al. (1982) found the pe-
culiar velocity field in the local supercluster is directed toward NGC 4486
(Messier 087) with (l, b) ≈ (284◦ , 74◦) at a speed of 331±41 km s−1 . This
has been called the “Virgocentric infall”. NGC 4486 is a peculiar, large,
elliptical galaxy with strong X-ray emissions. In addition, Lilje et al. (1986)
detected a quadrupolar tidal velocity field from spiral galaxy data in addi-
tion to the Virgocentric infall pointing toward (l,b) = (308◦ ±13◦ , 13◦ ±9◦ )
at a speed of ≈ 200 km s−1 . NGC 5128 (Centaurus A) at (l,b) = (310◦, 19◦ )
and at a distance of 3.84 ± 0.35 Mpc (Rejkuba 2004) is a galaxy with prop-
erties (Isreal 1998) similar to NGC 4486. Lynden-Bell et al. (1988) found
elliptical galaxies at distances in the 2000-7000 km s−1 range are streaming
toward a “Great Attractor” at (l, b) = (307◦ ± 13◦ , 9◦ ± 8◦ ). Centaurus B
at (l,b) = (310◦, 2◦ ) is a galaxy with properties similar to NGC 4486. In
 243

Figure 6.1: Plot of the calculated redshift zH using Eq. (6.1) and D calculated using
Cepheid variable stars for 32 galaxies (Freedman et al. 2001; Macri et al. 2001) versus
the measured redshift zm . The straight line is a plot of zH = zm . The circles indicate the
data points for galaxies with (l,b) = (290◦ ± 20◦ ,75◦ ± 15◦ ) (Reprinted with permission
of Elsevier(Hodge 2006a)).
244 CHAPTER 6. GALAXY REDSHIFT AND DISCRETE REDSHIFT

a more recent analysis, Hudson et al. (2004) suggested a bulk flow of 225
km s−1 toward (l, b) ≈ (300◦, 10◦ ). However, the total mass in these direc-
tions appears to be insufficient to account for the peculiar velocity fields
using Newtonian dynamics.
Burbidge (1968) found a zm periodicity ∆zm ≈ 0.06 for approximately
70 QSOs. Duari et al. (1992) confirmed these claims of periodicity using
various statistical tests on zm of 2164 QSOs. However, another claim (Karls-
son 1977) that ln(1 + zm ) is periodic with a period of 0.206 was found to be
unsupported. Bell (2004, and references therein) offered further evidence
of periodic zm in QSOs.
Tifft (1996, 1997) found “discrete velocity periods” of zm of spiral galax-
ies in clusters. The “discrete velocity periods” of zm showed an octave, or
doubling, nature. Bell et al. (2004, and references therein) confirmed the
existence of the “discrete velocity periods” of zm for 83 ScI galaxies. Russell
(2005, and references therein) presented evidence that redshifts from normal
spiral galaxies have an “intrinsic” component that causes the appearance
of peculiar velocities in excess of 5000 km s−1 .
This Chapter uses galaxy and cluster observations to derive the char-
acteristics of a scalar potential model (SPM). The SPM suggests spiral
galaxies are Sources of the scalar potential field and early type galaxies are
Sinks of the scalar potential field. The cluster observations support the
movement of matter from Source galaxies to Sink galaxies. An equation is
derived that recovers Eq. (6.1) for cosmological distances from data that is
anisotropic and inhomogeneous. The resulting model is used to calculate
redshift of particle photons for a sample of 32 galaxies with Da . The calcu-
lated redshift zc has a correlation coefficient of 0.88 with zm . Further, the
SPM suggests the discrete variations in zm (Bell 2004; Bell et al. 2003;
Bell et al. 2004; Tifft 1996, 1997) are consistent with the SPM.

6.1 Sink and Source galaxies

The SPM postulates the existence of a scalar potential ρ (erg) field with
the characteristics to cause the observed differences in spiral and elliptical
galaxies. The gradient of ρ is proportional to a force F~s (dyne) that acts on
matter,
F~s = Gs ms ∇ρ,
~ (6.2)
where the arrow over a parameter denotes a vector, the Gs is a propor-
tionality constant analogous to the gravitational constant G, and ms is a
6.1. SINK AND SOURCE GALAXIES 245

property of the test particle on which the F~s acts. Because the ms property
of matter is currently unidentified, call the units of ms “cs”.
The SPM suggests F~s exerts a force to repel matter from spiral galaxies
and to attract matter to early type galaxies. Therefore, the ρ is highest at
the center of spiral galaxies as a point Source and lowest at the center of
early type galaxies as a point Sink. Call spiral galaxies Sources and early
type galaxies Sinks.
Because the scalar field ρǫ due to Sources is highest at point Sources, it
obeys the inverse square law as does gravity. Therefore,
ρǫ = Kǫ ǫ/rǫ , (6.3)
where ǫ is a number representing the strength of the Source analogous to
the central mass of the gravitational potential, Kǫ is the proportionality
constant, and rǫ (Mpc) is the distance from a Source to the point at which
ρ is calculated. Because the nature of ǫ is currently unidentified, call the
units of ǫ “q”. The unit of Kǫ is erg Mpc q−1 .
Because the scalar field ρη due to Sinks is lowest at point Sinks, it obeys
the inverse square law as does gravity. Therefore,
ρη = Kη η/rη , (6.4)
where η (q) is a number representing the strength of the Sink analogous
to the central mass of the gravitational potential, Kη (erg Mpc q−1 ) is the
proportionality constant, and rη (Mpc) is the distance from a Sink to the
point at which ρ is calculated.
The ρ is the sum of the effects of all galaxies,
NX NX
source
ǫi sink
ηl
ρp = Kǫ + Kη , (6.5)
i=1 rpi l=1 pl
r
where the subscript, lower case, italic, roman letters are indices; “p” is the
point where ρp is evaluated; rpi (Mpc) and rpl (Mpc) are the distances to the
point where ρp is evaluated from the ith Source and lth Sink, respectively;
and Nsource and Nsink are the number of Source and Sinks, respectively.
In the universe, Nsource and Nsink are very large, perhaps effectively
infinite. The boundary condition of a very large universe produces consid-
erable ambiguity in Eq. (6.5). One way to resolve this “Olber’s paradox”
type condition is to postulate that η < 0 and ǫ > 0. Call the volume with
a simply connected surface containing equal Source and Sink strengths a
“cell”. This is analogous to the electric charges in an atom. As the universe
246 CHAPTER 6. GALAXY REDSHIFT AND DISCRETE REDSHIFT

may be considered a collection of clusters, the SPM considers the universe

to be a collection of cells.
Ignoring the effect of neighboring Sources and Sinks (the environment)
and the radial movement of a test particle, the tangential rotation velocity
vθ (km s−1 ) of a test particle in a galaxy becomes
GMeff
vθ2 = , (6.6)
r
where in a Source galaxy,
Gs ms
Meff = M − Kǫ ǫ, (6.7)
G mg
in a Sink galaxy,
Gs ms
Meff = M + Kη |η|, (6.8)
G mg
where, for simplicity, the mass of the test particle is assumed to be constant
over time, r (kpc) is the radial distance of the test particle, M (M⊙ ) is the
mass inside the sphere of radius r, | | indicates absolute value, and the
inertial mass mι equals gravitational mass mg of the test particle (Will
2001).
Because the outer RCs of elliptical galaxies are Keplerian (Romanowsky
et al. 2003), the total force on mass must be centrally directed acting along
the radius of the elliptical galaxy. The F~s and the gravitational force F~g
of the surrounding mass of the galaxy are directed radially inward. Thus,
the Meff of a Sink galaxy appears greater than Newtonian dynamical ex-
pectation as the “Virgocentric infall” and “Great Attractor” phenomena
require.
In spiral galaxies the various rotation velocity curves can result if F~s is
directed radially outward and F~g is directed radially inward with a ms /mg
ratio varing with r.
The ǫ and η terms of Eqs. (6.7) and (6.8) mimic a hidden mass. However,
because M is the total mass, the ǫ and η terms are massless.
Because the HI and Hα RCs differ, the ms /mg factor must be different
for different matter (elemental) types. The ms cannot be linearly related
to the mass. Another characteristic of matter must be the characteristic of
ms . Thus, the M of a Source galaxy is greater than Newtonian dynamical
expectation.
The nature of the ǫ may (1) be derived from a property of matter, (2) be
independent of matter, or (3) be the cause both of ρ and of matter. Because
6.1. SINK AND SOURCE GALAXIES 247

the ρ field must be repulsive of matter in Source galaxies and attractive of

matter in Sink galaxies, the first possibility is unlikely. If matter falls into
a galaxy before a Source is present, the galaxy is a Sink. If a ρ field of
a Source exists before matter forms around it, the ρ field prevents matter
from forming a galaxy. Hence the second possibility is unlikely. Because
Sources exist only with spiral galaxies around them, the ρ field and the M
of a spiral galaxy are formed concurrently. Therefore, ǫ ∝ Mtǫ , where Mtǫ
is the total mass of the Source galaxy. Similarly, η ∝ Mtη , where Mtη is the
total mass of the Sink galaxy.

Because Sinks acquire their mass from neighboring Source galaxies, if

the Sink is in a low galaxy population density environment, then local
Source galaxies yield little matter. Such Sinks have little matter, have
low luminosity, and have low η. Because of the low density of galaxies,
the Fs of neighboring galaxies is insignificant. The extent of the Fs field
is limited to nearly the extent of the galaxy mass. Because Meff > M,
measurements of lensing (Guzik and Seljak 2002) and velocities of satellites
outside the Sink galaxy measure more mass using Newtonian dynamics than
Mtη (Prada et al. 2003). This is a good description of L∗ elliptical galaxies
(Romanowsky et al. 2003).

If the Sink is in a dense environment, then the Sink has more matter,
is bright, and has high η. The higher values of Fs and Fg compresses the
matter (stars) well inside the extent of the Fs field and the mass profile is
steeper than low luminosity Sinks. Because of the high density of galaxies,
the Fs of neighboring galaxies is significant. Thus, the Fs field is spatially
more extended than the mass. Data from lensing, stellar dynamics (Treu
and Koopmans 2004), and velocities of satellites (Prada et al. 2003) outside
the mass concentration of the Sink indicates much more mass than Mtη and
the presence of a mass-like component more extended than the luminous
component using Newtonian dynamics. This is a good description of bright
elliptical galaxies.

These observations are consistent with the premise that irregular, ellip-
tical, and lenticular galaxies are Sinks and galaxies with spiral morphology
are Sources.

Because Spiral galaxies form around Sources and because cD galaxies

are often found in the center of large clusters with elliptical galaxies, cD
galaxies were also considered Sinks.
248 CHAPTER 6. GALAXY REDSHIFT AND DISCRETE REDSHIFT

6.2 Redshift model

The SPM suggests the photon is a particle. The derivation of Planck’s
black body radiation equation includes the proposition that the energy of
a photon is discrete and composed of a number N of basic energy/particle
packets. The calculated redshift zc is
△λ Ne
zc ≡ = − 1, (6.9)
λ No
where λ is the wavelength, Ne is the emitted N, and No is the observed N.
Because the energy of the photon is changed as it traverses the ρ field,
N is changed by the amount of ρ through which the photon travels. The
change of N per unit volume V of ρ through which the photon travels is
posited to be proportional to N entering V ,
dN
= −Kv N, (6.10)
dV
where Kv is the proportionality constant.
The V is
V = Cs D hρi, (6.11)
where hρi is the average ρ in V and Cs is the cross section of V which is
the cross section of the photon particle.
Posit that a photon has a minimum number Nmin of energy packets.
Combining Eqs. (6.9) and (6.10) yields,
Ne
zc + 1 = . (6.12)
Nmin + Ne exp(−Kv 0D dV )
R

For the D and change of N considered herein, Cs is considered a con-

stant. For greater distances, where the total change of N is relatively larger
than considered herein, the Cs is a function of N and ρ at the position of
the photon.
The
1 D
Z
hρi = ρx dx, (6.13)
D 0
where dx is the incremental distance x (Mpc) traveled by the photon.
The emitted luminosity of a galaxy is proportional to the flux of photons
from the galaxy and is assumed to be isotropic. Other factors such as the
K–correction were considered too small for the D of the sample. For a
spiral galaxy to exist, Fg must balance the Fs . Matter is ejected until this
6.2. REDSHIFT MODEL 249

balance is achieved. Therefore, the mass and, hence, the luminosity of a

Source galaxy is a first order approximation of ǫ. Therefore,
ǫ = Kǫl 10−0.4 Mβ , (6.14)
where !
Mβ mβ Ext D
= − + 25 − 5 log10 ; (6.15)
mag. mag. mag. Mpc
Kǫl (q s erg−1 ) is a proportionality constant; and Mβ (mag.), mβ (mag.),
and Ext (mag.) are the absolute magnitude, apparent magnitude, and ex-
tinction, respectively, in a given band (β) of the galaxy.
Similarily, for Sink galaxies,
η = Kηl 10−0.4 Mβ , (6.16)
where Kηl (q s erg−1 ) is a proportionality constant.
The conservation of matter/energy implies for each Source galaxy
Kc LI + MI = Kc ǫ + MO + ∆Mg , (6.17)
where MI (M⊙ s−1 ), MO (M⊙ s−1 ), ∆Mg (M⊙ s−1 ), LI (erg s−1 ), and Kc
(M⊙ /erg) are the matter per second (exclusive of photons) entering the
galaxy from other galaxies, the matter per second (exclusive of photons)
emitted by the galaxy, the matter per second increase in the galaxy, the
luminosity due to photons into the galaxy, and the proportionality constant
to convert ǫ units to M⊙ s−1 , respectively. Matter is “in” a galaxy when it is
in orbit around the Source, where the dynamics of the matter is principally
determined by the galaxy parameters.
Similarly for Sink galaxies,
Kc LI + MI = Kc η + MO + ∆Mg . (6.18)
Sum Eqs. (6.17) and (6.18) over all Source and Sink galaxies, respec-
tively. Because the mass ejected from Source galaxies go to Sink galaxies,
the combined ∆Mg = 0. Because the measured CMB radiation is nearly an
ideal black body radiation (Mather et al. 1990, 1999), the sum of the LI
terms for all Sources equals the sum of the LI terms for all Sinks. Equating
the sum of all matter emitted from Source galaxies to the sum of all matter
entering Sink galaxies yields,
Nsources
Kη ǫi
P
= − Pi=1
Nsink , (6.19)
Kǫ k=1 ηk
250 CHAPTER 6. GALAXY REDSHIFT AND DISCRETE REDSHIFT

where Kηl /Kǫl = Kη /Kǫ .

Because V is a function of x from the observer to a point along the line
of sight and time t,
∂V ∂V
dV (x, t) = dx + dt. (6.20)
∂x ∂t
Combining Eqs. (6.11), (6.12), (6.13), and (6.20) yields,

1
= Kmin + eX , (6.21)
zc + 1
where
X = Kdp DP + Kd D + Kp P + Kf F + Kvp P ve (6.22)
where: (1) Relatively small terms such as terms involving the relative ǫ
of the emitter and observer were ignored. (2) The Kmin =R Nmin /Ne is a
constant for a given Ne . (3) The P = 0 ρp dx. (4) The F = 0D[(∂ρp /∂x) −
RD

Kco ]dx to a first order approximation. (5) The Kdp (erg−1 Mpc−2 ), Kd
(Mpc−1 ), Kp (erg−1 Mpc−1 ), Kf (erg−1 ), Kco (erg Mpc−1 ), and
Kvp (erg−1 Mpc−1 deg.−1 )are constants. (6) The ρ is posited to be constant
over time. (7) The relative velocity of the emitting and observing galaxies
causes a change in V , hence N, and has three possible causes. One is the
expansion of our universe. This component is linearly related to (Kdp P +
Kd )D. The second cause is due to the possible peculiar velocity of the
Milky Way relative to the reference frame derived by summing over all
Sources and Sinks. Another cause derives from the inaccuracy of defining
the reference frame because the galaxies directly on the other side of the
Milky Way center from earth are unobservable from earth. The component
ve deriving from the second and third causes is proportional to the cosine
of the angular difference between the direction of the target galaxy and the
direction of ve . Thus,

ve = cos(90◦ − Glat ) cos(90◦ − Klat )

+ sin(90◦ − Glat ) sin(90◦ − Klat )
× cos(Glon − Klon ), (6.23)

where Glat (degrees) and Glon (degrees) are the galactic latitude and lon-
gitude, respectively, of the emitting galaxy; and Klat (degrees) and Klon
(degrees) are the galactic latitude and galactic longitude, respectively, of
the direction of ve .
6.3. RESULTS 251

Setting Kǫ = 1 considers Kǫ was incorporated into the constants of

Eq. (6.22) and yields,
PNsources
ǫi
Kη = − Pi=1
Nsink erg Mpc q−1 . (6.24)
k=1 ηk

6.3 Results
The sample galaxies were selected from the NED database2 . The selection
criteria were that the heliocentric redshift zmh be less than 0.03 and that
the object be a galaxy. The parameters obtained from the NED database
included the galaxy name, Glon , Glat , zmh , morphology, the mβ was the B-
band apparent magnitude mb (mag.) as defined by NED, and the galactic
extinction Ext (mag.). The zm was calculated from zmh .
The 21-cm line width W20 (km s−1 ) at 20 percent of the peak and the
inclination in (arcdegrees) between the line of sight and polar axis were
obtained from the LEDA database3 when such data existed.
The constants to be discovered are the constants of Eq. (6.21), the cell
limitation of rpi and rpl , and Kη . Calculating the constants was done by
making the following simplifications: (1) Estimate the D to the sample
galaxies (see Appendix .1). (2) Galaxies with an unlisted morphology in
the NED database were considered to have negligible effect. An alternate
method may be to assign a high value of mb to such galaxies. This option
was rejected because a large number of such galaxies were from the 2dFGRS
and 2MASS. These surveys include only limited areas of the sky. Therefore,
including the 2dFGRS and 2MASS galaxies with unlisted morphology in the
calculation would introduce a selection bias into the sample. (3) Galaxies
with an unlisted mb were assigned Mb = −11 mag. (4) Objects with
Ext = 99 in NED were assigned an Ext = 0 mag. (5) All the sample
galaxies were considered mature and stable. (6) Galaxies with a spiral
(non-lenticular), barred, or ringed morphology in the NED database were
considered Sources. All other galaxies were considered Sinks. The result
was a sample of 22,631 Source galaxies and 7,268 Sink galaxies.
Define the luminosity ratio Lr as the ratio of the sum of the luminosi-
ties of all Sources within a limiting distance Dl divided by the sum of the
2 The Ned database is available at http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu. The data were obtained from

NED on 5 May 2004.

3 The LEDA database is available at http://leda.univ-lyon.fr. The data were obtained from LEDA

on 5 May 2004.
252 CHAPTER 6. GALAXY REDSHIFT AND DISCRETE REDSHIFT

Figure 6.2: Plot of the luminosity ratio Lr for galaxies with a distance D less than the
limiting distance Dl versus Dl .(Reprinted with permission of Elsevier(Hodge 2006a).)

luminosities of all Sinks within Dl ,

PNsources (D<Dl )
ǫi
Lr = Pi=1
Nsink (D<Dl )
. (6.25)
k=1 ηk
Figure 6.2 shows a plot of Lr versus Dl for the 29,899 sample galaxies.
Because the sample galaxies were limited to zmh < 0.03, the selection of
galaxies for D > 130 Mpc was incomplete. Therefore, from Eq. (6.24)
Kη = −2.7 ± 0.1 erg Mpc q−1 .
Form the linear relation,
zc = Kscm zm + Kicm , (6.26)
where Kscm is the least squares slope and Kicm is the least squares intercept
of the presumed linear relationship between zc and zm . The constants of
6.3. RESULTS 253

Figure 6.3: Plot of the correlation coefficient Cc of Eq. (6.26) using the best values
of the constants to be discovered versus the distance Dlc (Mpc) limitation of rxi and
rxl .(Reprinted with permission of Elsevier(Hodge 2006a).)

Eq. (6.21) were adjusted to maximize the correlation coefficient of Eq. (6.26)
with Kscm ≈ 1 and with Kicm ≈ 0.
Figure 6.3 shows a plot of the correlation coefficient Cc of Eq. (6.26)
using the best values of the constants to be discovered for each data point
versus the distance Dlc (Mpc) limitation of rpi and rpl . Peaks of Cc ≈ 0.88
were obtained at Dlc = 15 Mpc and Dlc = 75 Mpc. Therefore, the rpi and
rpl were limited to 15 Mpc. Of the sample galaxies, 3,480 Source galaxies
and 1,604 Sink galaxies were within 15 Mpc of at least one of the Category A
galaxies. Note the distances to the close, major clusters (Virgo and Fornax)
vary between 15 Mpc and 20 Mpc. The distance of the next farther clusters
(Pisces, Perseus, and Coma) vary between 40 Mpc and 60 Mpc.
Figure 6.4 shows a plot of zc versus zm for the 32 Category A galaxies.
254 CHAPTER 6. GALAXY REDSHIFT AND DISCRETE REDSHIFT

Figure 6.4: Plot of the calculated redshift zc versus the measured redshift zm for 32
Category A galaxies (Freedman et al. 2001; Macri et al. 2001). The straight line is a
plot of zc = zm . The circles indicate the data points for galaxies with (l,b) = (290◦ ±
20◦ ,75◦ ± 15◦ ).(Reprinted with permission of Elsevier(Hodge 2006a).)

Tables 6.1 and 6.2 lists the data for the 32 Category A galaxies. Table 6.3
lists the calculated constants of Eq. (6.21). The Kscm = 1.0 ± 0.1 and
Kicm = (0 ± 9) × 10−5 at 1σ with a correlation coefficient of 0.88.
The error bars indicate the zc for 1.05Da and 0.95Da , which is consistent
with the error cited in Freedman et al. (2001). For some galaxies such as
NGC 4548 both of the recalculations yield a higher zc calculation than the
calculation using Da .
If the non-target (other) galaxy is far from the photon’s path, it has
little individual effect. If the other galaxy is close to the photon’s path,
an error in its distance changes the distance to the photon’s path by the
tangent of a small angle. Also, because Mb is calculated using D, the slight
6.3. RESULTS 255

Table 6.1: Category A galaxy data in order of increasing Da .

Galaxy Morphologya Glon Glat Da zm zh zc P F
×10−3 ×10−3 ×10−3 ×1010 ×1012
deg. deg. Mpc erg Mpc erg
IC 1613 IB(s)m 130 -61 0.65 -0.518 0.156 -1.234 0.25 0.04
NGC 0224 SA(s)b LINER 121 -22 0.79 -0.408 0.190 -1.327 0.34 0.02
NGC 0598 SA(s)cd HII 134 -31 0.84 -0.148 0.202 -1.240 0.32 0.04
NGC 0300 SA(s)d 299 -79 2.00 0.336 0.480 0.687 0.81 0.09
NGC 5253 Im pec;HII Sbrst 315 30 3.15 0.903 0.756 1.219 0.82 0.15
NGC 2403 SAB(s)cd HII 151 29 3.22 0.758 0.773 -0.479 0.80 0.15
NGC 3031 SA(s)ab;LINER Sy1.8 142 41 3.63 0.243 0.871 -0.249 0.92 0.15
IC 4182 SA(s)m 108 79 4.49 1.231 1.078 0.735 1.01 0.21
NGC 3621 SA(s)d 281 26 6.64 1.759 1.594 2.744 1.37 0.29
NGC 5457 SAB(rs)cd 102 60 6.70 1.202 1.608 1.406 2.20 0.07
NGC 4258 SAB(s)bc;LINE R Sy1.9 138 69 7.98 1.694 1.915 1.896 1.81 0.34
NGC 0925 SAB(s)d HII 145 -25 9.16 2.216 2.198 1.566 1.68 0.40
NGC 3351 SB(r)b;HII Sbrst 234 56 10.00 2.258 2.400 2.522 1.77 0.44
NGC 3627 SAB(s)b;LINER Sy2 242 64 10.05 2.145 2.412 2.753 1.82 0.43
NGC 3368 SAB(rs)ab;Sy LINER 234 57 10.52 2.659 2.525 2.703 1.89 0.45
NGC 2541 SA(s)cd LINER 170 33 11.22 1.963 2.693 1.492 1.91 0.49
NGC 2090 SA (rs)b 239 -27 11.75 2.490 2.820 3.985 2.16 0.51
NGC 4725b SAB(r)ab pec Sy2 295 88 12.36 4.026 2.966 3.848 2.32 0.52
NGC 3319 SB(rs)cd HII 176 59 13.30 2.497 3.192 2.669 2.38 0.58
NGC 3198 SB(rs)c 171 55 13.80 2.281 3.312 2.546 2.44 0.60
NGC 2841 SA(r)b ;LINER Sy1 167 44 14.07 2.249 3.377 2.070 2.49 0.58
NGC 7331 SA(s)b LINER 94 -21 14.72 3.434 3.533 3.850 2.12 0.62
NGC 4496A b SB(rs)m 291 66 14.86 5.505 3.566 4.883 2.30 0.65
NGC 4536b SAB(rs)bc HII 293 65 14.93 5.752 3.583 4.963 2.31 0.65
NGC 4321b SAB(s)bc;LINER HII 271 77 15.21 5.087 3.650 4.306 2.29 0.65
NGC 4535b SAB(s)c HII 290 71 15.78 6.325 3.787 4.803 2.32 0.68
NGC 1326A SB(s)m 239 -56 16.14 5.713 3.874 5.478 2.51 0.71
NGC 4548b SBb(rs);LINER Sy 286 77 16.22 1.476 3.893 4.408 2.18 0.69
NGC 4414 SA(rs)c? LINER 175 83 17.70 2.416 4.248 4.557 2.94 0.75
NGC 1365 (R’)SBb(s)b Sy1.8 238 -55 17.95 5.049 4.308 5.589 2.57 0.77
NGC 1425 SA(rs)b 228 -53 21.88 4.666 5.251 5.542 2.52 0.94
NGC 4639 b SAB(rs)bc Sy1.8 294 76 21.98 3.223 5.275 5.315 2.33 0.95
a Galaxy morphological type from the NED database. b The data points for galaxies with (l,b) = (290◦ ± 20◦ ,75◦ ± 15◦ ).

change in rpi and rpl is partially offset by the change in Mb . Therefore, the
error in D of other galaxies is negligible relative to the effect of a Da error
of the target galaxy.
The Category A galaxies are within 22 Mpc from earth. The X term of
Eq. (6.21) predominates and Kmin is relatively small for distances less than
a few Gpc. Therefore, z −→ exp(−X) − 1 ≈ −X. Figure 6.5 is a plot of
Da versus X. The straight line is a plot of the least squares fit of the data.
The line is

Da = (−2700 ± 500Mpc)X − (1.4 ± 0.8Mpc)

c
≈ z (6.27)
Hspm

at 1σ and with a correlation coefficient of 0.93, where Hspm = 110 ±

20 km s−1 Mpc−1 .
At D = 18 Gpc exp(X) ≈ Kmin /2. At large cosmological distance,
−1
z −→ Kmin ≈ 500.
256 CHAPTER 6. GALAXY REDSHIFT AND DISCRETE REDSHIFT

Table 6.2: The components of Eq. (6.21) for each Category A galaxy.
Galaxy Kdp DP Kp P Kf F Kvp P ve X
×10−3 ×10−3 ×10−3 ×10−3 ×10−3
IC 1613 0.009 -0.563 -0.204 0.06 -0.70
NGC 0224 0.014 -0.770 -0.103 0.25 -0.61
NGC 0598 0.014 -0.727 -0.226 0.25 -0.69
NGC 0300 0.086 -1.836 -0.492 -0.38 -2.63
NGC 5253 0.137 -1.862 -0.780 -0.65 -3.16
NGC 2403 0.136 -1.808 -0.760 0.98 -1.46
NGC 3031 0.177 -2.091 -0.778 1.00 -1.69
IC 4182 0.240 -2.292 -1.067 0.45 -2.67
NGC 3621 0.484 -3.121 -1.523 -0.52 -4.68
NGC 5457 0.783 -5.005 -0.380 1.26 -3.34
NGC 4258 0.767 -4.117 -1.761 1.28 -3.83
NGC 0925 0.814 -3.807 -2.097 1.58 -3.50
NGC 3351 0.939 -4.020 -2.267 0.89 -4.46
NGC 3627 0.969 -4.129 -2.254 0.72 -4.69
NGC 3368 1.054 -4.292 -2.337 0.93 -4.64
NGC 2541 1.135 -4.333 -2.560 2.33 -3.43
NGC 2090 1.344 -4.899 -2.661 0.29 -5.92
NGC 4725a 1.521 -5.269 -2.711 0.67 -5.78
NGC 3319 1.681 -5.414 -3.021 2.15 -4.61
NGC 3198 1.786 -5.542 -3.116 2.39 -4.48
NGC 2841 1.860 -5.662 -3.008 2.80 -4.01
NGC 7331 1.656 -4.818 -3.234 0.61 -5.79
NGC 4496Aa 1.812 -5.223 -3.376 -0.03 -6.82
NGC 4536a 1.825 -5.235 -3.363 -0.12 -6.90
NGC 4321a 1.848 -5.204 -3.395 0.51 -6.24
NGC 4535a 1.943 -5.274 -3.524 0.12 -6.74
NGC 1326A 2.143 -5.687 -3.679 -0.19 -7.41
NGC 4548a 1.875 -4.952 -3.605 0.34 -6.34
NGC 4414 2.763 -6.685 -3.923 1.35 -6.49
NGC 1365 2.447 -5.839 -3.989 -0.14 -7.52
NGC 1425 2.919 -5.715 -4.910 0.23 -7.47
NGC 4639a 2.718 -5.297 -4.920 0.25 -7.25
a
The data points for galaxies with (l,b) = (290◦ ± 20◦ ,75◦ ± 15◦ ).

Table 6.3: The values of the constants of Eq. (6.21).

Parameter value units
Kmin 1.94 × 10−3
Kdp 5.3 × 10−15 erg−1 Mpc−2
Kd a 0.00 Mpc−1
−13
Kp −2.27 × 10 erg−1 Mpc−1
−15
Kf −5.2 × 10 erg−1
10
Kco −4.3 × 10 erg Mpc−1
−13
Kvp 1.3 × 10 erg−1 Mpc−1 deg.−1
◦
Klat 14
◦
Klon 164

a
Because Kd = 0, it is ignored in the final equation.
6.4. X FACTORS 257

Figure 6.5: Plot of distance Da (Mpc) versus exponent factor X of the redshift calculation
for 32 Category A sample galaxies. The straight line indicates Da = −2600X − 1.
(Reprinted with permission of Elsevier(Hodge 2006a).)

6.4 X factors
The components of X in Eq. (6.22) are a directional effect and effects cal-
culated from the integration of ρp and ∂ρp /∂x across ∆x. The X value
may be calculated by the summation of the galaxy effects of the various
regions along the light path. The Milky Way effect Xmw is caused by the
Source in the Galaxy. Because it is close to earth, ρ is high and limited to
x < 0.05 Mpc as shown in the examples NGC 1326A (Fig. 6.6), NGC 4535
(Fig. 6.7), and NGC 1425 (Fig. 6.8).
The directional dependant effect Xdir is caused by the ve term of Eq. (6.21)
and the Sources and Sinks in the local group, over 0.05 Mpc < x < 2 Mpc.
The variation in Xdir due to the cluster structure of our local group is seen
258 CHAPTER 6. GALAXY REDSHIFT AND DISCRETE REDSHIFT

in Figs. 6.6, 6.7, and 6.8. Figure 6.6 shows the light from the target galaxy
passing first through the outer shell of Source galaxies of the local cluster
with a large hump in the ρ – x plot and then through the Sink galaxies of
the core of the local cluster with a large “U” in the ρ – x plot. Figure 6.8
shows light from the target galaxy passing first through a portion of the
outer shell of Source galaxies of the local cluster with a small hump in the
ρ – x plot and then near but not through the Sink galaxies of the core of
the local cluster with a barely discernable “U” in the ρ – x plot. Figure 6.7
shows the light from the target galaxy passing through only a portion of
the outer shell of Source galaxies of the local group with neither a hump
nor a “U” being discernable.

Figure 6.6: Plot of scalar potential ρ (×109 erg) versus distance x (Mpc) along our line
of sight of NGC 1326A at location (l, b, z) ≈ (239◦ , −56◦ , 0.0057134). (Reprinted with
permission of Elsevier(Hodge 2006a).)

The D −1 effect Xd at x > 2 Mpc is caused by the local group that

6.4. X FACTORS 259

Figure 6.7: Plot of scalar potential ρ (×109 erg) versus distance x (Mpc) along our
line of sight of NGC 4535 at location (l, b, z) ≈ (290◦ , 71◦ , 0.0063253). (Reprinted with
permission of Elsevier(Hodge 2006a).)

appears as a single Source with a ρ value depending on direction as expected

for a Gaussian surface. If there were no other influences, Eq. (6.3) expects a
D −1 decline
R
in ρ. This is plotted in Figs. 6.6, 6.7, and 6.8 as dashes. Noting
P ∝ ρdx ≈ ln D and terms of Eq. (6.22) other than P terms are small
if the only ρ variation is D −1 , using only first order terms, and performing
a binomial expansion yields z is a linear function of D (the Hubble Law)
with a negative (blueshift) intercept, which is consistent with Eq. (6.27)
and consistent with observations of close galaxies.
As shown
R
in Figs. 6.6, 6.7, and 6.8 the ρ varies both above and below
Xd . An ρdx R
above Xd implies a dz/dD greater than the Xd caused z
change. An ρdx below Xd implies a dz/dD less than the Xd caused z
change.
260 CHAPTER 6. GALAXY REDSHIFT AND DISCRETE REDSHIFT

Figure 6.8: Plot of scalar potential ρ (×109 erg) versus distance x (Mpc) along our line
of sight of NGC 1425 at location (l, b, z) ≈ (228◦ , −53◦ , 0.0046664). (Reprinted with
permission of Elsevier(Hodge 2006a).)

The field Source effect Xsource is caused by the light passing very close
to a Source galaxy outside of a cluster. This effect is seen in the plot of
NGC 4535 (Fig. 6.7) as a sharp peak at x ≈ 10.4 Mpc. The Xsource in
the plot of NGC 4535 (Fig. 6.7) appears to be caused by NGC 4526 (SAB,
Db = 10.41 Mpc, Mb = −19.44 mag., A = 0.5◦ ), where A (arcdegrees) is
the angular separation of other galaxies from the identified target galaxy.
The field Sink effect Xsink is caused by the light passing very close to a
Sink galaxy outside of a cluster. This effect is seen in the plot of NGC 4535
(Fig. 6.7) as a sharp “V” at x ≈ 5.6 Mpc. The Xsink in the plot of NGC 4535
(Fig. 6.7) appears to be caused by Messier 095 (E5, De = 5.59 Mpc, Mb =
−18.23 mag., A = 3.9◦ ).
The galaxy group effect Xg is seen in the plots of NGC 1326A (Fig. 6.6)
6.4. X FACTORS 261

and NGC 1425 (Fig. 6.8) as sharp steps associated with extended ρ values
slightly higher than Xd at x ≈ 7 Mpc and x ≈ 8.5 Mpc. The step and
extended areas of NGC 1326A and NGC 1425 (Fig. 6.8) are caused by
several low luminosity Source galaxies intermixed with a few low luminosity
Sink galaxies. Unlike in clusters, the field galaxies have a higher percentage
of Source galaxies and a lower density (Binney and Merrifield 1998). The
Xg is distinguished from Xsource by the larger ∆x > 0.5 Mpc of the group.
The total cell effect Xtc is caused by light passing through or near
the center of a cluster. The Xtc is a broad “V” shape. This is shown
in NGC 1326A (Fig. 6.6) at x = 11.6 Mpc, NGC 4535 (Fig. 6.7) at
x = 11.6 Mpc, and NGC 1425 (Fig. 6.8) at x = 12.6 Mpc. Within 5.0◦
and 4 Mpc of the point of the “V”, NGC 1326A has 14 sinks and 1 source,
NGC 4535 has 34 Sinks and 20 Sources, and NGC 1425 has 5 Sinks and
zero Sources.
Another cluster effect Xshell is caused by the high density of Source
galaxies in the shell of a cluster. This is shown in NGC 1326A (Fig. 6.6)
at x = 14.4 Mpc, NGC 4535 (Fig. 6.7) at x = 12.9 Mpc, and NGC 1425
(Fig. 6.8) at x = 14.4 Mpc.
Another cluster effect Xcore− is caused by the high density of Sinks
galaxies in the core of a cluster and by the target galaxy being in the
shell of a cluster. This is shown in NGC 4535 (Fig. 6.7) at x = 15 Mpc and
NGC 1425 (Fig. 6.8) at x = 21.1 Mpc. This effect is caused by light passing
through the core of a cluster. Therefore, the core acts as a large Sink. This
effect occurs only if the target galaxy is in the far side of the cluster from
us.
Another cluster effect Xcore+ is caused by the high density of Sources
galaxies in the shell of a cluster and by the target galaxy being in the shell
of a cluster. This is shown in NGC 1326A (Fig. 6.6) at x = 15.5 Mpc. This
effect occurs only if the target galaxy is in the near side of the cluster from
us. Although there is a slight dip in the ρ − D plot, the net effect is the ρ
values are higher than the Xd values.
The net effect Xcore is either the Xcore+ or Xcore− depending on whether
the target galaxy is in the near or far side of the cluster, respectively.
The Category A galaxies used in Figs. 6.1 and 2 were obtained from the
Key Project results(Freedman et al. 2001) that established the currently
popular Hubble constant value of about 70 km s−1 Mpc−1 . Examination of
Fig. 6.1 shows the appearance of two different types of distributions. The
data points for the galaxies in the sample with zH < 0.0024 and Da <
10 Mpc (close sample galaxies) have a tight, linear appearance. The data
262 CHAPTER 6. GALAXY REDSHIFT AND DISCRETE REDSHIFT

points for the galaxies in the sample with zH > 0.0024 and Da > 10 Mpc (far
sample galaxies) have a scattered, nearly unrelated appearance. Figures 6.1
and 2 show that close sample galaxies, which are without an intervening
cluster, have an effective Ho ≈ 100 km s−1 Mpc−1 and a non-zero intercept
with a correlation coefficient of 0.93 (see the Category C distance calculation
in the Appendix). The two outlier galaxies omitted in the Category C
calibration have Da > 11 Mpc. The far sample galaxies have at least one
intervening cluster at 11 Mpc < x < 15 Mpc and have a Da -zm correlation
coefficient of 0.53. The SPM suggests this scatter is caused by Xtc , Xcore ,
and Xshell of intervening galaxies. A selection bias in selecting galaxies
with Sink effects is expected because of the cluster cell structure. Further,
gravitational lensing observations have the X factor effects of galaxies close
to the light path.
The target galaxy effect Xt is caused by the Source or Sink in the target
galaxy. The Xt depends on the magnitude of the target galaxy like Xmw .

6.5 Discrete variations in redshift

Beyond the local group, the major X effects are Xd , Xshell , Xtc , and Xcore .
The Xsource , Xsink , and Xg effects are secondary and tend to partially offset
each other. At x > 2 Mpc the Xd is the major effect on z. The major
variation of zm from the Hubble law is caused by the cluster factors Xtc ,
Xshell , and Xcore .
This effect is seen in Figs. 6.9, 6.10, 6.11, 6.12, and 6.13. The left plots
in Figs. 6.9 and 6.11 and the plots in Fig. 6.13 are z versus A from the target
Sink galaxy. The filled diamonds denote Sinks. The right plots in Figs. 6.9
and 6.11 show D of the galaxies versus A. The filled squares are distances
calculated using the Tully-Fisher relation (Tully and Fisher 1977). The
Category A galaxies (Cepheid galaxies) were used as calibration galaxies
for the Tully-Fisher relation.
Figures 6.10 and 6.12 show Glat versus Glon of the galaxies within ap-
proximately six arcdegrees surrounding the identified Sink. The angular
location of the identified Sink is marked by the crosshairs. The filled circles
denote the galaxies within one arcdegree of the identified Sink of Figs. 6.9
and 6.11, respectively. Source galaxies surround the Sink galaxies.
Figure 6.9 shows the Xcore effect around the Sink NGC 5353. The z
value of galaxies closer than the identified Sink is increased due to Xcore+ .
The z value of galaxies farther than the identified Sink is decreased due to
Xcore− . The overall effect is the range of z values of galaxies around the
6.5. DISCRETE VARIATIONS IN REDSHIFT 263

Figure 6.9: The left plot is of the measured redshift zm versus the angle A (arcdegrees)
subtended from NGC 5353 (S0) (l, b, z) = (82.61◦ ,71.63◦,8.0203×10−3). The open di-
amonds indicate the data points for Source galaxies. The filled diamonds indicate the
data points for Sink galaxies. The right plot is the distance D (Mpc) from earth versus
A. The open squares indicate the data points for galaxies with the D calculated herein.
The filled squares indicate the data points for galaxies with the D calculated using the
Tully-Fisher relationship. (Reprinted with permission of Elsevier(Hodge 2006a).)

Table 6.4: The data for the Case Nos. of Fig. 6.13.
Case Constellation Galaxy Morph. Glon a Glat a D z Ratio
◦ ◦
No. Mpc ×10−3
1 Camelopardalis UGC 05955 E 135 42 13.8 4.2959 1:2:5b
2 Canes NGC 5797 S0/a 85 57 92.2 13.7083 1:2c
3 Cetus NGC 0693 S0/a? 148 -54 13.2 5.4335 1:2:3:4:5d
4 Coma VCC 0546 dE6 279 72 35.1 6.6833 1:2c
5 Fornax NGC 0802 SAB(s) 294 48 17.2 4.4360 1:2:4:5
6 Grus IC 5267B S0 350 -62 5.5945 -17.74 1:2:4:5e
7 Hercules UGC 10086 S0/a? 29 46 21.3 7.6864 1:2:4f
a
Rounded to the nearest degree. b
The data point at z ≈ 27.5 × 10−3 is 6.4X. c Note the Source galaxies
closer to earth. d Note the presence of a number of Sinks at 17 × 10−3 < z < 21 × 10−3 causing the lapse in
the discrete ratio. e Note the presence of additional Sinks at 1x and 2x and the odd Source at approximately
3.5x. f Note the presence of additional Sinks at 2x causing the nearby Sources to have lower z.

identified Sink are tightened toward the z value of the identified Sink.
Figure 6.11 shows the additional effect of Xtc in the z values of more
distant target galaxies that also have nearby Sinks and whose light must
264 CHAPTER 6. GALAXY REDSHIFT AND DISCRETE REDSHIFT

pass through another, closer cluster. The nearer cluster causes an incre-
mental increase in z and the farther Sink in the cluster of the target galaxy
causes the distribution of z values to tighten. Therefore, the total effect is
of the two clusters. If the Xtc effect of clusters are approximately equal,
then the z value of the farther group is nXtc , where n is an integer count of
the clusters the light passes through. The net effect is a near scarcity of z
values half way between integer z variation of the z of the first cluster from
earth.
Figure 6.14 of the Perseus constellation shows the situation may become
very complex. The previous plots used situations with few Sink galaxies for
clarity.

Figure 6.10: Plot of galactic latitude Glat (arcdegrees) versus galactic longitude Glon
(degrees) approximately six arcdegrees around NGC 5353. The open circles indicate
the data points for galaxies more than one arcdegree from NGC 5353. The filled cir-
cles indicate the data points for galaxies within one arcdegree of NGC 5353. The “+”
or crosshairs indicate the position of NGC 5353. (Reprinted with permission of Else-
vier(Hodge 2006a).)
6.5. DISCRETE VARIATIONS IN REDSHIFT 265

Figure 6.11: The left plot is of the measured redshift zm versus the angle A
(arcdegrees) subtended from NGC 2636 (E0), M = −17.9 mag. (l, b, z) =
(140.15◦,34.04◦,7.3163×10−3). The open diamonds indicate the data points for Source
galaxies. The filled diamonds indicate the data points for Sink galaxies. The right plot
is the distance D (Mpc) from earth versus A. The open squares indicate the data points
for galaxies with the D calculated herein. The filled squares indicate the data points for
galaxies with the D calculated using the Tully-Fisher relationship.

