There is an assumption in some current theories of the nature of the universe that ‘space’ and ‘matter’ are separate physical entities, whose interaction takes place virtually at a metaphysical level. As the saying - the theoretical equivalent of a law - goes, ‘matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter how to move‘. But this apparent ‘physical law’ only describes an effect between bodies of matter, not in an entirely different arena in which ‘space’ appears to act on itself, and ‘matter’ on huge scales is merely a helpless participant.
When ‘explaining’ cosmological redshift, cosmologists are fond of pointing out that distant galaxies are not speeding ‘through’ space - it is space itself that is expanding, carrying galaxies with it. Distant galaxies are transported at speeds exceeding the speed of light - by 'space'. This assumption appears to be unquestioned, regarded as a truth that needs no explanation by 'physical law'.
Simply by pushing on itself, 'space' is capable of carrying huge loads of matter far away from where they once were. Yet 'space' is given no physical qualities to carry out this work. Its 'power’ is the power of geometry.
However, there is a condition on this power of space. It expands only where it is ‘empty’. Where ‘gravity’ operates - that geometric ‘force’ capable of telling matter how to move - space does not expand. But what is the distinction between intergalactic space and galactic space?
Recent observations appear to show that expanding space is expanding more quickly than it once did. This ‘acceleration’ seems to require a repulsive ‘force’. At this point, geometric spatial expansion takes on a much more active role in the evolution of the universe. Yet this ‘revelation’ ignores the fact that spatial expansion, the expansion of a spatial volume, already requires an acceleration of three powers of radial distance simply to expand at a constant rate. Adding a constant volume of space per time unit will not do it. An constantly increasing volume must be added. This already indicates a kind of ‘super force’ at work.
If spatial expansion is now to be regarded as a ‘force’, then it should always have been regarded as a ‘force’ rather than as a ‘physical geometric entity‘. And what is expanding? It is a spatial field. But ‘space’ is the overwhelming existent state of the universe. In other words, this ‘repulsive force’ of expanding space exists in the context of massive bodies such as stars, which are themselves ‘space’, and in the context of ‘particles’, which are themselves at their root spatial motions, as well as in ‘empty’ space. If the ‘repulsive force’ of space is puny, overwhelmed by gravity which is itself overwhelmed by nuclear and magnetic forces, it is nevertheless a primary force. The idea that ‘space’ ends with ‘mass’ may be fallacious. The idea that these two entities, ‘space’ and ‘mass’, are fundamentally different, or that ‘mass’ exists independently of ‘space’, may also be fallacious. It may be more true to say that ‘mass’ is a manifestation of the spatial field, an energetic field which then becomes the fundamental field of the universe. At that point the notion of independent yet related entities no longer applies; ‘mass’ and ‘space’ are simply forms of a single energy field. That this field is described only in geometric terms then requires either that mass be also described in geometric terms.
The essence of a force is the acceleration it produces. A volume of space which is expanded by the addition of a constant volume will expand at an ever decreasing rate. Such a force is unlikely to be responsible for universal evolution. A volume of space which is expanded at an ever-increasing rate, such as is the apparent acceleration ‘observed’ by the Chandra telescope, seems similarly unlikely.
The field which could produce such an acceleration would be unlikely to create the harmonic universe we see.
The Planckian description of time and space dimensions utilizes a constant speed, the speed of light, to arrive at ‘natural units’. It seems only ‘natural’ that a similar description of an expanding spatial volume would utilize a similar constant rate of expansion. And from this constant expansion rate, an evolutionary scenario emerges which can encompass the creation of mass within an energetic field. That is the purpose of this scenario.

This is a scenario for a universal system whose fundamental form is that of an expanding energy field by whose expansion all descendant systems are created. The essential feature of this scenario is that there is no differentiation between ‘space’ and ‘matter’. In this scenario ‘matter’ is a rotational form of ‘space’ (or ‘space‘ is a non-rotational form of ‘matter‘), so both ‘space’ and ’matter’ are ways of describing what is ultimately energy. ‘Matter’ does not simply curve spacetime; matter is curved spacetime - rotating energy - and this rotation sets it apart from ‘non-material‘ spatial energy flows. Rather than energy being the property, or quantity of the property, of changing the state of a system, energy at its root is the ability to create a system by expanding, and this ability underlies all evolving physical systems.
Space and time ‘dimensions’ are ways of measuring the flows of energy.

