No

by Bryan Belrad

Created on: November 06, 2008

Our best understand of the cosmos is constantly evolving. In 2007, the Big Bang theory was discredited, replaced by an eternal universe model. 2008 brought the demise of the Standard Model. Despite this rapid paradigm shift, there is a lot about how our universe really works that we've managed to pin down.

What we know today may be revised, or replaced, as our knowledge continues to advance; none of us can say for certain what the future will bring. An age ago, we "knew" the world was flat. A generation ago, we "knew" ours was the only galaxy. And just a couple of years ago, we "knew" that the universe began in a "Big Bang". And each time, we were totally wrong.

For today, though, we will take a look at what we know' at this moment. This is today's new standard model: Zero Sum Theory.

By definition, the universe is all that exists. It is the sum of all the matter, energy, and the lack thereof for as far as our best telescopes can see, and far beyond. It is all the stars, all the galaxies, all the light, and all the rest. It is the totality of everything.

Based on our best measurements, the universe is infinite in scope and scale. We know today that space can be bent and curved by the presence of matter (an effect called gravitational dialation), but that the universe as a whole shows no evidence of a general curvature. In fact, every test has yielded a result of zero, within the limits of experimental error, for the net curvature of the universe. This means that while planets, stars, solar systems, and even galaxies are held together by gravity's dent' in space (not Gravitons', as was previously believed: those don't exist), the universe has no such limitation.

To better understand, one might think of standing on the rim of the galaxy and throwing a baseball in a straight line along the edge. If such a person waited long enough, the baseball would slowly traverse the entire circumference of the galaxy, and return to the thrower from the other direction.

That happens because gravity, often mistakenly thought to be a direct pulling' force, actually reshapes space. Just like rolling a ball into a bowl, everything within its sphere of influence acts as if it were on a slope. Even light is affected.

This is not true of the universe in general. If one were to try the same experiment, one could wait forever, and the baseball would never return, because the universe has no such curvature.

We also know that the universe is eternal. For most of the last century, we believed that the universe was born some 14 to 15 billion years ago, in an event called the Big Bang', but recent breakthroughs have shown that not to be the case. Countless experiments have proved that Albert Einstein's predictions that time and space are inextricably linked are true; if the space of the universe is infinite, so is its time. Other direct experiments have also confirmed that the universe has never experienced a creation event'. We know that time, and the universe itself, had no beginning at least, not one within our present ability to comprehend.

Both of these things, along with the discovery that the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) is not, as was previously thought, an echo' of the Big Bang, rule out the idea of a created expanding universe as a viable possibility. Einstein, like Newton before him, showed that a "finite" universe must either expand or contract, but the real universe is not "finite".

In fact, the CMB has proven exactly the opposite of what was first believed: the analysis of the CMB is one of the experiments that showed the un-curved nature of the universe, and its power spectrum proved both a stable state throughout the whole universe (thus establishing non-expansion), and its very existence accounts for the energy lost by light as it travels across the vast intergalactic void, a phenomenon called the Cosmological Redshift (the shift of light toward the red end of the spectrum due to a loss of energy).

Exactly this kind of thing was predicted long before the Big Bang was ever dreamt of. A philosopher named Olber once posed a question: why is the night sky dark? By his reasoning, an infinite universe should be filled with the light of infinite stars, making the night sky at least as bright as day. Of course, space was thought to be totally empty at the time.

Olber's solution was simple: he proposed that there is something in space, probably particulate matter like dust, that was stealing energy from the starlight. His opponents argued that any such material would quickly heat to the point where it would glow as brightly as a star itself, but Olber pointed out that such would only be the case if the material held all the energy it drained without re-radiating it. If that were so, despite its impossibility, then the material would never glow anyway, because that is a form of radiation.

Later opponents argued that no such effect could be possible, because anything absorbing energy from light would also scatter the un-absorbed light. Yet, today we know that it is possible in fact, unavoidable that energy is absorbed from passing energy waves (including light) by all matter through quantum (smaller than sub-atomic) level interactions, resulting in only the portion that is absorbed being scattered when it is re-emitted as the CMB. These same effects cause the energy level of a light wave to average out; if a part is absorbed, the entire wave will experience a shift.

So, today we now know that there is matter in space, and that the light from distant stars and galaxies is gradually weakened because of it in a way very much like friction affects material objects in motion.