The calculation of z from Eq. (6.21) presents a formidable task. Also, as

distance increases, a bias develops resulting from the omission of undetected
galaxies. The effects of Xd , Xtc , Xshell , and Xcore relative to Xsource , Xsink ,
and Xg suggest the z may be calculated by adding the effects of the local
group to the z at x < 3 Mpc, fitting a linear D −1 relation to the ρ − D
curve for 3 Mpc< x < 8 Mpc, applying the linear relation to the ρ − D
curve for x > 8 Mpc, and modifying the ρ calculation by counting the
number of clusters the light passes near or through. This method may be
more appropriate than the Hubble Law for situations such as gravitational
lensing in which the homogeneous assumption is invalid.
266 CHAPTER 6. GALAXY REDSHIFT AND DISCRETE REDSHIFT

Figure 6.12: Plot of galactic latitude Glat (arcdegrees) versus galactic longitude Glon
(degrees) approximately six arcdegrees around NGC 2636. The open circles indicate
the data points for galaxies more than one arcdegree from NGC 2636. The filled cir-
cles indicate the data points for galaxies within one arcdegree of NGC 2636. The “+”
or crosshairs indicate the position of NGC 2636. (Reprinted with permission of Else-
vier(Hodge 2006a).)
6.5. DISCRETE VARIATIONS IN REDSHIFT 267

Figure 6.13: Plots of the angle A (arcdegrees) subtended from a target galaxy versus the
measured redshift zm . The target galaxy is shown on the A = 0 axis as a large, filled
diamond. The open diamonds indicate the data points for Source galaxies. The filled
diamonds indicate the data points for Sink galaxies. The data for the target galaxies are
listed in Table 6.4.(Reprinted with permission of Elsevier(Hodge 2006a).)
268 CHAPTER 6. GALAXY REDSHIFT AND DISCRETE REDSHIFT

Figure 6.14: The left plot is of the measured redshift zm versus the angle A (arcdegrees)
subtended from NGC 1282 (E), M = −19.8 mag. (l, b, z) = (150◦ ,-13.34◦,7.4727×10−3).
The open diamonds indicate the data points for Source galaxies. The filled diamonds
indicate the data points for Sink galaxies. The right plot is the distance D (Mpc) from
earth versus A. The open squares indicate the data points for galaxies with the D cal-
culated herein. The filled squares indicate the data points for galaxies with the D calcu-
lated using the Tully-Fisher relationship. (Reprinted with permission of Elsevier(Hodge
2006a).)
6.6. DISCUSSION 269

6.6 Discussion
The evidence is increasing that the discrete or periodic nature of redshift is
genuine.
Milgrom and Sanders (2003) found the observations of L∗ elliptical
galaxies (Romanowsky et al. 2003) are in full concordance with the Mod-
ified Newtonian Dynamics model (MOND). However, Prada et al. (2003)
using velocities of satellites and Treu and Koopmans (2004) using lensing
and stellar dynamics of bright elliptical galaxies found results that contra-
dict MOND. If Fs and Fg of only the target galaxy act on a test particle
in a galaxy, the Fs appears as a modification to Fg . The SPM allows the
Fs of neighboring galaxies to also influence test particles. The addition
of Fs from neighboring galaxies, which is not radial in general, in a dense
environment is unaccounted in MOND. Therefore, because of the differing
environmental densities, the SPM expects MOND to apply to L∗ elliptical
galaxies and to fail for bright elliptical galaxies. This suggests MOND may
be an application of the SPM for low to medium galaxy densities and the
modified acceleration of MOND is another force (Fs ).
The calculation of ρ involved only the luminosity and position of galax-
ies. The SPM posits ρ and the variation in ρ is the major influence on
photons redshift. The model in this Paper considered gravitational forces
or potentials as being linearly related to the ǫ or η of the galaxies. Therefore,
as done herein, the SPM suggests the strength (luminosity) and position of
galaxies are necessary and sufficient to determine intergalactic effects.
~ Therefore, the intergalactic Fs may be directed
The Fs derives from ∇ρ.
at any angle relative to our line of sight. If the universe is finite and flat,
then there is an edge where ρ → 0 and where ∇ρ ~ → 0 is directed away
from us. Therefore, the objection to a Newtonian flat, finite universe is
overcome.
At larger distance (say > 200 Mpc) the F and P terms approach an av-
erage per unit distance because the total number of encounters with Sources
and Sinks per unit distance becomes nearly constant. Therefore, if the vol-
umes considered are greater than the spacing between several clusters, the
mass distribution of the universe appears homogeneous and the Hubble Law
is recovered for cosmological scale distance. However, the error (peculiar
velocity) in the Hubble Law’s proportionality calculation is much larger
than currently accepted. Indeed, the constant of proportionality may vary
with direction. Examining the P and F data of the more distant sample
galaxies herein suggests the error is at least ∂z > 0.016, which is consistent
270 CHAPTER 6. GALAXY REDSHIFT AND DISCRETE REDSHIFT

with Russell (2005).

The purpose of the present investigation was to define the structure of a
scalar potential field to be consistent with various galaxy observations. The
special focus was on observations that are inconsistent with other currently
popular cosmological models. This paper has not addressed the physical
mechanism of Sources (ǫ) and Sinks (η), the nature of ρ, or the nature of
the ms property of matter except to exclude the mass property. However,
this Paper has found a physical effect of these quantities. A speculative
example of a possible physical mechanism is galactic wind (Paumard et al.
2001; Shu et al. 2003; Silk and Rees 1998; Veilleux et al. 2005). The shells
of outward flowing, shocked gas around the Galactic center (Binney and
Merrifield 1998, page 595)(Königl 2003) and the presents of heavy-element
ions in the intracluster medium suggests the emission of the ubiquitous,
corporeal wind media is from the center of spiral galaxies. If all stars emit
matter in addition to radiation, Newton’s spherical property and, hence,
the inverse square law may be applied to the effect of the wind. The gra-
dient of the energy of the wind media (ρ) exerts a repulsive force (Fs ) on
the cross-sectional area of particles (ms ). The rate of emission by Sources
and of absorption by Sinks may be identified with ǫ and η, respectively.
The Gs ms /Gmg ratio of Eq. (6.6) produce differing Fs for differing particle
density. Such a model is consistent with the radial distribution of black
holes, quark stars, neutron stars, high metallicity stars, and lighter hydro-
gen stars. In the outer bulge Hα RCs of varying metallicity, hot stars have
peculiar shapes and differ from HI RCs of hydrogen gas. However, in the
outer disk Hα RCs of hot, hydrogen stars approach the HI RCs (see for
example Sempere et al. (1995) for NGC 4321).
Because the Source of the ǫ is in the center of the Galaxy, the ρ variation
across our solar system is insignificant. For δr = 100 AU, δ(r 2 )/r 2 ≈ 10−17 .
However, a gravitational experiment must carefully consider the differing
ms effects of particles.
The development of Xd in Section 6.4 included a central Source and
ρ ∝ r −1 . These conditions yielded the Hubble Law and Ho . In the part
of a spiral galaxy where neighboring galaxies have an insignificant effect,
the ρ has the same, inverse square law form. Therefore, the SPM suggests
the appearance of Ho in galaxy observations is sufficient to indicate that
an action of Fs is present and is insufficient to indicate that cosmological
scale, general relativity effects are present. The latter is consistent with the
finding of Cooperstock et al. (1998) that the expansion of the universe is
essentially negligible for scales up to galactic clusters.
6.6. DISCUSSION 271

For a sample of 32 galaxies with distances calculated using Cepheid

variable stars, the redshift zc calculated using the SPM ρ variation had
a 0.88 correlation coefficient to the measured redshift zm . The calculation
argued spiral galaxies are Sources and elliptical and other galaxies are Sinks.
Because the variation of ρ appears to influence zm , the variation of ρ was
qualitatively related to the observed, discrete variation in zm .
272 CHAPTER 6. GALAXY REDSHIFT AND DISCRETE REDSHIFT
Chapter 7

Pioneer anomaly

1
That an unexplained blueshift exists in the electromagnetic (EM) radio sig-
nal from the Pioneer 10 (P10) and Pioneer 11 (P11) (PA) is well established
(Anderson et al. 2002; Toth and Turyshev 2006). Several models have been
proposed to explain the PA (Anderson et al. 2002). A currently popular
interpretation of the PA is that the Pioneer spacecraft are being subjected
to a force that causes a sunward acceleration aP ≈ (8.74 ± 1.33) × 10−8 cm
s−2 . That aP ≈ cHo , where c (cm s−1 ) is the speed of light and Ho (s−1 )
is the Hubble constant, suggest a cosmological connection to PA. However,
the PA exceeds by at least two orders of magnitude the general relativity
(GR) corrections to Newtonian motion.
The PA is experimentally observed as a frequency shift but expressed
as an apparent acceleration. The PA could be an effect other than a real
acceleration such as a time acceleration (Anderson et al. 2002; Nieto and
Anderson 2005a) or an effect of an unmodeled effect on the radio signals.
Although unlikely, a currently unknown systematics effect is not entirely
ruled out.
That the PA is an acceleration is unproven. The “ acceleration” nomen-
clature is based on the unsupported hypothesis that the frequency shift is
a Doppler effect. Other phenomena cause frequency shifts such as grav-
ity using the Weak Equivalence Principle as shown in the Pound-Rebka
experiment (Pound & Rebka 1960).
Data for the existence of aP from the Galileo, Ulysses, Voyager, and
Cassini spacecraft are inconclusive (Anderson et al. 2002; Nieto et al. 2005b).
There are other characteristics of the PA (Anderson et al. 2002) in ad-
dition to the Sun directed blueshift. The PA has an apparent annual peri-
1 Portions reprinted with permission of Nova Science Publishers, Inc. (Hodge 2010).

273
274 CHAPTER 7. PIONEER ANOMALY

odicity with an amplitude of approximately 1.6×10−8 cm s−2 (Anderson et

al. 2002, Section Section IX.C.). The PA has an apparent diurnal period-
icity. Anderson et al. (2002) suggested both periodicities were the result of
modeling errors in all the analysis programs that are related to errors in
the Earth ephemeris. Although within uncertainty limits, the P11 anomaly
aP11 ≈ 8.55 × 10−8 cm s−2 may be slightly larger than the P10 anomaly
aP10 ≈ 8.47 × 10−8 cm s−2 (Anderson et al. 2002, Section V.A., Section
VI.A., Section VI.D., and Section VIII.G.). The aP calculation by the
Sigma and CHASMP program methods for P10 (I) and P10 (II) show a
discrepancy while showing consistency for P10 (III) (Anderson et al. 2002,
Table I). The blue shift of the PA is significantly smaller (Nieto and An-
derson 2005a) immediately before P11’s Saturn encounter. The value of
aP averaged over a period during and after the Saturn encounter had a
relatively high uncertainty (Nieto and Anderson 2005a).
Turyshev and Toth (2009) reported on the status of the analysis of re-
cently recovered Pioneer 10 (P10) and Pioneer 11 (P11) flight data and com-
mented on some, but not all, of the characteristics of the Pioneer Anomaly
(PA) that must be explained by a candidate model. Only one model pre-
sented to date is consistent with all the characteristics.
An obstacle to a new gravitational physics explanation of the PA is that
a modification of gravity large enough to explain the PA is in contradiction
to planetary ephemeredes unless the Equivalence principle is violated (An-
derson et al. 2002). The common opinion is that cosmic dynamics according
to GR has far too little influence in galaxies to be measurable and that the
expansion of the universe is essentially negligible for scales up to galactic
clusters (Cooperstock et al. 1998; Sellwood and Kosowsky 2001b). Further,
the expansion of the universe indicated by redshift z has a sign opposite
to aP . Several new physics models have been proposed (Anderson et al.
2002; Bertolami and Páramos 2004a). Bertolami and Páramos (2004a,b)
concluded a scalar field is able to explain the PA.
A scalar potential model (SPM) was derived from considerations of
galaxy clusters (Hodge 2006a). The SPM posits a scalar potential ρ field
exists. The Sources of the ρ field are in the center of spiral galaxies. Sinks
are in elliptical and other galaxies. The ρ field was posited to flow from
Sources to Sinks like heat or fluid. The SPM proposed the ρ field caused
a non-Doppler redshift or blueshift of photons traveling through it. The
resulting equation was applied to z and discrete redshift of galaxies.
This chapter argues that matter causes a static, non-flowing warp of the
ρ field that causes the PA. The ρ ∝ −R−1 of the warp induces the Ho value
7.1. MODEL 275

and the connection to z observations. That is, the PA is an unaccounted

effect on only the EM signal. Therefore, the planet ephemeris remain as
described by GR.

7.1 Model
In addition to the propositions of the SPM, matter is posited to cause a
static2 warp in the ρ field in accordance with the Newtonian spherical prop-
erty. Because the ρ field near matter must attract other matter, the matter
decreases the ρ field. The ρ field then causes matter attraction according
to established gravitational physics and causes the frequency change of the
EM signal. “Static” because matter is neither a Source nor a Sink of energy.
Matter merely modifies the energy flowing from Sources to Sinks. The PA
is an effect on only the EM signal and is a blueshift superimposed on the
Doppler redshift of the receding spacecraft.
The amount of warp ρm at a point in space was posited to be equal to
GM/R, where G is the Newtonian gravitational constant, M is the mass of
a body, and R is the distance from the center of mass to the point where ρ
is calculated. That is,
N
X
ρm = − GMi /Ri , (7.1)
i

where N is the number of bodies used in the calculation.

The Kmin term in the equation derived by Hodge (2006a) resulted from
the flow from Sources. The Kvp term results from the relative movement
of galaxies. Therefore, Kmin = 0 and Kvp = 0 for the static warp field of
matter in the Solar System. Because the K factors were calculated in a
flowing ρ field, the static warp requires other values of the K factors. The
resulting equation for the calculated redshift zc is

zc = e−X − 1, (7.2)

where
X = Kdp Dl P + Kp P + Kf F , (7.3)
the terms are defined in Hodge (2006a), Dl = 2D (AU) is the distance the
radio signal travels, and D (AU) is the geocentric distance to the spacecraft.
The P is a measure of the amount of ρ the EM signal travels through. The
2 “Static” such as caused by a stationary electron in a stationary EM field. Sources induce a flow
such as a source of heat or fluid.
276 CHAPTER 7. PIONEER ANOMALY

F is a measure of the inhomogeneity (turbulence) of ρ the EM signal travels

through.

7.2 Results
7.2.1 Sample
The mass of the Kuiper belt of approximately 0.3 Earth masses (Teplitz
et al. 1999) and the asteroid belt of approximately one Earth mass were
included in the mass of the Sun. The ephemeris including GM of the Sun,
planets, dwarf planets, and moons of Saturn were obtained from JPL’s
Horizon web site3 in November and December 2006. The planets barycenter
data were used for the calculation except for the Earth and its moon and
except when considering the Saturn encounter of P11. When considering
the Saturn encounter, the GM of the moons of Saturn without GM data
in the Horizon web site were calculated from the relative volume and mass
of the other moons of Saturn. The data were taken from the ephemeris
for 00h 00m of the date listed except for the Saturn encounter where hourly
data were used.
The aP data were obtained from Table 2 of Nieto and Anderson (2005a).
The calculation of ρ starting from the surface of the Earth along the line-of-
sight (LOS) to the position of the spacecraft and back used a Visual Basic
program. Note the calculation of F is direction dependent. The Galaxy’s
effective mass was calculated from the revolution of the Sun about the center
of the Galaxy and, for simplicity, assumed a spherically symmetric galactic
matter distribution. For the calculations, the Galaxy center of mass was
positioned at 8 kpc from the Sun in the direction of Sgr A*. The ρ field due
to the Source was assumed to be flat across the solar system. Therefore, the
effective mass at the center of the galaxy accounts for both the variation of
ρ from the Source and the true mass within the Galaxy (Hodge & Castelaz
2003b).
Equation (7.2) was used to calculate the zc for each spacecraft on each
date. The calculated PA acceleration aPc (cm s−2 ) (Anderson et al. 2002)
is
aPc = −c2 zc /Dl . (7.4)
The components of zc values are listed in Table 7.2. Figure 7.1 plots the
aP and aPc values versus D for each spacecraft. The correlation coefficient
3 http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi
7.2. RESULTS 277

Table 7.1: The values of the constants of Eq. (7.2).

Parameter value units

Kdp 1.30 × 10−28 erg−1 AU−2
Kp 2.10 × 10−26 erg−1 AU−1
Kf 5.38 × 10−22 erg−1
Kco −5.98 × 106 erg AU−1

Table 7.2: The components of Eq. (7.2) and Asun for each data point.

Craft Date D Kdp DP Kp P Kf F X Asun

(AU) ×10−14 ×10−14 ×10−14 ×10−13 (◦ )
P10 82/19 25.80 -1.83 -5.74 15.40 0.78 124
P10 82/347 27.93 -2.06 -5.97 16.77 0.87 165
P10 83/338 30.68 -2.43 -6.42 18.54 0.97 167
P10 84/338 33.36 -2.82 -6.85 20.27 1.06 175
P10 85/138 36.57 -4.43 -9.81 21.17 0.69 12
P10 86/6 36.53 -3.34 -7.42 21.12 1.04 144
P10 87/80 40.92 -4.38 -8.66 23.96 1.09 70
P10 88/68 43.34 -4.76 -8.90 26.69 1.30 82
P10 89/42 45.37 -5.04 -8.99 26.82 1.28 109
P11 77/270 6.49 -0.24 -3.05 2.99 -0.03 43
P11 80/66 8.42 -0.26 -2.49 4.23 0.15 166
P11 82/190 11.80 -0.49 -3.34 6.41 0.26 109
P11 83/159 13.13 -0.55 -3.42 7.25 0.33 148
P11 84/254 17.13 -0.99 -4.68 9.83 0.42 71
P11 85/207 18.36 -1.01 -4.47 10.62 0.51 121
P11 86/344 23.19 -2.09 -7.31 13.74 0.43 16
P11 87/135 22.41 -1.40 -5.06 13.23 0.68 151
P11 88/256 26.62 -2.01 -6.12 15.93 0.78 88
P11 89/316 30.29 -2.85 -7.62 18.29 0.78 36

between the aP and aPc is 0.85 for all data points. Without the P11 80/66
data point, which is the most uncertain measurement (Nieto and Anderson
2005a), the aP and aPc correlation coefficient is 0.93.
The error bars in Fig. 7.1 reflect the uncertainty from Table II ofAnder-
son et al. (2002) except for P11 80/66 where the uncertainty is fromNieto
and Anderson (2005a). The stochastic variable of the unmodeled acceler-
ation was sampled in ten-day or longer batches of data (Anderson et al.
2002). Starting at the P11 80/66 data point, the average extended over
many months (Nieto and Anderson 2005a). The “X’s” in Fig. 7.1 plot the
calculated data point for a ten-day change from the date of the aP . Some
data points showed little change between the two dates of calculation. Oth-
ers showed moderate change. Because the value of aPc depends on the
closeness of matter to the LOS, a change over ten days is due to a body
close to the LOS and to long integration times. Therefore, the closeness of
matter to the LOS introduces an uncertainty for even ten-day integration
278 CHAPTER 7. PIONEER ANOMALY

Figure 7.1: Plots of the aP data versus geocentric distance D for P10 (left figure) and
P11 (right figure). The solid diamonds reflect the aP from Nieto and Anderson (2005a),
the solid squares are the calculated points for aPc , and the “X’s” are calculated points
for dates ten days from the date of the aP . (Reprinted with permission of Nova Science
Publishers, Inc. (Hodge 2010).)

times that was unaccounted in the error budget.

The aPc calculation reproduces the subtler effects of the PA noted by
Anderson et al. (2002).

7.2.2 Annual periodicity

Figures 7.2 show the ρ value along the LOS versus D on dates when the
angle Asun (degrees) between the LOS and a line from the Earth to the Sun
was < 60◦ and when Asun > 120◦.
Table 7.2 lists the Asun for each data point. On the dates that Asun <
◦
60 , the aP and aPc were considerably lower. The correlation coefficient
between the aP and aPc without P10 85/138 (Asun ≈ 12◦ ), P11 86/344
(Asun ≈ 16◦ ), and P11 80/66 (Saturn encounter) is 0.97. The low Asun
value combined with long integration time causes larger uncertainty.
To test the effect of the Sun on aPc , the calculation was repeated with
the Sun excluded (aPsun ). Figure 7.3 shows the aPc values versus D for the
spacecraft from Fig. 7.1 and aPsun . The effect of the Sun is to cause the
annual variation of the aPc . Therefore, the cause of the PA is also the cause
of the annual periodicity.
7.2. RESULTS 279

Figure 7.2: Plots of the ρ versus geocentric distance D along the LOS. Data is for P10
on 84/338 (left figure) aP = 8.43 × 10−8 cm s−2 and for P10 on 85/138 (right figure)
aP = 7.67 × 10−8 cm s−2 . The Asun ≈ 175◦ on P10 84/338 and Asun ≈ 16◦ on P10
85/138. (Reprinted with permission of Nova Science Publishers, Inc. (Hodge 2010).)

7.2.3 Difference of ap between the spacecraft

The P10 data included one of nine dates (≈ 0.11) with Asun < 60◦ and five
of nine dates (≈ 0.56) with Asun > 120◦ . The P11 data included three of
ten dates (≈ 0.30) with Asun < 60◦ and four of ten dates (≈ 0.40) with
Asun > 120◦ . Figure 7.3 shows the trend of aPsun versus D between P10 and
P11 data points. At D > 10 AU, the aPsun appears to be a linear function
of D. At D < 10 AU, the Sun’s influence is to lower aP11 more than aP10 .
The SPM also suggests the mass of the planets and the mass of the
galaxy has an influence on the ρ field. Figure 7.4 plots the aPc for the
spacecraft, the aPc excluding the outer planets (aPplanets ), and the aPc ex-
cluding the galaxy mass (aPgal ) versus D.
Because the outer planets are opposite the Sun for P10, the effect of the
planets on aPc of P10 is less than P11. However, as D of P11 increases, the
aPplanets −→ aPc .
From the galaxy scale perspective, the spacecraft in the solar system
appears as near the large mass of the Sun and inner planets. The effect
of the galaxy mass appears to decrease the aPc nearly uniformly for P11.
The outer P10 data points show a trend to increasing relative effect of the
galaxy mass. The orbit of P10 is closer to the Sun-Sgr.A* axis than P11
and the D of P10 is greater than the D of P11. However, this effect is
within the uncertainty level.
The difference in aP10 and aP11 noted byAnderson et al. (2002) results
primarily from the effect of the Sun. A secondary effect is the effect caused
280 CHAPTER 7. PIONEER ANOMALY

Figure 7.3: Plots of the aPc data versus geocentric distance D for P10 (solid diamonds)
and P11 (solid triangles). The stars plot the data points for aPc with the Sun excluded
(aPsun ).(Reprinted with permission of Nova Science Publishers, Inc. (Hodge 2010).)

Figure 7.4: Plots the aPc versus geocentric distance D for P10 (solid diamonds) and for
P11 (solid triangles). The data points of aPc excluding the outer planets aPplanets (left),
and the aPc excluding the galaxy mass aPgal (right) are shown as stars. (Reprinted with
permission of Nova Science Publishers, Inc. (Hodge 2010).)
7.2. RESULTS 281

by increasing D and a small effect of the planets on P11 which declines as

D increases. The SPM expects the galaxy mass to have a small difference
between aP10 and aP11 caused by their different travel directions. The aP
is not constant as the CHASMP software assumed (Anderson et al. 2002).
Therefore, the varying aP may explain the difference between the Sigma
and CHASMP program methods for P10 (I) and their closer agreement at
P10 (III) (Anderson et al. 2002, Table I).

7.2.4 Slow decline in aP

The plot in Fig. 7.3 suggests daPsun /dD at D < 10 AU is nearly zero,
followed by a decline and then a flattening.
The radio signal measurements are from and to Earth. At small D,
the relative effect of the Sun-Earth distance is larger than at farther D.
As D increases the Solar System effect appears to approach a single mass
located at the barycenter of the Solar System. Therefore, aP declines and
approaches a constant value dictated by ρ ∝ −R−1 . However, the SPM
expects that at much greater D, the effect of the galaxy mass will increase
to cause a difference in the aP values between the spacecraft.

7.2.5 Saturn encounter

Figure 7.5 shows a plot of aPc versus the hours from the closest approach
of P11 to Saturn on P11 79/244 (Asun ≈ 8◦ ). The plot shows the aPc varies
widely over a period of hours. The negative aPc is a redshift. As seen in
Fig. 7.1, the SPM is consistent with the P11 77//270 (Asun ≈ 43◦ ) data
point at the beginning of the Saturn encounter of a near zero blueshift.

7.2.6 Large uncertainty of P11 80/66

Because the P11 80/66 (Asun ≈ 166◦ ) data point extends over a relatively
long time, the rapidly varying aPc seen in Fig. 7.5 is consistent with the
uncertainty in the P11 80/66 data point.
The aPsun data points for P11 77/270 and P11 80/66 in Fig. 7.3 have only
a slightly lower slope than the later data points. The planets gravity well is
in a larger gravity well of the Sun, which is in an even larger galaxy gravity
well. The change from the Sun ρ versus D curve to a planet gravity well
causes a smaller Kf F term relative to Kp P . Table 7.2 lists |Kf F | < |Kp P |
for the P11 77/270, where “| |” means “absolute value”, and |Kf F | > |Kp P |
for other data points. Without the Sun gravity well in the calculations,
282 CHAPTER 7. PIONEER ANOMALY

Figure 7.5: Plot of aPc versus the hours from the closest approach of P11 to Saturn.
(Reprinted with permission of Nova Science Publishers, Inc. (Hodge 2010).)

|Kf F | > |Kp P | for all data points. Therefore, the aPsun for the P11 77/270
data point is consistent with the other data points.

7.2.7 Cosmological connection

The SPM obtains the Ho value by z −→ exp(−X) − 1 ≈ −X, where

X < 0 in Hodge (2006a) and X > 0 in this chapter. Figure 7.6 is a plot of
Dl with the units changed to Mpc versus X. The straight line is a plot of
the least-squares fit of the data. The line is

Dl = (2800 ± 200Mpc)X + (5 ± 2) × 10−11 Mpc

c
≈ − z (7.5)
Ho

at 1σ and with a correlation coefficient of 0.95, where Ho = 106 ± 8 km s−1

Mpc−1 .
The PA and the z of cosmology are the result of the same ρ effect
on light. In the cosmological z calculation, the z follows the Hubble law if
ρ ∝ R−1 . In the gravity well, z follows the negative Hubble law if ρ ∝ −R−1 .
The presence of other galaxies near the path of the light causes P and F
variation of z. This is also the effect of matter close to the LOS in the
PA. In the SPM, the Hubble law and aP ≈ cHo are manifestations of the
Newtonian spherical property.
7.3. DISCUSSION 283

Figure 7.6: Plot of the distance Dl (×10−11 Mpc) versus X(×10−13 ) for both spacecraft.
The line is a plot of Dl = 2800X + 5 × 10−11 Mpc. (Reprinted with permission of Nova
Science Publishers, Inc. (Hodge 2010).)

7.3 Discussion

The variation of ap through the sidereal day remains to be investigated.

The specific location on Earth relative to the Earth’s center and the timing
of the transmitting and receiving signals are required. The observation that
the period is a sidereal day rather than a solar day suggests the SPM will
be consistent with this observation, also.
The K values were calculated using data obtained in “interesting” envi-
ronments. This means the ρ field was changing rapidly and long integration
times were used. The K values could be calculated more accurately with
longer integration time and in environments with little change in the ρ field.
That is, the K values could be calculated more accurately in “uninterset-
ing” environments when the Sun and planets are farther from the LOS or
by using shorter integration times.
The D at which the aPgal becomes noticeable is curiously close to the
orbit of Pluto.
Near planetary bodies the deep gravitational potential well causes a net
frequency change of such a low value as to be undetectable. Because the
mass of the spacecraft is much smaller then planetary bodies, the very small
potential well of the spacecraft allows an observable frequency shift.
This SPM of the PA is that the frequency shift is always present and was
present at less then 10 AU. However, as noted in the P11 77/270 data point
and in the Saturn encounter calculation (Fig. 7.5), the value of ap changes
284 CHAPTER 7. PIONEER ANOMALY

and may be a redshift. Therefore, further analysis of the spacecraft data

can be a test of this model with additional caveats that a shorter integration
period be used, that Asun ≈ 180◦ ± 30◦ , and that the ap be considered a
variable (the Sigma software). The Jupiter to Saturn travel period with a
minimal radial movement would reduce the Doppler effect. Because this
model is a non-Doppler frequency shift model, the verification of this effect
has significant cosmological implications.
The SPM suggests gravity is a manifestation of a curved ρ field. Sources,
Sinks, and matter produce the curvature. In GR, matter curves Space
and curved Space4 constrains the dynamics of matter. In the SPM, the
ρ field acts like the Space of GR and space is a neutral backdrop (flat)
in which distance is calculated using timing events such as using Cepheid
stars. Therefore, the proposition that matter warps the ρ field is reasonable.
Space in GR and the ρ field in the SPM is curved, ubiquitous, and corporeal.
Therefore, the objection to Newtonian mechanics of “action at a distance”
is removed. Calling the stuff of the ρ field “Space” as GR does is tempting
but confusing when dealing with the Euclidean, neutral backdrop type of
space.
Hodge (2006a) suggests the flow of the ρ field from Sources to Sinks
causes the cell structure of galaxy clusters. An analogy is fluid flow from
Sources to Sinks causes a Rankine oval. The B band luminosity L of a
galaxies indicated the effect of a Source or Sink on the intergalactic red-
shift. In the redshift calculation, the use of L may also be the net effect of
the Sources and Sinks and of the matter around galaxies. A problem with
this interpretation is that at the outer part of the galaxy, the gravitational
mass of the galaxy is still larger than the ρ field effect as evidenced by the
net attraction of hydrogen. Also, L was found to be proportional to spiral
galaxy rotation curve parameters (Hodge 2006c) and to galaxy central pa-
rameters (Hodge 2006d) that do not include the total mass of the galaxy.
The paradox between the two uses of L may be resolved if the effect of
galaxy matter on intergalactic scales is zero. In fluid flow, an object placed
in an otherwise unconstrained flow produces local turbulence downstream.
However, eventually the flow of the fluid appears as if the object was ab-
sent. This is consistent with the presence of high metallicity matter in the
intergalactic medium (e.g. Aracil et al. 2006). Therefore, the proposition
that matter is neither a Source nor a Sink is consistent with the cluster and
~ = 0 and there is no
galaxy observations. Further, if the ρ field is flat, ∇ρ
4 The uppercase “S” on Space indicates the view of GR and the ρ field of the SPM. A lower case “s”
indicates the neutral backdrop, Euclidean space.
7.3. DISCUSSION 285

flow. In such a condition such as between galaxy clusters, the static field of
matter extends throughout the flat field.
For a sample of 19 data points with published Pioneer Anomaly “accel-
eration” values, the SPM was found to be consistent with the observation of
not only the value of the Pioneer Anomaly, but also with the subtler effects
noted in Anderson et al. (2002). The SPM is consistent with the general
value of aP ; with the annual periodicity; with the differing aP between the
spacecraft; with the discrepancy between Sigma and CHASMP programs
at P10 (I) and their closer agreement at P10 (III); with the slowly declining
aP ; with the low value of aP immediately before the P11’s Saturn encounter;
with the high uncertainty in the value of aP obtained during and after the
P11’s Saturn encounter; and with the cosmological connection suggested by
aP ≈ cHo . The SPM has outstanding correlation to observed data when
the long integration time combined with rapidly changing ρ field is insignif-
icant. Because the gradient of the ρ field produces a force on matter, the
effect of the ρ field warp appears as the curvature of space proposed by GR
that causes the gravitational potential of matter.
The STOE passes the prime test for a new model in that it has made a
prediction that later observations confirm. This paper forming this Chapter
was written in 2006. Among the predictions were observations made in 2011:
* The data before the flyby encounters were insufficient to detect the PA
rather than there was no PA before the encounters as suggested by several
other models (Turyshev et al. 1999).
* “The data favor a temporally decaying anomalous acceleration with an
over 10% improvement in the residuals compared to a constant acceleration
model.” (Turyshev et al. (2011)). All other models calculate a constant
acceleration.
* “Although the Earth direction is marginally preferred by the solution
(see Table III), the Sun, the Earth, and the spin axis directions cannot be
distinguished.” (Turyshev et al. (2011)). An Earth directed PA implies a
signal related cause that the STOE calculates rather than acceleration of
the spacecraft that all other models calculate.
286 CHAPTER 7. PIONEER ANOMALY
Chapter 8

Relationship Between Rotation

Velocity and a Spiral Galaxy’s
Inner Radius

Discovering relationships between a measurable radius from the center r

(kpc) to a point in the inner region of a target galaxy and a measurable
rotation velocity v (km s−1 ) of a target galaxy is desirable to calculate the
distance from earth to the galaxy D (Mpc) and to expand our knowledge
of the interactions in galaxies. Connections have been shown among a the-
orized supermassive black hole (SBH) at the center of galaxies (Kormendy
& Richstone 1995; Magorrian et al. 1998), inner galaxy parameters, and
outer galaxy parameters (Baes et al. 2003; Ferrarese 2002; Ferrarese & Mer-
ritt 2000; Ferrarese and Merritt 2002; Gebhardt et al. 2000a; Graham et al.
2001, 2002; McLure & Dunlop 2002; Merritt & Ferrarese 2001a,a). The
nature of these connections with a large, attractive mass at large distance
remains obscure. Hodge (2006a) (hereinafter HCa) and Hodge & Castelaz
(2003b) (hereinafter HCb) discussed the relationship among D, luminosity
L, total mass M, and v asymmetry of a spiral galaxy and showed these
parameters partially depend on the potential and luminosity of neighboring
galaxies.
Hydrogen (HI) can indicate the force field strength in a galaxy’s rotation
curve. However, HI may not reflect the motion of denser particles and HI
curves rarely extend into a galaxy’s central regions. Rotation curves in the
disk region show varying patterns that may be dependent on neighboring
galaxies (HCb). Therefore, to minimize neighboring galaxies’ influence on
v, the v measure must be in the outer bulge region. This Chapter discusses
287
288 CHAPTER 8. ROTATION VELOCITY VS INNER RADIUS

a relationship between (1) a galaxy’s radius rǫ (kpc) from a spiral galaxy’s

center to a discontinuity in the slope of the curve of surface brightness I
versus r along the major axis in a galaxy’s bulge and (2) the square of
the rotation velocity at the end of the galaxy’s rapidly rising HI rotation
2
curve region vrmax (km2 s−2 ) in the bulge. This result is another in a se-
ries of relationships discovered between inner galaxy parameters and bulge
characteristics.
The approach is to (1) choose galaxies with published distances calcu-
lated using Cepheid variables Dc (kpc), with published rotation curves, and
with a wide range of characteristics, (2) measure inner dimensions by mea-
suring rǫ , (3) measure parameters of HI rotation velocity in the outer bulge
region of galaxies, (4) compare rǫ with the HI rotation velocity curve pa-
rameters among galaxies to find a correlation, and (5) compare the results
to current theories.

8.1 Sample
The distance to galaxies is a critical parameter in the equations herein
since r is in kpc. Distances calculated using Cepheid variables Dc were cho-
sen because the powerful combination of properties (Binney and Merrifield
1998)(page 415) indicates such distances can be used as secure, standard
distances. The r values are then calculated from angular data,

r = Dc tan(Ar ), (8.1)

where Ar is the angle observed from the center of the galaxy to the point
at r.
The criteria for choosing galaxies for the analysis are (1) the galaxy has a
published Cepheid distance, (2) the galaxy has an unambiguous, published,
HI rotation curve, (3) the galaxy has a rotation curve with at least 2 data
points in the outer bulge region, and (4) the galaxy has a sufficiently wide
central luminous region on the Digital Sky Survey (DSS)1 image such that
an error of one pixel (1.7˝ of arc) will be within tolerable r limits. The
DSS data was chosen rather than Hubble Space Telescope (HST) images
because DSS data was available for all the sample galaxies and each image
included both sides of the center.
1 Based on photographic data of the National Geographic Society - Palomar Observatiory Sky Survey

(NGS-POSS) obtained using the Oschin Telescope on Palomar Mountain. The DSS data was obtained
from the SkyView database available at: http://skyview.gsfc.nasa.gov.
8.1. SAMPLE 289

Table 8.1: Data for the chosen galaxies.

Galaxy NED typea lcb RCc ∆vd 2rǫd e Krs f Kri g refh
NGC 0224 SA(s)b 2 F 21 4.73±0.16 5400± 200 -5900±11000 1
NGC 0300 SA(s)d 6 R ND 1.01±0.04 1800± 200 -400± 400 2
NGC 0598 SA(s)cd 4 R 1 0.42±0.04 2900± 400 -100± 600 3
NGC 0925 SAB(s)d;HII 4 D 59 1.29±0.06 700i 11000i 4
NGC 1365 SBb(s)b Sy1.8 1.4 D ND 7.81±0.39 5000±1000 60000±40000 5
NGC 2403 SAB(s)cd 5 F 8 1.34±0.14 2900± 80 2000± 1000 6
NGC 2841 SA( r)b;LINER Sy 1 F 17 10.13±0.50 26400± 700 -8000± 4000 6,7
NGC 3031 SA(s)ab;LINER Sy1.8 2 D 50 4.55±0.23 4200± 200 30000± 5000 8
NGC 3109 SB(s)m 7.9 R 1 0.49±0.07 1230± 30 -750± 50 9
NGC 3198 SB(rs)c 3 F 6 1.90±0.03 3200± 300 2000± 3000 10
NGC 3319 SB(rs)cd;HII 3.3 R 3 1.89±0.16 1300± 100 -1000± 4000 11
NGC 4321 SAB(s)bc;LINER HII 1 D 117 5.03±0.13 8700± 700 11000±11000 13
NGC 4535 SAB(s)c 1.9 D 30 1.55±0.10 7000±5000 -7000±13000 14
NGC 7331 SA(s)b;LINER 2 F ND 6.40±0.32 10000±2000 23000±14000 15
a Galaxy morphological type from the NED database.
b Galaxy luminosity class code from the LEDA database.
c Galaxy’s HI rotation curve type according to slope in the outer SR region. R is rising, F is flat, and D is declining.
d The maximum difference in rotation velocity in the SR from one side of the galaxy to the other (km /s). “ND” means no
data.
e Diameter (kpc) to the first discontinuity in DSS images. The distance to the galaxies is listed in Table 8.2 under D .
c
f Slope of v2 - r for each galaxy in the RR of HI rotation curve (km2 s−2 kpc−1 ).
r r
g Intercept of v2 - r for each galaxy in the RR of HI rotation curve (km2 s−2 ).
r r
h References are for the rotation curve data for each galaxy.
References (1) Gottesman et al. (1966); (2) Carignan & Freeman (1985); (3) Corbelli & Salucci (2000); (4) Krumm and
Salpeter (1979); (5) Jörsäter & van Moorsel (1995)(6) Begeman et al. (1991); (7) Fillmore et al. (1986); (8) Rots (1975); (9)
Jobin & Carignan (1990); (10) van Albada et al. (1985)(11) Moore and Gottesman (1998); (12) Reuter et al. (1996); (13)
Sempere et al. (1995); (14) Chincarini & de Souza (1985); (15) Mannheim and Kmetko (1996)
j NGC 0925 had only 2 data points reported in the RR.

The data and references for the 14 chosen galaxies are presented in
Tables 8.1 and 8.2. The morphology type data was obtained from the
NED database2 . The morphology code, inclination, luminosity code, and
21-cm line width at 20% of the peak value W20 (km / s) data was taken
from the LEDA database3 . The rotation curve data is from HCb.
As seen in Tables 8.1 and 8.2, this sample has low surface brightness
(LSB), medium surface brightness MSB, and high surface brightness HSB
galaxies, galaxies with a range of maximum W20 values of from 120 kms−1
to 607 kms−1 , includes LINER, Sy, HII and less active galaxies, galaxies
which have excellent and poor agreement between distances calculated using
the Tully-Fisher (TF) relation Dtf and Dc , a Dc range of from 750 kpc to
18,980 kpc, field and cluster galaxies, and galaxies with rising, flat, and
declining rotation curves.
NGC 1365 has the most rapidly declining rotation curve in the sample
with a decline of at least 63% of the peak value(Jörsäter & van Moorsel
1995). NGC 2841 is a candidate to falsify the modified Newtonian dynamics
(MOND) (Bottema et al. 2002). Either a minimum distance of 19 Mpc
compared to Dc = 14.1 Mpc or a high mass/luminosity ratio is needed for
MOND. A sizeable range of TF values is given in the literature. NGC
3031 has significant non-circular motion in its HI gas (Rots & Shane 1975).
2 The NED database is available at: http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu.
3 The LEDA database is available at: http://leda.univ-lyon1.fr.
290 CHAPTER 8. ROTATION VELOCITY VS INNER RADIUS

Table 8.2: Distance calculation comparison.

Galaxy vrmax a W20 /2b Dtf c Dc d

NGC 0224 217±12 268 0.79±0.11 0.75±0.02
NGC 0300 72±9 75 3.44±0.50 2.02±0.07
NGC 0598 79±6 100 0.90±0.09 0.82±0.04
NGC 0925 125±3 109 9.41±1.39 9.13±0.17
NGC 1365 296±4 187 16.51±7.55 17.23±0.40
NGC 2403 124±3 121 4.84±0.71 3.14±0.14
NGC 2841 315±30 304 25.51±3.78 14.07±1.57e
NGC 3031 243±4 222 5.48±0.78 3.55±0.13
NGC 3109 41±5 60 1.36±0.20 1.13±0.12f
NGC 3198 134±8 161 16.19±2.40 13.69±0.51
NGC 3319 101±9 113 18.05±2.78 13.44±0.57
NGC 4321 222±3 135 23.23±3.44 14.33±0.47
NGC 4535 137±13 147 19.64±2.91 14.80±0.35
NGC 7331 250±3 260 16.82±2.49 14.53±0.62
a
Error estimated is the difference to the next measured v data point (kms−1 ).
b
The W20 /2 value from the LEDA database (kms−1 ).
c
The Tully-Fisher calculated distance (M pc) using the absolute I-magnitude MIb,k,i
from Tully et al. (1998).
d
The calculated distance (M pc) from Freedman et al. (2001) unless otherwise noted.
e
The distance from Macri et al. (2001).
f
The distance from Ferrarese et al. (2000).
8.2. ANALYSIS 291

NGC 3198 is well suited for testing theories since the data for it has the
largest radius and number of surface brightness scale lengths. The rotation
curve of NGC 4321 at 4 arcmin implies it has a declining shape. NGC
4321 has a large asymmetry in the south west lobe of 209 km s−1 which
cannot be interpreted as disk rotation (Knapen et al. 1993). The receding
side of the HI rotation curve of NGC 4321 is declining and appears more
normal. The approaching side of the HI rotation curve of NGC 4321 is
“lopsided” (Knapen et al. 1993) and is sharply rising after a slight decline.
Guhathakurta et al. (1988) suggested the HI rotation curve is declining.
NGC 4321 is very asymmetric in HI. It also has the closest neighbor of
the sample. The NGC 4321 rotation curve has the largest number of data
points in the bulge region in the sample.