In this scenario ‘gravity’ can be described as the curvature of space or as an attractive ‘force’. Space can be described as an energetic field. The ‘beauty’ of this scenario is that out of a single path - outward - the universe creates an endlessly increasing number of possible and actual paths, some good and some not so good.
It eliminates the need for a highly unlikely inflation scenario and eventual heat death necessary if there is a finite amount of matter in the universe (and if ‘space‘ and ‘matter‘ are treated as separate physical entities), since the expansion of ‘space’ naturally creates ‘matter’ in a constant ratio.
It may produce a mathematical description which reconciles the conflict between classical and quantum theories without the need for a ‘graviton’ or a Higgs field.
The scenario assumes that the field expands at a constant rate (say c). This natural limit creates pressure in the form of curvature within the field, since all regions within the field cannot expand at c. On average, the field expands only at half its potential, or to put it another way, the field has the capacity to create twice the volume it actually creates.
This leads to an interesting (and admittedly elementary) result. Using nameless spatial and time units, say the field expands to a radius of one spatial unit in one time unit, creating a volume of 4.1905 cubic spatial units, and has the capacity to produce a volume of 8.38095 units. The radius of the larger volume is approximately 1.2595. Imposed on the smaller radius, this could be said to represent a ‘curvature ratio’ of 1.2595 to 1. As the field expands this ratio remains constant. If we take ‘spatial curvature’ as ‘gravitational curvature’, this implies that approximately 21 percent of the volume of the field is subject to gravitational curvature, while 79 percent is not, although I don’t think it is that cut and dried. If gravitational curvature represents mass energy, then it could be said that a maximum of 21 percent of the universe would be in the form of ‘mass energy’ and the rest in the form of ‘vacuum energy‘, regardless of the age of the universe - although how much of the ‘mass energy’ is actually in the form of ‘massive bodies’ and how much is in the form of spacetime curvature between them, I don’t know. The further question is how ‘mass’ is arrived at.
On the scale of one, taking the basic formula by which gravitational force is measured (inverse to the square of the distance from a ‘center‘) and adopting it as a formula for gravitational curvature, it seems reasonable that of the curvature produced by the additional radius of .2595 found above, by far the greatest part will take place within a radius .1 (or .01, or .001, or . . .) of a ‘center of curvature’, i.e. a ‘center of mass’ of a single ‘particle‘ of mass.
It seems a single rotational period is the simplest to model, although such a rotation (as I have modeled it on three axes) does not produce a 360 degree rotation. And how the curvature will be determined between bodies I do not know.

Here the question is whether currently available mathematical ’tools’ can be used to translate a rotating space, rotating on three axes, into a formula for ’mass’. It seems that concepts such as Planck length and Planck time, the gravitational constant, and angular momentum should allow for some kind of determination. The gravitational constant may be problematic, but if the spinning region does turn out to be a region of ’mass’, it seems a gravitational (or inertial) value should be attributable to it. The spinning region would at least have angular momentum. Not knowing the math involved, I wonder whether it is possible to arrive at a translation of rotation into mass which can be incorporated into consistent theories.
There are eight possible combinations of simultaneous three-axial rotation, and interestingly, two distinct kinds of motion arise on a hypothetical spherical surface from these combinations. (I am not suggesting that a sphere will arise, but it seems a spherical rotation on three axes is necessary to model rotation responding to force from all directions.) I am not in a position to model (any further than I already have) these two distinct kinds of motion, but it would be interesting if three-axial spin could be modeled using computer simulation. Then further combinations could also be modeled.

