

Rediscovering the Universe:

The Beginning of the Final Revolution

Rediscovering the Universe:

The Beginning of the Final Revolution

**By**

**Dr. Javed Jamil**

**MISSION PUBLICATIONS**

MISSION PUBLICATIONS

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

No part of this publication may be reproduced or translated or transmuted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Rediscovering the Universe:

The Beginning of the Final Revolution: Part I

**Author** Dr. Javed Jamil

**Edition** First

**Year of Publication** 2004

Publishers

Mission publications,

284, A Pocket, Sarita Vihar

New Delhi-110076, India

Phones: 91-11-29949212, 91-8130340339

E mail javedjamil786@gmail.com; doctorforu123@yahoo.com

To

Albert Einstein

&

David Bohm

### Table of Contents

1 Prologue

2 The man behind the book

3 What has been "discovered" so far?

3.1 Special theory of relativity

3.2 General Theory of Relativity

3.3 Mass and Energy

3.4 Quantum Mechanics

3.5 Unification of physics

3.6 Origin of the Universe

3.7 Fundamental Forces and particles

4 Rediscovering the Universe

4.1 Problem of Photon Mass

4.2 The Question of locality in Quantum Mechanics

4.3 Infinities in Einstein's theory a permanent feature

4.4 Origin of the Universe

5 Functional Implications of the UTR

5.1 Structure of the Universe

5.2 Rotating versus Expanding Universe

5.2.1 Origin of the Universe

5.2.2 Fate of the Universe

6 Philosophical Implications of the UTR

6.1 Role of God

6.2 The UTR and God

6.3 Time

6.3.1 Arrow of Time

6.4 Quantum Mechanics

6.5 Determinism

7 The Ultimate Picture

8 Papers and Books consulted

#  Prologue

This is sheer coincidence, pleasant though, that "Rediscovering the Universe: The Beginning of the Final Revolution" is being published in the hundredth year after the presentation by Einstein of his Special theory of Relativity. It would be in the fitness of things that, in the centenary year, Einstein's theories and subsequent developments in the fields of physics and cosmology are scrutinised without being unduly overawed by the giant stature of arguably the greatest genius of the twentieth century.

The Universal Theory of Relativity presented in this book will be a reminder to the world that there is still a vast scope for novel philosophical ideas in the field of the knowledge of the Universe: Ideas that can remarkably transform our view of the Universe. I do not claim the theory itself is the Final Revolution, but I am supremely confident this will herald what, I hope, will be the final phase of the understanding of the universe. This will ultimately lead to a genuinely decent understanding of the universe--the way it came into existence; the way it functions; and the way it would continue its future journey to its ultimate destination. I do hope the book proves not to be a shot in the dark but a shot in the arm for the development of our knowledge of the world we live in.

Though the book critically analyses Einstein's philosophical ideas in the development of the modern theory of Physics, this has not stopped me from dedicating the book to the great genius. This is my tribute to his immense contribution to knowledge. Theories come and go but the work of those who labour, day and night, to bring forward these theories in their quest for knowledge must always be admired. Einstein was instrumental in giving a philosophical twist to an otherwise dry subject like Physics. The need of the time is to keep thinking, presenting new ideas and trying to come to the best possible conclusions. I am also dedicating the book to another great name in the modern Physics, David Bohm, for whom I have developed a very special respect for reasons that will be obvious to readers only when they have finished this book. The readers must not however presume that the book supports the idea of the phantasmic world, mooted by Bohm.

Readers may notice some reluctance in the initial part of the development of the new theory, named as Universal Theory of Relativity and a steadily growing confidence in the treatment, as the book progresses. This reflects the reluctance I had when I began to formulate my ideas in the form of a theory and subsequent elevation of the level of my confidence, which reached sky high by the time the work finished. One thing is sure though. The universe the way the readers view it before they start reading the book will appear to have undergone a massive transformation by the time they reach its concluding part. From a universe that looks at best a functionless receptacle of numerous functioning constituents, which have hardly any means of fast enough communication between them, it will have become a much more organised, well-connected, state-like system. The universe, as a result, will certainly emerge as much lovelier and livelier than what the modern physicists have shown us so far.

I had published the preliminary ideas of the Universal Theory of Relativity about six years ago in a booklet, entitled, "Beyond Einsteinian Limits". But that was only an initial attempt to put some ideas on record. These ideas had not been corroborated in the way they deserved. The present work will surely go a long way in that direction.

I would like to acknowledge the contribution of my friend, Mr. Jalal Umar and my US friend, Ms. Stephanie Crane whose suggestions have been crucial, almost invaluable for this presentation. I find myself at loss of words to thank my wife, Dr. Iffat Masood Javed, my children, Abuzar and Ali, my parents, other family members, relatives and friends for providing me the moral support needed for such an onerous task. Finally, I would also like to express my gratitude to my yet-to-be-born child coinciding with whose progress towards the birth this work too began, advanced and completed its journey. By the time, s/he arrives, God willing, hopefully, this book will also have arrived on the scene.

Dr. Javed Jamil

September 22, 2004

#  The man behind the book

**Dr. Javed Jamil** is a medical doctor by profession. Such has been his grasp on issues related to diverse spheres of life however it is no wonder people often mistakenly consider him to be a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D). He is quickly emerging on the international scene as a thinker whose amazing versatility would sooner than later compel the world to appreciate his work and admire the comprehensiveness of his approach in dealing with contemporary issues. He has already propounded several remarkable theses in various fields.

Dr. Jamil began by studying medical issues of great social importance like Family welfare and AIDS. He then authored a highly absorbing critique of the current economic ideology being pursued all over the world in a book entitled, " _The Devil of Economic Fundamentalism_ ". He followed it with another remarkable work, " _The Killer Sex_ ". He also authored several books on religious subjects especially on Islam. He has also created a collection of poetry and a novel (both in Urdu) to his credit.

Dr. Jamil has an aggressive style of writing; he marvels in presenting novel, often revolutionary ideas, and does not shy away from challenging the established or dominant trends howsoever popular they are. Some of his remarkable ideas are summed up here.

**First** , he has waged a ruthless war of attrition against what he calls " _economic fundamentalism_ ", which he defines as the ideology that gives predominance to economics over all other spheres of life, without caring for its devastating effects on health, family peace and social order. He says:

" _Thus, the rise and growth of economic fundamentalism have been, from historical standards, rather rapid taking hardly a few centuries. The think-tank of the world of economic fundamentalism has taken innumerable steps to strengthen their hold. They have sacrificed the goddess of justice before the eyes of the Statue of Liberty. They have transformed through political manoeuvres the state into their estate. They have incessantly and relentlessly been trying to organise a grand farewell for religion. They have captivated the people's imagination through the media. They have got the attire of society redesigned so that it looks gorgeous and inviting to their eyes. They have industrialised sex, in which they have discovered the hen that always lays golden eggs. They have relocated the entire educational set-up on the Wall Street. They have monopolised the tree of economy whose fruits and shadows are only theirs; others can only admire its beauty from a safe distance. They have taken science and technology as their mistresses who are always keen to offer their glorious best to them. They have nipped all the challenges in the buds by masterminding popular movements. They have lynched the 'civilisation', which has been given a new incarnation; and now Bohemians are called civilised. Last but not the least, they have been busy colonising the good earth in the name of globalisation._ "

To counter the ideology of economic fundamentalism, he has proposed a comprehensive system, which he calls Peace Economics. He proposes that peace must be the ultimate goal of all human efforts, and has three essential constituents: individual's total health, family peace and social order. Any socio-economic "development" at the cost of any one or all of the three cannot be accepted as real development. All policies should be regulated in accordance with the demands of peace.

**Second** , he argues that unfortunately even health issues have been hijacked by the forces of economic fundamentalism. The family welfare and AIDS control programmes have been designed to protect their interests. He gives the thesis that family welfare programme cannot be pursued at the cost of family peace; and should therefore include aggressive campaigning against all those evils that disturb it. He has presented an alternative comprehensive model for the control of AIDS. Unlike the current international strategy to combat AIDS, which rests almost entirely on the awareness programmes aimed at helping individuals to avoid HIV infection mainly through condoms. His model includes a full-fledged campaign against all such practices as promote promiscuity and sexual perversions. This cannot be done without initiating a campaign at war footing against all the forms of the industrialisation of sex.

**Third** , he asserts that the emphasis should be on a social solution rather than the medical one for the health hazards caused by social practices. He labels this approach _Therapeutic Sociology_ , which involves studies of the impact of old and new social practices on health, and suggesting social changes that would not be conducive to the propagation of diseases. For this purpose, he promotes the concept of _Total Hygiene_ that includes not only Physical but also _mental, sexual and social_ hygiene.