8.2 Analysis
A general observation of galaxies appears to show at least five regions as
r increases, a void region (VR), a Keplerian region (KR), a Rising region
(RR), a Saturation region (SR), and a free region (FR) [for example, see
the figures in Takamiya and Sofue (2000)]. Each region appears to have
a characteristic slope of the v 2 − r curve that differs from other regions.
Since the CO, Hα, and NII gas rotation curves of the inner 100 pc region
show near zero rotation velocities (Takamiya and Sofue 2000) and since the
luminous star (S2) orbits closest to the center of the Milky Way is within
60 AU (Ghez et al. 2000; Schödel 2002; Ghez et al. 1998) of the center, this
region is classified as a void. Although there may be a SBH at the center
of galaxies, the Schwarzchild radius is only about 0.1% of the S2’s closest
approach. The VR and KR are separated by a transition region Tv−k in
which the rotation curve shows a steep nuclear rise. The KR v 2 − r curve is
characterized by the Keplerian slope. The KR and RR are often separated,
when the data exists, by a transition region Tk−r which has a slight decline
in v 2 followed by a rapid rise. A similar transition region Tr−s appears
between the RR and SR. The FR is the region in which the particles are
no longer orbiting the galaxy. The existence of separate regions implies a
change in physics has occurred from one region to another. Figure 8.1 is
a schematic showing the general shape of the rotation curve through the
regions.
The notation convention used herein is as follows. The normal size letter
will denote the parameter, as usual. The sub letters denote the radius
range by region identification. The use of “min” or “max” in the sub
292 CHAPTER 8. ROTATION VELOCITY VS INNER RADIUS

Figure 8.1: Diagram depicting the regions of a galaxy in relation to a hypothetical

rotation curve. The lines in the SR depict the different shapes possible.
8.2. ANALYSIS 293

letters will denote the minimum or maximum value of the parameter in

the region, respectively. For example, rk means the r value in the range
from rtvkmax < rk ≤ rkmax . The notation Mkmax means the total mass
inside the sphere with radius rkmax . This is the total mass of the VR, KR
and Tv−k regions.
Sharp steps in the luminosity profile of early type galaxies have been
observed (Binney and Merrifield 1998) ( page 202). These steps may be an
indication of the change in physics from one region to another. Therefore,
the mass to luminosity ratio must change and the I − r curve must have a
discontinuous slope change with a change of physics.
McLure & Dunlop (2002) found that the mass in the central region is
0.0012 the mass of the bulge. Ferrarese and Merritt (2002) reported that
about 0.1% of a galaxy’s luminous mass is at the center of galaxies and
that the density of SMB’s in the universe agrees with the density inferred
from observation of quasars. Merritt & Ferrarese (2001a) found similar
results in their study of the M• − σ relation. Ferrarese (2002) found a tight
relation between rotation velocity and bulge velocity dispersion (vc − σc )
which is strongly supporting a relationship of the center force with total
gravitational mass of a galaxy. Either the dynamics of many galaxies are
producing the same increase of mass in the center at the same rate or a
mechanism exists to evaporate the mass increase that changes as the rate
of inflow changes. The rotation curves imply the dynamics of galaxies
differ such that the former is unlikely. Therefore, the rotation velocity in
the bulge is a feedback controlled relationship (Merritt & Ferrarese 2001b).
This relationship is necessary to form the linear relationships herein.

8.2.1 Using DSS Data

Figures 8.2 and 8.3 show examples on the I - r curves along the major axis
of DSS FIT images. Examination of I − r curves show a small central area
followed by linearly declining I until a change of slope occurs on each side of
the center at about the same I. The distance between these I points using
DSS data is 2rǫd . Since the I − r curves are asymmetric, the side-to-side
measurement is taken.
The rǫd in Table 8.1 was measured from DSS images. The luminosity
of the 1.7˝ x 1.7˝ pixels in the DDS image is in units of “scaled density”
which is how DSS reports. From the image of the galaxy, the I readings
were taken at intervals along the major axis. The Dc as listed in Table 8.2
was used to convert the angular position of each pixel to r in kpc from the
294 CHAPTER 8. ROTATION VELOCITY VS INNER RADIUS

Figure 8.2: Plot of surface brightness I (scaled distance of Digital Sky Survey) versus
the distance along the major axis from the center of the galaxy r (kpc) for NGC 0925
using Dc to calculate r. The center region shows the “peak” characteristic.
8.2. ANALYSIS 295

Figure 8.3: Plot of surface brightness I ( scaled distance of Digital Sky Survey) versus
the distance along the major axis from the center of the galaxy r (kpc) for NGC 4321
using Dc to calculate r. The difference from peak I to I at rǫd is average compared to
other galaxies. The center region shows the “flat” characteristic.
296 CHAPTER 8. ROTATION VELOCITY VS INNER RADIUS

center according to Equation (8.1). The data was plotted for each target
galaxy. Examples are shown in Figure 8.2 for NGC 0925 and in Figure 8.3
for NGC 4321. A straight line was fitted by eye to the declining curve
outside the center region for each galaxy. When the curve showed a change
in slope, another straight line was drawn to reflect the new pattern.
The criteria for finding the straight line are: (1) The inner portion of this
curve may be rounded or flat. The region to measure is when a declining,
straight line may be fitted. (2) The straight line is drawn on the trend
(at least three pixels) of the lowest luminosity for each angle. At a given
angle, a pixel may have a higher brightness than the line drawn. (3) The
straight line must have a downward slope from the center. (4) The straight
lines from each side of the galaxy must be approximately symmetrical and
have symmetrical slope. (5) The straight line must yield a rǫd of between
0.2 kpc and 7.0 kpc. (6) Bright object profiles must be ignored. Bright
object profiles are several pixels wide and show an increase than decrease
in brightness. (7) Low brightness, isolated pixels must be ignored.
The galaxies with a rising rotation curve in the disk have very diffuse
I profiles. NGC 0224 and NCG 2841 are examples of a false straight line
on one side not symmetrical with the other side. The luminosity profile
of NGC 2841 is nearly flat in the center and has the lowest slope in the
KR in the sample as noted by Bottema et al. (2002). NGC 2841 and NGC
7331 are examples where a candidate line extends beyond 8.0 kpc and is
not symmetrical. The inner lines are diffuse and only slightly declining but
do satisfy the criteria. NGC 3198, NGC 4536 and NGC 3351 are examples
with a false straight line on one side that is not symmetrical and, hence,
the smaller value is discounted.
The luminosity profiles of the sample galaxies have two general shapes
in the center. The declining slope of the luminosity profile of NGC 0925
in Figure 8.2 is the steepest and declines farther than other galaxies in the
sample. This shape is peaked in the center that starts declining immediately
from the center. The luminosity profile of NGC 4321 as seen in Figure 8.3
is flat in the center. The decline starts a distance from the center. Also
note the profile for NGC 4321 has an asymmetric characteristic on the right
side of the curve that is interpreted as an effect of a close neighbor. NGC
4321 also has the largest asymmetry in the sample. The sample had eight
galaxies with “peak” I − r shapes and six galaxies with “flat” I − r shapes.
To determine the points on the rotation curve in the RR, a characteristic
of the RR must be identified. As an example, a plot of v 2 vs r for NGC 4321
is presented in Figure 8.4. The RR is identified as the range of r before
8.2. ANALYSIS 297

the knee of the disk SR region and extends inward until another knee is
encountered. A characteristic of this region is the straight line of the v 2 vs
r curve,
vr2 = Krs rr + Kri , (8.2)
where Krs and Kri are the slope and intercept of the linear relationship,
respectively.
The number of data points in RR and, hence, the first and last data
points were chosen such that the correlation coefficient of the chosen points
was greater than 0.99. The slope was determined to yield the maximum F
test value and the intercept was determined to yield the minimum deviation
between the line and chosen data points. Therefore, the remarkable fact is
the number of points on the line. The straight line in Figure 8.4 is the fit
obtained for nine data point of NGC 4321. Since rrmax is in the RR region
not in Tr−s , vrmax can be found in rising, flat and falling rotation curves by
fitting a high correlation, straight line to a few points of a vr2 vs rr plot. The
vrmax value is the value of the last data point on the line. The last point
on the line was chosen because the next 2 data points significantly lowered
the correlation coefficient if they were included. The Krs and Kri data for
the chosen galaxies are listed in Figure 8.2.
A model of this characteristic may be as follows. Flattened and circular
orbits in the RR (Binney and Merrifield 1998) (page 723-4), vr2 = GMr /rr ,
and Equation (8.2) implies Mr is a linear function of rr . If dark matter
causes this, then the distribution of dark matter must be mysteriously con-
strained. Alternatively, changes in the type and density of matter in the
RR may cause the required Mr distribution. In the RR, the relative abun-
dance of oxygen to hydrogen [O/H] and of nitrogen to hydrogen [N/H] of
the interstellar matter (ISM) in spiral galaxies has been shown to be a lin-
ear function of r (Binney and Merrifield 1998) (pages 516-520). A similar
condition may exist for more massive particles. If the RR is modeled as a
cylinder of thickness Tr (Binney and Merrifield 1998) (page 724), the mass
in an elemental volume Dr Tr 2πrr drr with density Dr is a linear function of
rr . Thus, Dr Tr is a constant. Thus,

Mr = (Dr Tr 2π) rr2 + M∆r , (8.3)

where the M∆r term is a constant in the RR,

2
M∆r = Mtkrmax − (Dr T 2π) rtkrmax . (8.4)

Equation (8.2) follows.

298 CHAPTER 8. ROTATION VELOCITY VS INNER RADIUS

Figure 8.4: Plot of HI (diamonds) and Hα (squares) (Sempere et al. 1995) rotation
velocity v 2 (×103 (km2 s−2 ) versus the distance from the center of the galaxy r (kpc)
for NGC 4321 using Dc to calculate r. A linear curve has been fitted to the RR. The
highest value of v 2 on the straight line is the value of vrmax
2
. The vertical lines mark
the position of discontinuities as noted in the text. NGC 4321 is the only galaxy in the
sample with the HI rotation curve extended inward to rǫd .
8.2. ANALYSIS 299

2
Figure 8.5: Plot of the maximum rotation velocity in the RR vrmax (km2 s−2 ) versus the
discontinuity radius rǫd (kpc) for the chosen galaxies. The line is a plot of the equation
2
vrmax = 21000rǫd − 1000.

Several parameters of the line were examined for a linear correlation

with the rǫd. The correlation between rǫd and Krs , Kri , beginning rrmin,
ending rrmax , and beginning rotation velocity vrmin among the galaxies of
the sample are poor. This implies forces unique to each galaxy cause the
systematic scatter in these relations.
2
Figure 8.5 is a plot of vrmax vs rǫd for the 14 chosen galaxies. The line is
2
vrmax = Krǫsloperǫd + Kras , (8.5)
where Krǫslope = 21000 ± 1000 km2 s−2 kpc−1 and Kras = −1000 ± 2000 km2
s−2 at 1 σ with a correlation coefficient of 0.99 and a F test of 0.99.
The analysis presented herein depends on Dc being secure, standard dis-
tances. Freedman et al. (2001) adopted a metallicity PL correction factor of
300 CHAPTER 8. ROTATION VELOCITY VS INNER RADIUS

−0.2 ± 0.2 mag dex−1 . Ferrarese et al. (2000) assumed the PL relation was
independent of metallicity. If Dc used are from the earlier work of Ferrarese
et al. (2000) without NGC 2841 (which used the metallicity correction fac-
tor), Krǫslope = 21000 ± 1000 km2 s−2 kpc−1 and Kras = −2000 ± 3000
km2 s−2 at 1 σ with a correlation coefficient of 0.99 and a F test of 0.99.
Ferrarese et al. (2000) Dc values are higher than Freedman et al. (2001).
Thus, the theory and the result presented herein appear robust relative to
systematic variation of Dc .
Since vr reflects the potential from the central region of a galaxy, the
2
linear vrmax − rǫd relation implies rǫd and Krǫslope are also related to the
potential from the central region.
An examination of Table 8.1 shows a correlation of rǫd and the rotation
curve type. Galaxies with rǫd < 0.5 kpc have rising rotation curves. An-
other possible division is a group of galaxies with rǫd < 1.0 kpc, another
group of galaxies with rǫd > 2.5 kpc, and a gap between the groups. The
galaxies with rǫd < 1.0 kpc have peaked luminosity profiles (Figure 8.2).
The galaxies with rǫd > 2.5 kpc have flat luminosity profiles (Figure 8.3).

8.2.2 Using HST Data

The same method used for DSS data may be applied to HST data. HST
FIT images were obtained from MAST4 . HST optical I − r curves gener-
ally have higher resolution pixels that offer finer detail than DSS images.
Optical HST images of the central few kpc exists for 10 of the 14 sample
galaxies. The HST data for NGC 0224 (U2E2010FT and others) differs
significantly from DSS data. In addition, the inclination appears to differ
from LEDA database data. Therefore, the NGC 0224 HST images are not
used. The HST data for NGC 3621 (U29R1I02T and others) has insufficient
exposure for the purpose herein. That is, the I value of the pixels in the
area of interest is too small to provide rǫ definition. The HST data for the
remaining, useable eight sample galaxies is listed in Table 8.3.
The I data values of the pixels along the major axis of the galaxy in
the HST FIT images are recorded as a function of r. Unlike the DSS
images, the data values of the pixels are recorded as they are in the FIT
file. The r value is calculated from angular data from the FIT image, Dc ,
and Equation (8.1). A graphical example of the I − r curve result for NGC
4321 is shown in Figure 8.6 and Figure 8.7.
Region 1 (R1) is defined by a linear I − r relation from the peak I to
4 Based on photographic data obtained from MAST at http: //archive.stsci.edu/hst/search.php.
8.2. ANALYSIS 301

Table 8.3: Radii rǫ from HST images.

Galaxy Imagea Filter rǫ1 b 5 rǫ2 b rǫ3 b rǫ4 b
NGC 0300 U6713701M F547M 0.0044±0.0004 0.016±0.002 0.068±0.007c 0.39±0.04c
NGC 0598 U2E20507T F555W 0.0031±0.0003 0.0071±0.0007 0.19 ±0.02c 0.22±0.02c
NGC 2403 U6712504R F547M 0.0053±0.0005 0.023±0.002 0.40 ±0.04c 0.76±0.08c
NGC 2841 U65M7005M F555W 0.0009±0.0001c 0.61±0.06c 3.8 ±0.4c 5.8 ±0.6c
NGC 3198 U29R1601T F606W 0.031 ±0.003 0.11±0.01 0.28 ±0.03 1.2 ±0.1
NGC 3319 U34L5501R F555W 0.019 ±0.002 0.046±0.005 0.55 ±0.06 1.0 ±0.1
NGC 4321 U2465107T F555W 0.029 ±0.003 0.18±0.02 1.9 ±0.2c 2.7 ±0.3c
NGC 7331 U41V1801M F450W 0.033 ±0.003 0.24±0.02 2.6 ±0.2c ND
a The file identification of the Hubble Space Telescope image from MAST.
b In kpc.
c Data from one side of the galaxy, only.

Figure 8.6: Plot of surface brightness I (data value of FIT image of HST) versus the
distance along the major axis from the center of the galaxy r (kpc) for NGC 4321 using
Dc to calculate r. This figure shows the rǫ1 and rǫ2 positions. The “A” shows the first
local maximum after rǫ2 which is the first pixel in the third region.
302 CHAPTER 8. ROTATION VELOCITY VS INNER RADIUS

Figure 8.7: Plot of surface brightness I (data value of FIT image of HST) versus the
distance along the major axis from the center of the galaxy r (kpc) for NGC 4321 using
Dc to calculate r. This figure shows the rǫ3 and rǫ4 positions. The curved line is the
plot of I − r−1 line. The straight line is the fourth region line.
8.2. ANALYSIS 303

the first discontinuity. The discontinuity is identified by a change in the

trend (three or more pixels) of the slope of the linear I − r curve. The rǫ1
is the last pixel on the linear I − r line. As shown in Figure 8.6, the linear
I − r relation is found on each side of the peak I value. Therefore, there is
a side one r value rǫ1s1 and a side two r value rǫ1s2 . The symbol rǫ1s is used
herein to denote a r value on either side of the I − r curve. The fourth, sub
character of rǫ symbol denotes the side. The rǫ1 value reported in Table 8.3
is the average of rǫ1s1 and rǫ1s2 .
Region 2 (R2) is defined by a linear I − r relation starting after the rǫ1
on a side to the second discontinuity. The discontinuity is identified by a
change in the trend (three or more pixels) of the slope of the linear I − r
curve. The rǫ2s is the last pixel on the linear I − r line in R2. There is a
side one r value rǫ2s1 and a side two r value rǫ2s1 . The rǫ2 value reported
in Table 8.3 is the average of rǫ2s1 and rǫ2s2 . Often there are pixels that
are between R1 and R2 and are not on either line. These pixels are in
the transition region T12 between R1 and R2. The extent of T12 is small
compared to R2. In Figure 8.6, the extent of T12 is three pixels on the right
side and one pixel on the left side of the figure. Also, the first pixel on the
line of R2 on one or both sides may have an I data value greater than rǫ1s
for the respective side.
As r > rǫ2s increases, the I increases to a local maximum. The “A” in
Figure 8.6 denotes this pixel. This is the first pixel on the line in region 3
(R3). The region between rǫ2s and the first local maximum is the R2 to R3
transition region T23 .
The R3 is characterized by several local maximums with intervening
local minimums. The trend line in R3 is drawn along the local minimums
and satisfies the equation I = K1 +K2 r n where K1 , K2 , and n are constants.
The discontinuity marking the end of R3 is when a local minimum deviates
from the I − r n line. The R3 lines for all the sample galaxies had n ≈ −1.
Therefore, n = −1 was used and the R3 lines were redrawn.
Region 4 (R4) is characterized by a linear I − r relationship. The line is
found by drawing the line along the local minimums that deviate from the
I − r −1 curve of R3 as shown in Figure 8.7. Since there is distance between
the local minimums, the rǫ3s values were determined by the intersection of
the R3 and R4 lines. The rǫ3 value listed in Table 8.3 is the average of rǫ3s1
and rǫ3s2 for NGC 3319 and NGC 3198. The other sample galaxies had only
one side and, therefore, rǫ3 is the rǫ3s for that single side.
As was done in R2, rǫ4s is the last pixel on the I −r straight line. The rǫ4
value listed in Table 8.3 is the average of rǫ4s2 and rǫ4s2 for NGC 3319 and
304 CHAPTER 8. ROTATION VELOCITY VS INNER RADIUS

2
Figure 8.8: Plot of the maximum rotation velocity in the RR vrmax (km2 s−2 ) versus the
discontinuity radius rǫ (kpc) for the chosen galaxies with HST images. The diamonds
are rǫ4 , the squares are rǫ3 , and the triangles are rǫ2 . The lines are plots of the equations
in Table 8.4.

NGC 3198. The NGC 7331 image lacked an rǫ4s value. The other sample
galaxies had only one side and, therefore, rǫ4 is the rǫ4s for that single side.
The values of rǫ from HST data on each side of the center were asym-
metric for all galaxies in the sample. Therefore, a measurement error is
introduced in those images that had only one side with a value.
Figure 8.8 shows a plot of vrmax versus rǫ values from HST data for R2,
R3, and R4. The equations for the lines in Figure 8.8 are listed in Table 8.4.
Because of the poor correlation coefficient for R1, the vrmax versus rǫ1 plot
was omitted from Figure 8.8.. The equations for the lines are best fit with
an F test = 0.99. The error for the Ks and Ks values is 1σ.
8.3. DISCUSSION 305

2
Table 8.4: Data of the equations vrmax = Ks rǫ + Ks curves.

rǫ a Corr. b
Ks c Ks d

rǫd 0.99 21000± 1000 -1000±2000

rǫ1 0.09 ND ND
rǫ2 0.96 170000±20000 7000±5000
rǫ3 0.99 24000± 1000 3000±2000
rǫ4 0.99 17900± 900 -2000±2000
a
The identification of the discontinuity radius.
b
The correlation coefficient.
c 2
The best fit slope of the vrmax − rǫ (km2 s−2 kpc−1 ) lines.
d
The best fit intercept of the vrmax − rǫ (km2 s−2 ) lines.
2

8.3 Discussion
2
The data required for a vrmax - rǫ distance calculation are relative to the
target galaxy. That is, the data are independent of extinction and similar
biases. Also, the parameters required are measured by analyzing trends
and finding the point where the trend changes. This makes the parame-
2
ters relatively robust. Unfortunately, vrmax is difficult to determine and is
generally unavailable for galaxies with Dc values.
The vr2 relations are with galaxy parameters rr and rǫ . Hence, the slopes
of the vr2 - rr curves for a galaxy are galaxy related not instrument related.
The causes of the curious correlations between the rǫd and the I − r
shape in the central region and between rǫd and the rotation curve type
are unknown. The gap between the rǫd populations may be the result of a
small sample size.
Ferrarese (2002) discovered a linear relationship between circular veloc-
ity vc beyond R25 and bulge velocity dispersion σc (see her Figure 1). NGC
0598 was a clear outlier. Galaxies with σc less than 70 km s−1 (vc less than
150 km s−1 ) also deviate from the linear relation. Also, galaxies with signif-
icant non-circular motion in the HI gas such as NGC 3031 were omitted in
Ferrarese (2002). The vc for NGC 0598 used in Ferrarese (2002) was 135 km
s−1 which is the highest data point of a rising rotation curve in Corbelli &
Salucci (2000). Most of the curves Ferrarese (2002) used were flat. There-
fore, vc ≈ vrmax . If the vc = vrmax = 79 km s−1 is used by Ferrarese (2002)
for NGC 0598, NGC 0598 will fit on her plotted line. Thus, the range of
vc − σc relation extends to 27 km s−1 < σc < 350 km s−1 . The M• − σc
306 CHAPTER 8. ROTATION VELOCITY VS INNER RADIUS

relation need not “tilt upward” to comply with the M• −MDM relation. Ap-
parently, vc = vrmax may improve the correlation of these relationships. The
tightness of the vc − σc and, perhaps, a vrmax − σc relation suggests a tight
correlation between M• and total mass of the galaxy. If Mrmax = Mbulge ,
then M• ∝ Mbulge (Ferrarese 2002; McLure & Dunlop 2002; Merritt &
Ferrarese 2001b) and Equation (8.5) imply the M• − σc relation. Then the
extended relationship Ferrarese (2002) noted to elliptical galaxies implies
the relationships herein may be extended to elliptical galaxies.
The TF relationship is an empirically determined formula. Freeman’s
Law states HSB galaxies have a central surface brightness at a roughly con-
stant “Freeman” value. If rǫd may be roughly correlated with an isophotal
2
level, rǫd is proportional to the exponential scale length and rǫd proportional
to the total luminosity. Hence, total luminosity would then be proportional
to v 4 as TF requires. However, the I level at rǫd for NGC 2841 and NGC
4321 (both HSB galaxies) are 12993 DSS scaled density units and 10129
DSS scaled density units, respectively. Therefore, rǫd is not correlated with
an isophotal level.
Further, the central surface brightness of low surface brightness (LSB)
and of moderate surface brightness (MSB) galaxies deviate from the Free-
man value. Also, non-luminous dark matter that is thought to dominate the
LSB galaxies and, therefore, should add to mass. Therefore, if the “Free-
man argument” above is valid, distances to LSB galaxies should deviate
from Dtf . However, Dtf has correlated with Dc for galaxies such as NGC
2403 (MSB) and NGC 0300 (LSB). On the other hand, Dtf for NGC 0925
(MSB) and for NGC 3031 (HSB) differs significantly from Dc . HCa sug-
gests the difference between Dtf and Dc is caused by neighboring galaxies.
Therefore, the above argument using Freeman’s Law is invalid.
The vrmax is close to the maximum rotation velocity for galaxies with
flat and declining rotation curves. The W20 in TF may approximate vrmax
for galaxies with flat and declining rotation curves. However, for galaxies
with rising rotation curves, the W20 - vrmax relationship is more complex.
Therefore, the relationship herein is not a restatement of the TF relation.
2
However, the TF relation as modified by HCa and the vrmax − rǫd relation
could both be used to calculate distance correlated with Dc and, therefore,
are related.
It is worth considering whether the relations discovered herein are ex-
pected from other theories.
The linear potential model (LPM) explored by Mannheim and Kmetko
(1996) proposes the potential acting on particles is of the form V (r) =
8.3. DISCUSSION 307

−β/r + γr/2 where β and γ are constants. The LPM and HCb suggests the
intrinsic rotation curve in the RR and SR without the influence of other
galaxies is rising. Hence, v is a linear function of r and V has a linear
r term in the RR and SR. The LPM derives flat rotation curves by mass
distribution but suggests that ultimately the rotation curve is rising. HCb
suggested that since neighboring galaxies form flat and declining rotation
curves, rotation curves do not ultimately rise. If LPT is to derive declining
curves, it is by the influence of other galaxies. This is difficult to understand
even if the potentials of all galaxies counteract each other to maintain a
delicate balance. The LPM does not predict the relations with rǫd herein.
The dark matter model (DMM) posits large amounts of non-luminous
matter in a halo around a galaxy to explain rising rotation curves. In
addition, the DMM would consider vrmax as merely another point on the
rotation curve. The DMM is not really a predictive theory but rather
a parameterization of the difference between observation and Newtonian
expectation.
This Chapter’s result suggests the species and density of matter changes
with radius and suggests matter is arranged in strata which cause discon-
tinuities in the I − r curve. In the MOND model (Bottema et al. 2002),
the Newtonian acceleration is measured in our solar system which is in the
low r end of the SR. The MOND data comparison is usually in the far RR
and SR. Hence, the existence of a differing rǫd among galaxies or a modi-
fied acceleration among galaxies is expected in a limited r range as in this
Chapter. Also, since we are near the vrmax in the Galaxy and the relation-
2
ship of vrmax − rǫd is a universal relationship, the MOND proposition that
the modified acceleration is a universal constant for the limited region with
r ≈ rǫd follows. However, the linear vr2 − rr relation is inconsistent with
MOND.
NGC 2841 may falsify MOND. However, it fits in well with this Chap-
ter’s result. This chapter has restricted comment on the mass/luminosity
ratio since this ratio is uncertain. Since the chemical species may change
with each radial ring, the mass/luminosity ratio should change, also. The
only use of the mass/luminosity ratio is to say the chemical species is con-
stant in a ring. Therefore, a shift in I - r slope signifies a border between
rings. NGC 2841 has greater luminosity through a low slope in the I - r
curve. This Chapter ignores this.
Therefore, the results herein are inconsistent with current galaxy mod-
els.
1. A sample of 14 galaxies with published data was considered. The
308 CHAPTER 8. ROTATION VELOCITY VS INNER RADIUS

galaxy sample displays a wide range of rotation curve types, displays a

range of maximum W20 values of from 120 km s−1 to 607 km s−1 , includes
LINER, Sy, HII and less active galaxies, has excellent and poor agreement
between Dtf and Dc , has a Dc range of from 0.75 Mpc to 18.98 Mpc, and
has field and cluster galaxies.
2. Linear relationships are between vr2 and rr , and between vrmax
2
and
2
rǫd with correlation coefficients of 0.99. Using the vrmax − rǫd relationship,
distances to galaxies may be calculated.
2
3. The slope and intercept of the linear relation between vrmax and rǫd
2 −2 −1
for 14 sample galaxies are 21000 ± 1000 km s kpc and −1000 ± 2000
km2 s−2 to 1σ, respectively.
4. The mass of a spiral galaxy is distributed in strata. Discontinuities
in the slope of the I − r curve delineates the strata boundaries.
5. The range of the M• − σc relation may be extended if vrmax is used
rather than the maximum rotation velocity.
6. The HST images show three other discontinuities inward of rǫd . Two
2
of these three also show a linear vrmax − rǫ relationship.
Chapter 9

Distance Calculation Method

for Spiral Galaxies

The distance to a spiral galaxy (herein after “galaxy” will mean spiral
galaxy) D (Mpc) has been calculated using several methods (Binney and
Merrifield 1998, chapter 7). The method using Cepheid variables has the
advantage of widespread usefulness because of its powerful combination of
properties. (Binney and Merrifield 1998, page 415). Distances calculated
using Cepheid variables Dc (Mpc) are herein considered the secure standard
to which other methods compare. The empirically derived Tully-Fisher dis-
tance calculation method (TF) (Tully et al. 1998) has the advantage of
relative ease of use but compares poorly with the Cepheid method. Hodge
and Castelaz (2003b) (hereinafter HCa) suggested a correction factor using
the illumination from neighboring galaxies that allows TF to compare more
favorably with the Cepheid method. However, the use of the correction fac-
tor adds considerable effort to the TF. Chapter 8) discovered a relationship
between two parameters. One parameter is measured from a plot of the
surface brightness I versus radius r (kpc) from the center of a galaxy along
the major axis (I − r profile) obtained from a Digital Sky Survey(R band)
1
(DSS) image. The rǫ (kpc) is the average of the distance from the center
of the I − r profile to the first discontinuity in slope on one side to the first
discontinuity in slope on the other side of the center. The second parameter
vrmax is the rotation velocity at the end of the rapidly rising region of the
2
HI rotation velocity curve (RC). Chapter 8 discovered that vrmax is linearly
related to rǫ . Since rǫ is in kpc, this relation could be used to calculate D.
1 Based on photographic data of the National Geographic Society - Palomar Observatiory Sky Survey

(NGS-POSS) obtained using the Oschin Telescope on Palomar Mountain. The DSS data was obtained
form the SkyView database available at: http://skyview.gsfc.nasa.gov.

309
310 CHAPTER 9. DISTANCE CALCULATION

However, vrmax present a formidable measurement task. The TF and Chap-

ter 8 methods each have one parameter that is easier to use. By combining
the equations of the two methods, an equation may be derived to find D
using the easier-to-measure parameters of a galaxy. These parameters are
rǫ and the measured 21-cm line width at 20 percent of the peak value W
(km s−1 ) corrected for inclination between the line of sight and the target
galaxy’s polar axis i (degrees). These parameters are measurements relative
to the target galaxy and are independent of magnitude biases such as ex-
tinction and reddening. This Chapter suggests a new D calculation method
using rǫ and W . The results suggest rǫ is proportional to the intrinsic en-
ergy creation rate of a galaxy ǫ (from HCa). Therefore, galaxy parameters
of total absolute magnitude, total mass, rotation velocity curves, Dc , and
rǫ are related to the galaxy’s ǫ, and to neighboring galaxies’ ǫ.
The approach is to (1) develop an equation to relate the TF with the
model of Chapter 8, (2) develop an equation to relate rǫ and W to D,
(3) use the galaxies of Chapter 8 as calibration galaxies to determine the
constants, and (4) apply the model to test galaxies which also have Dc
values for comparison.

9.1 Model
Since velocity vectors are additive, the W we measure has a component
Wo which is a function of the potential of other galaxies (Chapter 8) and
a component Wv which is a function of the potential of the target galaxy
and, hence, vrmax ,
W = Wo + Wv . (9.1)
HCa suggested,
−Mg
10 2.5 = Ke ǫ, (9.2)
where Mg is the absolute, intrinsic magnitude of the target galaxy and Ke
is a proportionality constant called a conversion efficiency of ǫ to energy in
the band under consideration.
The rǫ is related to the mass within the Keplerian region of a galaxy
Mtvkmax (Chapter 8). The mass of a central supermassive black hole (SBH)
M• is related to velocity dispersion of the bulge σ (Gebhardt et al. 2000a;
Merritt & Ferrarese 2001a). Ferrarese (2002) found a tight relation between
rotation velocity and bulge velocity dispersion (vc − σc ) which is strongly
supporting a relationship of the center force with total gravitational mass
9.1. MODEL 311

of a galaxy. Therefore, it seems reasonable to posit that rǫ is proportional

to ǫ,
ǫ = Kǫ r ǫ , (9.3)
where Kǫ is the proportionality constant.
2
Rearranging terms of the vrmax − rǫ Eq.8.5 from Chapter 8 yields,
1 2
rǫ = (vrmax − Kras ), (9.4)
Kreslope
where, from HCa, Kreslope = 21000 ± 1000 km2 s−2 kpc−1 , and Kras =
−1000 ± 2000 kpc2 s−2 are the slope and intercept of the vrmax
2
− rǫ curve,
respectively.
Combining Equation (9.2), (9.3), and (9.4) and rearranging terms
yields, !
Ke 2
Mg = −2.5 log − 2.5 log(vrmax − Kras ). (9.5)
Kǫ Kreslope
The TF (Tully et al. 1998) combined with the correction factor C from
HCa has the form,
CMβb,k,i = −K1 − K2 log(W ), (9.6)
where where Mβb,k,i is the absolute magnitude in a given measurement band
β of the observed galaxy and K1 and K2 are constants which are dependant
on β Therefore, CMβb,k,i = Mg .
The TF assumes Wo = 0 for all galaxies. The correspondence between
Equation (9.5) and Equation (9.6) averaged over several galaxies implies,
2
log(vrmax − Kras ) = Ks log(W ) + Ki , (9.7)
2
where Ks and Ki are the slope and intercept of a plot of log(vrmax − Kras )
versus log(W ), respectively.
For a single galaxy, Equation (9.1) requires that W depend on Wo .
Define the residual R as the difference between the line of Equation (9.7)
2
and the measurement of log(vrmax − Kras ),
2
R ≡ [Ks log(W ) + Ki ] − [log(vrmax − Kras )]. (9.8)
Since a change in the external galaxies’ potential causes a change in
log(Wo ) (Hodge 2006c) (herein HCb) and causes a linear change in R, the
Principle of Negative feedback (Appendix A) implies the relation between
R and log W is linear,
R = Ksr log(W ) + Kir , (9.9)
312 CHAPTER 9. DISTANCE CALCULATION

where Ksr and Kir are the slope and intercept of the R versus log W curve,
respectively.
By the definition of the slope of a line in a graph of Equation (9.7),
R
Ks = , (9.10)
log W − log Wvc
or,
R
log Wvc = log W − , (9.11)
Ks
2
where log Wvc is the value of log(W ) at the measured log(vrmax − Kras ).
Solving Equation (9.10) for R, substituting R into Equation (9.8), solv-
2
ing for vrmax − Kras and substituting into Equation (9.4) yields,

10Ki WvcKs
rǫ = . (9.12)
Kreslope

The calculated distance Dcalc (Mpc) is,

rǫ 10Ki WvcKs
10Ki−Kir W Ks −Ksr
Dcalc = = = , (9.13)
tan(rǫa ) Kreslope tan(rǫa) Kreslope tan(rǫa )
where rǫa is the measured angle subtended by rǫ .

9.2 Data and Analysis

The 14 galaxies in Chapter 8 were used as calibration galaxies to calculate
Ks , Ki , Ksr , and Kir . The data for these galaxies are shown in Table 9.1.
The morphology type data was obtained from the NED database2 . The
i and W20 data was obtained from the LEDA database 3 in which they
are referred to as “incl” and “w20 ”, respectively. The values of vrmax were
obtained from Chapter 8. The Dc data were obtained from Freedman et al.
(2001) unless otherwise noted.
This sample has low surface brightness (LSB), medium surface bright-
ness (MSB), and high surface brightness (HSB) galaxies, galaxies with a
range of W20 values of from 120 km s−1 to 607 km s−1 , includes LINER,
Sy, HII and less active galaxies, galaxies which have excellent and poor
agreement between distances calculated using TF Dtf and Dc , a Dc range
2 The NED database is available at: http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu.
3 The LEDA database is available at: http://leda.univ-lyon1.fr.
9.2. DATA AND ANALYSIS 313

Table 9.1: Data for calibration galaxies.

Galaxy morph. a vrmax b W20 c id Dc e RZ
NGC 0224 SA(s)b 217±12 536 78.0 0.75±0.02 3
NGC 0300 SA(s)d 72± 9 149 39.8 2.02±0.07 1
NGC 0598 SA(s)cd 79± 6 199 55.0 0.82±0.04 1
NGC 0925 SAB(s)d;HII 125± 3 217 61.1 9.13±0.17 2
NGC 1365 SBb(s)b;Sy1.8 296± 4 393 57.7 17.23±0.40 3
NGC 2403 SAB(s)cd 124± 3 242 60.0 3.14±0.14 2
NGC 2841 SA( r)b;LINER Sy 315±30 607 68.0 14.07±1.57f 3
NGC 3031 SA(s)ab;LINER Sy1.8 243± 4 443 59.0 3.55±0.13 3
NGC 3109 SB(s)m 41± 5 120 80.0 1.13±0.12g 1
NGC 3198 SB(rs)c 134± 8 322 70.0 13.69±0.51 2
NGC 3319 SB(rs)cd;HII 101± 9 213 59.1 13.44±0.57 1
NGC 4321 SAB(s)bc;LINER HII 222± 3 270 30.0 14.33±0.47 3
NGC 4535 SAB(s)c 137±13 294 44.0 14.80±0.35 2
NGC 7331 SA(s);LINER 250± 3 520 75.0 14.53±0.62 3

a
Galaxy Morphological type from NED database.
b
Error estimated is the difference to the next measured v data point (kms−1 ).
c
The W20 value from the LEDA database (km s−1 ).
d
The inclination value from the LEDA database (degrees).
e
Distance in Mpc from Cepheid data from Freedman et al. (2001), unless otherwise
noted.
f
Distance from Macri et al. (2001).
g
Distance is from Ferrarese et al. (2000).
314 CHAPTER 9. DISTANCE CALCULATION

2
Figure 9.1: Plot of log(vrmax − Kras ) from HCa versus log(W ). The line is the best fit.
2
The line is a plot of log(vrmax − Kras ) = 2.138 log(W ) − 1.099.

of from 0.75 Mpc to 17.39 Mpc, field and cluster galaxies, and galaxies with
rising, flat, and declining rotation curves.
2
Figure 9.1 shows a plot of log(vrmax − Kras ) versus log(W ). The line in
Figure 9.1 is a plot of Equation (9.7) with Ks = 2.138 ± 0.2 km s−1 and
Ki = −1.099 ± 0.6 km2 s−2 to 1 σ. For the final calculation, the constants
used had four significant figures although the error bars indicate a fewer
number of significant figures. The correlation coefficient is 0.93 and the F
test is 0.99. The fit of the line to the data was done by finding the Ks
which yielded an F test of over 0.99. Then the Ki was found to produce
a low total difference between data and the line. The low total difference
was required because the TF assumption that the average Wo = 0 in the
equations was important in the model.
NGC 0925, NGC 2403, NGC 3198, and NGC 4535 have similar rǫ values
(Chapter 8) and, hence, ǫ values. Also, from HCa, the average of the 10
closest neighbors of each galaxy varies from about 0.75 Mpc to 2.42 Mpc. In
addition, the W values vary from 248 km s−1 to 423 km s−1 . Because the rǫ
of these galaxies is similar and the W has significant variance, the suspicion
is strong that the effect of neighboring galaxies on W is significant. This is
confirmed in HCa and this Chapter.
Figure 9.2 shows a plot of R (km2 s−2 ) versus log(W ) [log(km s−1 )].
The structure has three R zones (RZ) of linear relationships. The data for
the linear lines and the boundaries of each RZ as displayed in Figure 9.2
are presented in Table 9.2. The lines intersect at [R, log(W )] = [0.53 ± 0.05
9.2. DATA AND ANALYSIS 315

2
Figure 9.2: Plot of the residual R of log(vrmax − Kras ) measurement and the line in
Figure 9.1 versus log W . The lines are the best fit and are described in Table 9.2. The
“+” sign, diamond, and square are for galaxies in RZ 1, RZ 2, and RZ 3, respectively.
The R, F, and D denote the galaxies with rising, flat, and declining rotation curves,
respectively.

km2 s−2 , 2.84 ± .04 log(km s−1 )].

The error in measuring W is larger than the difference in log(W ) from
the end of one RZ to the beginning of the next RZ. Therefore, an incorrect
RZ may be chosen. Because of the step nature of the RZ transition, another
criterion to indicate to which RZ a galaxy belongs is desirable.
Also shown in Figure 9.2, next to each data point is a letter denoting
the shape of the rotation curve in the disk region of the galaxy. The R,
F, and D mean rising, flat, and declining rotation curves, respectively. All

Table 9.2: Data for the R zones (RZ).

a
zone No. W range Corr. b F test Ksr c Kir d
RZ 1 4 0 - 245 0.85 0.99 0.8±0.3 -1.8±0.7
RZ 2 4 246 - 457 0.99 0.99 1.8±0.2 -4.4±0.6
RZ 3 6 458 - 0.94 0.99 4.1±0.7 -11±2

a
Number of galaxies in each zone.
b
Correlation Coefficient.
c
The best fit slope derived to make the F test greater than 0.99 at 1 σ.
d
The best fit intercept derived to minimize the total difference between data and the
line at 1 σ.
316 CHAPTER 9. DISTANCE CALCULATION

the galaxies with rising rotation curves in the sample are in the RZ 1 and
all the galaxies in RZ 1 have rising curves and rǫ less than one kpc. The
galaxies with flat rotation curves in the other RZs have a low absolute value
of R and all galaxies with low absolute values of R have flat curves in RZ
2 and RZ 3. The galaxies with declining rotation curves in the other RZs
have a high absolute value of R and all galaxies with high absolute values
of R have declining curves in RZ 2 and RZ 3. All the galaxies in RZ 2
have 1 kpc< rǫ < 2 kpc. All galaxies in RZ 3 with flat rotation curves have
2 kpc < rǫ < 4 kpc. All galaxies in RZ 3 with declining rotation curves have
rǫ greater than four kpc. NGC 2841 which is the galaxy with the highest
R has a nearly flat but slightly declining rotation curve. NGC 0300 which
has the highest R value in RZ 1 has a nearly flat but slightly rising rotation
curve. NGC 7731 has a nearly flat but slightly declining rotation curve. It
has been labeled a flat rotation curve.
The galaxies in RZ 2 and RZ 3 are on their respective line with a high
correlation and high F test. No galaxy occupies a position significantly off
the lines. Apparently, whatever causes the RZ 2 and RZ 3 is digital in
nature.
The log(W ) value between the end of the RZ 1 and beginning of RZ
2 is relatively small. This implies the R value at the beginning of the
RZ 2 is ≈ −0.15 km2 s−2 . A similar situation exists at the beginning
of the RZ 3 where the R value is ≈ −0.30 km2 s−2 . This suggests that
the physical mechanism in galaxies in RZ 2 is present with an additional
physical mechanism in galaxies in RZ 3 rather than two, mutually exclusive
physical mechanisms or a physical mechanism with two states.
Examination of the surface brightness profiles in Chapter 8 shows two
distinct shapes. The shape is determined by the trend of the minimum
luminosity for each angle of observation (distance from center). Individual,
low value pixels and high value pixels above the trend line are ignored. One
shape shown in Figure 9.3 for NGC 2403 in RZ 2 has a distinctive spike
or “peak” shape. This shape has a high slope on the sides and the change
of slope appears to have a large discontinuity at the center. The other
shape shown in Figure 9.4 for NGC 7331 in RZ 3 has a distinctive square
or “flat” appearance. This shape has lower slope on the sides and is nearly
flat around the center. The surface brightness profiles of all the calibration
galaxies in RZ 1 and RZ 2 have the “peak” shape. The surface brightness
profiles of all the calibration galaxies in RZ 3 have the “flat” shape.
If the surface brightness profile is indecisive, an additional method to
decide to which RZ a galaxy belongs is to choose the RZ with the distance
9.2. DATA AND ANALYSIS 317

Figure 9.3: Plot of surface brightness I (scaled distance of Digital Sky Survey) versus
the distance from the center of the galaxy r (kpc) for NGC 2403 using Dc to calculate r.
The profile is characteristic of a “peak” shaped curve with a peak and high slope sides.
These profiles are found in RZ 1 and RZ 2 galaxies.

Figure 9.4: Plot of surface brightness I (scaled distance of Digital Sky Survey) versus
the distance from the center of the galaxy r (kpc) for NGC 7331 using Dc to calculate
r. The profile is characteristic of a “flat” shaped curve with a flat top and sides with a
lower slope than RZ 2 galaxies. These profiles are found in RZ 3 galaxies.
318 CHAPTER 9. DISTANCE CALCULATION

Table 9.3: Data and results for the test galaxies.