We also know that both matter and energy are essentially the same thing. If we split an energy wave in half in a certain way, we get a particle of matter, and a particle of antimatter (matter with an opposite charge, like the reverse side of a magnet). Likewise, if we combine a particle of matter with a particle of antimatter, they will merge and revert to being an energy wave (a process called annihilation).

We know that matter generates gravity, the bending of space around it, and energy does not. We also know that matter and antimatter have identical masses (the determining factor in how much of a dent' in space a particle's gravity makes). Since the combination of the two does not generate any such mass-based field, basic math tells us that matter and antimatter bend space in opposite directions, probably due to the electromagnetically charged portion of the original energy wave that each is left with.

We aren't yet able to conduct tests, but it seems likely that if matter bends space in a positive' direction, then antimatter will bend it in a negative' direction, which indicates that gravity is a reaction of the time-space field to the presence of a stable bit of charge (matter). Even the mathematical formulas that describe electromagnetic energy and gravity are identical, except that energy can be positive or negative, and gravity only positive.

Another thing that should be considered: since galaxies all generate a curvature in space, due to their gravity, but the universe as a whole has no such curvature, then it must be that antimatter, which exists throughout the universe in exactly equal amounts as matter does (matter cannot be created without also creating antimatter, except in very special artificial conditions), generates a form of gravity that cancels out matter's gravitational influence on the universe.

Astonishing ly, we've also found that matter and antimatter can and do - coexist. Just as electrons will generally only occupy certain energy levels, annihilations can only occur at certain energies. We don't yet have a full understanding of this phenomenon, but we can see evidence of it in everything from Neutron decay to the differences in mass between the elements.

When a Neutron breaks down into a Proton and an Electron, it emits a tiny bit of antimatter, called an anti-neutrino, which has no charge, but is exactly equal in mass to the Electron. Likewise, when the reverse happens, and an Electron bonds with a Proton to form a Neutron, the same kind of anti-neutrino has to be added, or the merger won't work. The reason is because antimatter is the opposite of matter; its mass negates the mass of the Electron, keeping the new Neutron at a stable total mass.

We've known for decades that as elements get heavier, full of more and more Protons and Neutrons, they lose a little bit of mass. Until very recently, we never fully understood why. As it happens, all the components that make up sub-atomic particles are themselves held together by a mixture of both matter and antimatter particulates. In order for any atomic nuclei to merge, bonds have to be formed between them, and that means parts have to be ejected. Sometimes, that means Protons, Neutrons, or Electrons are emitted from the nucleus. Other times, that means some of the matter is annihilated with the antimatter within every particle, creating gamma rays. When that happens, the new nucleus has less mass than the parent nuclei it was created from did.

The mysteries our universe still holds are as numerous as the stars in the sky, but every day we're learning more. Today, for the first time, we truly understand how mass and gravity relate, and what causes them. Today, we know that gravity and electromagnetism are aspects of the same force: a disturbance in the neutral' fabric of time and space. Today, we finally comprehend the full magnificence of our universe, and how the subtle interactions between the tiniest components give the whole of it the form and function that we observe on even the largest scales. Today, at last, we have a functional Unified Theory.

When we add it all together, all the matter and antimatter, all the energy absorbed and emitted, and all the charges, masses, and everything else, amount to a sum total of zero energy. The universe, on the largest scales, is smooth, even, and pristine. All that we see, all the Laws of Physics that govern everything from the rising of the sun to how it shines, is the result of what amounts to random fluctuations in a homogenous field.

We see the evidence all around us, from the dark of the night sky, lit by the invisible glow of the CMB, to the structure of the intangible atoms that make up your body, the air you breathe, and even this text. All the positives and all the negatives neutralize each other, just as they arose from that neutrality when they were divided into positive and negative. That's why today's dominant theory of the universe is called Zero-Sum Theory; the universe is literally a mathematical origin' (zero) filled with equal pluses' and minuses'.

Einstein believed that the universe was amazingly simple to understand, once we knew its secrets. He was right about that, because, in a paper of less than 2,000 words, you now know all the essentials about the most advanced understanding of the universe in the history of humanity. Right now, you know more about the universe than Einstein ever did, Newton ever could, and even more than Stephen Hawking, just one year ago.

Congratulations. And Eureka!

Learn more about this author, Bryan Belrad.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.