**Fourth** , he feels particularly aghast at the development of modern sexuality under the umbrella of the forces of economic fundamentalism for which sex has become a massive money-spinner. Introducing his book, " _The Killer Sex_ ", he says,

" _Sex and life were created to be and are inseparable. However, this most outstanding, beautiful and wonderful relationship would sustain its sublimity only if sex followed the limitations set by God, not out of His wish to regulate actions, but necessitated by the probable adverse effects. As soon as man started bulldozing these boundaries, sex and life began to fall out. The more the boundaries got demolished the more the distance between them grew. The greater they distanced themselves from one another the closer the death came. Alas! Sex has now become as much a friend of death as it has been of life. Thanks to the global merchants of sex—better call them the global merchants of death and destruction—sex has become the drug more than the food. It can now be regarded, arguably, as the biggest tormentor of humanity. It kills individuals, devastates family peace and desecrates social order. The Killer Sex unveils the designs of the forces of economic fundamentalism and their insatiable hunger for the moolah, which has transformed sex from an agent of life to an instrument of business._ "

**Fifth** , He has undiluted devotion for Islam, but he has great love also for all religions and all communities. In the _authorspeak_ of his book, "The Essence of the Divine Verses", he says:

" _The world today, despite its advanced and sophisticated ways of life, is full of chaos at every level. At the individual level, physical, mental and spiritual illnesses are ever on the rise. At the family level, the disintegration of family is fast becoming a norm rather than an exception. And at the social level, the ever rising crime rate, social and economic exploitation, commercialisation of all forms of evils including sex, addiction and crime, and separatist and extremist movements based on racism, communalism and aggressive nationalism have destroyed the harmony of life. ..... The contest today is not between different religions. The real contest is between religion and irreligion; between scientific (or Healthy) morality preached by Divine Messengers and commercial morality advertised by the tyrannical monarchs of the business world; and between 'Comprehensive Peace' propagated by the Scriptures and 'materialistic peace' imposed by the forces and powers that rule the roost._ "

He believes that Islamic concept of Comprehensive Peace that includes peace at every level--individual, family and social, must be universally propagated and pursued in all affairs of life. The followers of Islam have their foremost duty to fight against all forms of evil; and must relentlessly endeavour to bring unity and brotherhood into the whole world. Rather than expecting others to make sacrifices for them, they must themselves be in the forefront to make sacrifices for others so that all of mankind may live a truly peaceful life. Every possible effort must be made to avoid communal, parochial or ethnic hatred in the world. In today's world, Islam is not primarily at war with other religions; its fight must be directed only against those who dominate the world affairs and have been oppressing the weak, exploiting the masses and/or commercialising human weaknesses for their selfish ends.

Now Dr. Jamil has touched on an entirely new subject, a subject that continues to mystify sciences despite huge advancement in the last century. He believes sciences have become a playground for super-specialists having tubular vision. Their depleted sight does not allow them to look beyond a horizon specified by their deep knowledge of a very minute sphere of sciences. This has led some branches of sciences to become more and more speculative with the passage of time. Physics often seems to derive its strength from mathematical jugglery. More philosophy has to be introduced into the domain of Natural Sciences, if they are to master the understanding of the nature and the functioning of the universe.

#  What has been "discovered" so far?

When the twentieth century has already met with its end and the second millennium of the Christian era has closed, one feels naturally inclined to look back and see what the second millennium in general and the twentieth century in particular contributed to the history of human civilisation. The relative influence of various historical events and personalities presiding over them will continue to haunt human minds for years. There have been personalities who would occupy the status of great heroes in the eyes of a section of critics and ferocious villains in those of others. There have also been events that would be regarded by some as turning points in the onward march of civilisation, and others would contest it with equal vehemence. The debate will continue. The perceptions will change. With this change in perceptions, the heroes will continue to be transformed into villains, and vice versa. But there have flourished personalities that would defy these differences in perceptions and attitudes of the people. Their views might have been challenged in the past and may be disproved in the future, even to the extent of being decimated forever. Their greatness will still remain unruffled in the eyes of the masses, more so in the eyes of the experts. These are thinkers who have used their intelligence, wisdom, acumen, energy and time to ascertain the truth. Even if what they claimed in their lives as the truth could prove in the end to be only a partial truth or no truth at all, their contribution would always be viewed with respect; for they, at least, strove to know the truth. It is this relentless and selfless pursuit of the truth that gives certain luminaries a place above the rest. The role of reformers and rulers in history is always subject to their impact on different aspects of life, and on the fortunes of different classes of people, who tend to adjudge them only in relation to their own interests. But scientists are certainly one genre of history-makers that have always commanded unadulterated respect. They are the "fixed" stars on the horizon of knowledge that will never stop illuminating the ever-turning leaves of the book of history.

The list of scientists who have enlightened the mankind with their invaluable ideas, opinions, researches and findings is not short. But among the pearls of the ocean of knowledge, there are three too brilliant to be missed by any eyes that can see -- Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein. These three were no ordinary scientists using instruments and tools to reach certain conclusions. They were sensational thinkers who had an uncanny capacity to first philosophise and then artfully and astutely fit their philosophies, often bordering wild fantasies, into an excitingly fascinating frame of scientific logic. Such were their geniuses that, with a wonderful stroke of logical writing, they outsmarted not only their contemporaries but, in many cases, also their posterity. And among these three, the man who has ruthlessly dominated the 20th century scientific scene is none other than Albert Einstein. It is his ideas of relativity (special and general) along with Quantum mechanics and of course the classical mechanics that form the foundation stones of the theory of Physics. Combined with the Cosmology dominated by Hubble's telescopic vision, they provided us an insight into the structure and functioning of the vast universe.

Prior to the emergence of Einstein, the great Newton dominated the world of Physics. The Newtonian Ideology successfully ruled it from the beginning of the seventeenth century onwards. The combination of Newton and Maxwell had theories for virtually every field of physics--Kinetic Mechanics, Heat, Magnetism and Electricity. In a world ruled by Newtonian mechanics, Albert Einstein opened his eyes in 1879 in Ulm, Germany. Interestingly, almost coincidental with his birth, Physics started undergoing rapid transformation. In 1885, Michelson and Morley began a series of experiments to find out the truth behind the assumption that space was filled with ether that remained stationary.

The results of the experiments put a question mark on the old theory. Several explanations were sought for the negative results. But none could give a satisfactory explanation. In 1900, Max Planck shocked the Physicists with his concept of quantisation. His discovery jolted the very foundations of the Maxwellian electrodynamics. He argued on the basis of the relevant experiments that the radiation of bodies as a function of temperature could not be solely derived from the laws of the Maxwellian electrodynamics. He showed that the radiation of a given frequency had to be treated as though it consisted of energy atoms of the individual energy equal to the product of the Planck's universal constant and frequency. The experiments that followed clearly established that light, everywhere, was produced and absorbed in such energy quanta. Neils Bohr, benefiting from the Planck's discovery, explained the structure of atom saying that atoms could have only discrete energy values; the discontinuous transitions between them were connected with the emission or absorption of an energy quantum. Thus the hitherto existing theories had received a drubbing for it was clear that the character of everything that happens is determined by discrete states and by discontinuous transitions between them. The decisive role played by Planck's constant was obvious. De Broglie took the next step. He conceived that the electron revolving around the nucleus is connected with a hypothetical wave train and tried to explain the discrete character of Bohr's "permitted" paths by the stationary character of the corresponding waves. Schrodinger showed how the fields of force acting upon the material points and determining their motion would also influence De Broglie's wave fields in an analogous way. He reinterpreted certain formulations of classical mechanics. He argued that a mechanical system consisting of n mass points is mathematically almost equivalent to one single mass moving in a space of 3n dimension. Despite the success of this theory in explaining a large number of facts, the difficulty was experienced in associating with the Schrodinger waves definite motions of the mass points. This was no ordinary problem, and baffled scientists. It was left to Born to answer this apparently insurmountable problem. He explained that De Broglie-Schrodinger wave field was not a mathematical description of how an event actually takes place in time and space but a mathematical description of what we can actually know about the system.

Before these developments, however, another revolution had started unfolding. 1905 can be regarded as the miracle year in the chequered history of physics. This was the year in which Einstein published papers on Brownian motions as well as the seminal papers on his theory of relativity. "The theory of relativity arose," says Einstein, "out of efforts to improve, with reference to logical economy the foundation of physics, as it existed at the turn of the century." By the turn of the century, scientists had started believing that it was not possible to find a mechanical substructure for Maxwell's theory and there was gradually an agreement on the new field equations as irreducible fundamentals. Scientists had begun to think in terms of a unified foundation for physics. But still this was a distant dream. The turn of events of the twentieth century tried to make this dream into reality. And in this process, two theoretical systems, have played significant role. One of them is Einstein's Theory of Relativity and the other is the Quantum Theory.

Let us now try to understand what the theory of relativity is all about. The theory of relativity in fact consists of two theories: Special or Restricted theory of Relativity and General theory of relativity. Generalised theory came about ten years after the Special theory.

## 1.1Special theory of relativity

Before discussing the two basic postulates on which Einstein founded his Special Theory, let us first try to understand what the word "relativity" implies in a general sense. The word "relative" may be regarded as something opposite of the word "absolute". For example, we can say that a chair on the floor is at rest. We say so because our eyes observe that the chair is not moving, but is the chair really (absolutely) at rest? We know the earth is moving and with the earth the chair is also moving, so, the chair is not in a position of absolute rest but it is at rest only relative to the earth. Similarly, the chairs of a moving train are relatively at rest in reference to the train but are actually moving along with the train. If two trains are moving parallel to each other in the same direction with exactly the same velocity, they are in a position of rest relative to each other. The same applies to almost any measurement or any description. When we speak of the tallness or shortness of a person's stature, smallness or greatness of the size of any object or shortness or longevity of time, these all are relative. Einstein's theory of relativity is so called because, in contrast to Newton, who gave the concept of an absolutely stationary space filled with ether, Einstein discussed all measurements of space, mass and time only in relative terms.