Galaxy NED type a i b W20 c 2rǫa d Dtf e Dc f Dcalc g
IC 4182 SA(s)m 27.1 61 44± 4 7.60±1.13 4.53± 0.13 4.36± 0.42
NGC 1326A SB(s)m 42.5 88 13± 2 18.20±2.70 16.15± 0.77 14.76± 1.53
NGC 1425 SA(rs)b 69.5 367 45±15 23.57±3.49 20.91± 0.47 23.57± 5.89
NGC 2090 SA(rs)b HII 68.3 296 96±16 15.26±2.26 11.44± 0.21 10.29± 2.08
NGC 2541 SA(s)cd LINER 66.8 211 37± 4 15.38±2.28 11.23± 0.26 10.56± 0.97
NGC 3351 SB(r)b HII Sbrst 41.5 281 109±11 15.15±2.25 9.34± 0.39 10.07± 1.16
NGC 3368 SAB(rs)ab;Sy LINER 54.7 358 452±48 13.76±2.04 9.87± 0.28 10.36± 1.00
NGC 3621 SA(s)d 65.6 279 169±25 7.72±1.15 6.55± 0.18 5.79± 1.02
NGC 3627 SAB(s)b;Sy2 LINER 57.3 378 410±70 11.62±1.73 9.38± 0.35 10.91± 2.23
NGC 4258 SAB(s)bc;Sy1.9 LINER 72.0 438 146±27 9.62±1.42 7.73± 0.26 7.75± 1.78
NGC 4414 SA(s)c LINER 54.0 412 221±22 26.33±3.90 16.61± 0.38 15.82± 1.70
NGC 4496A SB(rs)m 48.1 175 26± 8 14.58±2.16 14.53± 0.20 15.92± 3.73
NGC 4536 SAB(rs)bc 58.9 337 82±14 19.66±2.91 14.46± 0.27 13.03± 1.89
NGC 4548 SBb(rs);SY LINER 37.0 270 76± 9 21.60±3.20 15.01± 0.35 14.85± 1.92
NGC 4571 SA(r)d 30.0 171 68± 4 24.06±3.57 15.15± 1.46h 14.93± 0.95
NGC 4603 SA(rs)bc 55.0 376 25± 2 35.05±5.20 49.70±16.26i 45.51± 3.47
NGC 4639 SAB(rs)bc;Sy1.8 52.0 330 50± 5 36.45±5.39 21.00± 0.79 21.89± 2.42
NGC 4725 SAB(r)ab;Sy2 pec 54.4 415 276±44 18.03±2.67 11.92± 0.33 12.64± 1.74
NGC 5253 Im pec;HII Sbrst 66.7 93 43± 5 2.40±0.36 3.25± 0.22 3.08± 0.41
NGC 5457 SAB(rs)cd 22.0 178 179±19 10.82±1.60 6.70± 0.35 6.27± 0.74j

a Galaxy morphological type from the NED database.

b Galaxy inclination between line of sight and polar axis (in degrees) from the LEDA database. The + or − sign signifies
galaxy inclination orientation.
c Galaxy 21-cm line width at 20 percent of the peak (km s−1 ) W
20 from the LEDA database.
d The 2r −4 degrees.
ǫa in ×10
e The TF calculated distance from Tully et al. (1998) in Mpc.
f Distance in Mpc from Cepheid data from Freedman et al. (2001), unless otherwise noted.
g The calculated distance using Equation (9.13) in Mpc.
h Distance from Pierce et al. (1992).
i Distance from Paturel et al. (2002).
j Distance with W −1 which is within its error limit and in RZ 2.
20 = 178kms

calculation closest to the TF calculation corrected for neighboring galxies.

Substituting the constants into Equation (9.13) yields,
W 1.328
Dcalc1 = 2.513 × 10−4 tan(r ǫa )
± 10%, W ≤ 246
W 0.366
Dcalc2 = 1.048 × 10−1 tan(rǫa ) ± 12%, 246 < W ≤ 440
5.423 × 105 W
−1.939
Dcalc3 = tan(rǫa )
± 15%, 440 < W , (9.14)

where Dcalc1 , Dcalc2 , and Dcalc3 are the Dcalc values for the respective RZ.
The criteria for choosing the test galaxies for the comparison are (1) the
galaxy has a published Dc , (2) the galaxy has a sufficiently wide central
luminous region on DSS image such that an error of one pixel (2˝ of arc)
will be within tolerable rǫa limits, and (3) the incl, w20 , total apparent
corrected magnitude m (either “btc” or “itc”) and position angle (“pa”)
data must be available in the LEDA database.
The data for the test galaxies are shown in Table 9.3.
For each of the test galaxies, Dtf was calculated. The w20 value was
corrected for inclination, and used for WRI in the TF formulas. For the
galaxies IC 4182, NGC 1326A, NGC 4496A, and NGC 4571, the B band
m was used since the I band data was unavailable in LEDA. For the other
test galaxies, Dtf was calculated using I band data and formulas.
9.2. DATA AND ANALYSIS 319

The rǫa of each galaxy was measured as in HCa. The I of the pixels in
the DDS image is in units of “scaled density” that is how DSS reports. From
the FITS view image of the galaxy, the I readings were taken at intervals
along the major axis. A straight line was fitted by eye to the declining I − r
profile from the center region outward for each galaxy. When the curve
showed a shift in slope, another straight line was drawn to reflect the new
pattern. The 2rǫa measurement is the angular distance between pixels at
the shift in the slope from one side of the galaxy to the other side.
The criteria for finding the straight line are: (1) The inner portion of this
curve may be flat. The region to measure is when a declining straight line
may be fitted. (2) The straight line is drawn on the trend (at least 3 pixels)
of the lowest luminosity for each angle. (3) The straight line must have a
downward slope from the center. (4) The straight lines from each side of the
galaxy must be approximately symmetrical and have symmetrical slope. (5)
The straight line must yield a rǫ of between 0.2 kpc and 7 kpc. (6) Bright
object profiles must be ignored. (7) Isolated pixels must be ignored.
The profile for NGC 1425 has several isolated low luminosity pixels and
2 possible choices of rǫa . The lowest rǫa was chosen in accordance with
criteria (4). The profile for NGC 3351 has a very low slope inside rǫa but
does satisfy all criteria. The profile for NGC 3365 has a possible choice
that is asymmetrical in level and is, therefore, rejected. The profile for
NGC 3627 has several low level pixels and 2 likely choices. The chosen one
has the more symmetrical slope. The profile for NGC 4571 has a very small
slope change at rǫa . Therefore, the symmetry requirement and a trend line
of over 5 pixels on each side of the slope change identified rǫa . The profile
for NGC 4725 has an asymmetrical slope change and an asymmetrical slope
at a lower value of rǫa . Therefore, the lower value of rǫa was rejected.
Some galaxies had a log(W ) value near or in the RZ 2 / RZ 3 gap. For
NGC 1425, NGC 3351, NGC 3621, NGC 3627, and NGC 3368 the choice
of RZ was made by log(W ) value, confirmed by I − r profile, and confirmed
by comparison to Dtf . NGC 1425, NGC 3621, and NGC 3627 had high
residual between Dcalc and Dc . For NGC 3368, the I − r profile places the
galaxy in RZ 3. For NGC 5457, the w20 value from the LEDA database
places the galaxy in RZ 3. However, the surface brightness profile and the
comparison to Dtf suggests NGC 5457 belongs in RZ 2. Therefore, a lower
value w20 in its range of 178 km s−1 was used.
The distance according to Equation (9.14) was calculated. A plot of
Dcalc versus Dc is shown in Figure 9.5. The line in Figure 9.5 is Dcalc = Dc .
The correlation coefficient between Dcalc and Dc data was 0.99 and the F
320 CHAPTER 9. DISTANCE CALCULATION

Figure 9.5: Plot of the calculated distance Dcalc to the test galaxies versus the reported
Cepheid distance Dc . The line is Dcalc = Dc . The correlation coefficient is 0.99 with an
F test of 0.78.

test was 0.78.

The analysis presented herein depends on the Cepheid distances being
secure, standard distances. Freedman et al. (2001) adopted a metallicity PL
correction factor of −0.2 ± 0.2 mag dex−1 . Ferrarese et al. (2000) assumed
the PL relation was independent of metallicity. If the Cepheid distances
used are from the earlier work of Ferrarese et al. (2000), which are higher
than the Freedman et al. (2001) values, the correlation coefficient of the
Dcalc − Dc relationship remains 0.99. Thus, the theory and the result pre-
sented herein appear robust.

9.3 Discussion
Shanks et al. (2002) suggested the Cepheid distances may be underesti-
mated due to metallicity and magnitude incompleteness. As the difference
between Ferrarese et al. (2000) and Freedman et al. (2001) Dc values indi-
cated, the effect will be to change only the constants.
The measure of rǫa is clear for many galaxies. However, some galaxies
are less clear. Careful attention to the criteria is necessary. The future
improvement in the DSS data or data from the Hubble Space Telescope
will improve the accuracy of rǫa .
The physical cause of the peak or flat surface brightness profile is un-
known (see Faber et al. (1997)).
9.3. DISCUSSION 321

All galaxies not in RZ 1 were close to either the RZ 2 or RZ 3 line.

This may indicate ǫ has discrete values. The scatter of W values about the
R − W lines in Figure 9.2 would then be due to the external galaxies. HCb
suggested neighbor galaxies caused flat and declining rotation curves that
appear only in RZ 2 and RZ 3. This is consistent with the suggestion in
HCb that neighbor galaxies cause declining rotation curves.
The derivation of Equation (9.14) suggest a physical basis for the W −rǫ
relation. The assumption of Equation (9.3) is justified by the tight corre-
lation of the Dcalc with Dc . Combining HCa, Chapter 8, and this Chapter
yields the conclusion that the physical basis for the TF relation and this
Chapter’s Wvc − rǫ relation is that the observed parameters are related to
the same galaxy parameters, ǫ and distance, of the target galaxy and its
neighbors.
• The sample considered 31 spiral galaxies with published Dc . The
distance relationship to W and rǫ as predicted has been found to correlate
to Dc with a correlation coefficient of 0.99 and an F test of 0.78.
• The R − log(W ) relation was found to have 3 zones depending on the
value of W . Each zone had a different linear relationship to the residual
reflecting the influence of other galaxies.
• The line projection from the 3 zones intersect at [R, log(W )] = [0.53 ±
0.05 km2 s−2 , 2.84 ± .04 log(km s−1 )].
• The rǫ is proportional to a galaxy’s intrinsic energy creation rate.
322 CHAPTER 9. DISTANCE CALCULATION
Chapter 10

Galaxy RCs and asymmetric

RCs

1
The discrepancy between the Newtonian estimated mass in spiral galaxies
and the observation of star and gas kinematics is well established. The
rotation curve (RC) relates the square of the tangential rotation velocity v
(km s−1 ) of particles in orbit around spiral galaxies to their galactocentric
radius R (kpc). The RC is measured along the major axis. Traditionally,
the focus has been on accounting for H i RCs that are flat in the outer
region immediately beyond the knee (OR). However, observations also in-
clude rising RCs, declining RCs, an abrupt change in slope at the extreme
outer region (EOR) in many galaxies, and rotational asymmetry with non-
relativistic velocities. Battaner and Florido (2000); Ferrarese and Merritt
(2002); Ghez et al. (2000); Sofue et al. (1999); Sofue and Rubin (2001);
and Takamiya and Sofue (2000) provide a summary of the knowledge of
RCs. The RC is an excellent tool to evaluate galaxy models.
The RC differs for different particles. For example, the H i RC and the
RCs of stars as shown by the Hα line for NGC 4321 (Sempere et al. 1995)
differ in the rapidly rising region before the knee (RR) and approach each
other in the OR as shown in Fig. 8.4.
The stars near the center of galaxies have rotation velocities more than
an order of magnitude larger than v at the knee of the H i RC. The decline
of the stellar RCs from the center is Keplerian (Ghez et al. 2000; Ferrarese
and Merritt 2002). The v continues to decline to the radius R∆ (kpc) at
which the rotation velocity v∆ is at a minimum. The v∆ is approximately
an order of magnitude smaller than v at the knee of the H i RC.
1 Portions reprinted with permission of Nova Science Publishers, Inc. (Hodge 2010).

323
324 CHAPTER 10. GALAXY RCS AND ASYMMETRIC RCS

The H i RC rarely extends inward to near R∆ . When drawing the

H i RC, a straight line is often drawn from the innermost measured point
through the center of the galaxy. This practice is inconsistent with stellar
observations (Schödel 2002) and is incorrect (Sofue and Rubin 2001).
The evidence that the cluster environment affects RC shape appears
contradictory (Whitmore el al. 1988; Dale et al. 2001). These studies con-
centrated on Hα RCs. The H i RC usually extends farther outward than
Hα RCs. Therefore, the H i RCs are more sensitive to neighboring galaxy’s
effects.
As larger samples of RCs have been measured, researchers attempted
to produce a quantitative description of an empirically derived, average
RC (Persic 1996; Catinella 2006). Persic (1996) claimed the existence of a
universal RC revealed by the feature that only luminosity of the host galaxy
dictated the RC. Other researchers have discussed the inadequacy of the
average RC (e.g. Willick 1999).
Roscoe (2002) used a dynamical partitioning process and found that the
dynamics in the outer part of optical RCs are constrained to occupy one of
four discrete dynamical classes. The classes are determined by the absolute
magnitude, surface brightness, and a parameter for each optical RC that is
an exponent of the radius at which v is measured.
Galaxies with a small asymmetry in the RC of a few km s−1 are well
known (Shane and Bieger-Smith 1966). Large deviations are less appreci-
ated (Jog 2002). Because the observational data from each side of a galaxy
RC are generally averaged, only highly asymmetric cases are recognized. RC
asymmetry appears to be the norm rather than the exception (Jog 2002).
Weinberg (1995) and Jog (1997) proposed the implied mass asymmetry is
due to an imposed lopsided potential caused by galaxy interaction. Dale et
al. (2001) found RC asymmetry of early type galaxies falls by a factor of two
between the inner and outer regions of clusters. The formation, evolution,
and long term maintenance of galactic, kinematical asymmetry remains a
mystery.
With the improved H i measuring equipment in the 1990’s, the H i RC
observations detected an abrupt change in the EOR in many galaxies. This
characteristic is ignored in current models. For example, Pizzella et al.
(2005) considered this factor as a reason to exclude galaxies from the sample.
Spectra coming from HII regions depend systematically on R and little
else (Binney and Merrifield 1998, pp. 516-522). The interstellar abundances
of metals in a disk galaxy decrease with increasing radius (Tadross 2003).
Also, the absolute B band magnitude MB (mag.) of a galaxy is correlated
 325

with the metallicity obtained by extrapolating [O/H] within the disk to the
galactic center. Low luminosity galaxies tend to be metal poorer than high
luminosity galaxies.
The Newtonian calculation of v of a test particle in a galaxy is
GM
v 2 = Rmajor R̈major + , (10.1)
Rmajor
where, for simplicity, the mass of the test particle is assumed to be constant
over time, the effect of neighboring galaxies (the environment) is ignored,
G is the gravitational constant, Rmajor (kpc) is the galactocentric radius of
the test particle along the major axis, the double dot over Rmajor indicates
the second time derivative of Rmajor , M (M⊙ ) is the mass inside the sphere
of radius Rmajor from Newton’s spherical property, and, hereinafter, the
inertial mass mι equals gravitational mass mg of the test particle (Will
2001).
Generally, when considering RCs, the orbits of matter in the disk of
galaxies are assumed to be nearly circular (Binney and Merrifield 1998, p.
725), R̈ = 0. If most of the matter of a galaxy is in the bulge region,
classical Newtonian mechanics predicts a Keplerian declining RC in the
disk. The observation of rising RCs in the RR and of rising, flat, or declining
RC’s in the OR poses a perplexing problem. Postulates to model the RCs
have included the existence of a large mass MDM of non-baryonic, dark
matter (DM) and dark energy; the variation of the gravitational acceleration
GM/R2 with R; the variation of G with R; and the existence of an added
term to the rhs of Eq. (10.1) opposing gravitational attraction.
Repulsive DM has been proposed to provide a repulsive force that has
the form of an ideal, relativistic gas (Goodman 2000). In DM models the
rising RCs of low surface brightness galaxies (LSBs) require larger relative
amounts of DM than flat or declining RCs. This contradiction to the suc-
cessful Tully-Fisher relation (TF) (Tully and Fisher 1977) is well established
(Sanders and McGaugh 2002). Another mystery of the DM paradigm is the
apparent strong luminous-to-dark matter coupling that is inferred from the
study of RCs (Persic 1996).
Currently, the most popular modified gravity model is the Modified
Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) model (Bottema et al. 2002; Sanders and
McGaugh 2002, and references therein). MOND suggests gravitational ac-
celeration changes with galactic distance scales by a fixed parameter related
to the mass-to-luminosity ratio with units of acceleration. MOND appears
limited to the disk region of spiral galaxies. MOND requires the distance for
326 CHAPTER 10. GALAXY RCS AND ASYMMETRIC RCS

NGC 2841 and NGC 3198 to be considerably larger than the Cepheid-based
distance Da (Mpc) (Bottema et al. 2002). Appling MOND to cosmological
scales is being investigated (Bekestein 2004; Sanders 2005). MOND may
represent a effective force law arising from a broader force law (McGaugh
1998).
The possible variation of G or |Ġ/G| ∼ Ho , where Ho is the Hubble con-
stant, were first proposed by Dirac. This was followed by the Brans-Dicke
theory of gravity that postulated G behaves as the reciprocal of a scalar
field whose source is all matter in the universe (Narlikar 2002). More re-
cently Brownstein and Moffat (2006, and references therein) have proposed
a variation of general relativity in which G varies with R. This model has
been applied to RCs (Brownstein and Moffat 2006; Moffat 2005) and the
postulated gravitational radiation of binary pulsars. This model has results
similar to the MOND model. However, it uses a distance D (Mpc) for NGC
2841 of 9.5 Mpc rather than Da =14.07 Mpc (Macri et al. 2001).
Alternate models of the RC posit the existence of another term in the
Newtonian equation resulting from a scalar field of a “fifth force”, a scalar
field coupled to matter, or a scalar field coupled to DM. Padmanabhan
and Choudhury (2002, and references therein) explored the possibility of
a scalar field acting as dark matter. The usual “fifth force” models posit
a Yukawa like potential (Bertolami and Páramos 2005). Fay (2004) pos-
tulated minimally coupled and massive scalar fields are responsible for flat
RCs, only. Mbelek (2004) suggested a real scalar field, minimally coupled
to gravity sourced by baryonic and dark matter may also reproduce flat and
rising RCs with the assumption that the dark halo mass density dominates
the baryonic mass density. The free parameters are a turnover radius ro ,
the maximum rotation velocity, which is at ro , and an integer . If a natural
theoretical explanation could be found for the relation between ro and the
positive integer, the integer may be the only free parameter. The postulate
of an unknown “fifth force” is as likely as the postulate of unknown and
undetected DM.
The scalar potential model (SPM) was created to be consistent with
the observation of the morphology-radius relation of galaxies in clusters,
of the intragalactic medium of a cluster of galaxies, and of the flow of
matter from spiral galaxies to elliptical galaxies (Hodge 2006a). The SPM
was applied to redshift observations and found a qualitative explanation
of discrete redshift observations. The SPM suggests the existence of a
massless scalar potential ρ ∝ R−1 derived from a diffusion (heat) differential
equation. Physically, the diffusion equation requires Sources and Sinks to
 327

~ field acts like a “wind” was suggested.

form the potential field. That the ∇ρ
Several differences among galaxy types suggest that Sources of ρ are located
in spiral galaxies and that Sinks of ρ are located in elliptical, lenticular, and
irregular galaxies. The Source forming a galaxy leads to the proportionally
of the Source strength and emitted radiation (luminosity). Therefore, the
total mass of a galaxy is related to the luminosity of a galaxy. A cell
structure of galaxy groups and clusters was proposed with Sinks at the
center and Sources in the outer shell of the cells. The cell model is supported
by the data and analysis of Aaronson et al. (1982); Ceccarelli et al. (2005);
Hudson et al. (2004); Lilje et al. (1986); and Rejkuba (2004). Because
the distance between galaxies is larger than the diameter of a galaxy, the
Sources were considered as point (monopole) Sources.
The force F~s (dyne) of the ρ field that acts on matter is

F~s = Gs ms ∇ρ
~ , (10.2)

where (1) the Gs is a proportionality constant; (2) ms is the property of

particles on which F~s acts; and (3) ρ is the sum of the effects of all galaxies,
NX NX
source
ǫi sink
ηl
ρ = Kǫ + Kη , (10.3)
i=1 ri l=1 rl

where ǫi and ηl are numbers representing the strength of the ith Source
and lth Sink, respectively, Kǫ and Kη are proportionality constants, and ri
(Mpc) and rl (Mpc) are the distance from a Source and a Sink, respectively,
to the point at which ρ is calculated, ǫ > 0, η < 0, and Nsource and Nsink
are the number of Sources and Sinks, respectively, used in the calculation.
Hodge (2006a) suggested the ms property of matter is the cross section
of the particle; the ǫ ∝ Mtǫ , where Mtǫ is the total mass of the Source
galaxy; and the η ∝ Mtη , where Mtη is the total mass of the Sink galaxy.
This chapter further constrains the SPM to describe another set of ob-
servations inconsistent with present models. The SPM finds the RC in the
OR may be rising, flat, or declining depending on the galaxy and its en-
vironment. The Source of the scalar field acts as a monopole at distances
of a few kpc from the center of spiral galaxies. In addition to fitting the
RR and OR parameters, the SPM is consistent with EOR and asymmetry
observations. In section 2, the model is discussed and the SPM v 2 calcu-
lation equation is developed. The resulting model is used to calculate RC
parameters in Section 3. The discussion and conclusion are in Section 4.
328 CHAPTER 10. GALAXY RCS AND ASYMMETRIC RCS

10.1 Spiral galaxy model

The coordinate system center was placed at the sample galaxy’s kinematical
center and was aligned to our line of sight. The SPM posits the v 2 of a
particle in orbit of a spiral galaxy is the sum of the effects of Fs opposing
the gravitational force Fg ,
GM ms L ~ • ~ao + |R
~ × ~ao | ,
v2 = − Gs −R (10.4)
R mι R
where (1) the L term is due to the Fs of the host galaxy; (2) L = Kǫ ǫ =
10−0.4MB erg s−1 for Source galaxies or L = Kη η = −2.7 × 10−0.4MB erg
s−1 for Sink galaxies (Hodge 2006a); (3) the mass of the test particle is
assumed to be constant over time; (4) | | indicates absolute value; and (5)
~ao (km s−2 ) is the acceleration caused by neighboring galaxies,
Gs ms ~
~ao = ∇ρ , (10.5)
mι
where the number of galaxies exclude the host galaxy. Note that no as-
sumption about the significance of ~ao has been made.
Because v is measured only along the major axis in the region under
~ field is
consideration (Binney and Merrifield 1998, p. 725) and if the ∇ρ
approximately uniform across a galaxy, Eq. (10.4) becomes
M Gs ms L ~ • ~ao |Rmajor ,
v2 = G − + |K (10.6)
Rmajor mι Rmajor

where K ~ (km kpc−1 ) is a constant vector.

In Fig. 8.4 the H i RC at lower radius Rrr (kpc) in the RR has two
scalloped shapes that suggests spherically symmetric shells of matter. Also,
the Hα RC rapidly increases, peaks, and then declines at the beginning
of each shell. The Hα lines are generally formed in excited interstellar
gas. In the disk region of a galaxy, the gas is usually excited by hot stars
(Binney and Merrifield 1998). Because the ms /mι factor must be different
for different matter types, each shell has a different metallicity star type.
Because the Hα RC approaches the H i RC in the disk region such as plotted
in Fig. 8.4 with hot, hydrogen burning stars, the ms /mι factor must be the
same for H i and hydrogen stars. This suggests the ms /mι factor varies by
element type and acts on atoms at the largest. The metallicity - radius
relation follows.
10.2. RESULTS 329

The ms /mι ratio of stars is changing through changing elemental com-

position by nucleosynthesis in addition to accretion and emission of matter.
Therefore, the H i RC is preferred to trace the forces influencing a galaxy
outside the bulge. Because only the H i RC is considered in the calculations
herein, the units used were Gs ms /mι = 1 kpc km2 s−1 erg−1 .

10.2 Results
10.2.1 Sample
The elliptical, lenticular, irregular, and spiral galaxies used in the calcula-
tions were the same as used in Hodge (2006a). That is, they were selected
from the NED database2 . The selection criteria were that the heliocentric
redshift zmh be less than 0.03 and that the object be classified as a galaxy.
The parameters obtained from the NED database included the name, equa-
torial longitude Elon (degrees) for J2000.0, equatorial latitude Elat (degrees)
for J2000.0, morphology, the B-band apparent magnitude mb (mag.), and
the extinction Ext (mag.) as defined by NED. The galactocentric redshift
z was calculated from zmh .
The 21-cm line width W20 (km s−1 ) at 20 percent of the peak, the
inclination in (arcdegrees), the morphological type code “t”, the luminosity
class code “lc”, and the position angle Pa (arcdegrees) for galaxies were
obtained from the LEDA database3 when such data existed.
The selection criteria for the “select galaxies” were that a H i RC was
available in the literature and that Da was available from Freedman et al.
(2001) or Macri et al. (2001). Data for the 16 select galaxies are shown in
Table 10.1 and their H i RCs are plotted in Fig. 10.1. The L for the select
galaxies was calculated using Da , mb , and Ext . The selection criteria for
the other sample galaxies were that a H i RC was available in the literature
and that the L could be calculated using the TF method with the constants
developed in Hodge (2006a).
This select galaxy sample has LSB, medium surface brightness (MSB),
and high surface brightness (HSB) galaxies; has LINER, Sy, HII, and less
active galaxies; has galaxies that have excellent and poor agreement between
the distance Dtf (Mpc) calculated using the TF relation and Da ; has a Da
2 The Ned database is available at http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu. The data were obtained from

NED on 5 May 2004.

3 The LEDA database is available at http://leda.univ-lyon.fr. The data were obtained from LEDA

on 5 May 2004.
330 CHAPTER 10. GALAXY RCS AND ASYMMETRIC RCS

Figure 10.1: Plot of the square of the H i rotation velocity v 2 (103 km2 s−2 ) versus galacto-
centric radius Rmajor (kpc) along the major axis. The straight lines mark the application
of the derived equations to the RCs of the select galaxies. The application of the derived
equations to NGC 0224, NGC 0300, and NGC 0598 were omitted because these galaxies
lacked a |K~ • ~ao | value. The references for the RCs are noted in brackets and are as
follows: [1]Gottesman et al. (1966), [2]Carignan & Freeman (1985), [3]Corbelli & Salucci
(2000), [4]Krumm and Salpeter (1979), [5]Begeman et al. (1991), [6]Rots (1975), [7]van
Albada et al. (1985), [8]Bosma (1981), [9]Moore and Gottesman (1998), [10]van Albada
and Shane (1975), [11]Sempere et al. (1995), [12]Braine et al. (1993), [13]Chincarini & de
Souza (1985), [14]Vollmer et al. (1999), [15]Huchtmeier (1975), and [16]Mannheim and
Kmetko (1996). (Reprinted with permission of Nova Science Publishers, Inc. (Hodge
2010).)
10.2. RESULTS 331

Table 10.1: Data for the select galaxies.

Galaxy morphologya tb lcc RCd Da e
NGC 0224 SA(s)b 3 2 F 0.79
NGC 0300 SA(s)d 6.9 6 R 2.00
NGC 0598 SA(s)cd 6 4 R 0.84
NGC 0925 SAB(s)d HII 7 4 D 9.16
NGC 2403 SAB(s)cd 6 5 F 3.22
NGC 2841 SA(r)b;LINER Sy 3 1 F 14.07f
NGC 3031 SA(s)ab;LINER Sy1.8 2.4 2 D 3.63
NGC 3198 SB(rs)c 5.2 3 F 13.80
NGC 3319 SB(rs)cd;HII 5.9 3.3 R 13.30
NGC 4258 SAB(s)bc;LINER Sy1.9 4 3.9 D 7.98
NGC 4321 SAB(s)bc;LINER HII 4 1 D 15.21
NGC 4414 SA(rs)c? LINER 5.1 3.6 D 17.70
NGC 4535 SAB(s)c 5 1.9 D 15.78
NGC 4548 SBb(rs);LINER Sy 3.1 2 D 16.22
NGC 5457 SAB(rs)cd 5.9 1 D 6.70
NGC 7331 SA(s)b;LINER 3.9 2 F 14.72

a Galaxy morphological from the NED database.

b Galaxy morphological type code from the LEDA database.
c Galaxy luminosity class code from the LEDA database.
d Galaxy’s HI RC type according to slope in the OR. R is rising, F is flat, and D is declining.
e The distance D (Mpc) to the galaxy from Freedman et al. (2001) unless otherwise noted.
a
f The D is from Macri et al. (2001).
a

range of from 0.79 Mpc to 17.70 Mpc; has field and cluster galaxies; and
has galaxies with rising, flat, and declining RCs.

10.2.2 First approximation

When modeling an RC, the knee or turnover of an H i RC is often drawn

smooth and relatively rounded. As depicted in Fig. 10.1 most of RCs of the
selected galaxies have an abrupt change of slope at the turnover.
The end of the RR was found by fitting a least squares straight line
to the first three data points, if available, inward and immediately before
the knee of the RC with a 0.99 or higher correlation coefficient. NGC 2841
lacked data points to identify the RR. NGC 4414 had only two data points
before the knee and a significant decline in v 2 to indicate the RR. The
linear relation suggests a cylindrical distribution of matter in the RR near
the knee.
At R∆ , v∆ ≈ 0 that implies the effective mass ≈ 0 inside a sphere with
a R∆ radius. That is, from Eq. (10.6) M∆ ≈ Gs ms L/Gmι , where M∆ is the
mass within R∆ at which dv 2 /dR = 0 and at which the RR begins.
The mass in an elemental volume dR in the RR near the turnover was
modeled as a cylinder shell of small height Hrr (Binney and Merrifield 1998,
p. 724) and with density Drr at Rrr . The mass Mrr within a sphere with a
332 CHAPTER 10. GALAXY RCS AND ASYMMETRIC RCS

Rrr radius is
2
Mrr = (Drr Hrr 2π) Rrr + M∆ + Mc , (10.7)
where Mc is a small correction term, the mass in the thin cylindrical RR
shell ≈ the mass in the spherical shell with the same radial parameters, and
the M∆ is distributed in a much thicker volume, which may be spherical.
2
The components of Mc are − (Drr Hrr 2π) R∆ , the small amount of matter
indicated by v∆ 6= 0, and the variation of the mass in the RR from a
cylindrical distribution.
Inserting Eq. (10.7) into Eq. (10.6) for the RR yields
mg
 
2
vrr = GDrr Hrr 2π Rrr
mι
G(M∆ + Mc ) − ms Gs L/mι
+
Rrr
−|K~ • ~ao |Rrr , (10.8)
where vrr (km s−1 ) is the rotation velocity of H i in the RR at Rrr .
By averaging from side-to-side of the galaxy, the effect of the |K ~ • ~ao |
term was reduced and was considered insignificant for the first approxima-
tion compared to the Drr term near the knee. The F~g and the F~s offset each
other at R∆ to produce a minimum v that then rises in the RR. Because
v∆ ≈ 0 and the RCs near the knee are well fit by the straight lines, the
[G(M∆r + Mc ) − ms Gs Lm−1 ι ]/Rrr term is small and nearly constant in the
RR compared to the Drr term near the knee of the RC. Equation (10.8)
2
suggest vrr depends on galaxy parameters Drr and Hrr . Therefore, the first
approximation is
2
vrr Rrr
3 2 −2 = Srr + Irr , (10.9)
10 km s kpc
2
where Srr and Irr are the slope and intercept of the linear vrr − Rrr relation-
ship, respectively.
As Rrr increases, ms /mι of the predominant mass increases and the
predominant particles have decreasing density. Decreasing the amount of
mass in a given cylindrical shell causes the end of the RR and the beginning
of the transition region (TR) between the RR and OR. Because ǫ ∝ Mtǫ
and ǫ ∝ M∆ , the mass Mrrmax within the maximum RR radius Rrrmax (kps)
∝ ǫ ∝ L of Eq. (10.6). The rotation velocity vrrmax (km s−1 ) of the galaxy
at Rrrmax can be used to compare parameters among galaxies. Because this
change is caused by the change in elemental types that depends on the ǫ and,
hence, L of a galaxy, the end of the RR is occurring under similar conditions
10.2. RESULTS 333

2
in all galaxies. Thus, the vrrmax and Rrrmax are comparable parameters
among galaxies. Posit, as a first approximation,
2
vrrmax L
2 −2 = Sa + Ia , (10.10)
3
10 km s 10 erg s−1
8

where Sa and Ia are the slope and intercept of the linear relation, respec-
tively.
When the error in calculating distance is a small factor such as when
2
using Da or Dtf , more galaxies were sampled. The data of vrrmax versus L
of 15 select galaxies from Fig. 10.1 and of 80 other galaxies from Begeman
et al. (1991); Broeils (1992); Garcı́a-Ruiz et al. (2002); Guhathakurta et
al. (1988); Kornreich (2000); Kornreich (2001); Liszt and Dickey (1995);
Mannheim and Kmetko (1996); Rubin et al. (1985); and Swaters et al.
(1999), for which the RR was identified, are plotted in Fig. 10.2. The other
sample galaxies are listed in Table 10.2 denoted by an integer in the a1
column. Some of the galaxies had only two data points and a significant
decline in v 2 to indicate the end of the RR. The distribution of the data
2
points in Fig. 10.2 suggested a grouping of the galaxies such that the vrrmax
versus L relations are linear for each group. This is reflected in the plotted
lines in Fig. 10.2. Call each group a “classification”. For the calculation, the
2
(L,vrrmax ) = (0,0) point was included in all classifications. The relationship
of the slopes of the lines is

log10 Sa = Servd a1 + Iervd , (10.11)

where a1 is an integer, Servd = 1.3±0.2 and Iervd = 0.31±0.01 were obtained

by a least squares fit to produce the lowest uncertainty σe . The σe was cal-
2 2
culated as the standard deviation of the relative difference (δvrrmax /vrrmax )
between the measured parameter value and the calculated parameter value
divided by the calculated parameter value for the sample galaxies. Because
2
the goal is to examine the slope of the lines and because the (L,vrrmax )=
(0,0) point was included in all lines, minimization of σe chooses the calcu-
lated line with the closest slope to the slope of the line from (0,0) to the
data point. A χ2 type of minimization would choose a different line for
some of the sample galaxies.
Therefore,
Sa = Ka1 Baa11 , (10.12)
where Ia = 0 and Ka1 = 1.3 ± 0.2 and Ba1 = 2.06 ± 0.07 at 1 σ. The
values of Ka1 and Ba1 were chosen as the maximum Ba1 value that yielded a
334 CHAPTER 10. GALAXY RCS AND ASYMMETRIC RCS

Table 10.2: Interger values for the non-select galaxies in the sample.
Galaxy a1 a2 f1 f2 j1 j2 Galaxy a1 a2 f1 f2 j1 j2
IC 0467 3 9 NGC 4206 2 7
IC 2233 4 6 4 0 1 5 NGC 4216 2 8
NGC 0701 3 8 NGC 4222 5 10
NGC 0753 4 8 NGC 4237 4 6
NGC 0801 5 8 NGC 4359 4 3 3 1 1 5
NGC 0991 2 3 2 -3 1 3 NGC 4378 3 11
NGC 1024 4 8 NGC 4388 5 5
NGC 1035 4 6 NGC 4395 6 3 6 -1 -1 5
NGC 1042 3 4 3 -2 3 3 NGC 4448 4 7
NGC 1085 5 6 NGC 4605 4 10
NGC 1087 4 8 NGC 4647 3 7
NGC 1169 4 5 NGC 4654 4 1
NGC 1325 2 9 NGC 4682 3 7
NGC 1353 5 6 NGC 4689 5 9
NGC 1357 4 9 NGC 4698 4 6
NGC 1417 5 9 NGC 4772 1 3
NGC 1421 3 4 NGC 4845 3 7
NGC 1515 5 4 NGC 4866 4 9 4 7 3 4
NGC 1560 4 10 5 2 NGC 5023 4 8 4 -1 1 4
NGC 1620 3 5 NGC 5107 0 4
NGC 2715 2 7 NGC 5229 4 6 3 4 2 4
NGC 2742 3 5 NGC 5297 4 6 0 0 2 4
NGC 2770 3 4 NGC 5301 4 8 3 5 3 3
NGC 2844 3 13 NGC 5377 2 3
NGC 2903 5 11 3 5 NGC 5448 5 7 3 3 1 2
NGC 2998 3 2 NGC 5474 1 12 1 -2 0 4
NGC 3054 4 11 NGC 6503 5 9 5 4
NGC 3067 5 15 NGC 6814 7 6 8 -3
NGC 3109 5 5 5 2 NGC 7171 3 6
NGC 3118 4 4 4 1 2 3 NGC 7217 4 8
NGC 3200 4 15 NGC 7537 4 -1
NGC 3432 4 10 4 6 4 5 NGC 7541 4 0
NGC 3495 2 5 UGC 01281 4 5 4 -4 0 3
NGC 3593 5 11 UGC 02259 5 8 5 1
NGC 3600 4 5 4 6 4 5 UGC 03137 5 9 3 4 3 5
NGC 3626 4 6 UGC 03685 4 7 5 -4 0 6
NGC 3672 3 8 UGC 05459 5 6 4 2 2 6
NGC 3900 1 3 UGC 07089 4 0 4 -2 0 4
NGC 4010 3 8 4 3 2 5 UGC 07125 4 4 4 -1 1 3
NGC 4051 3 7 1 3 UGC 07321 2 7 4 8 6 4
NGC 4062 4 5 UGC 07774 4 8 4 1 2 5
NGC 4096 4 7 3 -2 2 4 UGC 08246 3 2 3 -2 0 5
NGC 4138 2 5 UGC 09242 0 23
NGC 4144 3 6 4 1 2 6 UGC 10205 1 10
NGC 4178 4 6

Table 10.3: Data for the integer values of a1 of Eq. (10.13) shown as the plotted lines in
Fig. 10.2.
a1 a No.b Corr.c F Test Sa de Ia f
1 2 1.00 1.00 2.482±0.004 0.006±0.006
2 7 0.97 0.93 6.6 ±0.6 0.1 ±0.7
3 20 0.99 0.96 12.8 ±0.5 -0.8 ±0.8
4 39 0.98 0.92 23.2 ±0.7 0.7 ±0.7
5 24 0.97 0.90 42 ±2 1 ±2
6 2 1.00 1.00 84.3 ±0.3 -0.2 ±0.2
7 1 1.00 1.00 261 0

a The integer denoting the exponential value in Eq. (10.13).

b The number of data points for each a1 value.
c The correlation coefficient rounded to two decimal places.
d The 2
least squares fit slope of the vrrmax - L lines.
e The 2
lines were calculated using (L,vrrmax ) = (0,0) as a data point.
f The 2
least squares fit intercept of the vrrmax - L lines.
10.2. RESULTS 335

2
Figure 10.2: Plot of square of the rotation velocity vrrmax (103 km2 s−2 ) at the maximum
8 −1
extent of the RR versus B band luminosity L (10 erg s ) for the 95 sample galaxies.
The 15 select galaxies have error bars that show the uncertainty range in each section of
the plot. The error bars for the remaining galaxies are omitted for clarity. The straight
lines mark the lines whose characteristics are listed in Table 10.3. The large, filled circle
denotes the data point for NGC 5448. The large, filled square denotes the data point for
NGC 3031.(Reprinted with permission of Nova Science Publishers, Inc. (Hodge 2010).)

correlation coefficient for each of the lines from the origin to the data points
(see Table 10.3 and Fig. 10.2) greater than 0.90, that yielded a minimum
σe , and that rejected the null hypothesis of the test in Appendix A with a
confidence greater than 0.95.
Combining Eqs. (10.10) and (10.12) yields
2
vrrmax a1 L
2 −2 = Ka1 Ba1 ± σe , (10.13)
3
10 km s 10 erg s−1
8

where σe = 21%. Note σe = 16% for only the select galaxies. The large,
2 2
filled circle in Fig. 10.2 is the data point for NGC 5448 (δvrrmax /vrrmax =
−0.35). The large, filled square in Fig. 10.2 denotes the data point for NGC
2 2
3031 (δvrrmax /vrrmax = 0.25).
Tables 10.2 and 10.4 lists the a1 values for the sample galaxies. Ta-
ble 10.5 lists the minimum correlation coefficient Ccmin of the lines, the
constants Kx , and the exponential bases Bx , where the subscript “x” de-
notes the generic term.
The average difference between L and the luminosity calculated using
2
Dtf is 0.38L for the select galaxies. The relative difference in vrrmax included
the measurement uncertainty and the uncertainty that the RR may extend
farther than the measured point such as seen for NGC 4258. The relative
336 CHAPTER 10. GALAXY RCS AND ASYMMETRIC RCS

Table 10.4: First approximation integer values for the select galaxies.
Galaxy a1 b1 c1 d1 e1 f1 g1 h1 i1 j1 k1 l1
NGC 0224 5 5 5 3 4 4 3 3 4 4
NGC 0598 4 6 3 6 6 5 5 3 6 6
NGC 3031 5 5 5 5 4 3 3 2 4 3 5 7
NGC 0300 5 7 3 6 7 5 5 2 7 7
NGC 2403 5 6 4 6 6 4 4 2 6 1 4 6
NGC 5457 4 5 5 1 2 1 4 3 1 4 5 4
NGC 4258 3 2 1 4 5 2 2 2 3 2 1 2
NGC 0925 5 6 4 4 2 2 4 2 4 2 3 6
NGC 2841 1 4 4 4 3 2 5 1
NGC 3198 4 6 5 2 1 2 4 3 3 2 6 5
NGC 4414 5 4 4 4 4 2 3 2 3 1 2 6
NGC 3319 3 6 4 2 3 3 4 2 5 1 5 4
NGC 7331 5 3 3 5 5 3 3 3 4 3 3 4
NGC 4535 4 4 3 3 4 2 1 1 5 3 4 3
NGC 4321 4 4 4 2 2 2 1 2 4 3 2 3
NGC 4548 6 1 2 10 8 4 2 2 6 9 16 7

2 2
differences δL/L = 0.3 and δvrrmax /vrrmax = 0.1 are shown as error bars in
Fig. 10.2 for the select galaxies.
Other parametric relationships to L in the RR were calculated using the
2
same procedure that was used to evaluate the vrrmax - L relation. Because
these equations involved Rrrmax , the calculation considered only the 15 select
galaxies. The resulting equations are:
Rrrmax L
= Kb1 Bbb11 8 ± 14% ; (10.14)
kpc 10 erg s−1
2
Rrrmax vrrmax c1 L
2 −2 = Kc1 Bc1 ± 15% ; (10.15)
3
10 kpc km s 10 erg s−1
8

2
vrrmax /Rrrmax d1 L
−1 2 −2 = Kd1 Bd1 ± 11% ; and (10.16)
3
10 kpc km s 10 erg s−1
8

Srr L
−1 = Ke1 Bee11 ± 13% ; (10.17)
103 kpc km2 s−2 108
erg s−1
where first approximation integer values are listed in Table 10.4 and the
Ccmin , Kx , and Bx are listed in Table 10.5.
Equations (10.13)–(10.16) suggest at least two of the four integers a1 ,
b1 , c1 , and d1 are functions of the other two.
10.2. RESULTS 337

Table 10.5: Values of the minimum correlation coefficients Ccmin , constants Kx , and
exponent bases Bx for the first approximation equations.
Integera Ccmin b Kx c Bx d
a1 0.97 1.3 ± 0.2 2.06±0.07
b1 0.86 0.34 ± 0.04 1.88±0.05
c1 0.96 19 ± 1 1.89±0.05
d1 0.99 1.0 ± 0.1 1.57±0.06
e1 0.97 0.49 ± 0.06 1.71±0.04
f1 0.96 8.6 ± 0.7 1.57±0.04
g1 0.93 4.4 ± 0.4 1.77±0.06
h1 0.97 150 ±10 2.5 ±0.1
i1 0.95 0.09 ± 0.02 1.9 ±0.2
l1 0.96 0.075± 0.009 1.95±0.02

a The integer of the exponential value of parametric relationship that denotes the applicable equation.
b The minimum correlation coefficient rounded to two decimal places of the lines of the parametric
relationship.
c The constant of proportionality at 1σ of the parametric relationship.
d The exponent base at 1σ of the parametric relationship.