I believe that combinations of spin are possible which can absorb more energy than the field can produce, at which time bodies will exchange energy between them, or radiate energy out to the field as photons.
This radiation will take the form of a kind of ‘breathing’. (And on a large scale, rather than stars ‘collapsing’ under gravitational pressure, they are finding more efficient spin mechanisms.)
If the circumference of the spinning region is set to 1, indicating both a circumference equal to the radius of the original volume, and also that a point on the surface of a sphere corresponding to the extent of the spinning region returns to its original position in 1 time unit, then its radius is ~ .0159, and its volume ~ .0168 cubic units. Interestingly, the ratio between the original surface area of the expanding sphere and the surface area of the spinning region is ~ 39.25 to 1, which is very close to the ratio of gravitational curvature or force between their radii, ~ 39.5 to 1.
This indicates to me that this ‘particle’ has gravitational mass.

The motion of various points on the surface of the spinning region follows various curves, which indicates that there is a torque applied to the spinning region, and a constant acceleration in the form of constant change of direction or curvature.
If the energy of this ‘particle’ can be derived from the formula E = hf for a massless particle, then its E = ~ 4.136 x 10^-15 x ~5.391 x 10^44 = ~2.23 x 10^29 eV.s
(if the frequency is taken as the number of cycles per second). If one electron volt is equivalent to ~1.783 x 10^-36 kg, then the mass of this ‘particle’ would be ~ 3.97 x 10^-7 kg, compared with a Planck mass of ~ 2.176 x 10^-8 kg, the mass of an electron of ~ 9.109 x 10^-31 kg, and the mass of a proton of ~ 1.6726 x 10^-27 kg.

I can easily understand why no one responded to this thread of yours ngeo, it's quite a mouthful!

I'll address it piecemeal, with (hopefully) a summary at the end.As a summary of the current state of play, against which you will introduce your ideas, I think you've started badly.

First, the workhorse in cosmology is Einstein's theory of General Relativity. At its heart, GR is just a bunch of equations; the extent to which it's a good description ('explanation'?) of the universe depends upon how well predictions from this theory (i.e. manipulating the equations, plugging in numbers, etc) match good observational results.

Next, how one chooses to interpret the terms in the equations is at least somewhat a matter of personal choice/taste ... it may very well be that, in order to work with the equations effectively, you need to make up some mental categories; you may, for philosophical reasons, choose to associate the entities with 'reality'. However, none of this is required, from the theory. In fact, we already know that GR and QFT (quantum field theory) are mutually incompatible, so 'reality' can't be some mental image of both (and there's no certainty that theories which replace these will have similar terms at all).You're really going off the rails here ngeo - we have a theory (GR), we apply to the universe; we make lots and lots of observations; we compare what comes out of GR with what we see and we find good agreement - where's the 'unquestioned assumption'?If you like to look at it this way, OK. However, I'd say this picture creates a huge, unnecessary barrier to understanding the theory(-ies) - it introduces (intuitive) ideas from the world of classical physics that are not required in GR.Now you've lost me - what (in cosmology, or astrophysics, or GR) are you referring to here?I think you're referring to 'dark energy'. If so, then your summary is either strange or wrong - perhaps we could have a new thread, in the Q&A section, on this topic (so that you understand the theory better)?All this may, or may not, be a good foundation for a new (cosmological, physical?) theory. However, without something more (e.g. equations), it strongly resembles a 'word salad'.(to be continued)

(continued)Why?Why?Such as?In what sense can a 'path' be considered 'good' or 'not so good'?I can see how this would (could?) get rid of an 'eventual heat death', but not inflation - can you clarify please?I expect that you'll be saying more about this 'may' later, so I won't comment here, except to ask whether it might also produce a novel interpretation of the observational resolution of the EPR paradox.I'm confused about the dimensions here - 'c' has dimensions of LT^-1, volume (and presumably your 'field') of L³ - what is it that 'expands at c'?

I also think there's an inconsistency about this 'expansion' - do all volumes, no matter how big or small, expand at the same rate?Where did this number come from? Are you assuming a 3D flat field?I don't follow this at all; for example, why 2 (and not any other number >1)?Do you have a 'singularity' (infinite curvature) for a point particle? at any (every?) point in space??[/quote]The question then is, what form (or path) does this curvature, or mass, take? I believe that the curvature at a ‘center of mass’ will be a rotational flow of energy, maintained and required by the field. However, this rotation should not be on a single axis, but simultaneously on three axes in order for the rotation to account for energetic flow from all directions in space.[/quote]This seems to be an odd definition of 'rotation' - if we took a point on the surface of a sphere, what shape would be traced out by this rotation 'simultaneously on three axes'?I think you've put your finger on it ... without the math, it's hard to 'see' what sense to make of all these words.