Let us now concentrate our attention on Einstein's First Postulate. It states that the physical laws of nature are the same in every inertial frame of reference. It is to be noted that in physics the body to which events are spatially referred is called the co-ordinate system. It is now necessary to understand what an inertial frame of reference is. The word "inertia" has actually the same meaning as it has in the first law of motion provided by Newton. Inertia is a property by which every object maintains its position and resists any attempt to change it. It applies to an object that is either not moving or is moving with a constant velocity. Thus even the inside of an aeroplane is in a state of inertia if it is moving with a constant velocity. Inside the plane, the physical laws of nature would be the same as on the ground. For example, if a ball were thrown inside the plane from one position to the other, the force, required for throwing it with a certain velocity, would be the same as on the ground. All the other laws would follow the same pattern in the plane as on the earth. Thus the inside of a plane is an inertial frame of reference. Similarly, despite the fact that the earth is not only moving from one place to the other and is rotating on its axis, the earth may be taken as the inertial frame of reference because the moving of the earth has a very little influence on things. In short, Einstein's first postulate describes what human beings experience without fully realising it. Einstein himself defines the inertial system thus:

" A co-ordinate system that is moved uniformly and in a straight line relative to an inertial system is likewise an inertial system. By the special theory of relativity is meant the generalisation of the definition to include any natural event whatsoever. Thus every universal law of nature which is valid in relation to a co-ordinate system C, must also be valid, as it stands out, in relation to the co-ordinate system C', which is in uniform translatory motion to C."

Einstein's second postulate refers to the constancy of the speed of light. During the early Nineteenth Century, electric and magnetic phenomena were perceived independent of each other having no natural relation. This prescription underwent a sea change when Physicists like Oersted and Ampere deduced the laws by which electric current can create magnetism. The later developments have proved the two to be so closely related that now electromagnetism is considered in its combined form. To understand the relation between the two, James Maxwell gave four equations. The importance of these equations lay not just in the fact that they described in the form of equations already known relation between the two, but they also made it possible for the electric and magnetic fields having these equations to travel through space as an oscillating wave. Maxwell found that the speed of the oscillating waves is the same as that of light. This also meant that light is an electromagnetic wave. Einstein's second postulate is the result of the application of his first postulate to the Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism. This means if the Maxwell's equations are taken as laws of nature, they must be the same in all inertial frames. This leads to the conclusion that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames. This is the second Postulate.

The Second Postulate leads to puzzling results. The assumption that the velocity of light has to remain constant irrespective of the velocity of the source or that of the observer is not logically reconcilable to the day to daily experiences. Normally, the velocity of the source or observer will have to be added or subtracted to the velocity of the object in order to arrive at the net speed. For example, if the speed of the light is 300000 Km./hr. and that of the observer is 50000 Km./hr., the speed of light should be 350000 Km/hr. But the second postulate, which is based on experimental facts, says that it would still remain the same. It has to be answered only in two ways. Either distances have to be different from one inertial frame to the next or time is different from one frame to the other. The first of these two effects is known as "length contraction", the second one as "time dilation". Length contraction means that an object is shorter in length in a moving frame than in a stationary frame. This is also called Lorentz contraction, or Lorentz-Fitz Gerald Contraction. The two scientists had given a mathematical formula for this contraction before Einstein incorporated it into his theory of relativity.

Time dilation means the time between two events, in a frame in which these events occur at different locations, is longer than the time between those same events, in a frame in which those events occur at the same location (that is at rest). In a simpler way, this effect is also stated thus: a moving clock runs more slowly than a stationary clock. Time dilation has been experimentally verified. It has been observed that a muon (a subatomic particle) moving close to the speed of light lives longer than the muon that is either at rest or is moving very slowly.

The above mentioned effects are known as relativistic effects and these are mathematically denoted by a formula, Gamma=1/root 1- v2 /c2, where Gamma is the relativistic factor, v is the speed of the object and c is the speed of light. It means an object measuring 1 metre will become 1/Gamma when it moves with a certain velocity v. This contraction will be negligible if v is very small compared to c, will become noticeable only if v is comparable to c and will become infinite if the velocity of the object becomes equal to c. Similarly one second will be shorter by 1/Gamma when the clock is moving with a speed v. It can be seen that a clock will not move at all if its speed becomes equal to that of light.

## 1.2General Theory of Relativity

Einstein's General theory of Relativity was propounded about ten years after the Special theory. This theory sought to explain gravitation in relativistic terms. Before going into the theory, let us look at how the theory of gravitation developed. Aristotle believed that forces could be applied only by contact and to maintain a body in uniform motion a constant force was required. Kepler's laws of planetary motion and Galilee's understanding of the motion and falling bodies ultimately led Newton to give his theory of gravitation. This theory stated that the force of attraction between any two bodies is directly proportional to the masses of the bodies and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Mathematically, it was expressed by the formula, F= G M1M2|d2, where F is the force of attraction between the two bodies, M1 and M2 are their corresponding masses, d the distance between them and G is universal (Gravitational) constant. Newton's work was further developed by scientists like Lagrange, Hamilton, Jacobe, Clairant Laplace and Poisson.

Newton's theory of gravitation was highly successful. What was puzzling however is how the bodies at a great distance can attract each other, that is, if there is force acting between them, what communicates this force. Maxwell in 1864, in his major work, "A dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field" tried to explain electromagnetic action between distant bodies without using the existence of forces capable of acting directly at sensible distances. He considered the possibility of tracing the attraction of gravitation to the action of a surrounding medium just the way he traced to the actions of the surrounding medium both the magnetic and electric attraction and repulsion. In 1900, Lorentz conjectured that gravitation can be attributed to actions, which propagate with the velocity of light. Poiare (1905) suggested that all forces should transform according to the Lorentz transformations. In 1907, Einstein started thinking how Newton's gravitational law could be modified to fit in with the special theory of relativity. He says:

"The special theory of relativity, which was simply a systematic development of the electrodynamics of Maxwell and Lorentz, pointed beyond itself, however. Should the independence of physical laws of the state of motion of the co-ordinate system be restricted to the uniform transitory motion of co-ordinate systems in respect to each other? What has nature to do with our co-ordinate systems and their states of motion? If it is necessary for the purpose of describing nature to make a use of a co-ordinate system arbitrarily introduced by us, then the choice of its state of motion ought to be subject to no restriction; the laws ought to be entirely independent of this choice (general principle of relativity)."

When the thought struck Einstein that an observer, falling from the roof of a house, experiences no gravitational field, he was so excited that he described it as "the happiest thought of my life". This thought led him to propose the Equivalence Principle:

"We shall therefore assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational 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."

What made it easier for Einstein to arrive at this postulate was a long known fact of experience that the weight and the inertia of a body are controlled by the same constant--equality of inertial and gravitational mass. "Imagine a co-ordinate system", writes Einstein, "which is rotating uniformly with respect to an inertial system in the Newtonian manner. The centrifugal forces, which manifest themselves in relation to the system, must, according to Newton's teaching, be regarded as effects of inertia. But these centrifugal forces are, exactly like the forces of gravity, proportional to the masses of body. Ought it not be possible in this case to regard the co-ordinate system as stationary and the centrifugal forces as gravitational forces?"

From that postulate it follows that it is impossible to discover by experiment whether a given system of co-ordinates is accelerated or whether its motion is straight and uniform and the observed effects are due to gravitational field.

The new theory of gravitation, in principle, diverges considerably from Newton's theory. But its practical results agree to a great extent with those of Newton's theory. Einstein however discussed some practical results that distinguished the two. These were in the revolution of the ellipses of the planetary orbits round the sun (confirmed in the case of mercury), in the curving of light rays by the action of gravitational fields (confirmed by the English photopalls of ellipses), and in the displacement of the spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum in the case of light transmitted to us from stars of considerable magnitude.

Einstein continued to modify his theory of special relativity from 1907 onwards. In 1911 he realised that the bending of light in a gravitational field could be checked with astronomical observations. He also discussed that a light leaving a massive body will be shifted towards the red, on account of the loss of energy due to escape from the gravitational field. In the papers published in 1912, Einstein experienced his realisation that the Lorentz transformations will not apply in the more general setting. He further stressed two important ideas. First was that the gravitational field equations were bound to be non-linear and the second was that the equivalence principle appeared to hold only locally. Later, Einstein went on to comment that "if all accelerated systems are equivalent, then Euclidean geometry cannot hold in all of them." He then pondered that the Gauss's theory of surfaces had a physical significance. He suddenly developed a great respect for mathematics "which I had in my simple-mindedness regarded as pure luxury till now". In consultation with Grossman, Einstein published a paper where the tensor Calculus of Ricci and Levi-Corta is employed for the further advancement of the theory. As a result of joint efforts by Einstein and Grossman, the Riemann-Chritoffel tensor and its derivatives, the Ricci tensor, would become the major tools of the future theory. Einstein then exchanged views with Levi- Corta who helped him in correcting technical errors in his work on tensors. The theory took final shape in November 1915 with the joint efforts of Einstein and Helbert.

Einstein's General Theory of relativity gave a new dimension to the gravity. He argued gravity is not a force like other forces, but small objects bend towards massive objects on account of the curving or warping of a large area around them by the massive object. If the planets move around the Sun, it is not that they are being attracted by the Sun, but because the Sun has warped space around it, and the planets move on a straight line on the geodesic, which makes it appear moving around the Sun.