The end of the EOR was considered to be at the largest radius Reormax
(kpc) along the major axis that H i is in orbit around the galaxy. Several
galaxies have a H i measured point on one side of the galaxy at a greater
Rmajor than the other side. Because averaging the v from each side of the
galaxy was required to reduce the |K ~ • ~ao | effect that causes non-circular
rotation, the outermost measured point used in the calculations was at the
Reormax with data points on both sides of the galaxy. At R > Reormax
particles are no longer in orbit. For particles other than H i, the ms /mι is
less. Therefore, their maximum radius in a galaxy is less. NGC 4321 has
H i extending farther than a radius of four arcminutes. However, Knapen
et al. (1993) concluded the H i motion beyond four arcminutes is not disk
rotation. Therefore, Reormax was considered to be at four arcminutes for
NGC 4321.
Because ǫ ∝ Mtǫ and ǫ ∝ M∆ , Meormax ∝ ǫ ∝ L, where Meormax is
the mass within Reormax of Eq. (10.6). The rotation velocity veormax of the
galaxy at a radius of Reormax can be used to compare parameters among
galaxies.
Parameter relations to L in the EOR were calculated using the same
2
procedure used to evaluate the vrrmax – L relation.
2
The data of veormax versus L of 16 select galaxies and of 34 other galaxies
from Begeman et al. (1991); Broeils (1992); Garcı́a-Ruiz et al. (2002); Ko-
rnreich (2000); Kornreich (2001); Liszt and Dickey (1995); Mannheim and
Kmetko (1996); and Swaters et al. (1999) for a total of 50 sample galaxies
are plotted in Fig. 10.3. The 34 other galaxies are listed in Table 10.2 de-
338 CHAPTER 10. GALAXY RCS AND ASYMMETRIC RCS

2
Figure 10.3: Plot of the square of rotation velocity veormax (103 km2 s−2 ) at extreme
8 −1
outer region versus B band luminosity L (10 erg s ) for the 50 sample galaxies. The 16
select galaxies have error bars that show the uncertainty level in each section of the plot.
The error bars for the remaining galaxies are omitted for clarity. The large, filled circle
denotes the data point for NGC 5448. The large, filled square denotes the data point for
NGC 3031. (Reprinted with permission of Nova Science Publishers, Inc. (Hodge 2010).)

noted by an integer in the f1 column. The uncertainty in determining the

value of the outermost point of the EOR is greater than determining the
end of the RR. Because the determination of the outermost value of the pa-
rameters requires instrumentation sensitive enough to measure the values,
2
data prior to 1990 of 46 other galaxies used in the vrrmax –L relation were
omitted. The equations involving Reormax used only the 16 select galaxies.
The resulting equations are:
2
veormax f1 L
2 −2 = Kf1 Bf1 ± 13% , (10.18)
3
10 km s 10 erg s−1
8

where the large, filled circle in Fig. 10.3 denotes the data point for NGC
2 2
5448 (δveormax /veormax = −0.20) and the large, filled square denotes the data
2 2
point for NGC 3031 (δveormax /veormax = −0.08);
Reormax L
= Kg1 Bgg11 8 ± 16% ; (10.19)
kpc 10 erg s−1
2
Reormax veormax h1 L
2 = K h1 Bh ± 19% ; and (10.20)
103 kpc km s−2 1
10 erg s−1
8

2
veormax /Reormax i1 L
−1 2 −2 = Ki1 Bi1 ± 15% ; (10.21)
3
10 kpc km s 10 erg s−1
8
10.2. RESULTS 339

where first approximation integer values are listed in Tables 10.2 and 10.4
and the Ccmin , Kx , and Bx are listed in Table 10.5.
The uncertainty in calculating |K ~ •~ao | depends on the accuracy of mea-
suring the distance D (Mpc) to neighbor galaxies that are without a Da and
without a Dtf measurement. The cell structure of galaxy clusters (Aaron-
son et al. 1982; Ceccarelli et al. 2005; Hodge 2006a; Hudson et al. 2004;
Lilje et al. 1986; Rejkuba 2004) suggests a systematic error in z relative
to D of a galaxy. Therefore, using z and the Hubble Law to determine D
introduces a large error. However, the cell model also suggests neighboring
galaxies have a similar D/z ratio in the first approximation. For those few
galaxies near our line of sight to the sample galaxy and near the sample
galaxy, Hodge (2006a) found a z change caused by the light passing close to
galaxies. For a single galaxy this effect is small and was ignored. Therefore,
zi
Di = Dp , (10.22)
zp

where zp and Dp (Mpc) are the redshift and distance of the sample galaxy,
respectively, and zi and Di (Mpc) are the redshift and calculated distance
of the ith neighbor galaxy, respectively. The Dp = Da for the select galaxies
and Dp = Dtf for the other sample galaxies. The L of the ith neighbor
galaxy was calculated using Di , mb , and Ext .
Because larger |zi −zp | implies larger error in Di , the Nsources and Nsinks of
Eq. (10.5) was limited to the number N of galaxies with the largest influence
~ of the sample galaxy, where the ∇ρ
on |∇ρ| ~ of Eq. (10.5) is evaluated at the
center of the sample galaxy. The N = 7 was chosen because it produced
the highest correlation in the calculations. Also, 6 ≤ N ≤ 9 produced
acceptable correlation in the calculations.
The calculation of |K ~ • ~ao | also requires knowledge of the orientation of
the sample galaxy. The direction of the sample galaxy’s polar unit vector
~epolar was defined as northward from the center of the sample galaxy along
the polar axis of the galaxy. Hu et al. (2005); Pereira and Kuhn (2005); and
Trujillo et al. (2006) found an alignment of the polar axis of neighboring
spiral galaxies. Therefore, the orientation of ~epolar with the higher |~epolar •~ao |
was chosen for the calculations.
The major axis unit vector ~emajor was defined as eastward from the center
of the sample galaxy along the major axis of the galaxy. The minor axis
unit vector ~eminor ≡ ~emajor × ~epolar .
At equal Rmajor > Rrrmax on opposite sides of the galaxy, the L terms of
Eq. (10.6) are equal and the M terms are nearly equal. Define asymmetry
340 CHAPTER 10. GALAXY RCS AND ASYMMETRIC RCS

Figure 10.4: Plot of maximum asymmetry Asymax (103 km2 s−2 ) versus |K ~ • ~ao |
(103 kpc−1 km2 s−2 ) for the 50 sample galaxies. The 13 select galaxies have error bars
that show the uncertainty level in each section of the plot. . The error bars for the
remaining galaxies are omitted for clarity. The large, filled circle denotes the data point
for NGC 5448. The large, filled square denotes the data point for NGC 3031.(Reprinted
with permission of Nova Science Publishers, Inc. (Hodge 2010).)

Asym ,
Asym ≡ (vh2 − vl2 )|R , (10.23)
where vh and vl are the larger v and smaller v at the same Rmajor (|R ) on
opposite sides of the galaxy, respectively.
The Asym is a function of Rmajor . The Asym and |K ~ • ~ao | are sensitive
to both radial (non-circular) motion of particles and to variation of v due
to torque. For the first approximation the maximum asymmetry Asymax in
the OR depends predominately on |K ~ • ~ao |. Because Asymax is minimally
dependant on R, Asymax is comparable among galaxies.
NGC 0224, NGC 0300, and NGC 0598 were omitted from the sample
because their z < 0 and their neighbor galaxies may have positive or neg-
ative z. Therefore, evaluating the distance of neighbor galaxies of these
galaxies was considered unreliable. Table 10.6 lists the |K~ •~ao |, Asymax , and
Asymax references for the remaining 13 select galaxies. The sample consisted
of 13 select galaxies and of 36 other galaxies from Garcı́a-Ruiz et al. (2002);
Kornreich (2000); Kornreich (2001); and Swaters et al. (1999) for a total of
49 sample galaxies. The 36 other galaxies are listed in Table 10.2 denoted
by an integer in the j1 column. The plot of Asymax versus |K ~ • ~ao | is shown
in Fig. 10.4.
2
The same procedure that was used to evaluate the vrrmax – L relation
10.2. RESULTS 341

Table 10.6: Asymmetry and |K~ • ~ao | data for the select galaxies.
Galaxy Asymax a |K ~ • ~ao |b Ref.c
NGC 0925 12.5 1.53 [1]
NGC 2403 2.0 0.99 [2]
NGC 2841 4.0 0.52 [3][4]
NGC 3031 7.1 0.35 [4]
NGC 3198 2.9 0.27 [5][6]
NGC 3319 1.4 0.44 [7]
NGC 4258 14.0 2.0 [8]
NGC 4321 64.7 2.6 [9]
NGC 4414 6.5 2.2 [10]
NGC 4535 16.7 0.58 [11]
NGC 4548 27.9 0.0018 [12]
NGC 5457 34.8 0.37 [13]
NGC 7331 17.6 0.71 [6]
a The units are 103 km2 s−2 . The uncertainty is ±10%.
b The units are 103 kpc−1 km2 s−2 . The uncertainty is ±30%.
c References: [1]Krumm and Salpeter (1979), [2]Begeman et al. (1991), [3] Fillmore et al. (1986),

[4]Rots (1975), [5]van Albada et al. (1985), [6]Bosma (1981), [7]Moore and Gottesman (1998), [8]van
Albada and Shane (1975), [9]Sempere et al. (1995), [10]Braine et al. (1993), [11]Chincarini & de Souza
(1985), [12]Vollmer et al. (1999), and [13]Bosma et al. (1981).

~ • ~ao | relation. The result is

was used to evaluate the Asymax – |K

Asymax j1
~ • ~ao |
|K
2 = K j Bj ± 28% , (10.24)
103 km s−2 1 1
103 kpc−1 km2 s−2
where first approximation integer values are listed in Tables 10.2 and 10.4,
Ccmin = 0.98, Kj1 = (1.000 ± 0.001), Bj1 = 2.94 ± 0.09, and
~
K = (3.60 × 10−6 ) ~epolar
−(6.81 × 10−6 ) ~emajor
−(1.18 × 10−5 ) ~eminor km kpc−1 (10.25)

at 1σ. The value of K ~ was chosen such that Kj ≈ 1.00.

1
The large, filled circle in Fig. 10.4 denotes the data point for NGC
5448 (δAsymax /Asymax = −0.08). The large, filled square denotes the data
point for NGC 3031 (δAsymax /Asymax = −0.21). For the 13 select galaxies,
σe = 17% [excluding the (Asymax , |K~ • ~ao |) = (0, 0) point].
Because the net effect of Fs and Fg from the host galaxy is weak at the
outer edge of the galaxy, the slope Seor (kpc−1 km2 s−2 ) of the H i RC for
the end of the EOR was compared among the 13 select galaxies. The Seor
342 CHAPTER 10. GALAXY RCS AND ASYMMETRIC RCS

were found by fitting a least squares straight line to the outermost two or
more data points of the RC with a 0.97 or higher correlation coefficient.
2
The same procedure that was used to evaluate the vrrmax – L relation was
~
used to evaluate the Seor – |K • ~ao | relation. The result is

Seor ~ • ~ao |
|K
= Kk1 Bkk11
103 kpc−1 km2 s−2 103 kpc−1 km2 s−2
+Iseor ± 15% , (10.26)

where Ccmin = 0.96, Kk1 = 0.64 ± 0.09, Bk1 = 1.74 ± 0.06, and Iseor =
−4.8 ± 0.1 at 1σ. Tables 10.4 lists the k1 values for the 13 select galaxies.
As seen in Fig. 10.1 the measured points in the OR appear nearly lin-
ear rather than a smoothly varying curve in most of the select galaxies.
Therefore, the linear approximation of the RC slope in the OR was con-
sidered more appropriate than a smoothly varying function. Define Sor
(km2 s−2 kpc−1 ) as the slope from the Rrrmax data point to the beginning
of the Seor of the H i RC. For the 15 select galaxies excluding NGC 2841,
following the same procedure as for finding Eq. (10.13) yields

Sor L
2 −2 −1 = − Kl1 Bll11 + Ior ± 15% , (10.27)
103 km s kpc 108 erg s−1

where the integer values are listed in Table 10.4. The Ccmin , Kl1 , and Bl1
values are listed in Table 10.5 and Ior = 1.6 ± 0.1.

10.2.3 Second approximation

Equation (10.6) indicates the parameters of galaxies depend on L and

~ • ~ao |. The first approximation selected either L or |K
|K ~ • ~ao | depending
upon which is predominant. The second approximation considered the less
predominant term to be a systematic correction term. Posit the residual
between the measured parameter value and the calculated first approxima-
tion parameter value is proportional to the less predominant term. Appling
the same procedure as for finding Eq. (10.13) yields:

2
vrrmax L
= Ka1 Baa11
103 km2 s−2 108 erg s−1
~ • ~ao |
|K
+(−1)sa Ka2 Baa22 ± 10% , (10.28)
103 kpc−1 km2 s−2
10.2. RESULTS 343

2
where Ka2 = 0.15 ± 0.02, Ba2 = 2.00 ± 0.03 at 1σ, for NGC 5448 (δvrrmax 2
/vrrmax = −0.04), and for
2
NGC 3031 (δvrrmax 2
/vrrmax = −0.03);
Rrrmax L
= Kb1 Bbb1
kpc 1 108 erg s−1
~ • ~ao |
|K
+(−1)sb Kb2 Bbb2 ± 2% , (10.29)
2 103 kpc−1 km2 s−2
where Kb2 = 0.08 ± 0.01 and Bb2 = 1.75 ± 0.08 at 1σ;
2
Rrrmax vrrmax L
= Kc1 Bcc11
103 kpc km2 s−2 108 erg s−1
~ • ~ao |
|K
+(−1)sc Kc2 Bcc22 ± 3% , (10.30)
103 kpc−1 km2 s−2
where Kc2 = 0.63 ± 0.07 and Bc2 = 1.98 ± 0.03 at 1σ;
2
vrrmax /Rrrmax L
= Kd1 Bdd1
10 kpc−1 km2 s−2
3 1 108 erg s−1
~ • ~ao |
|K
+(−1)sd Kd2 Bdd2 ± 3% , (10.31)
2 103 kpc−1 km2 s−2
where Kd2 = 0.024 ± 0.007 and Bd2 = 2.2 ± 0.3 at 1σ;
Srr L
= Ke1 Bee11
103 kpc−1 km2 s−2 108 erg s−1
~ • ~ao |
|K
+(−1)se Ke2 Bee22 ± 2% , (10.32)
103 kpc−1 km2 s−2
where Ke2 = 0.021 ± 0.003 and Be2 = 1.72 ± 0.03 at 1σ;
2
veormax L
= Kf1 Bff1
103 km2 s−2 1 108 erg s−1
~ • ~ao |
|K
+(−1)sf Kf2 Bff2 ± 2% , (10.33)
2 103 kpc−1 km2 s−2
2
where Kf2 = 0.7 ± 0.1 and Bf2 = 1.9 ± 0.1 at 1σ, for NGC 5448 (δveormax 2
/veormax = −0.03), and for
2
NGC 3031 (δveormax 2
/veormax = −0.02);
Reormax L
= Kg1 Bgg11
kpc 108 erg s−1
~ • ~ao |
|K
+(−1)sg Kg2 Bgg22 ± 3% , (10.34)
103 kpc−1 km2 s−2
where Kg2 = 0.008 ± 0.002 and Bg2 = 2.05 ± 0.09 at 1σ;
2
Reormax veormax L
= Kh1 Bhh1
103 kpc km2 s−2 1 108 erg s−1
~ • ~ao |
|K
+(−1)sh Kh2 Bhh2 ± 3% , (10.35)
2 103 kpc−1 km2 s−2
where Kh2 = 7 ± 2 and Bh2 = 2.06 ± 0.08 at 1σ;
2
veormax /Reormax L
= Ki1 Bii1
103 kpc−1 km2 s−2 1 108 erg s−1
~ • ~ao |
|K
+(−1)si Ki2 Bii2 ± 2% , (10.36)
2 103 kpc−1 km2 s−2
344 CHAPTER 10. GALAXY RCS AND ASYMMETRIC RCS

Table 10.7: Second approximation integer values for the select galaxies.
Galaxy a2 b2 c2 d2 e2 f2 g2 h2 i2 j2 k2 l2
NGC 0224
NGC 0598
NGC 3031 8 1 7 6 4 4 3 6 1 4 3 11
NGC 0300
NGC 2403 3 3 4 4 6 2 4 2 5 5 5 6
NGC 5457 4 6 7 5 8 3 7 7 4 5 3 8
NGC 4258 4 2 1 3 6 2 4 3 2 4 2 1
NGC 0925 5 2 2 2 1 1 3 1 1 4 6 3
NGC 2841 5 8 8 4 2 4 1
NGC 3198 6 6 9 1 2 5 8 6 4 3 2 7
NGC 4414 4 3 6 4 6 2 5 2 1 1 1 6
NGC 3319 4 4 6 2 4 3 7 3 5 2 6 7
NGC 7331 7 3 6 6 7 3 6 5 5 2 3 3
NGC 4535 7 6 5 4 9 3 4 2 7 4 3 6
NGC 4321 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 3 3 1 5
NGC 4548 16 12 8 16 21 13 14 13 16 4 5 18

where Ki2 = 0.024 ± 0.002 and Bi2 = 1.78 ± 0.04 at 1σ;

Asymax ~ • ~ao |
|K
= Kj1 Bjj1
103 km2 s−2 103 kpc−1 km2 s−2
1

L
+(−1)sj Kj2 Bjj2 8 ± 8% , (10.37)
2 10 erg s−1

where Kj2 = 0.053±0.008 and Bj2 = 2.4±0.2 at 1σ for the select galaxies, σe (δAsymax /Asymax ) = −0.04,
for NGC 5448 (δAsymax /Asymax = −0.02), and for NGC 3031 (δAsymax /Asymax = −0.04);
Seor ~ • ~ao |
|K
= Kk1 Bkk1 + Iseor
103 kpc−1 km2 s−2 103 kpc−1 km2 s−2
1

L
+(−1)sk Kk2 Bkk2 8 ± 2% , (10.38)
2 10 erg s−1

where Kk2 = 0.061 ± 0.006 and Bk2 = 1.80 ± 0.05 at 1σ; and
Sor L
= −Kl1 Bll1
103 km2 s−2 kpc−1 1 108 erg s−1
~ • ~ao |
|K
+Ior + (−1)sl Kl2 Bll2 ± 2% , (10.39)
2 103 kpc−1 km2 s−2
where Kl2 = 0.0039 ± 0.0005 and Bl2 = 1.96 ± 0.05 at 1σ.
If the measured value of a parameter is larger than the first approxima-
tion calculated value, the sign sx = 0 in Eqs. (10.28)-(10.39). If the mea-
sured value of a parameter is smaller than the first approximation calculated
value, the sign sx = 1 in Eqs. (10.28)-(10.39). The second approximation
integer values are listed in Tables 10.2 and 10.7.
The calculated RCs of the above equations are plotted as solid lines in
Fig. 10.1 for the select galaxies.
10.3. DISCUSSION 345

Because barred galaxies were part of the sample, the monopole Source
suggests the ρ is not sourced by matter as is gravity. The Source appears
as a monopole at the beginning of the RR that is a few kpc from the center
of the galaxy.

10.3 Discussion
The second approximation equations show little effect of neighboring galax-
ies on the H i RC except when orientation and closeness of luminous galaxies
produce a higher |K ~ • ~a|. Although the neighboring galaxy’s effect is less
significant on the RC, it does induce small perturbations in the orbits of
particles that cause the observed asymmetry. Because the ms /mι is smaller
for higher metallicity particles, the effect of neighboring galaxies on the Hα
RC is less. Therefore, the finding of cluster effects on Hα RCs is subject to
the sample selected and may be detected only when |K ~ • ~a| is large
A large |K~ • ~a| requires the host galaxy be oriented appropriately and
~
requires large ∇ρ. ~ is present near the cluster center or where
A large ∇ρ
the near galaxies are large and asymmetrically arranged around the host
galaxy. The former condition is caused by the η < 0 of the galaxies in
the cluster center surrounded by ǫ > 0 of the galaxies in the cluster shell.
Therefore, the SPM is consistent with the finding of Dale et al. (2001). The
latter condition may be caused by a large, near neighbor galaxy.
The SPM’s (Gmg Mg −Gs ms L)/mι R2 term has the form of a subtractive
change in Newtonian acceleration. The SPM suggests the ms change with
radius causes the species of matter to change with radius that causes the
appearance of a gravitational acceleration change with radius that is related
to L. If the |K~ • ~a| term is small, the SPM effective force model reduces to
the MOND model as was suggested in Hodge (2006a) for elliptical galaxies.
The deviation of the data of NGC 5448 from Eq. (10.13) suggest a
physical mechanism behind the quantized galaxy parameters. The clear
departure from circular motion and the significant mass transfer inward
(R̈ 6= 0) found by Fathi et al. (2005) suggests this galaxy is in transition
from one virial state to another. Further, the noted stellar and gas velocity
2
difference decreases at larger radii. The better fitting of the veormax – L
~
and of the Asymax – |K • ~ao | relations is the expected result. NGC 3031
shows strong, non-circular motion in the disk (Gottesman et al. 1966). This
suggests the integer variation is caused by the accumulation of mass at
potential barriers such as at R∆ and Rrrmax . Continued nucleosynthesis
346 CHAPTER 10. GALAXY RCS AND ASYMMETRIC RCS

and changing |K ~ • ~ao | causes an occasional, catastrophic rupture of one

or more of the potential barriers, R̈ 6= 0, and, therefore, the transition of
the galaxy from one integer classification to another. A smoothly varying
transition from the RR to the OR for flat or declining RCs such as NGC
4321 suggests mass is accumulating at a potential barrier at the end of the
RR and is being depleted from the outer parts of the OR.
Steinmetz (2002) found in a series of N-body/gas dynamical simula-
tions that included feedback: that feedback is a necessary component for
morphology determination; that the main morphological component is reg-
ulated by the mode of gas accretion and intimately linked to discrete ac-
cretion events; that morphology is a transient phenomenon; and that the
Hubble sequence reflects the varied accretion histories of galaxies. If lumi-
nosity is proportional to the ǫ, which directly causes the parameters of the
RC, then there must exist a feedback mechanism controlling the parameters
of the RC.
Approximately 66% of the sample galaxies have a1 = 4 or a1 = 5 as seen
2
in Fig. 10.2 and Table 10.3. If a1 = 4.5 is used in Eq. (10.13), vrrmax ∝L
for a majority of sample galaxies. Only NGC 4258 of the select galaxies
would appear to be an outlier, which may suggest the vrrmax is larger than
the measured point chosen herein. Further, the neighboring galaxy effect
2
would fail to improve the vrrmax ∝ L relation. The effect of the integer
values is to broaden the applicability of the parameter – L relations and
to establish relations wherein the neighboring galaxy effect improves the
calculation.
The SPM does not use the mass-to-light ratio to fit RCs. Indeed,
Eqs. (10.15) and (10.20) imply the effective mass-to-light ratio varies among
galaxies as observed.
The use of the MB derived from the TF and the degree of correlation
achieved herein suggests the mass term is totally determined by baryonic
matter. The ∇ρ~ field serves the same role in the equations as DM. Equa-
tion (10.4) with the L term and Eq. (10.8) with the M∆ term suggests a
much larger spiral galaxy baryonic mass [M of Eq. (10.4)] than traditional
Newtonian mechanics calculates(Rv 2 /G). Therefore, the ∇ρ ~ field causes
Newtonian kinematic measurements to considerably underestimate mass in
a galaxy (M ≈ Rv 2 /G + Gs ms L/Gmι ). The difference between the SPM
and other RC models of the “missing mass problem” is that the added
mass follows the luminous mass as suggested by the ms /mι in the equa-
tions. Therefore, the added mass is baryonic rather than DM, a changing
gravitation constant, a changing acceleration, or other form of “fifth force”.
10.3. DISCUSSION 347

The “missing mass” is non-luminous, baryonic matter.

The purpose of the present investigation was to expand the SPM to
be consistent with galaxy RC, asymmetry and EOR observations. The
resulting model adds the force of a scalar potential of the sample galaxy
and of neighboring galaxies to the Newtonian rotation velocity equation.
The form of the equation for each parameter of each region is the same
with differing constants. Integer values, rather than scale factors, determine
the particular galaxy parameter values. Among the sample galaxies, the B
band luminosity of a galaxy is related (1) to the maximum rotation velocity,
radius, mass, and acceleration parameters at the end of the RR and at the
end of the EOR and (2) to the slope of the RC in the RR and OR. The
scalar potential effect of the neighboring galaxies is related to the slope of
the H i RC in the EOR, to the asymmetry in the OR, and to the residual
of the measured and calculated values of the above mentioned luminosity
dependent parameters. The RC in the OR may be rising, flat, or declining
depending on the galaxy and its environment. The scalar potential field
causes Newtonian mechanics to considerably underestimate the mass in
galaxies. The Source of the scalar field appears as a monopole at distances
of a few kpc from the center of spiral galaxies. The resulting RC equation
is consistent with the formation, evolution, and long term maintenance
of asymmetry observations. The RC observations are consistent with the
SPM.
348 CHAPTER 10. GALAXY RCS AND ASYMMETRIC RCS
Chapter 11

Galaxy central mass and

velocity dispersion correlation
with outer galaxy parameters

1
Because the amplitude and shape of galaxy rotation curves (RCs) corre-
late with galaxy luminosity (Burstein & Rubin 1985; Catinella 2006; Hodge
& Castelaz 2003b; Persic 1996), relationships between galaxy central pa-
rameters and large scale galaxy parameters are unexpected by Newtonian
dynamics.
Whitmore et al. (1979) and Whitmore & Kirshner (1981) found the ratio
of the rotation velocity vc (km s−1 ) in the flat region of the RC and the
central velocity dispersion σc (km s−1 ) ≈ 1.7 for a sample of S0 and spiral
galaxies. Gerhard et al. (2001) found the maximum circular velocity of
giant, round, and nearly non-rotating elliptical galaxies is correlated to the
σc . Ferrarese (2002) discovered a power law relationship between circular
velocity vc25 (km s−1 ) beyond the radius R25 of the 25th isophote and σc for
a sample that also include elliptical galaxies (see her Fig. 1). Baes et al.
(2003) expanded on the data for spiral galaxies with flat and smooth RCs.
NGC 0598 was a clear outlier. The vc25 for NGC 0598 used in Ferrarese
(2002) was 135 km s−1 that is the highest data point of a rising RC (Corbelli
& Salucci 2000). Galaxies with σc < 70 km s−1 (vc25 < 150 km s−1 ) also
deviate from the linear relation. NGC 4565 was excluded because of warps
in the HI disk. Also, galaxies with significant non-circular motion of the HI
gas such as NGC 3031, NGC 3079, and NGC 4736 were omitted in Ferrarese
(2002). NGC 3200 and NGC 7171 were also excluded from Ferrarese (2002)
1 Portions reprinted with permission of Nova Science Publishers, Inc. (Hodge 2010).

349
350 CHAPTER 11. CENTRAL MASSIVE OBJECTS

because of discrepant σc values in the literature.

Pizzella et al. (2005) found results similar to Ferrarese (2002) for high
surface brightness (HSB) galaxies. Pizzella et al. (2005) also found the
data consistent with a linear vc –σc relation. HSB galaxies with flat RCs
were chosen for the sample. Also, galaxies with highly asymmetric RCs
and galaxies with RCs not characterized by an outer flat portion were ex-
cluded. Also, Pizzella et al. (2005) found the vc –σc linear relation for low
surface brightness (LSB) galaxies is offset with a larger vc intercept relative
to HSB galaxies. Buyle et al. (2004) confirmed this distinction between
HSB and LSB galaxies for σc > 80 km s−1 and found that the distinction
is less pronounced for galaxies with σc < 80 km s−1 . They concluded that
the scatter of the vc –σc relation is a function of galaxy mass or that the
vc –σc relation changes at σc ≈ 80 km s−1 . Hodge & Castelaz (2003b) sug-
gested the offset of the measurement of vc between HSB and LSB galaxies
is because the measurement is in an area of the rotation curve (RC) more
influenced by neighboring galaxies and in an area of the generally rising
RC of LSB galaxies. Further, the criteria for excluding galaxies describe
characteristics of large influence of neighbor galaxies. Using the vrrmax as
defined by Hodge & Castelaz (2003b) may be more appropriate.
The masses of compact stellar clusters at the center of intermediate- and
low-luminosity galaxies also correlate with the mass of the host galaxy (Fer-
rarese et al. 2006; Wehner & Harris 2006). Ferrarese et al. (2006) suggested
the compact stellar clusters and the supermassive black hole (SBH) mod-
eled as being at the center of high-luminosity galaxies should be grouped
together under the terminology of “Central Massive Objects” (CMOs) with
mass Mcmo . The finding of the correlation between Mcmo and the total mass
in a galaxy Mgal suggests a similar galaxy formation process (Ferrarese et
al. 2006; Wehner & Harris 2006).
Ghez et al. (2000) and Ferrarese and Merritt (2002) have observed Ke-
plerian motion to within one part in 100 in elliptical orbits of stars that are
from less than a pc to a few 1000 pc from the center of galaxies. The stars
within nine light hours of the Galaxy center have velocities of 1300 km s−1
to 9000 km s−1 (Schödel 2002) and high accelerations (Ghez et al. 2000). A
huge amount of mass Mc (M⊙ ) such as millions of black holes, dense quark
stars (Prasad and Bhalerao 2003, and references therein), and ionized iron
(Wang et al. 2002) must be inside the innermost orbit of luminous matter
(Dunning-Davies 2004; Ghez et al. 2000, 2003a,b; Schödel 2002).
The Mc varies among galaxies from 106 M⊙ to 1010 M⊙ (Ferrarese &
Merritt 2000; Gebhardt et al. 2000a). Ferrarese (2002) found the ratio of
 351

the Mc to the mass MDM of the dark matter halo thought to be around
spiral galaxies is a positive value that decreased with MDM . The Mc can
be distributed over the central volume with a density of at least 1012 M⊙
pc−3 (Dunning-Davies 2004; Ghez et al. 1998, 2000, 2003b). The orbits of
stars closest to the center of the Galaxy are approximately 1,169 times the
Schwartschild radius of a supermassive black hole (SBH) thought to be at
the center of the Galaxy (Ghez et al. 2000; Schödel 2002). The orbits of
stars closest to the center of the Galaxy are following elliptical paths (Ghez
et al. 2000) that suggests a net, attractive central force consistent with the
Newtonian spherical property (Ghez et al. 2003a; Schödel 2003).
That Mc is crowded into a ball with a radius of less than 45 AU is
proven (Ghez et al. 2003b). That the structure of Mc is a SBH is widely
accepted, but unproven (see Kormendy & Richstone 1995 for a discussion).
The Newtonian model implies the Mc must either quickly dissipate or must
quickly collapse into a SBH (Kormendy & Richstone 1995; Magorrian et al.
1998). The long term maintenance of Mc rules out the first possibility.
Mouawad et al. (2004) suggested there is some extended mass around Sgr
A. Observations have ruled out many models of the nature of Mc of galaxies
(Ghez et al. 2003a; Schödel 2003).
Observations inconsistent with the SBH model include shells of out-
ward flowing, shocked gas around galactic nuclei (Binney and Merrifield
1998, page 595)(Königl 2003). Shu et al. (2003) and Silk and Rees (1998)
suggested a repulsive force, called a “wind” (a gas), exerted a repulsive force
acting on the cross sectional area of particles. Therefore, denser particles
such as black holes move inward relative to less dense particles. Less dense
particles such as hydrogen gas move outward. Other observations incon-
sistent with the SBH model include the apparent inactivity of the central
SBH (Baganoff et al. 2001; Baganoff 2003a; Nayakshin and Sunyaev 2003;
Zhao et al. 2003) and the multitude of X-ray point sources, highly ionized
iron, and radio flares without accompanying large variation at longer wave-
lengths reported near the center of the Milky Way (Baganoff et al. 2001;
Baganoff 2003a,b; Binney and Merrifield 1998; Genzel et al. 2003; Zhao
et al. 2003; Wang et al. 2002).
The Mc correlation with Blue band luminosity Lbulge of the host galaxy’s
bulge (Kormendy & Richstone 1995) has a large scatter. The Mc ∝
σcα , where α varies between 5.27±0.40 (Ferrarese & Merritt 2000) and
3.75±0.3 (Gebhardt et al. 2000a). The Mc − σc relation appears to hold for
galaxies of differing Hubble types, for galaxies in varying environments, and
for galaxies with smooth or disturbed morphologies. Tremaine et al. (2002,
352 CHAPTER 11. CENTRAL MASSIVE OBJECTS

and references therein) suggested the range of α is caused by systematic

differences in the velocity dispersions used by different groups. Merritt and
Ferrarese (2001b) found the range of α is partly due to the type of regres-
sion algorithm used and partly due to the velocity dispersion of the Galaxy
sample selected. Also, discrepancies have been noted among the methods
used to measure Mc (Gebhardt et al. 2000b; Merritt & Ferrarese 2001b, and
references therein). Bernardi et al. (2006) found a selection bias or large
scatter in the Mc –σ and Mc –Lbulge correlations that may be the result of
more fundamental relations among Mc , σ, and Lbulge .
A scalar potential model (SPM) was derived from considerations of
galaxy clusters (Hodge 2006a). The SPM suggests the RCs of spiral galax-
ies are determined by a scalar potential term added to the conventional
Newtonian rotation velocity equation. The scalar potential term is propor-
tional to Blue band luminosity L (erg s−1 ) of a galaxy. For spiral galaxies
(Sources), the scalar potential term is directed outward. For other galaxies
(Sinks), the scalar potential term is directed inward. The SPM found pa-
rameters P of HI RCs of spiral galaxies are related to L of the host galaxy
and of nearby galaxies (Hodge & Castelaz 2003b). The parameters are the
square of the rotation velocity, the radius, the mass, and the acceleration
at discontinuities in the RC. The equation is
P
= K1 B1I1 L
108 erg s−1
+
unit
~
(−1)s K2 B2I2 103 kpc|K•~
−1
ao |
km2 s−2
± σe , (11.1)
where unit is the units of P ; K1 , K2 , B1 , and B2 are constants that are
unique for each P ; I1 and I2 are integers that are unique for each galaxy;
~ • ~ao | is the influence of nearby galaxies and is a correction term to the
|K
primary P −L relationship; s determines the sign of the |K ~ •~ao | term; K
~ is a
constant vector common for all galaxies; ~ao is the acceleration vector that is
calculated from the orientation of the host galaxy, the L of the neighboring
galaxies, and the relative position of the neighboring galaxies; and σe is the
standard deviation of the relative differences (δP/P ) of the sample galaxies.
This Chapter pursues the possibility of a relation between Mc , σc , and
L of the host and neighboring galaxies suggested by the SPM. A correlation
is found in the form of Eq. (11.1). Therefore, a central, repulsive force Fs
exerted by the scalar potential ρ field exists to maintain the Mc of spiral
galaxies from collapse.
In section 11.1, the sample is described. Equation (11.1) is used to
calculate Mc and σc in Section 11.2. The discussion and conclusion are in
11.1. SAMPLE 353

Section 11.3.

11.1 Sample
The galaxies used in the calculations were those used in Hodge & Castelaz
(2003b). That is, they were selected from the NED database2 . The selection
criteria were that the heliocentric redshift zh be less than 0.03 and that
the object be classified as a galaxy. The parameters obtained from the
NED database included the name, equatorial longitude Elon (degrees) for
J2000.0, equatorial latitude Elat (degrees) for J2000.0, morphology, the B-
band apparent magnitude mb (mag.), and the extinction Ext (mag.) as
defined by NED. The galactocentric redshift z was calculated from zh .
The σc , the 21-cm line width W20 (km s−1 ) at 20 percent of the peak,
the inclination in (arcdegrees), and the position angle pa (arcdegrees) for
galaxies were obtained from the LEDA database3 if such data existed.
The host sample galaxies with σc , mb , W20 , in , and pa values were (1)
those used in Hodge & Castelaz (2003b); and Swaters et al. (1999), (2) those
used in Ferrarese (2002), and (3) those specifically excluded from Ferrarese
(2002). A total of 82 host sample galaxies were used for the σc calculation.
Of the host galaxies, 60 are Source galaxies and 22 are Sink galaxies. Tables
11.1 and 11.2 lists the host galaxies used in the σc calculation. Table 11.2
lists the 29 host galaxies used in the Mc calculation.
The distance D (Mpc) data for the 29 host sample used in the Mc cal-
culation were taken from Merritt & Ferrarese (2001b). The D to nine host
galaxies was calculated using Cepheid stars from Freedman et al. (2001) and
Macri et al. (2001). The D to NGC 3031 and NGC 4258 were from Merritt
& Ferrarese (2001b) rather than from Freedman et al. (2001). The D to the
remaining host sample galaxies was calculated using the Tully-Fisher rela-
tion with the constants developed in Hodge (2006a). The remaining galaxies
from the NED database were neighbor galaxies. The D of these galaxies
was calculated from the relative z and D of the host galaxy as described by
Hodge & Castelaz (2003b). The L for the galaxies was calculated from D,
mb , and Ext .
This host galaxy sample has LSB, medium surface brightness (MSB),
and HSB galaxies; includes LINER, Sy, HII, and less active galaxies; field
2 The Ned database is available at http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu. The data were obtained from

NED on 5 May 2004.

3 The LEDA database is available at http://leda.univ-lyon.fr. The data were obtained from LEDA

on 5 May 2004.
354 CHAPTER 11. CENTRAL MASSIVE OBJECTS

Table 11.1: Data for the host sample galaxies used in the σc calculation.
Galaxy Morph. La |K • a|b σc c m1 m2 δσc /σc
IC 0342 SAB(rs)cd HII 4.014 d 74 0 d -0.11
IC 0724 Sa 1.796 0.057 246 5 11 -0.02
N 0224 SA(s)b LINER 1.125 20.414 170 5 6 0.03
N 0598 SA(s)cd HII 0.219 27.936 37 2 1 0.01
N 0701 SB(rs)c Sbrst 0.425 1.198 73 3 6 0.02
N 0753 SAB(rs)bc 1.255 0.584 116 3 6 0.00
N 0801 Sc 1.162 0.753 146 4 7 0.00
N 1024 (R’)SA(r)ab 1.714 0.713 173 4 8 -0.02
N 1353 SA(rs)bc LINER 1.014 0.386 87 3 9 0.17
N 1357 SA(s)ab 2.063 0.270 124 3 10 0.08
N 1417 SAB(rs)b 1.580 0.613 140 3 8 0.05
N 1515 SAB(s)bc 0.745 1.896 101 4 7 -0.11
N 1620 SAB(rs)bc 1.120 0.446 124 4 9 -0.11
N 2639 (R)SA(r)a ? Sy1.9 4.588 0.023 198 3 13 0.04
N 2742 SA(s)c 0.750 2.353 66 2 4 -0.01
N 2775 SA(r)ab 2.987 0.103 176 3 7 0.00
N 2815 (R’)SB(r)b 2.217 3.306 203 4 6 0.01
N 2841 SA(r)b ;LINER Sy1 1.822 0.524 206 4 9 0.04
N 2844 SA(r)a 0.602 0.055 110 4 9 -0.01
N 2903 SB(s)d HII 0.947 0.130 102 3 8 0.02
N 2998 SAB(rs)c 1.022 2.551 91 3 6 -0.06
N 3067 SAB(s)ab? HII 0.309 0.002 80 4 12 -0.01
N 3079 SB(s)c;LINER Sy2 1.300 0.036 146 4 11 -0.07
N 3145 SB(rs)bc 1.529 0.452 169 4 8 0.03
N 3198 SB(rs)c 0.855 0.272 63 2 7 -0.08
N 3200 SA(rs)bc 1.930 0.009 177 4 14 0.12
N 3593 SA(s)0/a;HII Sy2 0.263 0.059 54 3 8 0.01
N 4051 SAB(rs)bc Sy1.5 2.166 0.653 84 1 7 -0.04
N 4062 SA(s)c HII 0.518 0.869 93 4 7 0.00
N 4216 SAB(s)b HI I/LINER 1.731 0.175 207 4 11 -0.05
N 4321 SAB(s)bc;LINER HII 2.209 2.613 86 1 5 0.04
N 4378 (R)SA(s)a Sy2 6.049 0.120 198 2 11 -0.04
N 4388 SA(s)b sp Sy2 0.791 4.067 115 4 6 0.04
N 4414 SA(rs)c? LINER 1.294 2.158 110 3 6 0.01
N 4448 SB(r)ab 1.163 1.000 173 5 9 -0.07
N 4548 SBb(rs);LINER Sy 1.087 0.002 144 4 12 0.00
N 4565 SA(s)b? sp Sy 3 Sy1.9 1.655 12.922 136 3 4 0.01
N 4647 SAB(rs)c 0.748 0.134 98 3 9 0.05
N 4698 SA(s)ab Sy2 1.396 3.587 133 3 6 0.05
N 4736 (R)SA(r)ab;Sy 2 LINER 1.230 1.092 104 3 7 -0.02
N 4866 SA(r)0+ sp LINER 1.904 0.416 210 4 10 -0.08
N 5033 SA(s)c Sy1.9 1.302 0.937 131 3 8 0.00
N 5055 SA(rs)bc HI I/LINER 1.383 3.582 101 3 7 0.21
N 5297 SAB(s)c sp 0.956 1.432 119 4 8 0.11
N 5457 SAB(rs)cd 2.129 0.370 73 1 7 -0.05
N 6503 SA(s)cd HI I/LINER 0.197 0.303 46 3 5 -0.01
N 6814 SAB(rs)bc Sy1.5 0.036 2.830 112 9 7 0.05
N 7171 SB(rs)b 1.006 0.457 84 2 8 -0.04
N 7217 (R)SA(r)ab;Sy LINER 2.117 0.918 127 3 8 -0.11
N 7331 SA(s)b LINER 1.570 0.711 138 3 8 -0.01
N 7506 (R’)SB(r)0+ 0.741 0.051 147 5 12 0.15
N 7537 SAbc 0.693 146.761 78 3 1 -0.01
N 7541 SB(rs)bc pec HII 1.397 125.361 65 1 -1 0.01
a Unit: 108 erg cm−2 s−1 .
b Unit: 103 kpc−1 km2 s−2 .
c Unit: 103 km2 s−2 .
d This galaxy has a z value too small to obtain the |K • a| measurement.
11.2. RESULTS 355

Table 11.2: Data for the host sample galaxies used in the σc and Mc calculations.
Galaxy Morphology La |K • a|b σc c Mc d m1 m2 δσc /σc n1 n2 δMc /Mc
I 1459 E3 3.757 0.809 306 4.600 4 10 0.00 5 10 -0.02
N 0221 cE2 0.021 e 72 0.039 8 0.03 6 e 0.05
N 2787 SB(r)0+ 0.122 2.230 194 0.410 8 8 -0.04 7 2 -0.01
N 3031 SA(s)ab 1.047 0.352 162 0.680 4 10 -0.11 4 6 0.01
N 3115 S0- 1.187 322.121 252 9.200 6 11 0.05 9 13 -0.03
N 3245 SA(r)0 0.956 6.161 210 2.100 5 7 -0.02 6 5 -0.04
N 3379 E1 0.979 14.051 207 1.350 5 6 -0.05 6 3 -0.01
N 3608 E2 1.164 0.708 192 1.100 5 9 0.05 5 6 -0.01
N 4258 SAB(s)bc 1.188 1.536 134 0.390 4 8 0.07 3 2 0.02
N 4261 E2-3 2.972 10.588 309 5.400 5 7 0.04 6 1 0.00
N 4342 S0- 0.121 0.108 251 3.300 9 11 0.01 11 5 -0.01
N 4374 E1;LERG 3.595 9.080 282 17.000 4 7 -0.06 8 7 -0.02
N 4473 E5 0.941 0.842 179 0.800 5 8 0.04 5 7 0.01
N 4486 E+0-1 5.075 0.084 333 35.700 4 12 -0.02 8 19 0.00
N 4564 E6 0.362 56.704 157 0.570 6 0 0.00 6 -3 -0.01
N 4649 E2 3.699 1.337 335 20.600 5 9 -0.07 8 9 0.00
N 4697 E6 1.291 1.994 174 1.700 4 7 0.07 6 8 0.07
N 5128 S0 pec 0.655 1.739 120 2.400 4 6 0.04 7 7 0.00
N 5845 E 0.368 0.314 234 2.900 7 10 -0.02 9 11 0.01
N 6251 E;LERG 4.990 0.016 311 5.900 4 10 0.00 5 17 0.03
N 7052 E 3.284 0.232 270 3.700 4 10 0.04 5 11 -0.02
N 3384 SB(s) 0.690 2.424 148 0.140 5 7 0.03 2 -4 0.00
N 4742 E4 0.193 7.798 109 0.140 6 5 0.04 4 -1 -0.02
N 1023 SB(rs)0 0.625 2.266 204 0.440 6 6 0.00 4 3 0.01
N 4291 E3 0.816 1.414 285 1.900 7 9 -0.11 7 8 -0.06
N 7457 SA(rs)0 0.323 0.900 69 0.036 4 7 0.00 1 -2 0.02
N 0821 E6? 1.518 0.329 200 0.390 5 10 -0.15 3 8 -0.04
N 3377 E5-6 0.454 0.442 139 1.100 5 8 0.04 7 9 -0.03
N 2778 E 0.253 2.230 162 0.130 7 7 -0.10 4 1 0.01
a Unit: 108 erg cm−2 s−1 .
b 3
Unit: 10 kpc −1 2
km s −2 .
c Unit: 103 km2 s−2 .
d Unit: 108 M⊙ .
e This galaxy has a z value too small to obtain the |K • a| measurement.

and cluster galaxies; galaxies with rising, flat, and declining RCs; and galax-
ies with varying degrees of asymmetry. The host sample includes NGC 0598,
NGC 3031, NGC 3079, NGC 3200, NGC 4565, NGC 4736, and NGC 7171
that were excluded from Ferrarese (2002), six galaxies with σc < 70 km s−1 ,
and galaxies that Pizzella et al. (2005) would exclude.