I'm also wondering whether this idea gives rise to an isotropic universe, and whether you could avoid internal inconsistency (e.g. presumably, in your picture, 'curvature' should be invariant under translations and rotations of coordinate axes)?What are they?So what are photons, in this idea of yours? They are not 'space' and not 'matter' (or are they?)In what sense is a 'spin mechanism' 'efficient'?I don't see how you got these numbers - could you please show the working?You lost me - which comes first, the 'points following various curves' or the 'torque' (or, which gives rise to what)?Where did these numbers come from? Isn't it 10^30? what units are 'eV.s'?So?(to be continued)

Hi Nereid, I will try to respond to your comments in order.

Writing to the internet is like making an ongoing draft. My choice of words is always subject to change. Regarding ‘some current theories of the nature of the universe’, I am referring to statements to the effect that an ’explosion of space and matter’ characterizes the early universe. The idea of a ‘hotter’ and ‘denser’ early universe is also an idea I would characterize as a ‘current theory of the nature of the universe’. I believe there is also an assumption of finiteness of mass/energy which troubles me, and an assumption that ‘all’ this mass/energy exploded into existence over a certain time period. Whether or not these characterizations must be applied to GR or QFT as being the current ‘state of play’ in cosmology, I do not know. I have nothing against either one; what I could say about them would be only a hazy generalization. But I continually come up against statements that imply a separate existence for something called ‘space’ and something called ‘matter’ - and a messy relationship between something called ‘energy’ and something called ‘mass’. If you know of good observational results that put ‘space’, ‘energy’ and ‘mass’ in their proper place in a coherent explanation for universal evolution, let me know too.

I think the ‘unquestioned assumption’ I am referring to regarding spatial expansion is the assumption that ‘space’ can be both a measuring tool, used only to relay information about real events, and a physical entity which itself can expand. I have read too often that “space itself is expanding” to believe that whoever says this regards ‘space’ only as a measuring tool. The dual use of ’space’ as background metric and physical player leads to ’expanding confusion’. The physical expansion of space is an unquestioned assumption precisely because to probe into that physical system threatens the use of ‘space’ as a background metric. In other words, it is a place no one seems to want to look. I have no problem with expanding or curved space, nor with spatial (time and distance) measurements to describe events. But I have a problem if they are used interchangeably, and I believe they are.

I see that as you read my ‘word salad’ at ‘space‘ and ‘mass‘ (which seems to have an unfinished either/or in it) you begin to understand what I am getting at. (The unfinished ‘or’ would be - “or that space be described in terms of a force.”)

An accelerated expansion in the current ‘state of play’ appears to require an evolution where at different times different forces - the ‘force’ of inflation (expanding space par excellence), radiation pressure, and gravity - interact with each other, as ‘space‘ flies apart(?), in such a way that in one epoch one dominates and in our epoch another dominates. I don’t know enough science to call it questionable. I am only suggesting a scenario in which matter is constantly created in a constantly expanding universe, providing a self-made purpose: growth. Why would the universe not expand at an increasing rate? Because you would have a hard time figuring out any relationship between mass and energy, let alone the apples and oranges relationship that already exists when people say “the universe” is ‘4 percent normal matter, 23 percent dark matter, and 73 percent dark energy’. Scientists are okay with this? Let someone tell me how faultless logic leads to the kind of cosmological miscegenation above - and give me a physical entity that logically defines 100 percent of “the universe“ as it is ‘known’.

The growth of the universe from a single path - spatial expansion - to an endless number of paths can be traced from the creation of particles to atomic systems to molecules to cells to humans. All universal evolution can be pictured as being powered by the ability to expand. And there is no switch to turn off the power. Good paths are characterized by harmony: what fits. Paths that are not so good do not fit so well. Like poison, etc.