## 1.3Mass and Energy

There are various forms of energy. Any stationary object possesses gravitational potential energy, that is, if it falls in a gravitational field, this energy will change to kinetic energy. Heat and electricity are also forms of energy. The law of conservation of energy says that the total energy of the universe has to remain the same, that is, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. As a result of his theory of relativity, Einstein discovered another form of energy, referred to as "rest energy". Einstein said that an object has energy even if it is not moving. He gave an equation E=mc2 for this rest energy, thus saying the amount of rest energy in an object depends on its mass. The light of speed being very big, c2 is even bigger; that means the rest energy is bigger than any other form of energy that the object might have. Rest energy generally remains unnoticed because we do not see it being converted into other forms of energy. The conversion of rest energy into other forms takes place in nuclear power plants, nuclear weapons, the sun, etc.

It is to be noted that the rest energy depends only on the mass of an object and not on whether it is moving or not. So if E=mc2 is discussed as the sum of the kinetic energy and rest energy, it means, at small speeds, the kinetic energy remains much smaller than the rest energy. But as an object approaches a speed comparable to light, Gamma becomes extremely large and the kinetic energy becomes bigger than the rest energy.

## 1.4Quantum Mechanics

The other important theory of modern Physics is called Quantum Mechanics. This relates to the study of matter and radiation at the atomic level. In the early twentieth century, several events were described, which would not follow the classical laws of Physics. For example, electrons would spiral down to nucleus, if they moved around the nucleus, the way planets did around the Sun. That would predict the death of all the chemical and living processes. This necessitated a new theory to explain the atomic phenomena. This new theory was gradually developed, and describes the discreteness of energy, the wave-particle duality of light and matter, quantum tunnelling, the Heisenberg Principle of Uncertainty and the spin of particles, among many others.

The spectrum of light emitted by the atom in the excited state is composed of individual lines of different colours. These lines indicate that the energy level in the atoms is not continuous but discrete. When an atom jumps from a high state to low-energy state, it emits a photon. This photon corresponds to the exact difference in the energy levels of the two states. It was argued that it is the discreteness of energy level in which the electrons exist that prevents the spiralling of electrons to the nucleus. It is due to this quantisation of states that the Quantum Mechanics took its name.

There was a controversy about the nature of light. Some believed it to be the wave and others the particle. Broglie, Davison and Grammer showed that even particles can behave like waves. This was known as the duality of light. Actually, light and matter exist as particles; what behaves like a wave is the probability of where that particle will be.

Heisenberg was the first to realise that some pairs of particles exhibited an inherent uncertainty. He found it was impossible to predict the position and moment of the particles simultaneously with precision. This was because the measurement required at least a photon, which would change the position and momentum of the particle to be observed. If the wavelength of photon is reduced, its position will be easier to determine, and if the higher wavelength photon is used, its momentum will be easier to determine. This led to the famous uncertainty principle, which created huge philosophical controversies. This will be discussed later.

There is another interesting phenomenon in Quantum mechanics, which is known as Quantum Tunnelling. When the probability wave of a particle strikes a barrier, the most of the wave is reflected back, but a small part of it may leak through the barrier. This leaking is called Quantum tunnelling, which is the basis of the functioning of computer chips.

In 1922, Otto Stern and Gerlach showed that atomic particles possess an intrinsic angular momentum, spin; and that spin is quantised. It was seen that spin is a perfectly quantum property of particle that cannot be explained in terms of classical mechanics.

Each quantum particle is described by a wave function. Schrodinger developed an equation, which describes the evolution of those wave functions. Schrödinger equation for a particular problem cannot always be solved exactly. However, when there is no force acting upon a particle its potential energy is zero and the Schrödinger equation for the particle can be exactly solved. The solution to this 'free' particle is something known as a wave packet. Wave packets can provide a useful way to find approximate solutions to problems which otherwise could not be easily solved.

The Quantum theory has been the subject of huge controversies regarding its philosophical implications. The theory has two main interpretations: Classical or Copenhagen and Bohemian. These will be discussed later in the book. However, it will suffice here to say that Copenhagen Interpretation was indeterministic in nature stressing that the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics makes the future uncertain. It did not believe in reality as it exists but in reality as it is observed. Einstein did not believe in Quantum mechanics as a full theory. Bohm later presented a model in which he emphasised Quantum mechanics was nonlocal but fully deterministic in nature.

## 1.5Unification of physics

In the Standard Model of particle physics, particles are considered points. These points travel to form world-line. This represented what was called quantum field theory, based on the combination of quantum mechanics and special theory of relativity. This theory described successfully three of the four fundamental forces, Electromagnetism, strong and weak. The unification of electromagnetic and weak force was achieved, and ideas were out to include the strong force, but when the unification with gravity was sought, this led to insurmountable problems due to surfacing of infinities.

This was followed by the development of String Theory, in which points were replaced by one-dimensional strings that would form a World-sheet or tube on travel, depending upon their hair like or loop like patterns. The strings are free to vibrate; modes of vibrations represent different particle types, since different modes are seen as different masses or spins. The interesting feature of the String Theory is that the interaction between two gravitons can be visualised in a manner, which cannot be done in QFT. So string theory was able to provide the first quantum theory of Gravity that resembled General Theory of Relativity at the macroscopic level. This generated a great hope of achieving the dream "Theory of Everything". The original String theory only described one kind of particles, bosons, and was therefore known as the Bosonic String theory. The introduction of supersymmetry to the Bosonic String Theory led to the Superstrings theory. This describes both the forces and matter that form the universe. It did not only describe bosons but also Fermions. Bosons have integer spins and carry forces. Fermions have odd half integer spins and make matter, that is, electrons and quarks. In two of the three better-known String theories, closed strings and in the third open strings are the building blocks. The combination of the best features of the String and Superstring theories led to the Heterotic string theories. String theory predicted that space-time has ten dimensions. Six of these dimensions are curled up. These compact extra dimensions make it possible the freedom like charge of an electron, which is simply due to motion in extra compact direction. Later it was realised that 6 different string theories can be viewed as a single underlying theory, which was called M-theory. In this theory, eleven dimensions were described, which become ten in some situations. The fundamental object in this theory is not a string but membrane. M-theory allowed us to explain exactly what states correspond to the disorder of some black holes, and to explain using fundamental theory the thermodynamic properties that had been deduced previously using less direct arguments.

Superstring theories are being described as great hopes for the ultimate unification of all the forces. But this is still a distant dream though the hopes are running high.

## 1.6Origin of the Universe

The theory of the origin of the universe has been undergoing development throughout the history of modern Physics. The picture of the origin that is now accepted almost all over the world has the following salient features:

Before the beginning of the Universe, there was no existence of time, energy or matter the way we perceive them now. There may have been a quantum state, which is not easy to define. This somehow formed a singularity with infinite space-curvature, density and temperature and pressure.

The singularity was unstable and soon exploded in the form of what is popularly known as the Big Bang. This is said to have happened about 14 Billion years ago.

At 10-43 seconds, the universe was infinitesimally small. At this time, four fundamental forces, Strong, Weak, Electromagnetic and Gravity were unified in one force, but they quickly separated into the constituent forces (called breakdown of symmetry).

At about 10-35 seconds, there was an accelerated one time very rapid expansion of this minute universe. This process is called Inflation. Within the first minute, as expansion continued, and the cooling of the protouniverse led to a stage where the fermions (matter) controlled by bosons (force) began to organise into the protons and neutrons (composed of quarks), along with other particles.

After the first minute, some particles began to associate with others. Antimatter was destroyed. In the first few minutes, particles started organising into nuclei. They were part of a plasma state that had the mixture of electrons, photons, neutrinos and others.

In the next three hundred thousand years, hydrogen and helium atoms began to be formed. The universe is said to have become transparent after this time, which means the communication through light was possible between close regions.

At this time the universe was almost completely homogeneous and isotropic, but due to increase in density there were tiny fluctuations.

From this homogeneous state with tiny fluctuations, ultimately, in about a billion years of time, stars began to form and arrange in galaxies.

Due to the burning of hydrogen at higher temperatures in stars, heavier elements started forming. Large stars die early while smaller stars survive. Different types of stars were thus formed.

As the star is forming, some of the material not drawn in the star may start having some hydrogen and helium and other elements and particulate dust, which then formed planetary bodies.

This is in short, the history of the origin of the universe. According to the modern theory of cosmology, the universe is continuously expanding and the more distant parts are expanding with greater speed. There have been different models, but now the consensus is on a model that will go on expanding at just above the critical rate. There have been others who argued in favour of a universe, which will ultimately start contracting, again reverting back to the state of singularity.

## 1.7Fundamental Forces and particles

According to modern Physics, there are four fundamental forces of nature. These are:

Strong nuclear force that binds quarks in the nuclei. This binds the protons, neutrons and mesons and holds the nucleus together despite the repulsive electromagnetic force between protons;

Weak nuclear force that changes quark types. This controls the radioactive decay of atomic nuclei and the reactions between leptons (electrons and neutrinos);

Gravitation, between particles with mass. This is a long-range force;

Electromagnetic, between particles with charge/magnetism. This is also a long-range force.