11.2 Results
Appling the same procedure used by Hodge & Castelaz (2003b) for finding
the parametric equations yields:

σc2 m1 L
= Kσ1 Bσ1 108 erg s−1
+
103 km2 s−2
m2 |K•~ao | ~
(−1)s Kσ2 Bσ2 103 kpc−1 km2 s−2
± 6% (11.2)

and
Mc n1 L
= KM1 BM1 108 erg s−1
+
108 M⊙
n2 |K•~ao | ~
(−1)sM KM2 BM2 103 kpc−1 km2 s−2
± 3%, (11.3)
356 CHAPTER 11. CENTRAL MASSIVE OBJECTS

where Kσ1 = 1.6 ± 0.3, Kσ2 = (2.5 ± 0.7) × 10−3 , Bσ1 = 1.88 ± 0.06, Bσ2 =
2.52 ± 0.09, KM 1 = 0.7 ± 0.1, KM 2 = (5.1 ± 0.8) × 10−3, BM1 = 1.73 ± 0.04,
and BM2 = 1.70 ± 0.03. The integer values for each host sample galaxy are
listed in Tables 11.1 and 11.2. In both relations, σe = 18% for the L term,
only.
Equation (11.1) was derived assuming the Newtonian spherical property
applied. That is, the Source was internal to the orbits of the mass under
consideration. The applicability of Eq. (11.1) to σc and Mc suggests the
Source or Sink acts as a monopole internal to the particles of Mc .

11.3 Discussion
The SPM speculates structures of the central mass and the structure of
stellar nuclear clusters are the same. The suggested CMO structure is a
central Source of a matter-repulsive ρ ∝ R−1 , where R is the galactocentric
radius, surrounded by a spherical shell of matter. The SPM suggests the
L ∝ ǫ, where ǫ is the Source strength, and, therefore, Fs ∝ ∇ρ at a given R
on the cross section of matter ms . Therefore, the density (ms /mi ), where mi
is the inertial mass, of particles at a given radius varies with L. Therefore,
the galaxies with larger L will have more mass in the center shell to balance
the higher Fs with the gravitational force Fg . Therefore, the SPM naturally
leads to the smoothness of the Mcmo – Mgal relation for the full range of
CMO spiral galaxies.
If this speculation is essentially correct, then the correlation of central
parameters with spiral galaxy global and RC parameters suggests not only
a similar galaxy formation process but also a self- regulatory, negative feed-
back process continually occurring. Feedback processes have been suggested
in several recent studies of galaxies with CMOs (e.g. Li et al. 2006; Merritt
& Ferrarese 2001b; Robertson et al. 2006). I further speculate the ǫ is the
control of the negative feedback process. If the mass of the CMO increases,
the Fg increases and mass migrates inward. At very high ρ, the high re-
pulsive Fs compresses matter, the mass (black hole) cracks like complex
molecules in the high heat and pressure of a fractional distillation process,
and matter is reclaimed as radiation and elementary particles that form
hydrogen. This accounts for the large amount of hydrogen outflowing from
the Galaxy center and shocked gas near the Galaxy center. A single black
hole reclamation event is consistent with the periodic X-ray pulses from the
Galaxy center. Further, the feedback loop controlled by ǫ is the connec-
tion among the central parameters, outer RC parameters, and the global
11.3. DISCUSSION 357

parameters of spiral galaxies. However, the ǫ of a galaxy acts only radially.

Therefore, the |K ~ • ~ao | terms effects are the asymmetry and the formation,
evolution, and maintenance of the rotation of particles. This effect may be
calculated only if the classification of parameters is first calculated.
Another speculation is that there may be galaxies with higher and lower
values of ǫ than in spiral galaxies. For instance, QSOs may have a higher
value of ǫ that ejects matter from a spiral configuration (e.g see the images
of Sulentic & Arp 1987). A smaller value of ǫ would be insufficient to form
a disk.
The L term is the primary, determining factor of the parameter rela-
tions. The neighboring galaxies cause the scatter noted in previous studies.
The special focus of the present investigation included galaxies that are
problematic in other models. Considering the range of observations and
range of galaxy characteristics with which the SPM is consistent, the SPM
is a relatively simple model.
The SPM was applied to central region parameters. For a sample of
60 Source galaxies and 22 Sink galaxies, the σc was found to correlate to
the host galaxy’s and neighboring galaxy’s B band luminosity. The sample
included galaxies with rising, flat and declining RCs; galaxies with a wide
range of characteristics; and galaxies excluded from samples of other studies
of σc relationships. For a sample of seven Source galaxies and 22 Sink
galaxies, the Mc was found to correlate to the host galaxy’s and neighboring
galaxy’s B band luminosity. The equations have the same form as the SPM
equations for the parameters of the HI RCs. The Sources and Sinks act as
monopoles at the center of the galaxies around them. The SPM is consistent
with Mc and σc observations of the sample galaxies.
358 CHAPTER 11. CENTRAL MASSIVE OBJECTS
Chapter 12

Temperature of the universe

None of the currently debated cosmology models includes a derivation of a

theoretical, time average, cosmic microwave background (CMB), Planckian
temperature V of the universe and an explanation of the deviation of the
measured temperature vm = 2.725 ± 0.002 K (Bennett et al. 2003; Mather
et al. 1999) from V .1 The COBE result showed the CMB radiation spec-
trum is very close to a pure Planck function.
The standard cosmological, “big bang” cosmological models (BBM)
view the CMB as a relic of an era of the universe when energy density was
very high. As the universe expanded, the temperature declined adiabaticly.
Therefore, the BBM of the CMB temperature is inversely proportional to
the cosmological scale factor such that vm is constant in all directions and
redshifts.
Inflationary models posit a scalar field causes the early, accelerated ex-
pansion of space. The inflationary universe scenario solves the horizon and
flatness problems and the related entropy problem. Inflation models are also
models for the origin of the large–scale structure of the universe and pre-
dicted an almost scale-invariant spectrum of cosmological fluctuations. In-
flation models have serious conceptual problems [see Brandenberger (2005,
and references therein) for a summary]. Riess et al. (1998) found evidence
for a transition at redshift z = 0.46±0.13 from a cosmic deceleration to a
cosmic acceleration and for a “cosmic jerk” at the transition.
The “Steady State” models (SSM) posit the universe has always ex-
isted and is continually expanding and contracting. Therefore, energy and
matter must be continually being created in intergalactic space and the
temperature of the universe must be continually changing (Narlikar 2002).
1 The choice of symbols conforms to Carslaw and Jeager (2000)

359
360 CHAPTER 12. TEMPERATURE OF THE UNIVERSE

The uniformity of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature

is considered to have falsified SSM.
A Cyclic Universe model (CU) has recently been reintroduced (Stein-
hardt and Turok 2005). The CU posits the universe continually expands
and contracts with bounces in a four dimensional scalar field. A major
component of CU is that events in previous cycles help shape events in
following cycles.
The scalar potential model (SPM) suggests the existence of a massless
scalar potential ρ field. Matter and ρ originates from Sources and goes to
Sinks. The SPM was created to be consistent with the morphology–radius
and the intragalactic medium cluster observations of galaxies (Hodge 2006a,
and references therein). Several differences among galaxy types suggest that
Sources are located in spiral galaxies and that Sinks are located in early
type, lenticular, and irregular galaxies. The SPM suggests Source and Sink
galaxy pairs, triples, groups, and clusters (herein “cells”) are organized with
Sources surrounding the Sinks. The cell model is supported by the data and
analysis of Aaronson et al. (1982); Ceccarelli et al. (2005); Hudson et al.
(2004); Lilje et al. (1986); Rejkuba (2004). Because the distance between
galaxies is larger than the diameter of a galaxy, the Sources were considered
as point (monopole) Sources. The gradient of the ρ field exerts a force
Fs on matter that is repulsive of matter. The Fs repels matter from the
Source galaxies. The Fs repels matter into the Sink galaxies. The B–band
luminosity Lǫ of matter in Source galaxies was considered proportional to
the Source strength ǫ. Therefore, the matter and ρ emitted by a Source are
proportional to ǫ. For the sample galaxies, the ratio of Lǫ to the B–band
luminosity Lη of Sink galaxies approaches 2.7 ± 0.1. The SPM was applied
to redshift and discrete redshift measurements (Hodge 2006a). In volumes
close to a Source, ρ ∝ D −1 , where D is the distance to a Source.
In this chapter ρ ∝ D −1 and the intragalactic medium cluster obser-
vations suggests the diffusion (heat) equation applies to the flow of energy
and matter from Sources to Sinks. Because the matter ejected from Source
galaxies to Sink galaxies is related to ǫ, the feedback control mechanism
of matter in a cell and, therefore, of cell radiation temperature vl must
be in the Sink. The heat equation is solved with the boundary conditions
of SPM Source and Sink characteristics, with simplified cell characteris-
tics, and of zero initial temperature. The universe is a collection of cells.
The CMB radiation is black body radiation with the cells acting as radi-
ators and absorbers. Conventional thermodynamics is applied to calculate
V = 2.718. . . K. The vl and matter content of cells are finely controlled by
12.1. MODEL 361

a feedback mechanism. Because time is required for matter to flow from

Sources to Sinks, the vl cycles about V after an initial growth phase.

12.1 Model
Posit energy Qin is injected into our universe (U) through Source portals
from hot, thermodynamic reservoirs (HRs). The macro thermodynamic
processes were considered the same for all Sources. The Qin flows away
from the Source. Some matter remains near the Source as a galaxy and
some matter is removed from the Source galaxy by Fs . Gravitational forces
Fg cause the matter removed from galaxies to concentrate in a Source–
less galaxy. Eventually, enough matter becomes concentrated to initiate a
Sink. Because a minimum amount of matter around a Sink is required to
initiate a Sink, a minimum amount of energy Qk and matter in a cell is
also required. The Sink ejects energy Qout out of U through Sink portals
to cold, thermodynamic reservoirs (CRs). The Sink strength η depends on
the amount of matter in the local Sink volume. This is a negative feedback
mechanism that tightly controls the energy Qu = Qin −Qout in U. Therefore,
 
Z now Nsources
X NX
sink

Qu ∝  |ǫi | − |ηk | dt, (12.1)

0 i=1 k=1

where t is time since the start of U; i and k are indexes; Nsources and Nsink
are the total number of Sources and Sinks, respectively, in U; and | | means
“absolute value of”.
Thermodynamic equilibrium for U is when
Nsources
X NX
sink

|ǫi | = |ηk |. (12.2)

i=1 k=1

Therefore, if Qu is larger than the thermodynamic equilibrium value, |η|

increases which reduces Qu . Conversely, if Qu is smaller than the thermo-
dynamic equilibrium value, |η| decreases which increases Qu .
The observation from earth of the multiple Source and Sink galaxies
requires the HR to be common for all Sources. Otherwise, conceptual dif-
ficulties similar to the domain-wall problem, the horizon problem, and the
flatness problem of BBM occur. Therefore, the energy from all Sources is
causally correlated and coherent.
Because there is a distance between Source and Sink, the matter requires
time to move from the Source to the Sink, time to cool, time to penetrate
362 CHAPTER 12. TEMPERATURE OF THE UNIVERSE

the elliptical galaxy to the Sink, and time to change η. Therefore, the cells
are not in internal, thermal equilibrium.
For simplicity, consider only one cell and posit: (1) The cell consists of
a distribution of Sources around the core of Sinks. The core Sinks were
considered a monopole (point) Sink. (2) A Gaussian surface may be con-
structed enclosing the volume wherein all matter flows to the Sink core. The
Gaussian surface is the border of the cell.2 (3) The temperature v within
a cell is a function of distance x from the Sink core and t [v = v(x, t)]. (4)
The volume of the cell may be characterized by a linear dimension l wherein
l is the x of the Gaussian surface and a minimum. The cells are not re-
quired to share boundaries. The transparency of intercell space supports
this assumption. (5) The matter in a cell is gained and lost only at the
Sources and Sinks of the cell, respectively. That is, the matter flux across
the Gaussian surface is zero at all points of the surface. (6) Only radiation
and ρ may leave the cell. (7) The x to the outermost Source is less than
l. (8) The v is proportional to the matter density in a cell. (9) The intra-
galactic medium cluster observations and ρ ∝ D −1 suggests the diffusion
(heat) equation applies to the flow of matter from Sources to Sinks. (10)
The initial temperature of U is zero everywhere. (11) The Sink feedback
control mechanism is the amount of matter around the Sink that controls
the amount of radiation Q(t) per unit area per unit time emitted from the
cell through the Gaussian surface. Because the matter transport from the
Sources to the Sink core is considerably slower than the speed of light, the
matter transport and cooling (conductivity K) are the time determining
factors of Q(t). (12) Because only vl = v(l, t) was of concern, the initial
condition of the distribution of the Sources and Sinks was ignored. There-
fore, the v(x, t) for values of x 6= l was not calculated. (13) The Q(t) is
proportional the departure of vl from V . Thus, Q(t) = C(V − vl ), where
C is a function of the rate of matter input of the Sources in a cell and
was considered a constant. (14) The radiant energy and ρ from other cells
influences K. Because only one cell was considered, K was considered a
constant. (15) The boundary conditions are
dv(0, t)
−K = C(V − vl ),
dx
v(x, 0) = 0. (12.3)
The solution of the heat equation for vl with these boundary conditions
has been performed [see Carslaw and Jeager (2000, §15.8, pp. 407-412)].
2 This is a redefinition of a cell. Hodge (2006a) defined a cell with equal Source and Sink strengths.
12.1. MODEL 363

Figure 12.1 is a plot of vl /V versus kt/l2 for a stable value of kl, where
k = C/K is a positive constant.
U is the sum of all cells plus the ρ and radiation in the space among
cells. There is no other external energy in U.
Posit each cell is a radiator like in a black box and all the cells are at
the same vl . The redshift of photons is caused by a loss of energy from the
photon to the universe caused by the ρ field (Hodge 2006a). The lost pho-
ton energy must remain in U and be reabsorbed by U. Full thermalization
requires such an emission and absorption process. Therefore, one of two
possibilities exists: (1) All cells were formed at the same time and follow
identical evolution paths. That is, there is a universal time clock. (2) A
communication exists to equalize the temperature of each cell with other
cells by means of a feedback mechanism. For example, the ρ field from a
neighboring cell may change the Fs in a cell that changes the rate of matter
transport, hence k. The latter may provide a mechanism for the “cosmic
jerk” suggested by Riess et al. (1998).
When vl > V , there is excess Qu . As vl decreases to values less than
V , the excess Qu is removed from U. Therefore, vl converges (“hunts”)
to V after a number of cycles that depend on kl. If the value of kl is
too low, vl < V always. If kl is too high, the hunting will diverge and
the universe will be unstable. The findings of Riess et al. (1998) suggest
vl is oscillating about V after Qk is established. Therefore, the process of
increasing Qu above Qk is reversible and U is behaving as a thermodynamic,
Carnot engine at 100% efficiency.
The Kelvin temperature scale is defined for a Carnot engine such that
the ratio of two Kelvin temperatures are to each other as the energies (heats)
absorbed and rejected by U,

Qhr Qu V Vhr
= = = , (12.4)
Qu Qcr Vcr V

where Qhr and Qcr are the energy in CR and HR, respectively; Vcr and Vcr
are the time average temperature of the CR and HR, respectively; and the
units of V , Vcr , and Vhr are Kelvin.
The amount of heat in each reservoir is proportional to the amount of
heat in the previous reservoir. Also, if the zero point of the Kelvin scale for
U is defined as Vcr , then

V = e K = 2.718 . . . K. (12.5)
364 CHAPTER 12. TEMPERATURE OF THE UNIVERSE

Figure 12.1: Behavior of vl with feedback control for intermediate values of kl.
12.2. CONCLUSION 365

12.2 Conclusion
A scalar potential model (SPM) that derived from considerations of cells
is applied to the theoretical, time average, radiation temperature V of the
universe. The heat equation is solved with the boundary conditions of
SPM Source and Sink characteristics, with simplified cell characteristics,
and of zero initial temperature. The universe is a collection of cells. The
CMB radiation is black body radiation with the cells acting as radiators
and absorbers. Conventional thermodynamics is applied to calculate V =
2.718. . . K. The temperature and matter content of cells are finely controlled
by a feedback mechanism. Because time is required for matter to flow from
Sources to Sinks, the temperature of cells cycles about V after an initial
growth phase.
366 CHAPTER 12. TEMPERATURE OF THE UNIVERSE
Chapter 13

Life and survival

The Theory of Everything in this book was restricted to the science of the
big and the small. “Everything” in human experience and survival should
also include the organization of the interaction of Individuals to produce
survival.
An Individual is a Life Spirit that is the unit of action within a larger
Individual Spirit. An Individual can exist in its environment within the time
the strength of the Spirit allows. A child is an Individual only because of the
Hope for future contribution. Except where energy is the only component,
each larger Individual has components that consist of other component
Individuals of a different type and energy. The component Individual Spirits
of a larger Individual are interdependent to the degree that a failure of a
component causes the self–destruction of the Individual. An Individual can
act on other parts of the environment to a greater degree than the sum
of the components. For the larger Individual to continue the components
can Compete and Change and they are not acting destructively toward
each other. Businesses in the U. S. Compete and the weak businesses are
Disintegrated.
The current relationship of the U.S. and Japan is not an Individual. The
U. S. provides a defensive umbrella for Japan. Japan produces products less
expensively because of the lower military cost. In the end, this relationship
will cause the U. S. to self-destruct. Japan must pay the cost or the U. S.
must withdraw the defense.
A person on welfare is not an Individual and not an Individual com-
ponent of the U.S. Individual. Welfare is received from the exploitation
(taxation) of producers. Because the Resource return to producers in min-
imal, this taxation is a type of Murder of the producer.
367
368 CHAPTER 13. LIFE AND SURVIVAL

Such understanding to predict in scientific terms is in a very primitive

state. What should we tally? What should we measure against what stan-
dard? Tallying the number of people has been shown to be a false measure
of survival. Consider the societies that increased their numbers during times
of plenty, only to have the society as a whole crash when a lean period ar-
rived. How do we determine what is good and bad? The rise of Greece,
the Chin dynasty, Rome, Briton, and the US was done with brutality and
violence. Authoritarian and brutal Sparta survived longer than democratic
Athens.
Science uses theories that are tested by measurement of observations
and experiments. The goals of science are Understanding and Wisdom. To
Understand is to predict experimental outcomes and events. To have Wis-
dom is to be able to cause experimental outcomes and events. Prediction
is the measure of the correctness of a scientific model.
Philosophy and religion are concerned with “truths” that are considered
morally “good”. However, the differentiating feature between philosophy
and science is that the “truths” have no known concrete test that can decide
between rival philosophies. As soon as such a test is devised, the thought
becomes a theory of science.
What is proposed herein is that the test of correctness of religious and
philosophical concepts is measured in the years of survival of the people
practicing the concepts. Conversely, the thriving people and groups are
practicing the better religious concepts. The test is in the practice and not
in the ideals.
History has shown societies fail because of loosing a war with another
society or by internal decay and collapse. War has been the only method to
determine which moral and political systems are better. Truly, when war
erupts between two societies, the Gods of each society are Competing. The
impending peril of life today is that man’s society has developed weapons
powerful enough to destroy all. This can be good news because the scope of
the weapons has usually preceded the development of larger organizations
and population support capability. Technology helps survival.
Another possible peril is that the sizes of governing bodies and the size
of populations are too large for the morals or for the food production capa-
bility. Such systems collapse under their own weight by internal disorder.
Only a major revolution in the governing and religious codes can avoid a
major cataclysm. The kind of morality in the U.S. today is failing the test.
History also shows us that an organization without Competition falls to
internal disorder and internal war. A world organization of humanity must
13.1. THE PURPOSE OF LIFE IS LIFE 369

allow the necessary Competition without war and must have a means to
match the population with the food supply. The Way suggests the models
on which to organize humanity are present today. The present governing
systems and moralities appear to have reached their limits. The life Spirit
requires a new morality and governing system to progress to the next step.
The new morality must cause Change that will result in abolishing war.
The universe is changing. The Spirit that Changes the universe of physics
also Changes the universe of the Spirit.
The Fundamental Principles of life, social structures, and physics are
the same.

13.1 The purpose of life is life

What are you? How will you survive the next 1000 years?

Basis of morality
Survival is not preordained. Humanity’s philosophy and morals have not
solved the survival problem for either Individuals or our species. Of all
species known to have lived, less than one percent still survives. Nature is
against us.
Survival is a difficult goal to achieve. If it is a simple goal, why hasn’t it
been achieved? Why haven’t philosophers agreed? Why is there disagree-
ment on how to survive? Why isn’t there only one religion?
If there is an underling moral of nature, it is to survive. Morals in
conformity to nature help their observers’ survive. The morals that allow
survival are not to be made by humans. Rather, they are to be discovered
by humans.
The test of any moral proposition is “does it aid or hinder survival?”
If it does not aid survival, then it hinders survival because it consumes
Resources.

Knowledge, mind and brain

Biological life is an extension of the chemical world via the chemical DNA.
This adaptation allowed faster Change and better use of Resources than the
chemicals could do on their own. Animals in societies are also a continuation
of the limits DNA imposes. Fewer genes are required to meet the challenge
of a wider range of environments. Instinctive or DNA Changes to do this
370 CHAPTER 13. LIFE AND SURVIVAL

would be of unimaginably greater complexity than currently exists. Thus,

group organization is the next step in a long chain of increasing life Spirit.
A mind is group of cells in a brain arranged in a particular order. Modify
the order and the mind is modified. The mind is a Spirit, an arrangement
of relationships.
Feelings, sensations, and perceptions are more than just the brain. All
involve the release of chemicals and Change in the Spirit of the whole body.
Therefore, we are made of 2 distinct elements - body and relationships. The
body, through chemicals, atoms, and particles, is ultimately energy. The
relationship among chemicals and energy is Spirit.
Life is a combination of energy and Spirit. Spirit is the relationship
between energy and energy. As energy combines with even more complex
Spirits, more Spirit and more life are created.
Therefore, knowledge in the mind is a vague term to describe particular
arrangements. At best, knowledge is true in the sense that action taken
based on a particular knowledge produces survival. However, actions in a
particular environment can have different outcomes in other environments.
The knowledge of one may differ from the knowledge of another.
The concept of knowledge seems to have little practical use. This chap-
ter is to use concepts of Truth and Understanding rather than knowledge.
Hypothesizing beyond this seems to have no survival enhancing value.

Universe beyond our minds

If nothing really exists or if the universe is destined to end, then there is
no point to survival. However, if there is any point, we must try. There-
fore, those without the goal of survival will not survive and their ideas are
meaningless.
If a group is allowed to achieve any goal it desires, survival is necessary
to achieve any other goal. Whether a second goal can be allowed by nature
is uncertain and is doubtful.
If humanity, in our egotism or philosophy, decides that ending life is
the moral policy, the universe will continue. In less than one nanosecond
after humanity commits suicide, the heroic sacrifice will be meaningless and
unknown. Pascal’s retorted to the cosmos “When the universe has crushed
him, man will still be nobler than that which kills him, because he knows
that he is dying, and of its victory the universe knows nothing” (Pascal,
Pensees, No. 347). This is sheer nonsense. Man would die and be nothing.
The Universe would survive.
13.1. THE PURPOSE OF LIFE IS LIFE 371

Nature of death
Death is an adaptation of life to develop and gain strength. The members of
the mineral world are very long lived. This means that Change occurs over
millions if not billions of years. Life’s adaptation of death allows Change
to occur much faster. Death, therefore, helps life meet nature’s conditions
better than everlasting life for an Individual.
That species or Individuals die is neither tragic nor immoral. The death
or crippling of a child may be shocking to human sensibilities. So humans
think the laws of nature are villainous. However, nature is neither good nor
bad. Nature merely is. Nature does not need to follow mere human ideas
of morality. Change will occur. That species die is part of the increase
of the life Spirit of all life. As the death (selection) of Individuals helps
make room and strengthen the Spirit of groups and species, the continued
modification of and death of species strengthens life.
What can be the goal of an Individual or a group if its destiny is to
die and be replaced? The basic argument for a supreme being (God) is
that only a being of superabundant Wisdom and Resources could have the
leisure and humor to create people and set them on the path of becoming
Gods. The goal is to be one more step along a very long path.
Life must follow nature’s rules if it is to continue to exist. This applies
to the big such as the dinosaur and to the beautiful such as the passenger
pigeon.
Nature’s rules are at least very difficult for us to know. They may be
unknowable. Current physics holds that the early seconds of the universe
had very different forces than now. As new organizations of societies are
created, new rules of behavior are created. Therefore, nature’s rules are
constantly Changing.

Meaning of life
Life and all the alleged political rights people have claimed for themselves
are not options for us. Life itself is not an option. Life has to strive for life.
Life costs energy. Death is the only option.
Nature has neither read nor endorsed the American Declaration of In-
dependence, nor the French Declaration of the Rights of Man. We are born
unequal and confined. As civilization grows, inequality also grows. Nature
smiles on the process of selection from diversity.
Current physics holds that the earth, the solar system, and the universe
must eventually die. The only questions preoccupying physicists are when
372 CHAPTER 13. LIFE AND SURVIVAL

and how the universe will end. Human’s nobler goal should be to identify
that path of Spiritual development leading to a Spirit that outlives the
universe?
This message is the exhilarating imperative to live. The only question
is how?

Free will and problem solving

Homo sapiens is just one species among many that have evolved and sur-
vived until now. There are other species that have survived longer and,
therefore, are more worthy. The study (man’s method of survival) of the
methods of these more worthy species can offer insights about the nature
of nature and about the moral methods we may use.
The study of survival methods yields human ideas of morals, philosophy
and religion. If any conclusion can be drawn from human history, it is that
the developments of some of human views of morality of grace, of beauty, of
faith, of good deeds, etc. do not yield survival. In fact, it sometimes seems
immoral behavior of war, of unfairness, of Change, etc. yield survival.
There are only a few concepts that have survival value. Homo sapiens must
act consistent with such concepts to survive. These concepts are called the
7 Great Ideas. The pursuit of all the Great Ideas will yield conflicts between
them. Therefore, the pursuit must also balance the effort among them.
There are many methods recognized as methods to solve problems. The
study or formal approach so cherished by homo sapiens is only one means of
solving relatively low complexity, slow changing problems. So homo sapiens
have slowly found some Truths. These helped him reduce the complexity
of problems and so yield the survival problem up to formalistic approaches.
People can plan only to the limit of their forecast ability, of their Un-
derstanding. Beyond that limit, all species approach the survival problem
by trial-and-error. So homo sapiens establish morals and religions. Some
survive, most die. Mystically, the greater glory of God is discovered.
Humans cope by determining the horizon of forecast ability, and should
plan within this horizon. Should a plan require a time longer than their
forecasting ability (Understanding), they are really using an experimental
method and run the risk of failure through unforeseen causes. Consider
the economic and political crises afflicting the U.S. and the world during
the past centuries. All have taken us unaware. World War II could have
been prevented had the ending of World War I been approached with more
Wisdom.
13.1. THE PURPOSE OF LIFE IS LIFE 373

Table 13.1: Methods of problem solving heuristically used by humans.

Complexity Rate of change
slow fast
high Experimental Analogy Serendipity
Focus Representation Synergy
low Formal Piecemeal Parallelism

A problem is complex when the time over which the problem is to be

solved is longer than the forecast ability. As the process of Change becomes
better understood, predictability improves.
The problem of survival is a slow rate of Change problem. Sometimes
homo sapiens has seen the problem with a simple viewpoint in a fast chang-
ing environment and attempted to use analogous, synergistic, or serendip-
itous approaches. Such was Nazi German’s approach. Nature would have
none of this.
The problem of survival is highly complex. There are many methods to
help solve the survival problem. Care must be exercised to remain within
the limit of use of any partial solution.
Species have used a heuristic approach as Darwin noted in his natural
selection theory. Occasionally a serendipitous approach is used that has
been noted but not explained by natural selection. A high rate of Change
can occur when a new species is introduced into an otherwise stable ecosys-
tem. Homo sapiens have attempted to reduce the complexity of the problem
faced by life by creating models and morals.
Study is man’s way but is not nature’s way. For instance, termites
have been building perfect arches much longer than humans. Termites use
a method of construction that works. Even the mineral world has been
building arches longer than humans. Study and logical thought are only
one of several methods nature does not prohibit (as opposed to allow).
Study succeeds for humans because the Understanding of basic principles
allows humans to Change faster than termites or minerals.
The survival problem is very complex and of long-standing existence
with a slow rate of Change. Like humans building of the arch, or his
approach to the movement of the planets, the reduction of complexity re-
quires redefinition of terms, new perspectives, and an increase in the type
of problems that can be simplistically assembled together. A redefinition of
a problem often includes the solution and points the way to opportunity.
374 CHAPTER 13. LIFE AND SURVIVAL

A group establishes its morals and philosophy. It then Competes with

other groups. Thus, the Spirit of humanity wins by experimentally solving
the problem of survival.
As human Understanding and Wisdom improves, his survival problem
is extended in time. Man is slowly and heuristically rising from the dust
(mineral) to what he calls his God.
Free will is merely the choices Individuals make in the heuristic approach
to problem solving. Biology allows apparently random Changes in DNA
and then allows the Justice and Mercy of nature to select for or against the
Change. Nature has allowed this because it does imply progress toward a
greater life Spirit.
Life requires energy. Life cannot survive without energy. Because life
takes energy and creates its own order, it causes the universe to run down
faster according to the current cosmology paradigm. Life is a parasite on
the universe.
A paradox is that as life advances it must become a more efficient user
of Resources.
Life must be active. It must Change and Compete. Without activity,
life can wait only for death. Nothing lives outside death.
Life is not a collection of static substances, mechanisms or patterns.
Life is always in the process of emerging, of becoming. Even things we’ve
regarded as mineral or inorganic are not static substances. Energy is the
only unchanging thing in the universe.
Einstein emphasized the necessity of the time dimension in the physics
of the mineral universe. Life’s Spirit must also have the time dimension as
part of its being. Life is at every instant in the process of having been, of
being, and of becoming.
The species and Individuals alive today evolved from previous life. Cur-
rent thought holds that all life evolved from matter and that matter evolved
from energy. Did energy evolve from nothing?
Part of growing is to Change. Change is hard. The loss of a parent
or one who has helped you is a Change. It is not loss of Love. Change
and losses are part of life, part of growing. Those Individuals who cannot
overcome a loss or Change cannot grow or survive.
Humanists and philosophers see the loss of a group identity as akin to
a loss of sanity. It is for the Individual in the Competition-Change system
that has not progressed. Likewise, the submission-dominance system is only
part of the Competition-Change balance.
An Individual must be one with life and be part of the life. The “ideal
13.1. THE PURPOSE OF LIFE IS LIFE 375

state”, the feeling of living in a state of oneness with your mothers, your
religion, your God, the universe is part of Change - Competition.
The “I’m in the milk and the milk is in me” analogy is known to lovers
in sex (not Love) with each other, saints, psychotics, druggies, and infants.
It is called bliss. I think it no mistake that some of the people in bliss
are very low on the life scale (infants, druggies, psychotics, lovers seeking
procreation). The longing for union is a longing to return, not to progress.
Life progression is the becoming of an Individual Spirit. Adam and Eve
were the infants who by their own act chose to leave Eden. God arranged
it thus. God spent considerable effort to plant the apple tree, to tell Adam
and Eve of this, and to both forbid and entice them. He didn’t have to
tell them of the benefits. So they could feel guilt and know there was no
return - a prime requirement for growth. Therefore, Eden can be regarded
not as connoting paradise but as connoting irresponsible dependence. Eden
symbolizes a life Spirit incapable of survival.
The loss of paradise and dependence can be suffered positively if the
life force (Spirit) itself initiates the Change. To be thrown out before one
is ready is to be permanently in an environment where the Spirit’s survival
mechanism doesn’t function. Thus, the Spirit has a permanent psychosis.
The cure is to go back and begin again. Such restarting is common in
species, Individuals, and groups. The progress of Rome was halted and the
dark ages followed.
The progress of a life Spirit demands that the Individual leave the same-
ness and progress to a union with different Individuals. Electrons and pro-
tons united to form the atom Spirit. First an electron must be an electron
and a proton must be a proton.
Maslow (“Motivation and Personality”, Abraham H. Maslow, New York,
Harper and Row 1954) defined a set of needs that form in a hierarchy.
When a lower need is satisfied, a stress for a higher need predominates in
an Individual’s concern. If a higher need is not satisfied, frustrating stress
occurs. This frustration is likely to endanger the Individual’s survival in a
last effort to gain satisfaction.
The bottom two needs (physiological and security) of Maslow’s need
hierarchy are easily seen to be directly survival oriented. The survival
orientation of social affiliation and self–esteem are less clearly related to
survival. The difference is one of time orientation. The lower two needs
affect survival for the extent of months. The latter two needs effect sur-
vival from months to decades. The highest need, for self-actualization, may
require generations to effect the survival of a group. The need to increase
376 CHAPTER 13. LIFE AND SURVIVAL

the likelihood of survival for longer time is the driving force to the higher
stages of Maslow’s hierarchy.
The group’s need for survival over generations has been internalized into
the Individual’s need for self-actualization. Those groups whose Individuals
did not satisfy the group’s long term interest became less able to Compete.
The length of time over which a set of needs is satisfied is defined as
“survival horizon”. This definition also includes the set of actions that
Individuals or groups use to obtain survival. The set of actions or morals
of the group in relation to its resulting survival horizon depends on the
Competition. Nazi Germany might well have had a longer survival horizon
if its Competitors were tribes or feudal states as the Europeans found in
Africa two centuries ago.
As Maslow’s needs are related to the survival horizon, so is the survival
horizon related to Individual’s needs. Thus, if an Individual’s need is self–
esteem, he need only begin to live his life with concern for the effect of each
decision of each moment on his well being for the next few years.
Increasing the survival horizon is not as easy as it sounds. The In-
dividual must live each moment with an Understanding of the results of
his every action. He must Understand the reactions of others. Note the
stress on “each moment” rather than on long term plans. To Understand
reactions knowledge of the interaction of conflicting relations (Spirits) is
required. The Individual must know his place in his environment. An
Understanding of the Spirit of an environment is mostly unknowable.
Beyond Understanding and self-actualization there is a Godlike need to
create. To create, the Individual Spirit must not only have Understanding
but also have Hope and goals, and the Wisdom to Change the Spiritual
interactions.
The turnaround or crisis manager in the business management world has
a reputation for rapid action. If this were his only requirement, competent
crisis managers would be more common. This survival manager must also
have an uncommon Understanding of the likely outcome of decisions.
What an Individual of a Spirit group does in life has a continuing impact
on the Spirit of the group life. Individuals need not appear in the history
books nor engage in world–shaking enterprises. Each Individual lives in the
Spirit as the Individual contributes to the Spirit.
Living adds to greater Spirituality. Upon the death of the Individual,
the ability of that Individual to add to the group’s Spirit ends. Dying ends
the contribution the Spirit the Individual has made. The Spirit of romantic
Love of Tristan and Isolde is gained in life and fixed, never to Change after
13.1. THE PURPOSE OF LIFE IS LIFE 377

death. What would have happened had the lovers lived? Their Love would
have Changed. Therefore, Wagner had them die at the moment of their
reaching their highest Spirituality. The idea of gaining Spirituality in death
is not convincing. Through living Love, parts of a Spirit give to the greater
survival horizon of the group. Thus, living increases a Spirit’s strength.
Who you are is not the Individual now. Tomorrow that Individual will
learn and Change. Rather, who you are is what process you have chosen to
continue and to advance. This is how you survive for 1000 years.
378 CHAPTER 13. LIFE AND SURVIVAL

REALITY

TOO LATE to care about the past

TOO LATE to flee the present
TOO LATE to change our sympathies
TOO LATE to live

TODAY we help the spirit we love

TODAY we hurt the spirit we hate
TODAY we change fate
TODAY we fight and die

TOMARROW the spirits that strengthen are good

TOMARROW the spirits that weaken are bad
TOMARROW the spirits’ changes judges our life
TOMARROW the spirits will not care about us

OUR PROGENY must remember

OUR PROGENY must change
OUR PROGENY must struggle
OUR PROGENY may survive

13.2 The nature of nature

Nature is an unfolding of events over time instead of a being or a Spirit.
This viewpoint leaves little to react against, little to alter, and little to
worship.
All entities are subject to a set of rules imposed by nature. What these
rules are is still a subject of debate. However, violation of these rules results
in non-survival. The force imposing the rules is irresistible.
Societies are made of people. People are made of chemicals. Chemicals
are made of atoms. Atoms are made of protons, electrons, and neutrons.
These particles are made of quarks. Perhaps, with greater energy equip-
ment, the quarks will be found to be made of sub-quarks. But the pattern
is the same. Sub-particles are energy and are “glued” together by energy.
Democritus used food analogies to conclude there must be one type of par-
ticle that composes all other matter.
13.2. THE NATURE OF NATURE 379

If energy is the fundamental component of all matter and is the “glue”,

then the relationship is the definition of “Spirit”. This relationship between
energy “glue” and energy is a Spirit of matter. The universe as we know it
is only energy (measurable) and Spirit (immeasurable).
The source of both energy and Spirit (the ability of energy to relate
and interact) is suggested by the STOE. Even a definition of 3-dimensional
space is something. Thus, a perfect vacuum cannot be made because the
confining wall will carry a space definition and, therefore, will have both a
Spirit and energy.
Energy and Spirit must be independent of each other. That is, energy
has no component that is Spirit. Spirit has no component that is energy.
Spirit, to exist, must relate energy. Energy, to exist, must be related by
Spirit to other energy and must be unrelated to remain energy. The com-
bination of energy and Spirit forms matter, space and time.
The current popular models of the universe imply that there exists a
limited amount of energy. Whether energy can be created out of nothing is
unknown but may be possible. After all, the universe exists. Limited need
not imply constant. For all we currently know, the condition of limited
Resources is, at least locally, valid and is a dominant factor in the life of all
species and groups. The STOE suggests energy is continually being injected
into our universe. The cooling flow suggests there is excess energy available
for Spirit development. If there were not excess energy, the universe would
not have life.
If the Spirit could be strengthened, larger forces could exist. We observe
larger forces do exist. A Change must have occurred. Time and space
began. The relationship of energy–to–energy Changed.
Another response to create a larger life Spirit is to repeat successful
implementations. The Change that started life must be more than a singular
event. The life Spirit developed. Life began.
A Resource is the energy of which a life entity is composed. To be
composed means the life force unilaterally directs its use. To be stable
and survive, the Spirit must be able to respond to Limited Resources with
Change and Competition. This is the unity of a life. This is an Individual.
The brain of an animal is less than an Individual because it cannot
respond without the body. Neither is any tissue part of the body an Indi-
vidual. However, the chemicals of the body are Individuals.
Change and Competition require Resources to continue. Other Re-
sources available are other energy and Spirit groupings. Matter draws other
matter together to form larger bodies. The Spirit of the smaller body still
380 CHAPTER 13. LIFE AND SURVIVAL

exists and is larger because of the other. The (gravitational) force of the
new Spirit is larger than either of the parts. As this process continues, life
Individuals become larger. The larger new life exerts more force.
The Spirit is stronger if it can encompass more energy. Bringing together
greater amounts of energy means the Spirit becomes bigger. We observe
that, in this state, the Spirit binds the energy less. Suns are created. If
the mass is large enough, it explodes. Therefore, we observe an opposing
mechanism of energy to prevent the Spirit from becoming infinitely large in
the mineral world. Balance is required.
The unity of the atom is that the proton and electron serve to define
only one atom at a time. The atom contracts to share an electron with
another atom and a chemical is formed.
The unity of a society is that the people serve only that society. An
Individual may attempt to serve many societies. If the societies come into
conflict, choices will be made. These choices determine which society sur-
vives.
A society Individual includes the animals, plants, minerals and land over
which it can achieve dominion. A society can kill animals for food for other
members. A society can trade with another society any of its Resources
without regard to the survival of the Spirit of the Resource. A society may
commit its Resources to war with another society in an attempt to acquire
more Resources.
When a Spirit reaches a limit, Change allows the formation of another
Spirit that may overcome the limitation of previous Spirits. When a sun
or an atom becomes too large, it explodes. When a society becomes larger
than its Spirit (organizational structure) can contain, it explodes.
Why should any arrangement of matter, any Spirit, be favored over any
other Spirit? The Spirit that survives must be more efficient in the use of
energy. A Spirit that is more efficient must be able to acquire more energy
with less waste than Competing Spirits. With limited Resources, the more
efficient Spirit eventually has more energy and, therefore, has the potential
of surviving longer.
If a Spirit is to survive, it must grow faster than the available Resources
or gain new uses for existing Resources. If a lower growth rate were allowed,
even a minor misfortune would kill the life.
The life Spirit in societies also grows faster than the Resources. There-
fore, societies always appear to be more complex than the models can com-
prehend.
Therefore, for all life there is one condition of existence and two re-
13.2. THE NATURE OF NATURE 381

sponses of existence. The condition is that there are only limited Resources
available. The two responses are Change and Competition.

Change
A constant of nature is that Change occurs. Even in the world of matter,
energy is being used, the universe is expanding, and matter is continually
changing form.
Change is a building upon previous Spirits and death of Spirits. A baby
Changes into an adult as time passes and it acquires more Resources. The
adult dies.
The types of Change are creation, evolution, revolution, and disintegra-
tion. Change is time related. The speed of Change is different for different
Spirits. The speed that DNA can Change is revolutionary for minerals.
The speed that societies can Change is revolutionary for DNA.
Lack of Change is not an option. A Spirit must grow or die because
other Spirits are growing and need Resources.

Creation
Creation is the formation of a new Spirit from other Spirits that will become
a part of the new Spirit. Several people may meet and from a new social
group such as the formation of a corporation. Asteroids may attract each
other and become one bigger asteroid, a planet, or a sun.

Evolution
Evolution is the formation of a new Spirit by modifying a small part of a
Spirit. The Change from one to another is such that the majority of the
new Spirit is the same as the old Spirit. A planet attracts one asteroid at
a time to become a sun. Part of a baby growing to be an adult is eating.
Little Change occurs each day. The corporation hires new people one by
one.
The faster a Spirit can Change, the more able it is to acquire Resources.
As a Spirit grows, it will become too big. It must either undergo a rev-
olution or disintegration. A caterpillar must become a butterfly through a
revolution. As a corporation grows, it becomes too big for the management
style and structure. Reorganization is required.
382 CHAPTER 13. LIFE AND SURVIVAL

Revolution
A revolution is the formation of a new Spirit by rapidly incorporating other
Spirits. This doesn’t include killing the old Spirit. It is rapidly building on
the old. The time required to Change differs from one Spirit to another.
The revolution can occur from within by reorganization or from without
by being conquered by another or conquering another. Mass grows by
attracting other mass. It evolves until the mass is big enough to become a
sun. Then a revolution from within occurs and a sun is born. A corporation
may be bought and become a subsidiary of another corporation.
The danger of a rapid Change is that the new Spirit may not be able to
incorporate the new size. If the new size is too big, the Spirit disintegrates.