It may be this this scenario resembles inflation, but it is a never-ending and constant inflation, not an exponential inflation.

I hope someone with more mathematical ability than me will see fit to graft this idea onto a framework in which spatial expansion is constant and the relative motion of bodies takes place according to a space curvature geometry within this frame.

In this scenario, the radius of the expanding field increases constantly at c.

The idea is that a rotating volume, since it is constantly accelerated, does not expand at all. In other words gravitational ‘space’ does not expand.

The formula for the volume of a sphere is (I hope) 4/3 pi r^3. So a sphere of radius 1 will have a volume of 4/3 pi (which I hope is the number I gave - my calculator is faulty.)

I will leave it to you to figure out the eight combinations; I have drawn the motions laboriously on paper. There are two distinct patterns of spin, neither of which shows a complete rotation. If you are interested enough in this scenario to look at them, I will try to get hold of them but I believe there is only one copy of these drawings and I don’t have it. I don’t know whether it can be done on a PC. Once I approached a supercomputer facility about it but got the brush off; they were too busy doing ‘renderings’ for animated movies. There is a theorem, Euler’s rotation theorem, which apparently provides for any rotation being given as a composition of rotations about three axes representable by a 3 x 3 matrix operating on a vector (not my words). Maybe that would do it.

In this scenario it looks like what is created is neutrinos. I am not a scientist, I don’t know. I don’t know about flavors and colors. A photon may be a collection of neutrinos or a disturbance in the spatial ‘medium’. I don’t know that either. But I do know that those three-axial spins are interesting!

If a particle is a rotating energy storage device, it takes energy from the field. If two particles are close together, they may find their spins are compatible (they can spin harmonically together). There may develop a temporary deficit in the field energy, in which case the particle combination emits energy to the field, causing a temporary deficit in the particle combination, etc. ‘Breathing’ ensues.

Torque is the twisting energy of the field in maintaining the spin of the particles. The numbers come from the quantum formula for energy, E=hf, where in the Planck regime the f is 1.

To anyone who is interested in this thread, I believe that the three-axial spin I have been mentioning is not as efficient as a two-axial spin. I have edited the first post here accordingly. I believe the 'particle' produced may be a photon, in view both of the motion of the particle on two axes, and of the fact that photon 'energy' is measured as a succession of photons passing a point (i.e. frequency) which means that each single photon has a potential energy of h. Two-axial spin may also explain the behavior of photons passing through a filters or a beam splitter.

To address this part:

That's not correct. Space is expanding everywhere. It's only a very small percent per second at any point. This adds up to large amounts over large distances, but very small amounts over, say, the size of a bowling ball. All the other attractive forces between the molecules, atoms, particles in the ball counteract the repulsion caused by expanding space, so equilibrium is reached. Without the expansion of space, that bowling ball would have reached equilibrium at a very slightly smaller size.

Over astronomical distances, the main attractive force is gravity, so the expansion of space may overcome the attractive forces and equilibrium is not reached.

This has actually been discussed in a few other threads here, as well.

Aristocrates, I am not familiar with the mathematical intricacies of the scenario you are describing, but I wonder what kind of "equilibrium" would be reached in a universe in which a fundamental force did not exist. The paragraph you refer to was itself a reference to an incomplete statement that in order to be consistent, if space is treated geometrically, then matter should be treated geometrically; or else space should be treated as a force as gravity is treated as a force.

I have edited the original post to extend, correct and simplify it. I wonder whether anyone has any comment on the new draft.

I calculated the radius at which the electron is created by the expansion of the field at c, plus the frequency of the electron. I now see that this radius is very close to the Bohr radius. However I calculated it by a completely different method and without knowing the Bohr radius.

Please stop doing that.

Rules For Posting To This Board
I'd rather see the document transformed over time, via new articles in the thread. Otherwise, one is at risk of reading feedback articles that don't make sense because the original statement has changed, and quotations may appear to be misquotations. If you have made mistakes, let them live, don't hide them, and correct them further on.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

Exactly.

ngeo, if you have the original copy please repost that in the openning post of this thread and then post your latest revision as the latest post in the thread. Thanks.