The Quantum Field Theory explains the exchange of energy in interactions by the use of force carriers, called bosons. How this works is that objects emit virtual particles, particles that have no reality except to `push' and `pull' matter with the exchange of momentum. Photons, although regarded massless, can carry momentum. There are four exchange-particles for carrying these forces. **Gluons** are the carrier particles of strong interactions; **Photons** those of electromagnetic interactions; W and Z bosons those of weak interactions; and Graviton is the assumed carrier particle of gravitational interactions.

#  Rediscovering the Universe

The knowledge of universe has registered vast increase in the last century. New researches have also led to new controversies. The more the new evidences accumulated and new ideas promulgated, the more the new questions surfaced. Despite huge advancements in apparent knowledge, the true understanding of the universe still seems to be in the neonatal phase. Why did the universe begin at Singularity? What caused the Big Bang? What explains the presence of galaxies, clusters and superclusters in an otherwise homogeneous and isotropic universe? How does the gravity propagate and influence the whole universe? How will the universe end? What is the role of God? What are the philosophical implications of the uncertainty principle and arguably the nonlocal and indeterministic nature of Quantum Mechanics? What is the nature of the particles that form the matter? These and many more issues still need to be resolved or explained more thoroughly. There are other fundamental questions that can be raised. If the laws of nature are there in existence, what keeps these laws in force making them look as if they are eternal? If the matter and space have certain properties like mass, inertia and energy, who/what provides and maintains these properties? If matter-energy cannot be destroyed or created, what maintains them in such an unchangeable condition at the universal level? What sustains the universe the way it is, despite the second thermodynamic principle and what creates Order out of Disorder? The theory presented in this book will try to address some of these questions. I am calling this theory as Universal Theory of Relativity for reasons that readers will appreciate when the theory begins to unfold.

The current state of the knowledge of universe rests primarily on the two important branches: Classical Mechanics (that includes Newtonian Mechanics, Einstein's theories of relativity and Hubble's cosmology) and Quantum Mechanics. Philosophically, the two often seem to be at loggerheads, though both of them have been of huge practical importance. Despite the challenges posed by the Quantum Mechanics to Einsteinian and other classical ideas, the influence of Einstein remains overpowering in the overall scenario. He remains the unchallenged genius of the modern Physics. Einstein demands great respect because he was different. He was not merely a scientist who would concentrate on experiments and try to expound theories on the basis of their results. He was more of a thinker and philosopher who would be constantly haunted by new ideas and thoughts. He did not believe much in experimenting himself; instead he relied more upon what others did and constructed his thought on the results of their experiments. Often on the basis of his new ideas, he would suggest new experiments, which others would gladly perform for him; these would more often than not prove him right. He was not merely a philosopher either who would let his thoughts flow without scrutinising them with the assistance of scientific and mathematical criteria. It is a tribute to his genius that he has been instrumental in opening up new horizons of scientific philosophy, horizons that the mental telescopes of other scientists were not able to discover. Despite his extraordinary confidence in his abilities, he was always ready to widen his concepts to include whatever new was emerging in the world. His theories gave a quantum jump to the knowledge of the universe. But there was one principle that he was never ready to part with, the principle of the constancy of light-speed. The Universal Theory of Relativity (UTR) will start unfolding with the discussion on this principle. It will be important to mention here however that the UTR does not challenge the conceptual framework of "relativity" that allows relativistic changes. It only reinterprets its meaning. This is another matter though that mere reinterpretation turns things upside down and leads to colossal transformation in the look of Physics.

The UTR is based on three main postulates:

The speed of light is not constant but rigid or stable, which will deprive light-speed of the status of the fastest achievable speed;

The universe is not expanding but rotating, a postulate that will make the universe a much-more-easy-to-understand, well-organised, well-knit unit; and

The gravity is an influence travelling with huge speed.

First Postulate of the Universal Theory of Relativity (UTR):

Light Speed is RIGID or STABLE, not CONSTANT

The empirical "constancy" of light-speed observed by scientists led Einstein to declare that light-speed was indeed constant, meaning it cannot change under any circumstances, and there cannot be any speed beyond the speed of light. The UTR proposes that light-speed is not constant but is rigid with an inherent stabilising mechanism in it. As will be seen below, this stabilising mechanism is easily understandable and will change the whole foundation of Physics, which unfortunately has relied too heavily on Einstein's obsession for light. It was this obsessive fascination combined with his brilliance that he was able to influence almost every theory of physics so that it did not violate the barrier of light-speed. It will be explained below how Einstein manufactured his ideas about light-constancy and tried to fit everything into it. In doing so, he consciously or unconsciously tried to turn the minibus of light-speed barrier into an omnibus that would absorb the whole universe.

Let us first concentrate on the difference between constancy and rigidity or stability. Constancy, the way Einstein put it, seems to indicate some form of divine absoluteness in light; its speed can never be changed by anything or any influence. Even if a velocity is mathematically added to it or subtracted from it, it would equal the speed of light. Thus light-speed was not just 300000 kilometres per second, but mathematically and physically, an infinite value, effectively, if not numerically. It is another matter that later it was realised that light-speed can change in several circumstances, and it would be more proper to claim that light-speed remains constant in vacuum. This led to the enunciation of the principle of locality, which means that no information whatsoever can travel faster than light.

The light-speed barrier as maximum achievable speed, created by Einstein, could have been better appreciated if it was impossible only to accelerate and not decelerate light. But the fact that light-speed was not found decelerating under ordinary circumstances evidently points to an underlying stabilising mechanism, which is easily understandable. Had this mechanism been understood, the science would not have owed as much to Einstein perhaps as it does now. Still, Einstein should be credited with his brilliant understanding of the concept of relativity. Unfortunately however, this comprehension of relativity led him to develop a formula for gamma factor that imparts the highest limit to the speed of light. The true answer however lies, ironically, in the very concept of relativity that Einstein espoused with such a massive success. The fact is that the stabilising mechanism in light is responsible for the so-called constancy of light. As the mass of a moving object increases with the increase in velocity, what actually happens is that, at the speed of light, a sort of equilibrium is created for the range of masses that various photons possess. (It will be discussed below that any matter in existence must have a mass and volume, no matter how small it is, and it is much better to admit that photon too has mass rather than shout that it does not. Those who do not want to accept this may substitute mass with the frequency of light.) Whenever an external force tries to accelerate the photon of light, this changes the mass of photon in such a way that the increased mass pulls back the speed to the original point. The same happens when there is an attempt to decelerate the speed of light; the decrease in the mass of photon caused by the decrease in speed helps the light to immediately return to its normal speed. It also means the attempt to decrease the velocity causes a redshift; and the attempt to increase the velocity causes a blue shift. Suppose a photon of mass m0 has the speed of light. So its kinetic energy is m0c². Now, suppose there is an external supply of energy that tries to increase its speed by an amount v. If there was no relativistic mechanism working, then the kinetic energy of the photon would have become m0(c+v)². Now, due to relativistic mechanism operating, m0 increases to m1, and the speed remains the same. Thus the kinetic energy of photon becomes m1c². So m0(c+v)²=m1c². That means m1/m0 is equal to (c+v)²/c², which is the real value of gamma factor. It also means gamma factor also tells the relativistic effect if the velocity is decreased, not only when it is increased. v here is not the speed of the object, but the change in the velocity. This will be clarified later.

The stabilising mechanism of light is like the voltage stabiliser used routinely in our houses. It stabilises the voltage by changing the value of the current, when low or high voltage is supplied to it. It will be seen later that this concept of the "rigidity" of light would revolutionise the whole theory of Physics. It can be seen from the following table that there is a huge gap between the energies of different waves of the light spectrum. The frequencies and energy of the different parts of electromagnetic spectrum are as follows:

Wavelength (m) Frequency (Hz) Energy ((J)

Radio (1x10-1) (3 x109) (2x10-24)

Microwave (1x10-3 -1x10-1) (3 x109-3 x1011 ) (2x10-24\- 2x10-22)

Infrared (7x10-7-1x10-3 ) (3x1011-4x1014 ) (2x10-22 – 3x10-19 )

Optical (4x10-7-7x10-7 ) (4x1014-7.5 ) (x1014 (3x10-19-5x10-19 )

UV (1x10-8-4x10-7) (7.5x1014-3x1016 ) (5x10-19 – 2x10-17)

X-ray (1x10-11-1x10-8 ) (3x1016-3x1019 ) (2x10-17 –2x10-14)

Gamma-ray (<1x10-11 ) (>3x1019 ) (>2x10-14)

It can be seen that the frequency changes from 3x109 to 3x1019, which means the ratio between the two is as high as 1010. The difference on both sides of the optical range is as high as 105; this imparts a very high stabilising capacity to light.

It is interesting to note that Einstein used similar reason for the redshift of light passing through a strong gravitational field. When the light passes through a strong gravitational fluid, the force of gravitation tries to slow its speed. But the speed of light has to be the same in vacuum. So the light changes its frequency causing redshift and uses the energy thus made available to increase its speed. This clearly proves that the idea of light-speed rigidity and an inherent stabilising mechanism is absolutely valid, and it is this stabilising mechanism that provides the right formula. The formula for gamma given above however may need further adjustment once the other postulates of the theory become clear.