Disintegration
Disintegration is the death of a Spirit by its components becoming related
in less than an Individual. Disintegration may also occur from within or
from without. A sun explodes if it becomes too large. A corporation may
be bought and dissolved.

Competition
Change adds new forms and uses of Resources. The limited Resource con-
dition implies there isn’t enough for all. Therefore, some process to direct
Resources to the more efficient use is necessary. This is Competition.
Competition’s place is to select and enlarge the forms of life that are
efficient users of Resources. Those less efficient must cease.
One form of being less efficient is to grow at a rate less than or equal to
the rate available Resources will allow. Other Spirits will kill such a Spirit.
The power of Competition is selection rather than disintegration or
death. If no choice exists, there is no selection and no death of less suitable
Individuals. Nature abhors stagnation. Death then is a part of life.
The varieties of Competition are reproduction, repetition, cooperation,
and war.

Reproduction
Reproduction is growth of an existing Spirit by duplication. Because they
use the same type of Resources, they must occupy different areas. Growth
13.2. THE NATURE OF NATURE 383

is achieved by increasing the numbers of a Spirit. This is why the word

Competition is chosen rather than reverberation for this response.

War
Competition occurs when a limited Resource condition has been experi-
enced and the Individuals’ response is taking Resources without compensa-
tion from other Individuals. Other Resources that occupy the same niche
and use the same Resources are prime targets. Acquisition can be by de-
stroying the other Individuals or by taking the other’s Resources. Each of
the planets attracts asteroids. The planets are in war to gain more mass.
The effect of asteroid impacts on organic life is on little concern to the earth
Spirit. It’s only the mass of the organic life that earth needs. Lions and
cheetahs will kill and not eat each other’s young. War is a way for different
homo sapiens societies to arrive at a decision as to which form of society
uses Resources more efficiently. War has been used by societies to grow and
expand. Because the victorious societies have the opportunity to become
stronger and survive longer, war is in accordance with nature’s values. All
the horrors of war abound routinely in nature.
Resources must be used to strengthen a Spirit. If Resources are used
for purposes other than to strengthen a Spirit, soon that Spirit will become
weak. If the Resources expended in war are not at least replaced from
the vanquished, the society will be weakened. Often the Resources are
restricted from use by other Spirits. A weak Competing Spirit may not have
enough Resources to survive. A strong Competing Spirit must have excess
Resources. The excess Resources must be productively used to promote
Change, to war, to reproduce, or to cooperate.
From the moment they first came into Competition with one another,
western culture, whether any like it or not, has predominated over other
cultures. The key reason for western culture’s ability to conquer has been
the pursuit of Change. Even in western culture, attempts by otherwise
strong political groups (e.g., the Catholic Church of the middle ages) to
inhibit Change have resulted in the group’s loss of power.
War is a part of Competition. Resources must be used to accomplish
the victory in war. Resources must be gained in war. Nature allows war as
a way to further life. Therefore, the only way to abolish war is to further
life by other means.
Trying to simply abolish war unilaterally will be abhorrent to nature.
Nature will advance life by using the Resources of those it eliminates for
384 CHAPTER 13. LIFE AND SURVIVAL

other Spirits. This may mean the warriors will ultimately kill those Spirits
unwilling to engage in Competition and Change.
The economics of predation and war and their place as an acceptable
form of Competition are harsh relative to the morals associated with co-
operation. A common theme of human history is to have a “less cultured”
group destroy a “more cultured” group. Thus, the Mongol herder society
conquered many agricultural groups. This is because the agricultural groups
had a Spirit that failed to fully comprehended Competition and Change.
Within a society, litigation is a form of war. Resources are spent for the
primary purpose of seizing other’s Resources.
Peoples’ sensibilities may disapprove of war being categorized as a posi-
tive process toward life. Life’s advance requires diversity and the culling of
weaker Spirits. People can be assured that if they don’t perform life’s goal,
nature will with war. So, if people wish to avoid war, then they must do as
life dictates. This is difficult to do in society, as we know it.
If a society has no warrior class, both its male and female members must
die during famine or be conquered by a neighbor. Societies with a distinct
soldier/policeman/lawyer class from the producer class can survive only if
its neighbors are subject to the same ratio of soldiers to producers or are
very isolated. The versatility of requiring all males be subject to military
service could produce more in times of plenty, and form larger military
might when required. Standing armies and police forces are tremendous
burdens. This has tremendous influence on society’s organization and laws.
Serf and slave states have tended to fail in war against states that allow
most males to be armed.
If war is to be abolished, a method must be found to allow weaker
societies to Change or die. The problem of war is the Murder of Individuals.
Cooperation and Competition must allow the weaker Individuals to dissolve
without taxing the more vital Individuals.
As war is a part of Competition, Murder is not. Murder is the de-
struction of contributing Individual’s ability to Compete. The slaughter of
cattle Individuals is not Murder if the meat is eaten and if the cattle Spirit
is maintained by breeding replacements. The slaughter of a steer is not the
Murder of the cattle Spirit in a society. The killing of a pray animal is not
the Murder of the pray Spirit if the pray Spirit is encouraged to reproduce
and thrive.
History has many examples of one society conquering another through
war. So far, so good. Then some conquerors salt the fields, destroy the
plants, and kill the cattle to extinction. After conquering a society, the
13.2. THE NATURE OF NATURE 385

destruction of Resources is Murder. Although this procedure eliminates a

future Competitor, it fails to return Resources to the victor. Societies that
engage in this type of activity are short lived.
Isn’t it curious that in international, Competitive relations, nations are
acquisitive, pugnacious, prideful, and greedy? Violent and destructive war
is common. Even the victors of war loose Resources. Victors often plant
the seeds of the next war in an attempt to profit or, at least, regain the
lost Resources. The only exceptions have been where the victors totally
exterminated the conquered and occupy their territory or where the victors
forget the war loss and incorporate the conquered into a new organization of
Spirit. These same nations value internal peace and cooperation and punish
those citizens who act toward their fellow citizens in the same manner their
governments act toward other nations. Religions and other groups share
this behavior. War is a nation’s way of acquiring Resources, of eating. But
within a nation, such warlike behavior is outlawed. Frequently, domestic
outlaws in a society make good soldiers because they know how to cooper-
ate. Thou shalt not kill a member of one’s own group (murder), but thou
shall kill a member of an opposing group and be commended for it.

Cooperation
Cooperation occurs when a limited Resource condition has been experi-
enced and the Individuals’ response is to allocate the Resources to as many
as possible. The goal is to obtain a large Spirit in numbers of Individuals
by using Resources most efficiently. Individuals do not war or Compete if
they have the minimum necessary for survival. Individuals who have less
than the minimum die. Individuals who have the minimum are expected
to support other’s war and Competition. Individuals with more than the
minimum are expected to give the excess to other Individuals within the
larger Individual. Note this does not include members that do not con-
tribute to the larger individual and have no Hope of contributing. Such a
system has few Resources for expansion or for developing other Resources.
Cooperation makes Change difficult
The planets and Sun cooperate in allocating matter and keeping the
planets separate. The sun remains a size that won’t explode. The planets
exist as Individuals. The method of cooperation is the revolving forces
counter the gravity forces. As the planets and Sun are well defined, the
rate of Change has slowed.
Life for all can be made stronger if there is a mechanism to cooper-
386 CHAPTER 13. LIFE AND SURVIVAL

ate in finding the most efficient niche positions. Cooperation reduces the
Resources used in the Competition and selection process. So long as cooper-
ation helps each Spirit find his most efficient, contributing niche, the group
that is cooperating will be stronger. Therefore, cooperation aids Competi-
tion. A system not pursuing the goal of more efficient use of Resources, is
not cooperating and is becoming a weak Competitor. For instance, the sys-
tems of welfare and subsidies are not systems of cooperation although there
is organized action because non-contributing members are not Resources.
However, Competition with or without cooperation will proceed. It may
proceed from within the group or from without the group.

Predator, prey, parasite, victim

All Spirits feed on other Spirits. Plants feed on minerals. Animals feed on
plants. Societies feed on minerals, plants, animals and other societies. Indi-
viduals are incorporated into the predator’s Spirit. The Individual’s Spirit
is destroyed so the predator can acquire the Resources of the Individual.
Each Spirit must try to survive. Whether a Spirit survives depends on
the larger Spirit of which it is a part, the Spirits to which it is a potential
victim, and the Spirits it eats.
Rabbits and foxes cooperate. Predation is a cooperative process between
different Spirits occupying different niches in the use of Resources. The
non-cooperation Competition is when Competing Spirits are attempting to
occupy the same niche.
Humans, as in other Spirits, at the top of a food chain are less fortunate
than rabbits and foxes. Humans must be held in check by Malthus’s agents
(“Essay on Population” (1798) Thomas Malthus) of famine, pestilence, and
war. Hope and greater Understanding may refute Malthus.
There are cycles in nature of abundance and scarcity. A population
with abundance can expand to require Resources beyond those available
in scarce periods. The storage of Resources and continued efficient use of
Resources for the scarce periods is one approach to having a larger popu-
lation. Another approach is to allow the weaker part, which is determined
by Competition in the ability to contribute, of the population to die during
scarcity. If the weaker part is allowed to continue during abundant periods,
then more than only the weaker will die during scarce or revolutionary pe-
riods. Indeed, the tolerance of the weaker may cause Disintegration from
within or without. The storage solution is viable for short cycles. Eventu-
ally the latter approach must be used.
13.2. THE NATURE OF NATURE 387

Profitable human management of some wildlife species involves people

hunting (harvesting) just before winter. During the following summer the
population will expand. Several years of maintaining a healthy population
results in a relatively large population that is easily able to recover from a
disaster short of total extermination and that is greater than would occur
otherwise. Therefore, continued harvests are assured. Prohibition against a
harvesting goal may lead to extermination of some species because of human
encroachment. Harvesting to extinction leads to less Resource availability.
If the wildlife species can use land the humans cannot, hunting is better.
Note the distinctions being made between an Individual’s fate and a
life process (or Spirit). The Spirit embodied in any one Individual mineral
or life form may fail to survive because of Competition with a pre-existing
form. Thus, bacteria may kill baby humans. But, the Spirit will exist
again and may eventually succeed. Wheat, a heavy grain not suited for
natural selection, was probably created many times before man noticed it
and caused its survival. Human and wheat cooperated and both created a
new Spirit that helped both survive. Both retain their unique identification.
Diversity is the propeller of evolution through Change ability.
The male character rewards the more bellicose and greedy. The male
role in rearing young is reduced. Because the male has become the most
expendable of the group, he is the one placed at risk to gain outside Re-
sources for the group. He is the warrior whose role is to seize Resources
from other groups during scarce periods such as through war, hunting, and
farming. This requires an Expansive or penetrating of current Resources.
The females must be able to perform all the Resource use functions.
The female role is then more oriented to cooperation and reproduction.
This requires Nurturing of current Resources.
A Spirit must engage in the responses of Change and Competition in
order to continue to exist. A Spirit failing this is abhorrent to nature for it
has no purpose in the continuation of life.
For instance, a deer Individual possesses Resources other Spirits may
use. It also consumes Resources other Individuals of the deer Spirit may
use. If a deer Individual is failing to Change or Repeat, the Resources it has
are wasted and the Resources it consumes are preventing the larger deer
Spirit (other deer Individuals) from Changing and Repeating. Nature will
engage the predator Spirit to eliminate the wasteful deer Individual. If this
fails to happen, the wasteful deer Individuals would soon be very numerous.
The limited Resources would soon starve the larger deer Spirit. Nature will
have none of the wasteful. If the wasteful or inefficient Individuals are
388 CHAPTER 13. LIFE AND SURVIVAL

allowed to exist, nature will wipe out the whole deer Spirit and start again
on another Spirit.
If an Individual is not contributing to a society, it is not Murder to kill
that Individual.

Balance the responses

The Competition concept leads to the concept of a life cycle - birth, growth,
death, birth. The same Spirits exist with differing Individuals. Life needs
progress. Change provides that progress, that breaking of the life cycle.
The Change concept leads to the concept of advancing toward a better
state. If the Change is inefficient, nature starts again.
Competition is the repeating of past occurrences, without Change. While
Change implies an expansion, a penetrating, a new usage. Competition is
a Nurturing of already existing Spirits.
To acquire more energy, a Spirit may Change or may Repeat itself. Each
requires energy. Each can further a Spirit’s ability to survive. If all energy
is devoted to Change, another Spirit may conquer through sheer size. If
all energy is devoted to Competition, another Spirit may conquer through
efficiency. Therefore, the responses of Change and Competition must be
balanced.
At the simplest level, the need to keep order in the universe or in a
society is a need for Competition. The tendency to disorder is the tendency
to Change. Thus, the order/disorder conflict is the Change/Competition
conflict that needs to be balanced for survival.
Indeed, the need to balance the forces of Change and Competition cre-
ates the fertile basis for a more efficient approach than mineral and physical
forces allow.
The same laws determine life processes. This is not because the laws or
processes of life are equal in different fields - organisms, minerals, physical,
religions, groups, or societies. Rather, because the condition of life processes
are the conditions of the functioning of all forms of Spirit and energy. The
process of each level of Spirit is different. Speaking of parallel processes
for minerals, bacteria, and humans is not justified. However, parallelism is
present in the sense that all Spirits must obey the same rules and overcome
the same type of forces.
Understanding a physical or Spiritual condition of a life form (process)
which we call lower (more primitive) or higher means (1) determining the
significance of the processes in the development of the life (past), (2) de-
13.3. BIOLOGICAL TO SOCIAL MECHANISMS 389

termining the role that other life phenomena play with the totality of the
experiences of the life process in study (present), and (3) determining how
that life form is best able to realize its nature to the degree that the life
process survives (future). Note the distinctions being made between an
Individual’s fate and a life process (or Spirit).
But this Understanding, however advanced, is limited. Just determining
the past, present, and future does not mean survival in the presence of
Change. A fourth, timeless factor of a Spirit is necessary. This timeless
factor is the ability to cause Change.
The causing of Change begins with an alteration in the way a life form
realizes its nature. This causes a Change in the role of that life form that
causes a Change in the processes of development of the life form. Out
of these reorientations evolve new niches and Competition results. Bison
hooves cut the grass that helps the grass roots reproduce and that kills
other plants. The bison cause the grassland and the grassland feeds the
bison. This timeless factor that causes the alteration is called Wisdom.

13.3 Biological to Social Mechanisms

Solving the survival problems of groups presents very complex issues. The
long–term impact of any philosophical approach can be tested only in the
span of millennia. Even then there are limitations.
Existing biological mechanisms have passed the survival test over very
long periods. Biological systems of survival can show the Spiritual charac-
teristics’ groups must have to survive. A group is as much a living, breathing
biomass as biological organisms are. The progression from Energy to min-
eral Life to biological Life to ideologies is not each a separate step. The
growth of a worldview of human kind and human ideologies is merely the
continuation of the increase of the Spirit of Life. Each is fundamentally
Energy and Spirit.

Individuals do only three things

They eat, they breed, and they die. These are biological words. Eating
is the acquiring of Energy into the Spirit. This may be directly acquired
as chemicals develop chemical bonds to make larger molecules. War is one
way for a nation to eat. The U. S. showed another way when it bought the
Louisiana Purchase territory, allowed emigration, and killed Indians. The
acquired Energy may be used to Repeat or to build a larger body (Spirit).
390 CHAPTER 13. LIFE AND SURVIVAL

Breeding in biological Spirits involves direct lineage. Breeding in other

types of Spirits may not be direct lineage. The important concept is that
new Spirits are formed. The new Spirits may be similar or evolved. A
hydrogen and oxygen mixture can form water molecules. Each molecule
doesn’t necessarily provide direct lineage for the other molecules. However,
the Energy released by the formation of one molecule may trigger a chain
reaction to form other molecules. The Spirit of water molecules becomes
larger. Breeding also occurs when people from a new group or organization.
Because the world of matter has Limited Resources, Change, and Com-
petition, the forces of order created a structure of matter that could repro-
duce itself with minimum Energy. This copying ability allowed the storing
of additional Energy.
One of the characteristics of the Spirit of Life is that it requires constant
Energy input to continue. Thus, order has been increased, as has been the
rate of increasing disorder. No system that does not achieve a balance
of order and disorder is stable. Life was born. The rules of nature were
expanded. The prohibitions of nature were not violated.
This new Life Spirit, biology, must obey the same rules as matter. The
conditions of Limited Resources, Change, and Competition apply. Because
Energy was needed continually and could not be obtained by all the new
Life, some of the Life could not continue. Death became necessary for Life
to satisfy nature’s conditions. The matter in the Life did not Change. Only
the Spirit (the relation between the material components) of the Individual
ceased. The Spirit of other Life increased and grew.
There is no significant, distinguishing feature of biological Spirits and
mineral Spirits. Each is a Life force. Each is an addition to the previous
Life stage. Our ancestors were correct. Trees and rocks do have Spirits
of Life. Mankind’s social development is another Life Spirit. Mankind’s
further advance depends on developing a view of the unification of all Life
Spirits.
As Change occurs, as one Spirit becomes strong or another is created,
than other Spirits (Individuals, groups, species, religious beliefs, govern-
ments) are placed in a state of disorder and anxiety generated by Com-
petition. A catastrophe often results. The Life process of one or all is
threatened. A Life form may not be able to continue according to its na-
ture.
Such pressure creates a state of anxiety. The conflicting forces are those
oriented to restore the Life process back to pre-anxiety conditions and those
attempting to realize a more advanced nature for further Life. If each
13.3. BIOLOGICAL TO SOCIAL MECHANISMS 391

anxiety is dealt with in such a manner that a relative balance occurs before
the next disturbance, then a slow evolving will occur as Darwin suggests.
As more Spirits come into being, as each Changes, or as the environment
Changes, the frequency of catastrophic disorders increases. If each distur-
bance is not dealt with before the next disturbance, then the Spirit must
completely revolt in a major upheaval oriented toward changing the envi-
ronment. This is done by eliminating other Spirit’s influence, by shrinking
his own role, by adjusting to the new order, or by dying. This is a growth
crisis.
The only option Life has within its own control is death. A destructive
alternative is that a Life Spirits may choose to self-destroy itself and destroy
its Competitor with it. This “Samson syndrome” is seen frequently in
history. A strong Life Spirit must allow for and overcome the possible evil
of the Competitor’s death wish.
Charles S. Elton, a British scientist, wrote a wonderful, sensible and
informative book on this subject, “The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and
Plants”. The biological world has been consistently disproving mankind’s
view of moral. The various invasions by plant and animals into mankind’s
ordered world have been very savage. Even the wildest fiction of doom
cannot compare with reality. Life is not for the squeamish. The infestations
cannot be stopped with poisons or bombs. The only sensible course of action
is to Understand the basics of the fight for survival and meet these invasions
on their own terms.
Examples in just the last few decades in the Americas are terrifying.
There are fire ants, killer bees, chestnut fungus, the sea lamprey of the
Great Lakes, and many more.
There are also many lessons. Lesson one: very often, a successful in-
vasion is irrevocable. Once a new Life force is established, it will require
a new Life force (not poison or bombs) to supplant it. The new species
find crannies to hide in and tricks of survival so eradication is prohibitively
expensive in Resource requirement.
Lesson two: having shed its past and left its own enemies behind, an
invader will often explode to extreme population densities. Often the native
species and older Life forms are victims. The most benign invasion is when
the invader is merely Competitive.
Lesson three: most invaders that achieve calamitous population explo-
sions have come from ecosystems that are more complex and rich in species.
They invaded a habitat that is less rich, less ecologically tangled, and more
simplified. So mankind’s effort to simplify his environment to his level of
392 CHAPTER 13. LIFE AND SURVIVAL

Understanding is really creating an opportunity for invasion.

Lesson four: every species or Life Spirit requires its own ecological niche.
If all the niches are occupied, the invader will meet resistance. Many will
not succeed. There is a valid reason for tolerance of difference.
Lesson five: the cause of catastrophe is not that the invasion occurs, but
that the invasion is rapid and causes rapid Change. The rate of Change
produced by an already established Life Spirit is the result of slow evolution.
The vacant niche the invader fills would be filled by slow Change.
Lesson six: the successful invasion of a new species will ultimately result
in a richer Life Spirit. This is the fundamental force of all Spirit. The
character of invader or destroyer is man’s view and not how nature views
the transaction.
Lesson seven: human effort and Resources spent toward a reduction of
diversity or an inhibition to Change can only be, ultimately, self destroying.
The U. S. is strong not because it is a “melting pot”, but because it allows
a mixture of social groups to exist Competitively without war. Indeed, the
melting pot concept is a false description. A stronger Life force could be
developed if a political diversity could exist without war.
Lesson eight: the boundary between two Spirits is the place where the
greatest amount of creation of new Spirits occurs. Where there is isolation,
there is sameness.
Life organisms in trying to meet Competition have found it useful to
develop larger, effective biomass. The invention of the Spirit of society has
allowed the Creation of larger effective biomasses.
To be effective means that parts of a biomass must help the other parts
to survive and to gain survival longer than they would alone. This is cou-
pling. For instance, the heart pumps blood but cannot survive without the
rest of a body as the other body parts cannot survive without a heart. A
worker ant cannot survive long without the rest of the colony. The Spirit of
the colony cannot survive or reproduce without the worker. Coupling has
occurred. The ant is not an Individual because it cannot meet the response
of Competition. The colony is the Individual. The ant lives for the greater
survival of the larger Spirit and larger biomass.
A society is a group of Individuals who can Repeat and Change to
further their own survival. In furthering their survival, they create an In-
dividual Spirit that seeks to survive.
An Individual consists of all component Individuals. A country con-
sists of Individual businesses, Individual organizations, Individual people,
Individual animals (e.g., cattle and wildlife), Individual mineral Spirits, etc.
13.3. BIOLOGICAL TO SOCIAL MECHANISMS 393

Groups and societies are a type of Individual and distinct from biological
Individuals as biological Individuals are distinct from mineral Individuals.
Cattle are Individuals in a group. Traditional thinking in the U.S. has peo-
ple in a nation holding power. Private plunder or public graft is equally
unhealthy. Societies have different allocations of power. Societies are a
matter of organization and relationships of Individuals. Therefore, groups
and societies are Individuals of a Life force. Societies must obey the same
natural laws and respond to the same conditions as the mineral and bi-
ological worlds. Therefore, the society is a Life Spirit as is the mineral
and biological Spirits. Further, because more Energy is controlled by the
society, it is potentially an advance of the Life Spirit.
There are several organizational types of societies. One type is the
totalitarian society where its members are viewed as members of the state
and little more. Its members are as organs of a body. Each has his function.
Resources are used by the state. If one function fails, all die. Its strength
is that it can be single-mindedly directed to react rapidly to an emergency.
The good of the state must prevail over the Individual. The problem is
that the perceived good of the state does not always mean the survival
of the state. Thus, ants in one colony are one effective Individual rather
than a collection of ants. Competition is restricted and the state looses its
Understanding of the requirements for survival.
Another type of society is the opposite extreme. The Individualist view
is that the good of the Individual must come before the state. The citizen
uses Resources. The state is the instrument of the Individual to get his
good. Again, good is subject to Individual desires and may not achieve
survival. Those Individuals who chose to be in conformity to the Vital Way
will survive. Competition restricts the ability of the state to respond to
other states.
A third view is a combination of the two extremes. A “well ordered
and just state” (whatever that is) serves the Individual. A civic–minded
Individual serves the whole. Often consumers that are not Individuals are
allowed to remain a member of the society. This is a symptom of the causes
of the collapse of the society.
The philosophy of anarchism requires Individuals or subgroups to coop-
erate to achieve survival without any coercive state or authority. Nature’s
forces are to Compete and Change. Without a coercive authority the Com-
petition can result in violent destruction of Resources. The decentralization
of Roman power was an anarchist’s dream. It led to violent, destructive
conflict within Europe that slowed Europe’s growth (the dark age). There-
394 CHAPTER 13. LIFE AND SURVIVAL

fore, anarchy doesn’t result in a more powerful Life Spirit.

The difficulty of all these views is that happiness or self–actualization
is the goal. Also, they tend to be treated as forms that can survive forever,
in all circumstances. The force of Change precludes any one form from
surviving forever. Also, a state’s survival depends on its pursuit of the
Vital Ways and the abhorrence of the Opposite ideas. Any organization
can do this. Consequently, history has seen each type of society conquer
each other type.
A society’s Spirit has certain characteristics that can be described by 7
action concepts - Justice, Mercy, Truth, Love, Understanding, Hope, and
Wisdom. Wisdom is approaching what has been defined as Godlike in its
creation characteristic.
A group’s survival Life force depends on how its culture is structured in
the seven action concepts of the Vital Way. The measure of one Life force
structure has little meaning. Meaning and surviving are established only
in how a group can respond relative to the environment and other groups.
There is a problem in the use of these words as a shorthand way of
dealing with interrelationships in a society. The problem is that these words
require redefinition. However, their common usage is the closest to the
intended concept. Perhaps it is best to think of each part of the Vital
Way as representing an organizational concept with relationships to time,
to Expanding, to Nurturing and to each other. The definition of each Vital
Way differs from prior definitions because they are survival oriented. This
can lead to a better Wisdom in dealing with the challenges facing us.
Another problem in using these words is that the application is a society,
not the mineral world. The analogy may be hard to follow. For instance,
thinking of a rock as having Truth will require a close attention to the
definition. A rock has a being in the sense that it has a past that led to
its current characteristic. It has a present and a relationship to other rocks
and Life forces. It has a future and will Change with erosion. It can cause
Change of its environment by virtue of gravity. A rock has also achieved
balance between its Nurturing and Expanding modes. This is why the rock
has survived.
The seven candles of a society’s Life stand on a triangular base of Com-
petition, Change and Limited Resources whose point - Limited Resources -
extends into another base of Energy and Spirit. The seven candles (stored
energy) of Life are Justice balanced with Mercy, Truth balanced with Love,
Understanding balanced with Hope, on a central column with Wisdom on
its top.
13.4. THE VITAL WAY TO LIFE 395

A recurring pattern can be seen in the progression of increasing the

Spirit of Life. First is sameness. All items of an identifiable Life process are
the same. Then another Spirit develops and adds to the many same items
a means of Coordinating them. The whole then becomes greater than the
sum of the parts.
The history of increasing Spirit size such as from chemicals to bacteria
to us shows that each level has a greater rate of Change than the previous
level. Sex was originated by the blue-green algae. Sexual selection is used
in addition to natural selection to accelerate Change. With the addition of
Wisdom, Change can be created with forethought rather than by reaction,
only.
Each level of increasing Spirit size has a greater amount of Energy to
be used by the Individual. Note also that each stage is stable in that they
survive today. These earlier stages are needed by later stages. Elements
do not lose their identity to make compounds. Therefore, the problem of
mankind’s survival is one of having several types of national governments
(e.g., totalitarian or democratic) to rule the earth.

13.4 The Vital Way to life

All Spirits must have some response to the 7 dimensions of action. A weak
Spirit will have responses that do not aid survival and do no direct harm
without Competition. These responses are called passive opposites. Some of
the possible responses are active in a sense that inhibits survival or causes
self–destruction. These are called active opposites to survival. Mystical
terminology would refer to the active opposites as evil. The responses listed
above as Justice, Mercy, Truth, Love, Understanding, Hope and Wisdom
are the positive responses to survival and are called the Vital Ways.

Development of the life Spirit

The biological survival of the fittest mechanism is only the last resort of
nature’s Competition. For species at the top of a food chain with no natural
enemies, survival of the fittest implies war, starvation, and destruction of
limited Resources. When this answer is applied to groups, the groups war
and starve. This entails a huge Disintegration of Resources. Some action
to make the selection is required with less Disintegration. Using Justice is
much more efficient and is, therefore, necessary for life.
396 CHAPTER 13. LIFE AND SURVIVAL

Justice selects by comparing past actions to a set of rules. If the rules

of an Individual are compatible with the rules of the larger Individual, the
Justice will aid survival of the Individual to the extent the larger Individ-
ual’s rules allow it to survive. Ultimately, the larger Individual is nature.
Ultimately, all rules must be compatible with nature.
The application of Justice in all circumstances restricts the society from
learning. To learn, errors will be made. If the error is allowed to reoccur,
then a mistake is made and life is threatened. To allow learning requires an
action such as bankruptcy to recognize the error and not waste Resources
because of the error. Mercy is necessary to balance Justice for life.
To decide whether a situation requires a just or merciful action requires
that the total, true situation be known. Some action must be taken to
discover the total, true situation. This action is the search for Truth. Truth
is the relation of one event or thing to another. It is data. Truth exists only
in the present. For instance, that a person was at a given place yesterday
is a Truth today.
The application of only Truth to a Mercy and Justice balancing require-
ment fails to recognize the requirement for an Individual to apply Resources.
Some action to balance Truth with the recognition of the exchange of Re-
sources that is occurring is necessary. This action requires an Individual
expend or give Resources to another in exchange for some value. Love is a
giving and a getting. Only in this way can life progress. Love is necessary
to balance Truth.
Unilateral giving is beautiful but deadly. Note that getting without
giving is allowed by nature. However, the Spirit between the taken-from-
Individual and the getting-Individual is weak. The taken-from–Individual
may soon disintegrate if other Individuals continue getting.
To decide whether a situation requires a Truth or Loving action requires
that the future of any modification of the present situation be known. Some
action must be taken to discover the future possibilities. This action is
the search for Understanding. Understanding is the ability to predict the
unfolding of events and future Truths. For instance, a present Truth may
be that a paper is being held above the floor. Later, a new present has the
Truth that the paper is released. Understanding would predict the future
Truth of the paper. If Understanding was poor and we wanted the paper
to be in a wastebasket, we may be required to try several times. This is
Resource wasting. Much better is to be able to predict the outcome of
releasing the paper from any given position so we may choose the more
optimal position. Much better to have Understanding.
13.4. THE VITAL WAY TO LIFE 397

An exchange of Resources for other Resources to aid our survival (Love)

is far more productive (profitable) than war. Understanding helps us get the
Resources we need in exchange for the Resources expended or that another
needs. Taking Resources by destruction of another Individual is an allowed
transaction but leads to war. The war may not be profitable. If we fail to
receive adequate Resources on each Love transaction, we’ll soon be void of
Resources. A Spirit that wars without receiving booty soon dies. Profit is
a more efficient means of growth and survival.
The application of only Understanding to a Love and Truth balancing
requirement fails to recognize the requirement for an Individual to have
some unifying goal. Such a coordination of Resources produces a whole
greater than the sum of its parts. Resources purchased could have a much
greater effect if they are selected with some synergy with other Resources.
This makes a given Resource more valuable to one Individual than another.
Economically, this is called profit. The voluntary Love relationship involves
least waste. Some action to balance Understanding with the recognition
of the possibility of profit is necessary. Only in this way can life progress.
Hope is necessary to balance Understanding.
Some action must be taken to create the Hope and Understanding of
the future. This action involves the application of forces. Wisdom is the
ability to create Hope and Understanding for the unfolding of events and
future Truths.
The mineral world forces are nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravity.
For life to advance, some method to have the next stage in Spiritual
development is required. For instance, to have Hope, Wisdom is needed to
balance harsh Understanding. To have Understanding, Hope is needed to
advance Love. Understanding is needed to balance harsh Truth and Love.
To have Truth, Love is needed to advance Mercy. To have Mercy, Truth
is needed to balance harsh Justice. To have Justice, Mercy is needed to
advance Competition.

Organization of the concepts

Spirits have relationships that lead to survival: a time relationship and a
balance of Expanding and Nurturing actions. Other possible relationships
(active opposites and passive opposites) may hinder a Spirit’s survival.
7 dimensions shown in Table 13.2 are developed to describe a Spirit’s
way to survive under the condition of limited Resources and the opposing
responses of Change and Competition.
398 CHAPTER 13. LIFE AND SURVIVAL

Table 13.2: A Spirit’s Vital Way to survive

Orientation Great Idea

PAST Expanding Justice
PAST Nurturing Mercy
PRESENT Expanding Truth
PRESENT Nurturing Love
FUTURE Expanding Understanding
FUTURE Nurturing Hope
ALL TIME balancing/coupling Wisdom

The orientation (e.g., past-Expanding) applies to all levels of survival.

The labeling of Justice, Mercy, etc. is applied to groups and societies.
The dimensions are chosen in such a structure as to be orthogonal and
a complete description of a Spirit’s position and survival capability. “Or-
thogonal” means the organization of the concepts is such that the concepts
are each mutually exclusive. This aids analysis.

Vital Way
“Way” is used in the sense of “actions to pursue to accomplish a longer
survival time”. “Vital” is the fundamental, necessary but not sufficient
result of action choices made by an Individual. Vital is the adjective of
way. Once the choice of the actions of the Individual’s approach to the 7
dimensions is made, the resulting survival or non-survival in the Individual’s
environment is determined. This is a mixture of Newtonian determinism
(the clockwork universe of deism) and free will.
When the genes of an Individual are selected, many of the later character
and actions of the Individual are determined. Species Change by modifica-
tion in the genetic structure. That is the way of biological Individuals.
The group is organized by choices of how the Individuals are related.
This choice can include choice of the members of the group. These choices
involve responses to the 7 dimensions. These responses determine how vital
the group can be in relation to other Individuals.
Because time passes and Change occurs, there is not a sense of perfect
but only a sense of better in the Competition of Individuals.
A traveler on a road is continually faced with choices of paths to follow.
The traveler can perceive that not choosing an established path is difficult.
Upon coming to an intersection, he must choose one of several paths. Read-
13.4. THE VITAL WAY TO LIFE 399

ing signs and maps may increase his Understanding of his choice. Once the
choice is made, he is committed to follow that path and experience what
that path holds.

Time
As noted before, the universe is in the process of becoming. Thus, a past,
present, and future coordination is necessary for survival. The condition
of limited Resources and the responses of Change (of becoming) and Com-
petition are ever present and are timeless. Justice and Mercy are concepts
that respond to past events in the balancing of Change and Competition.
The ideas of Truth and Love are statements about the current condition so
Justice and Mercy may be balanced for survival. The ideas of Understand-
ing and Hope are future oriented. As the natural condition and responses
have no time orientation (are always present), Wisdom is concerned with
all time. Wisdom is outside time and is concerned with the application of
forces to influence the flow of events of nature from the past through time
to the future.
The stage a Spirit is in can be likened to the growth of a person. For
example, a Spirit with a well-balanced Justice and Mercy level but weak
or imbalanced Truth and Love level is like a child. An adult Spirit has
Wisdom to the extent it can cause Change and Competition to balance.

Table 13.3: Stages of development

Nurture Balance Expand Stage
Wisdom adult
Hope Understanding
Love Truth adolescent
Mercy Justice
Competition Change child
Limited Resources
Spirit Energy

Expanding and Nurturing

The Nurturing processes and Expanding processes are the Spirit equivalent
of the biological female and male. However, the tendency to think of Nur-
turing as passive and Expanding as active is not accurate. Nurturing is as
active a role in a life process as it is in biology.
400 CHAPTER 13. LIFE AND SURVIVAL

Competition, Mercy, Love, and Hope have Nurturing characteristics.

Change, Justice, Truth, and Understanding have Expanding characteristics.

Happiness
is the experience of living every moment with Hope, Love, and Mercy in
the existing environment in Competition with others.

Fulfillment
is the experience of living every moment with Understanding, Truth, and
Justice in a Changing environment.
Happiness and fulfillment are opposites. To be happy, one does not need
to have Understanding and Truth of his situation. One must only accept. It
is no coincidence that fulfillment often brings unhappiness with little Hope
and appreciation of Love.
To survive, happiness and fulfillment must be balanced. The Great
Spirit is the balancing of happiness and fulfillment in the use of limited
Resources. The pursuit of happiness or fulfillment alone is a threat to
survival.
Wisdom and limited Resources have neither a Nurturing nor an Ex-
panding characteristic. As such, they have no opposites.

Active and passive opposites

Life uses energy. The second law of thermodynamics (the universe is run-
ning down and entropy is increasing) has been applied to life. Murphy’s
law (anything that can go wrong, will) is another statement of the same
concept. If a living being’s approach to life is passive, it will run down and
eventually cease.
Table 13.4 lists the active and passive opposites relationships. Living
and continuing to survive requires the constant acquisition of energy. Life
is an ACTIVE process. Passive values and goals will not secure survival.
Throughout human history there have been many examples of people com-
mitting Resources to passive goals. The building of beautiful palaces sig-
naled the high point of Moorish Spain. The end was not long in coming.
Solomon’s great expenditures in the pursuit of beauty were followed by the
ruin of a great power in one generation. David was wise. Solomon was
unwise.
13.4. THE VITAL WAY TO LIFE 401

The passive Nurturing ideals are Grace, Beauty, and Faith. Survival
demands active Nurturing. Not the passivity of Grace, but the activity
of Mercy. Not the passivity of Beauty, but the activity of Love. Not the
passivity of Faith, but the activity of Hope.
The Jews created the word of God- of the balance of Justice and Mercy
(substituting grace) through history. Christians were born to carry the word
of Truth and Love (Jesus substituted Love for beauty) through history. The
next great Change will be the formation of a church to carry the word of
Understanding and Hope as opposed to faith.
If each of the 7 dimensions and 2 responses are “Vital Ways”, then their
opposites must be equally great. There are different types of opposites. One
type must serve to enhance survivability. Another type serves to inhibit
survivability.
Nurturing and Expanding are active opposites required for survival.
Each of the 7 Vital Ways has passive opposites that allow an exhaustion
of the life Spirit for the eventual conquering by another, more active life
Spirit. There are also opposites that are active in a manner that results
in the self–disintegration of life. For lack of a better term, these are called
evil.
The more obvious is hate as the active opposite of Love. The telling or
believing of lies (unTruths) is not the opposite of Truth. Many times a lie
is necessary for Love to help survival. The destructive opposite of Truth
is betrayal or bearing false witness when a Justice/Mercy decision is to be
made because this destroys the Justice - Mercy balance.
The mechanism of opposing forces is necessary for life. The balanc-
ing of Vital Way opposites (e.g., Justice and Mercy) is necessary for life.
The avoidance of passive opposites and the fight against active opposites
prolongs life. If Vital Way opposites do not exist, life will not survive.
Sameness can be deadly because diversity is required for Change and Com-
petition. Therefore, the mechanism of opposites must exist. It evolved as
a necessary condition to survival.
The need for opposites and balance solved the greatest pollution problem
of all time. The life process of Plants gave off oxygen. While sufficient
carbon dioxide existed, all was sameness (only plants). However, oxygen
was a poison to plants. Beings that converted oxygen to carbon dioxide
were required. The new beings, animals, required a source of carbon and
energy. The plants had both and were required to sacrifice their own bodies
to the animals so the plant Spirit could live.
The conditions required for the continued existence of plant life may
402 CHAPTER 13. LIFE AND SURVIVAL

have been attempted many times by plants. The arrival of animals allowed
the balance to be achieved. The mechanism of life is a mechanism for
achieving coupling and balance.

Table 13.4: Great Idea relations

Help Inhibit Self-
Survival Survival destructive
Great Great Passive Active
Idea Opposite Opposite Opposite
Competition Change Sameness Welfare
Change Competition Stagnation Regression
Justice Mercy Peace Murder
Mercy Justice Grace Cruelty
Truth Love Illusion Betrayal
Love Truth Beauty Hate
Understanding Hope Ignorance Obstinacy
Hope Understanding Faith Death wish
Wisdom Wisdom

Predicting a Spirit’s survival potential

The ability of a Spirit to survive in Competition can be measured by classi-
fying the way a Spirit responds to its environment in each of the dimensions.
Also, each dimension of the Vital Way, passive opposite, and active opposite
are mutually exclusive and are all inclusive of survival–oriented responses.
For instance, freedom as an ideal is not so important. However, tolerance
seems to allow probing for the Truth, rewards Understanding and Wisdom,
and allows the believers in the passive and active opposites to be reduced
in power through Competition. The idea of freedom overlaps with concepts
of liberty and authoritarianism.
For organization and description purposes each ideology can be de-
scribed by its response to each of the Vital Ways and their opposites. The
response is the actual response in practice and not the intended or theoret-
ical response. The test of illusion or Truth is found in Understanding. For
any given theoretical Truth, a prediction about a future Truth according
to a theory may be made. Note this requires a positive statement of a new
existence or Truth. A statement about a future disaster fails to qualify
as a prediction. Disasters happen as a result of some failure of Truth or
Understanding. We are imperfect, so we can expect disasters. Believing
13.4. THE VITAL WAY TO LIFE 403

in false prophets results in unfounded faith and illusion. If the theory and
Truth are correct, the prediction will come to pass. If not, the Truth and
the Understanding are wrong. The surviving Spirit will modify its Truth
and Understanding.
Comparing the response of the Individual to the Vital Way can make an
evaluation of the survival potential of an Individual. The survival potential
against Competing ideologies can predict which will survive. This system
can also be used to coordinate the ideology of a group so the survival of the
group can be enhanced.
For instance, the ideology of a parliamentary government and democ-
racy appeared to be the major export of European colonial powers to
Africa. However, as the colonies became more self–governing, many, non-
democratic forms of government replaced the parliamentary ideal. The
experience of the U. S. in exporting democracy and freedom ideology has
also been less than successful.
Why? The survival model explanation is that the freedom ideal in prac-
tice in the colony did not match the religious, economic and organizational
(e.g., tribal) ideals. Secondly, the export was not really freedom. The U.S.
found dealing with strong, centralized government easier. The true export
had many passive and active opposites. Thus, gross imbalance was created
in the colony that could not use Resources, Compete, and Change as effec-
tively as the older, tribal ideals. Note the reaction in the exporting power
was to increase its survival potential because the colony, for a short time,
gave more than it got. The exporter saw the transaction as a Love transac-
tion. The colony, however, lost Resources and saw the transaction as Hate.
That the people of mid–east nations want to kill us is a natural reaction to
the Hate toward them that we exported. Therefore, the relation between
the exporter and the colony was not a Love transaction.
The Hate in the colony fostered rebellion. In time the colonies required
the continued use of an internally oriented standing army from the home-
land. The colonies were uneconomical to keep. The idea that the parlia-
mentary system in the colony was working is false. To maintain the pax
Britannia and parliamentary government in the colonies, Britain had to
pay too high a price or to extract too heavy a tax from the people. Britain
was eventually bled of its Resources and its Competitiveness. The bleed-
ing of Resources was more than economic. Many people migrated to other
countries like the U. S. As time passed, the Love transaction became im-
balanced in that the Truth was lost. People rejected the idea that they
were predators. Therefore, grace and beauty as seen in Britain were met
404 CHAPTER 13. LIFE AND SURVIVAL

with hate and war in the colonies. The real behavior of the passive and
active opposites caused the collapse of the empire. The same is true of pax
Romania centuries ago and pax Americana of this century.
There is a Spirit of all human kind. However, so far in human devel-
opment, this Spirit has oscillated between the active and passive opposites.
Therefore, this Spirit is very weak. Nations continue to war. Much stronger
is the Spirits associated with states, nations and families.
A Spirit must pursue the Vital Ways to survive and avoid the opposites.
The pursuit of any of the opposite ideas will lead to a weakening of the
Spirit.

Human growth in Spirit

Human growth in Spirit has been to recognize the need for survival morals,
to modify his Spirit and to fully appreciate the survival ideas. The historic
progression has been from Justice, to Mercy, to Truth, to Love, to Under-
standing. At each stage the future stages were misunderstood and defied
the existing rational views. Upon reaching Justice, man thought Grace,
Beauty, and Faith (passive opposites) were needed. As human Spirit rec-
ognized Mercy and Truth, the quest for Beauty and Faith proved ruinous.
Surviving for longer periods is to approach Godliness. Thus, when Jesus,
the herald of Love for western culture, says in the Book of John that he who
would know God (long term survival) must come by him (Jesus - Love) is
correct. Moses (Justice) might have said the same.
When man had Justice and Mercy in balance, God was Mercy. Now
man has Truth and Love, God is Love. Next man will have Understanding
and Hope, God will be Hope. The God concept is all of those and Wisdom,
too.
Through human history, people have tended to think of themselves as
being unique and an exception to nature’s rules. Thus, they create morals
and pronounced these morals to have higher meaning. It is better to seek
a new balancing mechanism than to think we have found an exception to
nature’s rules.
Certainly, human opportunity is to form ever-larger groups with ever-
greater influence on his environment. We must form a supernation that has
the military power and that allows the nations to Compete without war.
13.4. THE VITAL WAY TO LIFE 405

What goes wrong?