Josh

__________________
1·618033988749894848204586834365638117720309179805 76286213544862270526046281890244970720720418939113 74

I have revised the original draft of this post to simplify, correct and extend it.
This is a scenario for a stable, expanding universal system which evolves in the sense of creating new systems out of existing systems (which is growth - so the universe can be said to be a system for growth).

In this system, ’space’ is an energetic field. The force of the field not only acts to continuously to expand the field but also acts everywhere at all times within the expanding field. Within this field, by the energy of the field, matter is created. This occurs because the fundamental energetic capacity of the field is to expand at a constant rate of c. The constant expansion rate creates potential in the field since all regions of the field cannot expand at c. Only at its outer limit does the field expand at its full potential. Within the field the average expansion rate is c/2. Thus the field has the potential to create twice its volume.

This potential creates pressure within the field. Rotation occurs in response to the pressure. In order to absorb energy from every direction within the field, this rotation must be at least (and at least initially) on the equivalent of two axes. The two axes of rotation in this scenario correspond to an electric and a magnetic axis. Since what is rotating is energetic space, there is a continuum from the rotating space to expanding space, and it may be that ’empty space’ can be said to be an electromagnetic field.

In the vicinity of spinning regions, the field does not expand; its energy is absorbed in rotation. In a simple creation model with one spinning region, after one Planck time there will be a spherical field within which is a smaller sphere representing a rotating region. At some radius between the outer sphere and the inner sphere, space can be said to be not expanding, while outside the inner sphere space is expanding, and within the inner sphere space may be contracting. In the context of universal spatial expansion, neutrality or contraction of space is equivalent to a gravitational field near the inner sphere. This field may be felt to the limit of the outer sphere, although at its very limit the field expands at c.

Thus in this scenario, mass is rotating energetic space (represented perhaps by moment of inertia). Rotation is continuously maintained by the energy of the field. In the vicinity of the body of matter, space does not expand and may be perceived as contracting. The full potential of the field is used to maintain the body of matter and to expand at c.

As the field expands it retains its potential, since space does not expand in the region of the massive body but expands at c at the limit; so its potential is always to create twice the volume of space that is actually created. In terms of radius, the radius of a volume twice that actually created is ~1.2595 to 1. This ratio is universally constant. It may be said that this ratio implies a curved radius, or curvature of spacetime, in the ratio of 79% relatively uncurved and ~21% completely curved.

The assumption of this scenario, that space is an energetic spatial field, creates differences from current theory. If current theory assumes that energy is intrinsic to or contained within a particle, this scenario differs by assuming that a particle is a creation of the field, and that its energy is intrinsic to the field rather than to the particle. Similarly, if current theory assumes that mass is intrinsic to a particle, this scenario differs by assuming that mass is an effect of the rotation of the particle by the field’s energy.

This scenario takes the formula E=hf as a possible way to indicate that rotational energy creates the equivalent of mass.. If a particle’s energy is found in its frequency, then in this scenario the frequency is the frequency of rotation. The Planck constant, h, is the energy of a single rotation in one second - that is, ~6.626 x 10^-34 Joules per second. The speed with which rotation occurs determines the energy of the particle. In the way this formula is currently used, the particle is a photon, but in this scenario it may be any particle.

A spherical field of one ‘Planck volume’ - that is, with a radius of ~10^-35 meters - does not appear to have the energy to create a particle (an ‘inner sphere’ with a circumference of ~10^-36 meters) rotating at a frequency of one turn per Planck time i.e., a rotational speed of c. Such a particle would have a frequency of 10^43 Hz, an energy of ~10^9 Joules, and a mass of ~10^-7 Kg. If the energy of the particle represents half the potential of the field, the field has a potential of ~10^10 Joules. Rotation being an acceleration, to accelerate such a particle at c, i.e. ~10^8 m/sec^2, would require a force of 1 Newton, using the formula F=ma. Such an acceleration seems possible given the energy of the field. However, if one such particle is created each Planck time, then two such particles ~10^-35 meters apart would have a gravitational attraction of ~10^45 Newtons, which is not possible. If such a particle were created, the second particle could not be created since that event would deplete the field.