Even from an empirical point of view, this is extremely difficult to believe that a small speed like that of light can be of any help in understanding the functioning of the universe. The universe is so vast that in its backdrop, the light-speed is nothing but mere crawl. To keep the universe functioning the way it is functioning, much speedier ways of communication would be needed.

It is also interesting to note that Einstein's First Postulate says that physical laws in all the co-ordinate systems are the same. This postulate in itself is the cause of contradiction for the postulate of light-speed constancy, as how so vastly distant co-ordinate systems can regularly communicate to know about these laws and keep following them without fail. It can be argued that these laws are the same because they all had their origin in the Big Bang. But soon after the Big Bang they got separated by huge distances, making most of them unable to communicate with one another. Why then do the same laws prevail everywhere in the universe? We know from our daily experiences that the enforcement of law requires a constant vigil in the whole land. What then, makes the matter so obedient all over the universe? This question will also be discussed later in another context. The fact however remains that Einstein's two postulates of special theory of relativity are contradictory to one another. Apart from the fact that different areas have no mechanism to co-ordinate with one another, the laws in them can also only be identical, not the same. They may be qualitatively the same but quantitatively they will be different. This is because different co-ordinate frames are moving with different velocities, and the values of mass, space and time change with speed. The light speed can also therefore ideally have different values in different systems. If it appears to be "constant", it is due to its extremely powerful, inherent stabilising mechanism.

The history of modern Physics is witness to how Einstein used his idea of light-speed barrier to bulldoze almost every other theory; how he constructed theories and formulas to adjust almost every mechanism to its demands. One mistake of light-speed barrier led to hundreds of errors being accepted by the community of Physicists. This is another matter that Einstein and the posterity of physicists did so considering that the falsehood of light-speed barrier was the truth that has to be accepted at all costs.

## 1.8Problem of Photon Mass

The first and immediate casualty of Einstein's creation of gamma factor was the light itself. The formula made the travelling of light impossible because, if the photon had mass, which had been a long belief, then its mass would become infinite at the speed of light according to the demands of the special theory of relativity. It would then annihilate rather than sustain the life in the universe. Einstein used his brilliance of mind to accomplish this seemingly huge task by making several suggestions. Some of the ideas about the nature of Photon that have subsequently developed are enumerated as follows: First, light's case is a special one, and this can happen with light only and no other matter. Second, light has no mass at all. Third, light has a negligible mass at the light speed and its rest mass is zero. Fourth, its rest mass may be very very very small, and may be the result of a certain phenomenon rather than being the actual mass. Fifth, there is no significance at all of the mass of photon at rest because photon does not exist at rest. All these ideas have led to the burial of the mass of photon to let the Special Theory survive.

The puzzle of photon mass has been summed up beautifully in a write-up. "Classical vs. Mystical Reality" by Michelson H Morely. It says:

"In accordance with the special theory of relativity, the kinetic energy of a material point of mass is given by the expression K. E. = m c²/(sq. rt,1-v²/c²). Professor Einstein does not provide an explanation as to how the above expression was logically developed, however it is evident that the equation's denominator (sq. rt,1-v²/c²) is identical to the contraction factor employed in the Lorentz equations. However when the above relativistic expression is utilised to determine the kinetic energy of the photon, a problem is encountered. When the velocity variable v of the expression is set equal to c in accordance with the law of the propagation of the velocity of electromagnetic phenomena, the denominator of the equation is reduced to zero, that is (sq. rt,1-c²/c²)=0 so that the resulting relativistic expression for the kinetic energy of the photon becomes K. E.=mc²/ 0...... As a result the relativistic expression K. E.=mc²/0 must be regarded as indecipherable and/or non-functional and therewith any and all inferences based on the equation K. E.=mc²/(sq. rt,1-v²/c²) as pertaining to the kinetic energy of a photon are invalid and as such incapable of supporting absolute physical law."

Describing the problem of the zero resting mass, the article further argues:

"Although the photon's mass m is set equal to 0 and hence the kinetic energy of the photon would appear to be 0, the photon is still deemed to possess energy in the form of rest mass; a concept somewhat difficult to visualise considering the photon's substantial velocity. Nevertheless, armed with this logic and therewith setting velocity v equal to 0, mystical relativism asserts that (rest) E=(rest) mc²/(sq. rt,1- 0²/c²) or E=m c² and therefore m=E/c². This allows E/c² to be substituted for the photon's rest mass m wherein the photon acquires energy without the need for mass or velocity, i.e., E=(E/c²) c² or E=E. This puzzling bit of logic produces a photon with mass equal to 0 in terms of kinetic energy while having mass equal to E/c² in terms of rest energy. The terminology of mystical relativism attempts to mask this logical dilemma by defining the photon's rest mass m not as mass but rather as a function of energy, i.e., E/c², supposedly depicting a state of matter without the physical attribute of mass and mystically referred to as "pure energy"".....

Another empirical fact testifying to the physical mass of a photon is that of its known momentum. How does mystical relativism impart momentum into its supposedly mass-less photon? Let us objectively contemplate the logic employed in achieving this mystical mathematical feat. Calculating the momentum p of the photon, relativistic theory utilises the formula p=m v /(sq. rt,1-v²/c²). The photon, again judged to be at rest, is considered to have a velocity of 0 and therewith the velocity v in the equation's denominator is set equal to 0, so that p=m v /(sq. rt,1- 0²/c²)=mv."

Countering the logic of Special Theory of relativity, the article adds:

"As evident in the resulting expression p=mv, the momentum p of the photon has been reduced to a function of the photon's mass m multiplied by the photon's velocity v. However both the mass and the velocity of the photon must be greater than 0 for the photon to exhibit momentum. Since the only possible mass available in relativistic doctrine exists under the pretext of rest energy, relativistic theory again imputes its alleged non mass energy function E/c² to provide the needed mass for the photon's momentum, so that the new equation becomes p=(E/c²) v. But, as indicated, even the acceptance of this supposed non mass energy as mass is not sufficient to produce momentum, also required is velocity.

"In an attempt to legitimise the result without deference to the means, relativism's momentum equation p=E/c is ultimately reduced to p=h/ by incorporating Planck's quantum energy equation E=hf and the light wave equation c=f. Needless to say, this mathematical illusion is unable to alter reality as the unit of measure for the photon's momentum (kg m/s) still includes the unit of measure for mass (kg). In fact, momentum, force and energy, are all products of matter in motion and all contain the unit of measure for mass (kgs). With respect to momentum the matter in motion is assessed in terms of velocity. With respect to force the matter in motion is assessed in terms of acceleration. With respect to the dynamics of energy the matter in motion is assessed in terms of acceleration x distance."

The article's conclusion is hard-hitting:

"In essence the mathematics and logic employed by mystical relativism are self serving, their primary function being one of validation. Classical realism's mathematics and logic are touted as inadequate with respect to relativity theory. The presupposition of E=mc² as the equivalent of kinetic energy and rest energy i.e., the unification of matter and energy, allegedly confirms the mathematical principles of special relativity. Because relativistic theory is therewith presumed a priori a universally valid theory, the mathematics and logic adopted to validate it remain exempt from the realistic constraints of common sense."

There is little doubt if any that photon mass would continue to be a problem for physicists. But till the light-speed barrier is there, the final position of the scientists will continue to be in the favour of photon having no mass. Now the position of physicists today is that they differentiate between the relativistic mass and rest mass. "Relativistic mass" is no longer in use, as it has become customary to use "energy" for that; "rest mass" or "invariant mass" is considered an invariant. As the special theory of relativity and some aspects of Quantum Hydrodynamics--the theory of quantum Hydrodynamics would be in trouble, as it would lose gauge variance, which would make it non-normalisable-- made it necessary that the photon must have zero rest mass, most physicists today believe all photons have zero mass. It will be seen later that there is no "rest" in the universe, and to talk of "rest" in a universe dominated by "relativity" is in itself ridiculous. Despite their beliefs, which are more laboured than spontaneous, physicists have been talking of an "upper limit" for the rest mass of photons. The claims of this upper limit vary from 6x10-16 eV to 3x10-27 eV. (A limit on the photon mass can be obtained through satellite measurements of planetary magnetic fields.)

In spite of the hullabaloo on the photon mass, the truth remains that a particle is a particle only because it has a size and a mass. Just to make it adjust to the demands of a theory that puts limit on the highest speed, the size and mass of a particle cannot be reduced to zero. If the gamma factor of the special theory holds true, even the size of the photon at the light speed has to be zero, which mathematically means the size of a photon at rest must be infinite. This is because with the increase of velocity, the size contracts leading to a zero size at the light-speed. It is not only the question of mass but also the question of the size of photon, which needs attention. The wavelength too of photon must become zero, if Einstein's gamma factor holds true. To take shelter in the empirical truth for supporting this is deplorable.