The universe as we know it is not one Individual life Spirit. We cannot
predict the future indefinitely. Therefore, much expansion is needed along
the Vital Way. If the Vital Way is the way, why are there still active and
passive opposites in life? Misapplication of the great Ideas causes the active
and passive opposites. Misapplication at a higher (more future oriented)
level causes the lower (more past oriented) level to have active and passive
opposites.
The pursuit of the Vital Way includes balancing the Nurturing and Ex-
panding methods, prohibiting the active opposites and allowing the passive
opposites to cease. If this is not done, various types of Resource wasting
events occur which results in disintegration. The Spirit either destroys itself
or is made prone to destruction through the process of Competition. This
is the evil that we sense.
To survive a Spirit must take action to restrain the active and passive
opposites. The model shows the causes of the existence of active and passive
opposites are found on the next more future level. Ultimately, Wisdom must
act to restrain the active and passive opposites and achieve balance.

First wrong way

Allowing the continued existence of a passive opposite will result in promot-
ing the passive opposites of the next lower level. For instance, not knowing
and not attempting to increase Understanding is Ignorance. Allowing igno-
rance to continue will foster a need for Illusion. Illusion creates Peace and
Grace. Peace and Grace in a society creates Stagnation and Sameness that
soon looses a war or disintegrates. Another example is that the quest for
faith fosters lies and illusion.

Second wrong way

A Nurturing imbalance is pursuing a Nurturing method and not the cor-
responding Expanding method. A Nurturing imbalance will result in pro-
moting both the passive opposites in the next lower level. For example, a
Spirit’s placing more emphasis on Hope than Understanding will place the
Individuals of the Spirit in a situation were they will respond with beauty
and illusion rather than Love and Truth. For example, the reaction of citi-
zens of a society placing more emphasis on Love than Truth in sentencing
criminals results in the resignation by the citizens that nothing can be done.
406 CHAPTER 13. LIFE AND SURVIVAL

Soon crime will pay and, therefore, increase. Therefore, Love without Truth
will result in a quest for grace and peace. The Spirit of the state will decay.
The expansion of western civilization often overran societies that were
pursuing peace, grace, illusion, beauty, ignorance, and faith.

Third wrong way

Pursuing an active opposite will result in promoting the active opposites in
the next lower level. For example, the reaction to lack of Understanding
(inaccurate forecasting) and obstinately refusing to correct the models is to
place great strain on the Individuals of a Spirit. The Individuals then must
resort to betrayal in their interaction to other Individuals in the Spirit lest
their own Spirit be threatened.

Fourth wrong way

An Expanding imbalance is pursuing an Expanding method and not the
corresponding Nurturing method. An Expanding imbalance will result in
promoting both the active opposites in the next lower level.
Throughout history there have been many who have placed heave em-
phasis on the Expanding way of Justice without Mercy, Truth without Love
and Understanding without Hope. These often engage not only in war but
murder. Standing against such a great conqueror is often destructive. The
conqueror ends in self–destruction or by causing another to destroy them
(a form of self destruction).

The degree of impact differs among the wrong ways

A significant part of Wisdom is to choose the wrong way it will tolerate.
Making no choice is really choosing the fourth wrong way.
For instance, if a society is suffering unjust, reduced effectiveness of some
of its member (murder) in the past level, then the cause and correction can
be found on the present level. Love may be misapplied or betrayal not
being restrained. If the society fails to act sufficiently to reduce bearing
false witness (betrayal), murder results.
If a society finds too often to have illusions rather than Truth, the
cause is having too much Hope and not enough Understanding, of having
inappropriate faith and allowing ignorance to persist.
There are limits to the Wisdom a Spirit possesses. Therefore, ignorance
and faith exists. Therefore, some acceptance of the passive opposites exists.
13.4. THE VITAL WAY TO LIFE 407

The first wrong way must exist. This is felt by a society as the ever–present
evil and as a foreboding that Disintegration is near. The goal is to develop a
Spirit stronger than other Spirits. A Spirit need only be better not perfect.
The error toward Expanding ways creates a high risk and rapid self–
destruction. The error toward Nurturing ways allows others to conquer.
The tendency for societies to error toward Nurturing ways at least assures
longer survival if there are no immediate wars.
The Nurture imbalance is worse than allowing only one passive opposite.
It is within a Spirit’s control to strive for a balance. This Second wrong
way is unnecessary and can be corrected by a Spirit. Nurture imbalance is
worse for a Spirit than the First wrong way.
Pursuing an active opposite causes more destructive responses within a
Spirit than passive opposites. These responses reduce the Spirit’s ability to
Compete. Therefore, a Competing Spirit need not advance life to conquer.
The Competitor need only wait. The Spirit must take action by prohibiting
the Third wrong way. The Third wrong way is worse for a Spirit than the
first or second wrong way.
Expanding imbalance is much worse than dealing with only one active
opposite. Expanding imbalance is difficult to prohibit by laws. Expanding
imbalance is total anarchy. The Spirit will soon disintegrate. A Spirit
must exercise care lest another Spirit in Expanding imbalance drags it to
disintegration.
The misapplication of Expanding ways has a much more severe result
than the misapplication of Nurture ways. The risk is much higher. There-
fore, societies have tended to imbalance in favor of the Nurturing ways.
This is especially true when the Competing risk (war) appears remote.
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth. The meek are those that pursue
the passive opposite (peace, grace, illusion, beauty, ignorance, and faith).
The meek seek to survive from misapplication, often the imbalance form, of
Nurturing ways. The earth is the mineral world. The meek shall not have
the Great Spirit embodied in the Vital Ways.
Previous attempts to eliminate war have failed. This means the Under-
standing and Truths of those movements are faulty. Many of these attempts
were and are grounded in the second and third wrong ways. Therefore, they
will continue to fail.
Preventing war means the Competition and Change processes must be
encouraged to continue in a manner that does not destroy Resources. The
second, third and fourth wrong ways must be inhibited. Although the First
wrong way will always be with us in ever smaller degrees, the second, third
408 CHAPTER 13. LIFE AND SURVIVAL

and fourth wrong ways can be eliminated by our organizing our Spirit.
Chapter 14

STOE comparison to current

models

The STOE has pros and cons when considering it to be a better model than
current paradigms.
The STOE passes the prime test for a new model in that it has made
predictions that later observations confirm. The paper that resulted in
Chapter 7 was written in 2006. Among the predictions were observations
made in 2011: * The data before the flyby encounters were insufficient
to detect the PA rather than there was no PA before the encounters as
suggested by several other models (Turyshev et al. 1999).
* “The data favor a temporally decaying anomalous acceleration with an
over 10% improvement in the residuals compared to a constant acceleration
model.” (Turyshev et al. (2011)). All other models calculate a constant
acceleration.
* “Although the Earth direction is marginally preferred by the solution
(see Table III), the Sun, the Earth, and the spin axis directions cannot be
distinguished.” (Turyshev et al. (2011)). An Earth directed PA implies a
signal related cause that the STOE calculates rather than acceleration of
the spacecraft that all other models calculate.
The STOE also describes several observations that are poorly explained
or unexplained by current models. Among these are rising and falling RC’s,
flat RC’s, asymmetric RC’s, the Afshar experiment, the duality of light, the
correlation of the CMO’s of galaxies to central velocity dispersion and to
outer galaxy parameters, the redshift and blueshift of light from nearby
galaxies, discrete redshift, etc.
Included in the simplification of the STOE model are observations pre-
409
410 CHAPTER 14. STOE COMPARISON TO CURRENT MODELS

viously considered unrelated such as galaxy redshift, the Pioneer Anomaly,

and the Pound-Rebka experiment. RC’s and asymmetric RC’s are also
included in one RC model.
One of the cons of the STOE is the large number of parameters. How-
ever, the number of parameters allows increased accuracy (larger correlation
coefficient) and the combination of several observations into one model such
as RC’s and asymmetric RC’s and such as redshift and discrete redshift.
Additionally, the Cosmological, Newtonian, and quantum worlds are
combined into one model. Postulating a plenum whose density is modified
by matter does this. Thus, the Ψ field of Bohmian quantum mechanics
becomes the “space” or gravitational ether of General Relativity on large
scales. High frequency oscillations in the very small scale are averaged in
the atomic and larger scale. Those observations that are poorly explained
by General Relativity result from the Source/Sink proposition and the na-
ture of light proposition of the STOE. Therefore, the successes of both the
General Relativity and quantum mechanics may be incorporated into the
STOE.
The observations that confirm General Relativity also confirm the ρ field
effect because each has the same effect on baryonic matter. Light has a dif-
ferent structure than baryonic matter. Gravitational lensing is the effect
of the ρ field on photons perpendicular to their travel path. When obser-
vations consider matter that moves through space such as z measurements
and gravitational lensing observations, the amount and curvature of the ρ
field must be considered.
I speculate General Relativity corresponds to the SPM in the limit in
which the Sources and Sinks may be replaced by a flat and static ρ field
such as between cluster cells and on the Solar System scale at a relatively
large distance from a Source or Sink. On the galaxy and galaxy cluster
scale the ρ field is significantly curved from the proximity of Sources and
Sinks and General Relativity fails (Sellwood and Kosowsky 2001b).
Further, the STOE concept of gravity yields a much simpler calculation
than the Cosmological Principle that is necessary to solve the field equation
of General Relativity. The STOE calculation with Sources, Sinks, and a
cellular structure are nearly Newtonian in form.
Another apparent con of the STOE is the many regions regions postu-
lated to be in galaxies as evidenced by the RC and CMO-galaxy parameter
models. These regions produce several lines in the parameter-luminosity
plots. The advantage of the STOE is that all galaxies that have published
observational data may be included. The competing model papers select
 411

out some galaxies and have outliers in the model. The STOE used all these
galaxy data. If some of the STOE parameters assume an average value
and are considered just one parameter, over 80% of the galaxy sample is
explained. This is approximately the rate of galaxies selection in other pa-
pers. By modeling the regions and by including neighbor Source and Sink
strength, much greater accuracy is achieved in addition to incorporating
the asymmetric RC’s into the model. This yields a much more cohesive
picture of galaxies.
A novel concept in the STOE model is that the philosophies of societies
and life have the same Principles as the physics of the universe. The STOE
paradigm suggests the energy of the universe is being replaced. Therefore,
any entropy consumed to form Spirits and life is replaced. Indeed, the en-
tropy of life comes from the cooling flow of energy from Sources to Sinks.
Therefore, the feedback parameter is modified that would change the tem-
perature of the universe. Our society and we are a part of the universe.
412 CHAPTER 14. STOE COMPARISON TO CURRENT MODELS
appendix

.1 Initial distance estimation

Category A galaxies consisted of 32 galaxies. The distances Da to Cate-
gory A galaxies were calculated using Cepheid variable stars as listed by
Freedman et al. (2001) and Macri et al. (2001).
Category B galaxies consisted of 5967 spiral galaxies in the sample that
were not Category A galaxies with W20 , in , and mb values listed in the
databases. The distance Db (Mpc) for each of the Category B galaxies were
calculated following the method of Tully-Fisher (Tully and Fisher 1977) as
follows: (1) For the Category A galaxies, the absolute magnitude Ma was
calculated,
!
Ma mb Ext Da
= − − 25 − 5 log10 . (1)
mag. mag. mag. Mpc

(2) A plot of Ma /mag. versus log(W20i

/km s−1 ), where W20
i
is the inclination
corrected W20 , is presented in Fig. 1. IC 1613 (an Irregular galaxy classi-
fied as a Sink), NGC 5253 (an Irregular galaxy classified as a Sink), and
NGC 5457 (Freedman et al. (2001) noted the Da was calculated differently)
were omitted from the plot. The straight line in Fig. 1 is a plot of
i
!
Ma W20
= Kws log + Kwi , (2)
mag. km s−1

where Kws = −6.0 ± 0.6, and Kwi = −4 ± 1 at one standard deviation (1σ).
The correlation coefficient is -0.90. Tully and Fisher (1977) calculated a
similar relation with Kws = −6.25 and Kwi = −3.5. The circles indicate
the data points for galaxies with (l,b) = (290◦ ±20◦ ,75◦ ±15◦ ) as in Fig. 6.1.
However, unlike Fig. 6.1, the data in Fig. 1 for the outlier galaxies appears
consistent with the other sample galaxies’ data.
413
414 APPENDIX

Figure 1: Plot of the absolute magnitude Ma versus the inclination corrected 21 cm. line
i
width W20 at 20% of peak value for 29 of the 32 Category A galaxies (Freedman et al.
2001; Macri et al. 2001). The straight line is a plot of Eq. (2). The circles indicate the
data points for galaxies with (l,b) = (290◦ ± 20◦ ,75◦ ± 15◦ ).
.2. THE MANY LINES IN THE PARAMETER RELATIONS ARE NOT RANDOM.415

(3) The Db is
Db = 100.4(mb −Mb −Ext ) , (3)
where
i
!
Mb W20
= Kws log + Kwi . (4)
mag. km s−1
Category C galaxies consisted of galaxies in the sample that were not
in the previous categories with −0.001 < zm < .002. A plot of Da versus
zm for the Category A galaxies in the Category C range is presented in
Fig. 2. Because the goal of this section is to arrive at the initial distance
estimation, NGC 2541 and NGC 4548 are outlier galaxies and were omitted
from the plot. The straight line in Fig. 2 is a plot of
czm
Da = + Kczi , (5)
Kczs
where Kczs = 100 ± 10 km s−1 Mpc−1 , and Kczi = 1.7 ± 0.4 Mpc at 1σ. The
correlation coefficient is -0.93.
The distance Dc (Mpc) for Category C galaxies is
czm
Dc = + Kczi . (6)
Kczs
Category D galaxies are galaxies in the sample not in the previous cat-
egories and with zm < −0.001. The distance Dd (Mpc) to Category D
galaxies was 1 Mpc.
Category E galaxies are all other galaxies in the sample not in the pre-
vious categories. The distance De (Mpc) to these galaxies was calculated
using the Hubble law with Ho = 70 km s−1 Mpc−1 .

.2 The many lines in the parameter relations are not

random.
The many lines in the plot in Fig. 10.2 suggest the data points may be
random. The null hypothesis tested was “the data points are indeed random
points”. This null hypothesis was tested by following the procedure used
in discovering Eq. (10.13) as follows: (1) A trial consisted of generating 15
sets of two random numbers between zero and one and subjecting the sets
to the slope, correlation coefficient, and σe tests the galaxy samples passed.
Call the independent variable (Xi ) and the dependant variable (Yi ), where
i varies from one to 15. (2) The equation tested was
Ycalci = K1 B ti Xi , (7)
416 APPENDIX

Figure 2: Plot of distances Da to galaxies calculated using Cepheid variable stars as

listed by Freedman et al. (2001) and Macri et al. (2001) versus the redshift zm of these
galaxies. The straight line is a plot of Eq. (5).
.2. THE MANY LINES IN THE PARAMETER RELATIONS ARE NOT RANDOM.417

where K1 is the proportionality constant, B is the exponential base deter-

mined by the relation to be tested, and ti is the integer classification for
the ith set. (3) The K1 value for each trial was calculated as the minimum
value of K1 = Yi /(B Xi ) with an Xi > 0.4. (4) The ti value was calculated
for each set of (Xi , Yi ) values as
Yi
  
ti = ROUND log2 , (8)
k 1 Xi
where “ROUND” means to round the value in the braces to the nearest
integer. (5) If any subset lacked a value, that subset was ignored. (6) If
the correlation coefficient of any ti subset of (Xi , Yi ) values, including the
(X0 , Y0 ) = (0,0) point, was less than 0.90, the trial failed. (7) The Ycalci
was calculated according to Eq. (7). If the σe > 0.21 between the Yi and
Ycalci for the 15 sets, the trail failed. (8) A count of the number Nπ of sets
of (Xi , Yi ) with Xi2 + Yi2 ≤ 1 and the number NXltY of sets of (Xi , Yi ) with
Xi < Yi was made. (9) The trial was redone with another 15 sets of random
numbers for 30,000 trials.
For B = 2 the results were: (1) The Nπ /(15 × 30, 000) = 0.78528 ≈ π/4
and NXltY /(15×30, 000) = 0.49999. Therefore, the random number genera-
tor performed satisfactorily. (2) Of the 30,000 trials 22 passed (0.07%), the
remainder of the trials failed. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected
with a 99+% confidence. For B = 1.65 the confidence level of rejecting the
null hypothesis was greater than 0.95.
418 APPENDIX
Bibliography

Aaronson, M., et al., 1982. ApJ 258, 64.

Afshar, S.S., Proceedings of SPIE 5866 (2005): 229.
preprint http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0701027v1 and
http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0702/0702188.pdf.
Aguilar, J. E. M., et al., preprint (http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-
qc?0411074), (2004).
Alpher, R. A., Bethe, H. A. & Gamow, G., 1948. Phys. Rev. 73, 803.
Anderson, J. D., et al., 1998. Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2858.
Anderson, J. D.., et al., 2002. Phys. Rev. D65 082004.
Anderson, J. D.., et al., 2007. New Astrn. 12, 383. arxiv: astro-ph/0608087.
Aracil, B. et al., 2006. MNRAS 367, 139.
Arp, H., 1987. Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies,(Berkeley, Interstellar
Media).
Arp, H., 1998. Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science,
Montreal, Canada: Apeiron.
Arsenault, R. et al. 1988, A & A, 200, 29.
Baes, M. et al., 2003. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 341L, 44.eprintastro-
ph/0303628.
Baganoff, F.K. et al., 2001. Nature (London) 413, 45.
Baganoff, F.K., 2003a. American Astronomical Society HEAD meeting
#35, session #03.02.
Baganoff, F.K., 2003b. ApJ 591, 891.
419
420 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bahcall, N. A., et al., 1999 Science 284, 1481.

Baryshev, Y., Teerikorpi, P., 2004. Discovery of Cosmic Fractals. World
Scientific Press.
Battaner, E. and Florido, E., 2000. preprint
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?0010475v1.
Begeman, K.G., Broeils, A. H., Sanders, R. H., 1991. Mon. Not. R. Astron.
Soc. 249, 523.
Bekestein, J.D., 2004. Phys.Rev.D 70, 083509.
Bell, M. B. ApJ 616 (2004), p. 738.
Bell, M. B., Comeau, S. P. and Russel, D. G. preprint
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?0312132 (2003).
Bell, E. F. et al., 2003. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 343, 367.
Bell, M. B., Comeau, S. P. and Russel, D. G., preprint
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?0407591 (2004).
Bennett, C. L. et al., ApJS 148 (2003), p. 1.
Bernardi, M., Sheth, R.K., Tundo, E., and Hyde, J.B., 2004. preprint
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?0609300.
Bertolami, O., Páramos, J., 2002. preprint
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?0408216.
Bertolami, O., Páramos, J., 2004. Clas. Quantum Gravity 21, 3309.
Bertolami, O., Páramos, J., 2005. Phys. Rev. D 71, 023521. preprint
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?0408216.
Bilic, N., Tupper, G. B. and Viollier, R. D. (2003), arXivastro-ph/0310172.
Binney, J., Merrifield, M., 1998. Galactic Astronomy. Princeton University
Press, Princeton NJ (and references therein).
Biviano, A. et al. 1990, ApJS, 74, 325.
Blondin, S., et al., 2008. ApJ 682, 724.
Bosma, A., 1981. AJ 86, 1791.
Bosma, A., Gross, W.M., Allen, R.J., 1981. A&A 93, 106.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 421

Bottema, R. et al. 2002, AA, 393, 453 (and references therein).

Braine, J., Combes, F., van Driel, W., 1993. A&A 280, 451.
Brandenberger, R. H., 2003 Can. J. Phys. 148, p. 1, arXiv:hep-th/0509076.
Broeils, A.H., 1992. A&A 256, 19.
Brownstein, J.R., Moffat, J.W., 2006. ApJ 636, 721.
Burbidge, G., 1968 ApJ 154, p. L41.
Burnstein, D., Rubin, V.C., 1985. ApJ 297, 423.
Buyle et al., 2006. preprint http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?0609286.
Carignan, C., & Freeman, K. C. 1985, ApJ, 294, 494.
Carslaw, H. S., and Jeager, J. C., Conduction of Heat in Solids, Oxford,
NY: Oxford University Press (2000).
Catinella, B., Giovanelli, R., Haynes, M.P., 2006. ApJ 640, 751.
Ceccarelli, M.L. et al., 2005. ApJ 622, 853.
Chincarini, G., & de Souza, R. 1985, AA, 153, 218.
Conselice, C. J., et al., 2004. preprint http://arxiv.org/abs/0404386.
Conselice, C. J., Bershady, M. A. and Jangren, A., 2000 Astrophy. J. 529,
886.
Consoli, M. and Costanzo, E., 2003 arXivastro-ph/0311576.
Cooperstock F.I., Faraoni, V. and Vollick, D.N., 1998. ApJ 503, 61.
Corbelli, E., & Salucci, P. 2000, MNRAS, 311, 441.
Dürr, D., et al.., 2009. preprint http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.2601.
Dale, D.A. et al., 2001. AJ 121, 1886.
de Block, W. J. G., McGaugh, S. S and Rubin, V. C. AJ 122 (2001), p.
2396.
Descartes, R, 1644. Les Principes de la philosophie. Miller, V.
R. and R. P., trans., 1983. Principles of Philosophy. Reidel.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-physics/ .
422 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Donato. F. and Salucci, P. 2004. arXivastro-ph/0403206.

Duari, D., Gupta, P. D. and Narlikar, J. V., 1992. ApJ 384, p. 35.
Dunning-Davies, J., 2004. preprint http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-
ph?0402290.
Eddington, A. S., Space, Time and Gravitation: An Outline of the General
Relativity Theory (Cambridge University Press, London, UK).
Einasto, J., 1997. Natur. 385, 139.
Everitt, C. W., et al., 2011. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 221101.
Faber, S. M. et al. 1997, AJ, 114, 1771.
Fathi, K. et al., 2005. MNRAS 364, 773.
Fay, S., 2004. A&A 413, 799.
Ferrarese, L., & Merritt, D. 2000, ApJL, 539, L9.
Ferrarese, L. and Merritt, D. 2000a. arXivastro-ph/0006053 v1.
Ferrarese, L., Merritt, D., 2002. preprint http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-
ph?0206222.
Ferrarese, L. et al. 2000, ApJS, 128, 431 (and references therein).
Ferrarese, L. et al., 2006. ApJL 644, 21.
Ferrarese, L., 2002. ApJ 578, 90. Eprint0203469
Fillmore, J.A., Boroson, T.A., Dressler, A., 1986. ApJ 302, 208.
Freedman, W. L. et al. 2001, ApJ, 533, 47.
Garcı́a-Ruiz, I., Sancisi, R., K. Kuijken, K., 2002. A&A 394, 769.
Gebhardt, K. et al., 2000a. ApJL 539, 13.
Gebhardt, K. et al., 2000b. ApJL 543, 5. arXivastro-ph/0007123
Genzel, R. et al., 2003. Nature (London) 425,934.
Gerhard. O. et al., 2001. AJ 121, 1936.
Ghez, A.M. et al., 1998. ApJ 509, 678.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 423

Ghez, A.M. et al., 2000. Nature 407, 349.

Ghez, A. M. et al., 2003a. Astro. Nachr. 324, 527. arXivastro-ph/0303151.
Ghez, A. M. et al. 2003b. arXivastro-ph/0306130.
Ghez, A. M. et al., 2005. ApJ 620, 744.
Goldstein, S., 2009. preprint http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.2427.
Goldstein, S.,Tumulka, R., and Zanghi, N., 2009. preprint
http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.2666.
Goodman, J., 2000. NewA 5, 103.
Gottesman, S.T., Davies, R.D., Reddish, V.C., 1966. Mon. Not. R. Astron.
Soc. 133, 359.
Graham, A.W. et al., 2003b. AJ 125, 2951.preprint
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?0306023
Graham, A. W. , et al. 2001. ApJ, 563, 11.
Graham, A. W. , et al. 2002. preprint (astro-ph/0206248).
Graham, A. W. et al., 2003. arXiv:astro-ph/0306023.
Grove, A. S. Physics and Technology of Semiconductor Devices, (New York,
NY, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.)(1967).
Guhathakurta et al. 1988, AJ, 96, 851.
Guzik, J. and Seljak, U., 2002 MNRAS 335, p. 311.
Hodge, J. C. & Castelaz, M. W. 2003, presented at the 202nd meeting of
the AAS meeting, session 40.08, preprint (astro-ph/0304030) (HCa).
Hodge, J. C. & Castelaz, M. W. 2003, presented at the 202nd meeting of the
AAS meeting, session 40.08, preprint (astro-ph/0305022), and references
therein (HCb).
Hodge, J. C. and M. W. Castelaz, (2003b), presented at the 202nd meet-
ing of the American Astronomical Society, Session 40.08, arXivastro-
ph/0304030.
Hodge, J. C., 2004. preprint http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?0409765v1.pdf
.
424 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hodge, J. C., 2004. preprint http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?0409765.

Hodge, J. C., 2006a. NewA 11, 344. preprint
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?0602344.
Hodge, J. C., 2006b. preprint http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?0603140.
Hodge, J. C., 2006c. preprint http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?0611029.
Hodge, J. C., 2006d. preprint http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?0611699.
Hodge, J. C., 2006c. preprint http://arxiv.org/PS cache/astro-
ph/pdf/0612/0612567v2.pdf .
Hodge, J. C., 2006e. preprint http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?0612567.
Hodge, J. C., 2009. preprint arxiv:0907.0425.
Hodge, J. C., Chapter 14 of Black Holes and Galaxy Formation, 2010, eds.
A. D. Wachter and R. J. Propst, Nova Science Publishers, Inc (New York,
USA)
Hu, F. X. et al., 2005. preprint http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?
0508669.
Huchtmeier, W. K., 1975. A&A 45, 259.
Hudson, M. et al., 2004. MNRAS 352, 61.
Iorio, L., 2006. NewA 11, 600.
Israel, F. P. AARv 8 (1998), p. 237.
Jörsäter, S., & van Moorsel, G. A. 1995, AJ, 110, 2037.
Jobin, M. & Carignan, C. 1990, AJ, 100, 648.
Jog, C. J., 1997. ApJ 488, 642.
Jog, C. J., 2002. A&A 391, 471.
Königl, A. 2003, arXivastro-ph/0302109.
Karlsson, K. G. 1997. A&A 58, p. 237.
Knapen, J.H. et al., 1993. AJ 416, 563.
Kormendy, J. & Richstone, D. 1995, ARA&A, 33, 581 (and references
therein).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 425

Kornreich, D.A., Haynes, M.P., Lovelace, R.V.E., van Zee, L., 2000. AJ
120, 139.
Kornreich, D.A., Haynes, M.P., Jore, K.P., Lovelace, R.V.E., 2001. AJ 121,
1358.
Krumm, N., Salpeter, E.E., 1979. AJ 84, 1138.
López–Corredoira, M., 2010. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D. 19, 245.
Lauscher, O. and Reuter, M. 2005. Asymptotic Safety in Quantum Gravity.
preprint http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th?0511260v1.pdf .
Li, Y. et al., 2006. preprint http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?0607444.
Lilje, P.B., Yahil, A., Jones, B.J.T., 1986. ApJ 307, 91.
Liszt, H.S., Dickey, J.M., 1995. AJ 110, 998.
D. Lynden-Bell et al., ApJ 326 (1988), p. 19.
H. Müller et al., (2003), eprintphysics/0305117.
Macri, L.M. et al., 2001. ApJ 559, 243.
Madore, B. M., & Freedman, W. L. 1991, PASP, 103, 933.
Magorrian, J. et al., 1998. AJ 115, 2285.
Mannheim, P.D., Kmetko, J., 1996. preprint
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?9602094.
Mather, J. C. et al., ApJ 354 (1990), p. L37.
Mather, J. C et al., ApJ 512 (1999), p. 511.
Mbelek, J.P., 2004. A&A 424, 761.
McGaugh, S.S., 1998. preprint http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?
9812327 (1998).
McGaugh, S. S., 2003. preprint arXiv:astro-ph/0312570.
Mclure, R. J., and Dunlop, J. S. 2002, MNRAS, 331, 795, preprint (Astro-
ph/0201081).
Merritt, D. and Ferrarese, L., 2001. preprint
http://arxiv.org/PS cache/astro-ph/pdf/0107/0107134.pdf .
426 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Merritt, D., & Ferrarese, L. 2001, ApJ, 547, 140.

Merritt, D., & Ferrarese, L. 2001, MNRAS, 320, L30.
Merritt, D., & Ferrarese, L. 2002, The Central Kpc of Starbursts and AGNs,
eds. J. H. Knapen, J. E. Beckman, I. Shlosman, & T. J. Mahoney (astro-
ph/0107134).
Merritt, D., and Ferrarese, L., 2001b. ApJ 547, 140.
Michelson, A. A., 1881. Am. J. Of Science (3) 22, 20.
M. Milgrom, M. and Sanders, R. H. ApJ 599 (2003), p. L25.
Moffat, J.W., 2005. J. of Cosmology & Astroparticle Physics 5, 3.
Moore, E., Gottesman, S.T., 1998. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 294, 353.
Mouawad, N. et al., 2004. arXivastro-ph/0402338.
Narlikar, J.V., 2002. An Introduction to Cosmology (third edition). Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (and references therein).
Nayakshin S., Sunyaev R., 2003. preprint http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-
ph?astro-ph/0302084.
Newton, I., 1687. Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Cohen, I.
B. and Whitman, A., trans. 1999. Isaac Newton The Principia. University
of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Newton, I., 1704. Opticks: or a Treatise of the Reflexions, Refractions,
inflexions and Colours of Light. Cohen, I. B., 1979. Opticks Sir Isaac
Newton. Dover Publications, Inc. New York
Nieto, M.M. and Anderson, J.D., 2005. Class. Quant. Grav. 22, 5343.
preprint http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc?0507052 .
Nieto, M.M., Turyshev, S.G., and Anderson, J.D. 2005b. AIPC 758, 113.
preprint http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc?0411077 .
Nucamendi, U., Salgado, M., & Sudarsky, D. 2001 Phys. Rev. D, 6315016
(and references therein).
Padmanabhan, T., Choudhury, T.R., 2002. Phys. Rev. D 66, 081301.
Paturel, G. et al. 2002, AA, 389, 19.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 427

Paumard, T., Maullard, J. P., Morris, M. and Rigaut, F., 2001 A&A 366,
p. 466.
Peacock, J. A. et al., 2001.Nature (London) 410, p. 169.
Pecker, J. and Narliker, J. V. Current Issues in Cosmology, Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press (2006).
Pereira, M.J., Kuhn, J.R., 2005. ApJ 627, 21.
Perlmutter, S. et al., 1998. Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 29, 1351.
Persic, M., Salucci, P., Stel, F., 1996. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 281, 27.
Pierce, M. J., et al. 1992, ApJ, 393,523.
Pirogov, Y. F. 2005. preprint (http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc?0505031).
Pizzella, A. et al., 2005. ApJ 631, 785.
Pound, R.V., and Rebka, Jr., G.A., 1960. Phys. Rev. Letters 4, 337.
Prada F. et al., 2003. ApJ 598, p. 260.
Prasad, N., Bhalerao, R. S., 2003. preprint
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?0309472.
Quataert, E., Narayan, R., & Reid, M. J. 1999, ApJ, 517, L101.
Rejkuba, M., 2004. A&A 413, 903.
Reuter, H. P. et al. 1996, AA, 306, 721.
Riess, A.G. et al., 1998. AJ 116, 1009.
Riess, A.G et al., 2004. ApJ 607, 607.
Robertson, B. et al., 2006. ApJ 641, 90.
Rodriguez-Meza, M. A. et al., 2005 preprint http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-
qc?0504111.
Romanowsky, A. J. et al., 2003. Science 301 (2003), p. 1696.
Roscoe, D.F., 2002. A&A 385, 431.
Roscoe, D. F., 2004. GreGr 36, 3.
Rots, A. H., & Shane, W. W. 1975, AA, 45, 25.
428 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Rots, A.H., 1975. A&A 45, 43.

Rubin, V.C. et al., 1985. ApJ 289, 81.
Russell, D. G., 2005 preprint http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?0503440.
Saha, A. et al., 2006a. ApJS 165, 108.
Saha A., et al., 2006b. preprint arxiv: astro-ph/0602572.
Sanders, R.H., McGaugh, S.S., 2002. ARA&A 40, 263.
Sanders, R. H. 1996, ApJ, 473, 117.
Sanders, R. H., 2005. preprint http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-
ph?0509532.
Sartori, L., Understanding Relativity(Univ. of California Press, 1996).
Schödel, R., 2002. Nature 419, 694.
Schödel, R., 2003. ApJ 596, 1015.
Sellwood, J. A. and Kosowsky, A., 2000. preprint astro-ph/0009074.
Sellwood, J. A. and Kosowsky, A., 2001. in ASP Conference Series 2001a,
vol. 240, p. 311. astro-ph/0109555.
Sellwood, J.A. and Kosowsky, A., 2001b. ASPC 240, 311.
Sempere, M. J. et al., 1995. AA, 296, 45.
Shane, W.W., Bieger-Smith, G.P., 1966. BAN 18, 263
Shanks, T. 2002, Astro-ph/0208237 (and references therein).
Shu, C., Mo, H. J. and Mao, S., 2005. ChJAA 5, p. 327. arXivastro-
ph/0301035
Silk, J., Rees, M. J., 1998. A&A 331, 1.
Smolin, L., 2004. arXivastro-ph/0407213.
Sofue, Y., Rubin, V., 2001. ARA&A 39, 137.
Sofue, Y. et al., 1999. ApJ 523, 136.
Sommerfield, A., 1954. Optics, chaps 5 and 6. Acedemic Press, New York,
NY.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 429

Steinhardt, P. J. and Turok, N., 2005 NewAR 49 p. 43.

Steinmetz, M., Navarro, J.F., 2002. NewA 7, 155.
Sulentic, J. W and Arp, H. C., 1987 ApJ 319, 687.
Swaters, R. A., Schoenmakers, R. H. M., Sancisi, R., van Albada, T.S.,
1999. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 304, 330.
Tadross, A. L., 2003. NewA 8, 737.
Takamiya, T., Sofue, Y., 2000. ApJ 534, 670.
Tang, K. T., 1999. Mathematical Methods for Engineers and Scientists 3,
Berlin, Germany: Springer–Verlag.
Teplitz, V. L., et al. 1999. ApJ 516, 425.
Tifft, W. G., 1996. ApJ 468, p. 491.
Tifft, W. G., 1997. ApJ 485, p. 465.
Toth, V.T., Turyshev, S.G., 2006. preprint http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-
qc?0603016 .
Tremaine, S. et al., 2002. Astrophy. J., 574, 740, (2002).
Treu, T. and Koopmans, L. V. E., 2004. ApJ 611, p. 739.
Trujillo, I., Carretero, C., Patiri, S.G., 2006. ApJL 640, 111.
Tully, R.B., Fisher, J.R., 1977. A&A 54, 661.
Tully, R. B and Pierce, M. J., 2000. Astrophy. J. 533, 44.
Tully, R. B., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 2264.
Turyshev, S .G., Toth, V. T., 2009. preprint http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.0399
.
Turyshev S. G., et al., 1999. preprint http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-
qc?9903024.
Turyshev S. G., et al., 2011. preprint arXiv:1107.2886.
Unzicker, A., 2007. preprint http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc?0702009.
van Albada, T. S., Shane, W. W., 1975. A&A 42, 433.
430 BIBLIOGRAPHY

van Albada, T. S. et al., 1985. ApJ 295, 305.

van den Bosch, J. F. C. et al., 2002 Astrophy. J. 576, 21.
von Flandern, T. and Vigier, J. P., Foundations of Physics 32, 1031 (2002),
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/speed limit.asp.
van Flandern, T. 1993. Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets 2nd
edition 1999, (North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, Ca.).
von Flandern, T., 1998. Physics Letters A 250, 1.
van den Bosch, F. C. et al., 2002. ApJ 576, 21.
van der Kruit, P. C., 1974. Astrophy. J. 192, 1.
Veilleux, S., Cecil, G and Bland-Hawthorn, J., 2005. preprint
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?0504435.
Verheijen, M. A. W., 2001. ApJ, 563, 694.
Vollmer B. et al., 1999. A&A 349, 411.
Wandel, A., 2003. preprint http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?0303562.
Wang, Q. D.,Gotthelf, E. V. and Lang, C. C. , Nature (London) 145, 148,
(2002).
Wehner, E. H., and Harris, W. E.., 2006 ApJL 644, 17.
Weinberg, M. D., 1995. ApJ 455, L31.
Whitmore, B. C., Kirshner, R. P., 1981. ApJ 250, 43.
Whitmore, B. C. et al., 1988. ApJ 333, 542.
Whitmore B. C. et al., 1979. ApJ 234, 68.
Will, C. M., 2001. “The Confrontation between General Relativity and
Experiment”. Living Rev. Rel. 4: 4-107. http://www.arxiv.org/abs/ gr-
qc?0103036.
Willick, J. A., 1999. ApJ 516, 47.
Zhao, J. et al., 2003. preprint http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?0302062.
Index

absolute space, 29, 49 Brans-Dicke theory, 70

absolute time, 29, 49
action at a distance, 29 Cavalieri, 23
action by contact, 178 central massive objects, 349
adiabatic, 112 Change Principle, 181
aether, 24 life, 374, 399
Einstein’s, 62 chiral, 146
Newton, 41 Clarke, 34
Afshar experiment, 166 clockwork universe, 37
Alhazen, 12 coherent, 103
anthropic principle, 70, 72, 181 Competition Principle, 182
Aristarchus, 11 life, 374, 399
Aristotle, 8 contact force
atom aristotle, 9
Democritus, 7 Newton, 38
atomic theory, 99 Copenhagen Interpretation, 154, 155
atomism, 43 Afshar experiment, 166
Copernicus, 13
Babylonia, 2 Cosmic Microwave Background, 52,
Bacon, 13, 24 72, 75
Bell’s theorem, 159 temperature, 75, 359
Berkeley, 37 cosmological constant, 46
big bang, 67, 71 Cosmological Principle, 69
three pillars, 82 covariance principle, 63
black body, 107, 130 crystal spheres, 10
blackbody radiation Brahe, 15
Newton, 41 Cusa, 13
Bohm, 159
Bohm Interpretation, 164 Dalton, 99
Boyle, 99 dark energy, 79
Bragg’s law, 142 dark matter, 65, 74
Brahe, 14 crystal spheres, 10
431
432 INDEX

de Broglie, 144 ancients, 3

de Sitter, 65 Fractal Principle, 183
Democritus, 7 frame dragging, 51
Descartes, 21 Fresnel, 105
diffraction Friedmann, 67
Gregory, 23 Fundamental Principle, 179
Newton, 25
Dirac, 69 galaxy clusters, 89
Doppler, 107 Galileo, 15
Doppler shift, 107 Gamow, 72
General Relativity, 51, 61
Einstein, 49, 134 Genzel, 77
elliptical galaxy, 89 geodesic, 62
Empedocles, 9 Geometric Rules Principle, 184
EPR paradox, 158 Ghez, 77
Equivalence Principle, 49, 54 gravitational ether, 49
Aristotle, 10 gravitational redshift, 54
Galileo, 17 gravitational time dilation, 54
Newton, 25 gravity
STOE, 205 STOE, 199
strong, 57 Gregory, 23
Euclid, 10 GUT, 170
Eudoxus, 8 Guth, 69
Fermat, 22 harmony of the spheres, 5
fermions, 144 Heisenberg, 151
Fitzgerald contraction, 120 Heron, 12
Fizeau experiment, 116 hidden variable, 155, 168
flatness problem, 72 hod, 186
FLRW metric, 68 Democritus, 7
Foucault, 47 Descartes, 21
Fourier, 101 STOE, 187
ancients, 3 homogeneity, 68
Galileo, 16 horizon problem, 72
harmony, 5 Hubble, 62, 66
Kepler, 18 Hubble’s law, 66
music of the spheres, 19 Huygens, 22, 45
Schrödinger equation, 150 Huygens’ principle, 105
uncertainty principle, 102
fractal inflation, 73
INDEX 433

inflationary universe, 69 Limited Resources Principle, 182

inverse square law, 19, 26 life, 399
isotropic, 68 Local Action Principle, 183
Lorentz, 49, 121
Jansky, 76 Lorentz contraction, 121
Lorentz factor, 53
Kepler, 17
Lorentz transformations, 121
laws, 18
Lorentz’s ether theory (LET), 136,
ladder paradox, 53 137
Laplace, 45 Lucretius, 11
Lavoisier, 99
Mach, 47
Leibniz
Newton’s bucket, 48
Clark debate, 34
Mass of the fictitious electromagnetic
Lemaı́tre, 67
fluid, 124
Lense-Thirring effect, 51
math in physics, 174
Leucippus, 7
Maxwell, 116, 124
Liebniz, 16, 29
Mendeleev, 101, 108
life and STOE, 367
Michelson-Morley experiment, 117
light
Minimum Action Principle, 183
Pound-Rebka experiment, 55
Minkowski spacetime, 54
Copenhagen, 40
MOND, 70
Copenhagen Interpretation, 156
corpuscular, 24 Negative Feedback Principle, 182
double slit experiment, 157 Newton, 20, 24, 175
drag by Fizeau experiment, 116 bucket, 31
duality, 135 clockwork universe, 37
emitter theory, 119 laws, 26
Euclid, 10 rings, 25
Fitzgerald contraction, 120 nucleosynthesis, 71
Huygens, 22
Huygens–Fresnel equation, 105 Observational error, 18
Newton, 24, 40, 45 Olber’s paradox, 51
particle, 23
particle/wave duality, 29 paradigm shift, 20
photon, 149 particle
quanta, 134 STOE, 200
wave, 24, 149 Pauli exclusion principle, 144
Young’s double-slit experiment, periodic table, 108
104 photoelectric effect, 133
434 INDEX

pilot wave, 149, 150, 153, 155, 164 redshift

Schrödinger equation, 150 discrete, 244, 262
Pioneer anomaly, 273 galaxy, 239
Planck, 130 Pioneer anomaly, 273
Planck’s postulate, 131 relationist, 31, 47
plenum, 30, 186 Repetition Principle, 182
Aristotle, 8 rest mass, 53
Descartes, 21 Richstone, 76
Newton, 41, 43 Riemann, 63, 107
STOE, 187, 193 right hand rule, 146
Poincaré, 49, 121 Roemer, 23
polarization, 45 rotation curves, 74
Pound-Rebka experiment, 55 asymmetric, 324, 342
Principle of Relativity, 53 galaxy’s inner radius, 287
Principles STOE, 323
Anthropic, 181
Change, 181 Sagnac experiment, 120
Competition, 182 Schrödinger, 150
Fractal, 183 Schrödinger equation, 102, 150
Fundamental, 179 Shapiro delay, 70
Geometric Rules, 184 Shapley, 66
Limited Resources, 182 single–photon interference, 168, 238
Local Action, 183 sink
Minimum Action, 183 STOE, 204
Negative Feedback, 182 Snell, 22
Newton, 25 source
Reality, 178 STOE, 204
Repetition, 182 Special Relativity, 122
Universality, 180 Special Theory of Relativity, 49
problem solving methods, 373 speed of light, 23, 139
Proof by Analogy, 3, 177 spherical property, 28
Proof by Axiom, 3, 10 spiral galaxy, 89
proper time, 59 Standard Cosmological Model, 82
Ptolemy, 12, 14 problems, 82
Pythagoras, 4
Steady State Theory, 72
quantum entanglement, 159 Stern–Gerlach experiment, 143
quintessence, 69 STOE
correlation with current models,
Reality Principle, 178 410
INDEX 435

predictions, 285, 409

supermassive black hole
STOE, 349
supermassive black hole (SBH), 76
survival is only goal, 369

terminal velocity
Aristotle, 9
Thales, 4
thermodynamics, 109
laws, 112
time dilation, 60, 140
twin paradox, 53, 60
uncertainty principle, 102, 152
Universality Principle, 180
universe temperature, 359
velocity dispersion, 349
vital way, 395
wavefunction, 150

Young, 102
Young’s double-slit experiment, 104
Zwicky, 69, 74