However, a ‘Planck volume’ would have the energy to create a proton or an electron over time. A force is required to maintain rotational motion since rotation requires acceleration. If a particle is measured by rotational frequency, the frequency of a proton is ~10^23 Hz and the frequency of an electron is ~10^20 Hz. Using the formula E=hf, the energy of a proton is then ~10^-11 Joules per second and the energy of an electron is ~10^-14 Joules per second. Their masses are ~10^-27 Kg and ~10^-31 Kg respectively.

Using these figures, in one Planck time (~10^-43 seconds) a proton will make ~10^-20 of one turn and an electron will make ~10^-23 of one turn - that is, a proton rotates at ~10^-20 c, and an electron at ~10^-23 c. Force being required to maintain the rotation, taking the rotational speed as an acceleration, the acceleration of a proton is then ~10^-12 m/sec^2, and the acceleration of an electron is ~10^-15 m/sec^2. Multiplying mass by acceleration, the force required to rotate a proton is ~ (10^-27 x 10^-12 =) 10^-39 Newtons, and the force required to rotate an electron is ~10^-46 Newtons.

Assuming that a proton, being a higher frequency particle, is created first, then using the formula for gravitational attraction F = G (m1 x m2) / r2, the force of gravitational attraction between a proton and an electron at the radius at which the electron is created, ~10^-12 metres assuming a constant expansion of c, is approximately the force required to rotate a proton - to within one order of magnitude. However the exact rotational speed, and hence the acceleration, of the proton is not known since the exact circumference of the proton is not known. Its speed is derived from the rotation of a particle around a sphere with a circumference of one Planck length, but this is unlikely. Also two rotational axes mean a single full rotation is the equivalent of two rotations; and the distance traveled by a point on the surface of the sphere per time unit, given two axes of rotation, is not 1 but the root of 2 (Pythagoras’ theorem). However the closeness of the two forces is an indicator that gravitational force is related to the force required to create and maintain a particle in this scenario. In other words, gravitational attraction is a response to the force of rotation.


There may be several different ways to model the action of particles. Two mirror image particles may annihilate or they may co-ordinate their spins. If they remain in close contact with each other, and their rotation speed is reduced while at the same time they share some field energy, it may be that an additional rotating field around their point of contact is created. It may be that two such particles will flip so that one axis of rotation contains twice the current of each of the particles’ similar axis alone, while the perpendicular axis rotates around the current loop. The compact loop would be an electric circuit, while the perpendicular rotating axis would be a magnetic circuit. Two particles with identical rotation may create an elongated ‘electric’ loop with a magnetic circuit similar to more compact loop. While the magnetic circuit of the compact loop would be largely occupied in maintaining the particle, the elongated loop would require less magnetic strength, so its magnetic circuit would be free to cover a larger region of space. It may be seen that the compact loop represents a proton and the elongated loop an electron. This does not explain the existence of anti-particles.

Whatever the model, we see that in this scenario there is a potential for a governing or stabilizing mechanism to achieve balance among the particles the field creates, and an evolutionary scenario which does not require a highly unstable set of initial conditions. The ‘governor’ is the potential of the local field to create spatial rotation, which slows down or speeds up according to the local field energy. The highest frequency possible in this scenario is ~10^43 Hz, but as shown above this is not likely.

If the dimensions in this scenario are derived from Planck length and Planck time, then the original volume might be termed as a ‘Planck volume’ (but not a Planck mass). This would be ~10^-105 cubic meters. So in one cubic meter of space there would be ~10^105 Planck volumes. After one second (~1.85 x 10^43 Planck times) the volume of space would be ~10^28 cubic meters, or ~10^132 Planck volumes, of which (if the initial ratio is correct) ~21 percent, or ~10^131 Planck volumes is in the ‘form’ of massive objects. If the volume of space required for the creation of a proton and an electron has a radius of ~10^-12 meters, then it has a volume of ~10^-36 cubic meters, or ~10^70 Planck volumes. This means that in one second the field has the potential to create ~10^60 electrons and protons.