Gravity has to change to adjust to the demands of Gamma

After the theory of special relativity, the next enormous challenge for Einstein was to incorporate his ideas into the theory of Gravity. Newton's theory of Gravity was founded on a force of gravitation acting instantaneously between distant points, its strength depending on the masses of the bodies and inversely on the square of distance between them. For Einstein, the idea of instantaneously acting forces was an anathema, as it violated his idea of light-speed barrier. If photons cannot travel faster than a fixed speed, how can gravity or the force of gravitation? Another problem was that of the photon. If it is assumed to be having mass, it produces one problem described above; if it is assumed to be having no mass, then any future evidence of attraction between massive bodies and light would pose another serious question: how did light get attracted if it had no mass? What suited Einstein most was that no mass should ideally be subscribed to photon. But then, what should be done to gravity? His once in a life-time intuition of the equivalence of gravity and acceleration that would lead to bending of light had convinced him that light would bend near a massive object. To answer that bending, there should be a reasonable logic that would silence the critics and convince the fellow physicists. Another question that troubled his mind was the propagation of gravitation. If it were to propagate with or less than the speed of light a problem would arise. How do the planets revolve around the Sun in spite of the fact that any wave travelling at the speed of light would take several minutes (8 in the case of Earth and about 5 hours in the case of Pluto) to reach from the Sun to the planet? By that time, the planets would leave the orbit. To find an answer to all these problems, he created, with huge amount of mental exercise that endeared mathematics and mathematicians to him, what is known as General theory of relativity. He suggested that while gravitational effects travel at the speed of light, planets rotate around the sun not because of the force of attraction between them but because of the warping of space-time. Massive bodies warp or curve a large area in their vicinity, and planets move around the Sun because they merely follow a straight line in the warped space-time. This makes us look as if they are rotating around the sun due to the force of gravitation. By the same logic, if a photon is seen bending near a massive object, this too would not be because of the attraction of photon (due to its mass) by the massive body but due to its following a straight line in a warped space-time.

General Theory was surely a clever attempt to turn the supposed universal constant of light speed into an eternal and ubiquitous reality. The motion of planets, for example, in the way Einstein sees it, is plausible if the Sun were stationary. But the truth is that the Sun is not stationary. So the warping effect of the Sun is also not stationary. It keeps on changing every moment of time at a sufficiently quick speed. The Sun is moving in the Milky Way, around its centre at a speed of around 210 kilometres per second. It means by the time the gravitational field or warping effect reaches the earth, the Sun has moved about 97000 kilometres ahead on its path. It can be argued that the Sun carries the Earth along with it. But to carry again will require a connection between them. And if the whole solar system is moving towards the centre of the Milky Way, it will also require a connection between them. It can be argued here that the warping effect of the Sun was already there in a large area around the earth. But the truth remains that the warping effect will not be the same everywhere, and its strength will continue to change depending upon the distance from the Sun. The more distant the object the more difficult it will be to explain it. So, effectively, the Earth moves not round the centre of the Sun, but round an Imaginary centre of the Sun, 97000 kilometres away, (unless we believe the Earth's movement along with the Sun takes place with instantaneous communication)). In the case of Pluto, it can be seen that the planet moves around the Imaginary centre of the Sun, which is about 3800000 Kilometres away from the centre. Had the Sun been fixed, it would have been easy to assume that the warping effect of the Sun has already influenced a very big area and curved the space-time there. But with the Sun as well as planets moving, planets should not appear moving around the Sun but around an imaginary Sun whose centre is different for different planets, increasing with the increasing distance from the Sun. It is not easy to visualise how the Sun drags the planets along with it as well as around it.

000 kms. Distance of Effective Centre

from the Real Centre of the Sun

Mercury 57910 40536

Venus 108200 75738

Earth 149600 104719

Mars 227940 159564

Jupiter 778330 544830

Saturn 1429400 1000579

Uranus 2870990 2009692

Neptune 4504300 3153009

Pluto 5913520 4139463

The solar system is part of our galaxy, and is about 30,000 light-years away from its centre. It travels around that centre about once every 200 million years, at an average speed of about 230 kms per second. Our galaxy is moving towards the centre of the Local Group at around 40 kms per second. Thus, warping effect can hardly explain the gravity at a large scale, unless Einstein's light-speed barrier is given up.

Despite the presentation of GTR a long time back, that is about 80 years, the theory still remains incomplete and untested. It will be interesting to quote from an article, captioned, "Einstein after Seven Decades" that appeared on Stanford University web page:

"Einstein forever altered our thinking about space, time and the universe, but some of his most basic ideas remain untested and bafflingly at odds with the rest of modern physics......Why after almost eighty years do we still need to test Einstein's theory of general relativity? The answer is that although it is among the most brilliant creations of the human mind, weaving together space, time, and gravitation, and bringing an understanding of such bizarre phenomena as black holes and the expanding universe, it remains one of the least tested of scientific theories. General relativity is hard to reconcile with the rest of physics, and even within its own structure has weaknesses. Einstein himself was dissatisfied, and spent many years trying to broaden his theory and unify it with just one other branch of physics, electromagnetism. Modern physicists seeking wider unification meet worse perplexities. Above all, essential areas of general relativity have never been checked experimentally. ......

"Einstein in 1916 could only think of three potential manifestations of general relativity, all minuscule. Mercury's orbit around the Sun should gradually turn in its plane through an angle minutely different from Newtonian prediction -- an effect called perihelion precession... Stars observed near the edge of the Sun should appear slightly displaced outward from their normal positions... Light leaving a star should change colour slightly, shifting toward the red...... For over forty years, these three effects \-- weak both in what they tested and in how well they tested it -- were all there was. Starlight deflection proved frustratingly difficult to measure. Mercury's orbit, though better, was subject to Newtonian disturbances. Least satisfactory was the redshift, which was observationally messy and hinged on the assumption (the "Einstein equivalence principle") far short of general relativity. This was at most a half-test.....Worse, competing theories soon appeared giving the same predictions for Einstein's tests of general relativity...... General relativity is a minimalist theory. Its assumptions are few, and (more remarkably) often where other theories predict a non-Newtonian effect, it yields nothing. The theoretical log-jam can be broken by negative experiments -- searches for phenomena that are absent from general relativity and Newtonian gravitation but present in competing theories." The article then remarks, "Moreover, deep theoretical problems -- some old and some new -- remain. Einstein himself remarked that the left-hand side of his field equation (describing the curvature of space-time) was granite, but that the right-hand side (connecting space-time to matter) was sand. The mathematical structures of general relativity and quantum mechanics, the two great theoretical achievements of 20th century physics, seem utterly incompatible. Some physicists, worried by this and by our continued inability to unite the four forces of nature -- gravitation, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces -- suspect that general relativity needs amendment."

Another important area where the GTR fails is its inability to explain the massive structures called the Great Wall and huge space, the Great Void. Both the wall and the adjacent voids are far too large for classical gravity-based astrophysical theories to explain.

The subject of gravity will be further debated later when the theory of Universal Relativity enters the second phase.

## 1.9The Question of locality in Quantum Mechanics

The development of Quantum Mechanics has a chequered history. On the practical front, no theory has been as successful as the Quantum Mechanics. On the theoretical front however, it has led to a huge philosophical debate that still continues unabated. Physicists now seem to have resigned to the idea that, if there are no practical difficulties, there is hardly any need to bother about the philosophical deliberations.

Quantum mechanics owe its existence among others to Einstein. Yet Einstein did not accept it as a complete theory, because it violated his idea of locality emanating from his universal constant of light-speed that puts a limit on any information travelling faster than light. Locality is a powerful concept—In fact, regarded by many as the most powerful--of Physics that denies action at a distance, or what is called as "spooky action at distance". Locality requires that all the information useful in predicting what will happen at a particular point of time should be contained in a sphere of influence. For example, the sphere of influence of one second is an area of 300,000 kilometre-radius. Bell's theorem, influenced by Bohm's view of locality, tried to prove that locality has to be abandoned in quantum mechanics. His theorem conclusively proved that electrons seemed to know about each other almost instantaneously, because there is no way they could communicate so soon considering the fact that no information could travel faster than light.

Despite the fact that nonlocality is now regarded as consistent with quantum mechanics, Einstein's influence on physics is such that the fundamental idea of the light-speed barrier has not been dropped. Physicists do not take quantum physics as enough evidence against the theory of special relativity. The Universal theory of Relativity will not abandon locality altogether but will give it a new definition. Einstein was right in believing that instantaneity is something that cannot be acceptable; for it will demolish the very foundations of determinism. If determinism is demolished, causality will have no meaning. The future will then become probabilistic and chaotic rather than deterministic. But as the UTR will show in coming pages, there is a middle ground possible between locality and nonlocality. This will be discussed later.

## 1.10Infinities in Einstein's theory a permanent feature.

Einstein's ideas on relativity lead us to several such consequences as are extremely difficult, at least philosophically, to believe. Even from a purely scientific point of view, there are agonising discomforts in accepting these consequences. Zero, in the normal literal sense, means absence of something. It indicates things or properties that do not exist. For instance, if one says that one has zero money in one's pocket, it means one has no money at all. If a limited company declares that its annual growth in the previous year has been zero, it means, on the basis of the criteria fixed by the company to determine the rate of growth, there has been no growth in comparison with that in the last year. If a boy informs his parents that he has secured zero marks in mathematics, parents would conclude that he could not do anything right to secure even a single mark. If a wife tells her husband there is zero litres of milk left for the preparation of tea, it would indicate that all milk has been consumed. If my wife tells me there is zero kilograms of sugar left in the kitchen, I will immediately order my servant to go and fetch some sugar from the market. Otherwise, I will have to do without my tea, or will have to take tea without sugar, like most of the Westerners do. But the Einstein's theory informs me that the inference I drew, and the action I took, need not be correct. Zero sugar does not necessarily mean absence of sugar. Paradoxically, it may also mean there is surely sugar there but its weight is zero kilograms.

Thus Einstein's gamma compels us to believe that despite the commonly known fact that mass and volume are basic properties of matter, particles can exist, with zero mass or zero volume. Thus as soon as a body gets to the speed of light, its size would become zero. Zero size does not mean it has ceased to exist but only that it exists without any size. And still more interesting is the declaration that the body with zero volume has infinite mass. Thus it also means a certain thing has almost ceased to exist in space-time, and yet has infinite mass, which is detectable in space-time. This formula has led scientists to believe there are many particles that do have zero mass. In fact, in the wake of Einstein's general theory of relativity, the universe has become full of infinities. The world is said to have begun at a Big Bang singularity at which space-time was infinitely curved meaning again it had zero volume and infinite mass. Not only did the universe begin at infinity and could end at singularity according to one section of Physicists, stars too would collapse to form infinities. Roger Penrose, using the way light-cones behave in general relativity, showed that a star collapsing under its gravity would be trapped in a region where the surface of the star would eventually shrink to zero size. This means again, since the surface of the region shrinks to zero size, so too must its volume, and the matter of the star would be compressed into a region of zero volume and infinite density; in the language of physics, it would have infinite curvature of space-time. In fact, Penrose gave singularity theorems, founded on the principle of classical (Einstein's) general relativity, which meant any body undergoing gravitational collapse must eventually form a singularity. So, within the black hole, there must be a singularity of infinite density and space-time curvature. This singularity is like the one at the beginning of time at the Big Bang. But it would mean instead the end of time for the collapsing body, and of any astronaut who happened to be trapped inside it. At these singularities, all the known laws of science would break down.

Even in Quantum theory of Gravity, attempts to remove singularities have not been convincingly successful. In order to do so, scientists had to assume a so-called imaginary time. In imaginary time, there are no singularities or boundaries. But in the real time, thanks to classical general relativity, there have to be singularities. When general relativity is combined with the uncertainty principle, the problem of removing singularities altogether is still not solved. The uncertainty principle has, in fact, created another tedious situation. It means even "empty" space is filled with pairs of virtual particles and antiparticles having infinite energy, and therefore infinite mass. This would curve the whole universe to infinitely small size. In other partial theories, too, infinities occur. To remove these infinities, a dubious mathematical method known as renormalisation was introduced. Renormalisation involves cancelling of infinities by introducing other infinities. Yet another attempt to remove infinities was made through the concept of supergravity. This involved combining the graviton (spin 2 particle) with certain new particles of spin 3/2, ½ and zero. But this method too failed in convincingly cancelling all the infinities.

Thus infinities that philosophically are divine properties have, in the modern theory of physics, become unavoidable in a universe filled with finites. In brief, the world is supposed to have begun with infinities (at both ends that is, at zero volume and infinite mass) and may also end at infinity or a finite universe having innumerable infinities.

In sharp contrast, the Universal Theory of Relativity, proposed by this author, does not associate infinities with the objects of the universe. If a body moves, it has to move with other than zero velocity; if a particle has to exist, it would have some mass and some volume, even if it were extremely small. To determine the masses and volume of a certain existing particle may be practically impossible, but, theoretically, it has to have mass and volume, howsoever small. From Einstein's general theory of relativity, it can be assumed that mass and volume are not fundamental properties of the matter. Thus even infinite masses can occur at Big Bang and black hole singularities without volumes. Is it not surprising that, at the singularities, the matter has been destroyed in terms of its volume, but is very much in existence as far as its mass is concerned? This half death of the matter is one of the most audacious and repugnant results of the general theory of relativity, which has not been convincingly answered by other theories as well. But from the Universal Theory of Relativity, the conclusion can be easily drawn that, within an existing universe, the mass and volume are essential properties of all particles. It will be seen at a later stage in the development of this theory that the universe could not have begun at infinities, and would also not end at infinity.

Another agonising feature of Einstein's theory is that, by erecting a bar on the maximum possible speed that matter can achieve, which is the speed of light, he has transformed light-speed into virtually an infinite speed. No body, whatsoever, with the exception of photons and some more particles, can achieve this speed. And at that speed, time comes to zero. Again zero time does not mean time has stopped moving but that time is moving with zero speed. If you are living in a frame moving with light-speed, and if somehow you are able to survive, it does not mean everything comes to standstill there; but whatever events occur would occur at zero speed.

## 1.11Origin of the Universe

The models of the origin of the universe that have been proposed time and again by various physicists too were influenced by Einstein's ideas so much that despite huge problems in the development of these models, the basic principle of the light-speed barrier was not given up. This is another matter that some physicists have tried to explain the problems by proposing that, in the initial phase of inflationary expansion, which lasted a very small fragment of a second, the light speed was faster than its speed today on the account of the extraordinary energy available then.

The problems faced by the cosmologists and physicists in different models of the origin of the universe have been summed up by Stephen Hawking in his famous book "History of Time":

"The picture of a universe that started off very hot and cooled as it expanded is in agreement with all the observational evidences that we have today. Nevertheless, it leaves a number of questions unanswered:

Why was the early universe so hot?

Why is the universe so uniform on a large scale? Why does it look the same at all points of space and in all directions? In particular, why is the temperature of the microwave background radiation so nearly the same when we look in different directions? It is a bit like asking a number of students an exam question. If they all give exactly the same answer, you can be pretty sure they have communicated with each other. Yet in the model described above, there would not have been time since the Big Bang for light to get from one distant region to another, even though the regions were close together in the early universe. According to the theory of relativity, if light cannot get from one region to another, no other information can. So there would be no way in which different regions in the early universe could have come to have had the same temperature as each other, unless for some unexplained reason that happened to start at the same temperature.

Why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion that separates models that recollapse from those that go on expanding forever; so that even now, ten thousand million years later, it is still expanding at nearly the critical rate? If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million millions, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size.

Despite the fact that the universe is so uniform and homogeneous on a large scale, it contains local irregularities such as stars and galaxies. These are thought to have developed from small differences in the density of the early universe from one region to another? What was the origin of these density fluctuations?"

It was Einstein's theory of General Relativity (along with Hubble's idea of the expanding universe), which has chiefly been responsible for the belief that the universe began from a singularity of infinite mass and energy density, and almost zero volume. It was mainly his ideas and his equations that compelled physicists to think of the universe beginning at a point where all the present laws break down. It is ironical to believe that present laws were derived from a situation where these laws had no tangible or perceptible existence. Despite many attempts to answer it, the question still remains unconvincingly answered. The universe began at singularity with a huge explosion called Big Bang. This huge explosion was not an explosion we understand in our routine life. This was not an explosion in space but of it. The size of the universe at 10-12 seconds was as small as 10-17 metres. At the instant of singularity, the size was 10-33 centimetre. The initial universe was compressed into a state of extremely high density estimated to be about 1090 kg/cc (kilograms per cubic centimetre) and extraordinary temperatures, perhaps in excess of 1032 °K. Obviously, both of these were without any counterpart in the presently observed Universe. And thanks to the results of the mathematical puzzles based on the Einstein's and other equations huge transformations in the universe occurred within the first second, when the universe had already expanded to a diameter of about 1 to 10 light years., its density had decreased to 1010kg/cc, and the temperature had dropped to 1010 K. What brought these huge changes so quickly still remains largely poorly understood. The problem of Horizon Paradox still haunts the scientists because it is extremely difficult to fathom how the portions of the universe that could not have communicated on account of the limit on the speed of communication can possess similar properties, have the same temperature and look the same.

The theory of the Universal Relativity will have a dramatic effect on the models of the origin of the universe that will be discussed after the whole theory is presented. But it is clear that the light-speed barrier is too big a hurdle for the development of physics and must be abandoned as soon as possible. Abandoning of that barrier is a necessary requirement for understanding Quantum Mechanics. Furthermore, there seems to be no plausible philosophical ground that can explain that barrier. The discussion in the coming pages will unfold mysteries that would make the barrier look ridiculous.

Postulate No. 2 of the UTR:

The Universe rotates as a single body (Uniglobe) on its axis

We know that the earth along with its atmosphere and fields rotates on its axis. The planets, asteroids and other components of the solar system along with their respective fields rotate with the Sun at its centre. The stars and other interstellar matter and space rotate in a way so as to encircle the centre of Milky Way. The Milky Way and other galaxies similarly form a rotating body in the form of local group. The Local group and other such groups, form Cluster even if its angular momentum is regarded small. The clusters likewise form Supercluster. Recently, a larger structure known as Megagalaxy has been claimed by some cosmologists. It is natural to assume then that the Universe is constituted of several rotating frames, and that the Universe as a whole also rotates on its axis. I will call the rotating universe working as a single body as Uniglobe, because it is visualised as rotating like the globe of the earth. If the Uniglobe is assumed to be rotating as a whole, it signals huge transformation of the theory of Physics. That this rotation really takes place can explain many natural phenomena and can lead to a completely new understanding of the origin, structure and functioning of the universe.

First, scientists have always been puzzled by the question why the mutual gravitation between the constituents of the universe does not lead to a collapse into a single dense body at the centre. What keeps the planets in the orbits so that they do not gradually fall into the Sun? The rotation of the Universe on its axis provides the easiest answer to this problem. The rotational effect can alone compete with the gravitational forces and can keep the matter away from coalescing at the centre. This will become clearer in the coming pages.

Second, the redshift that is observed and has led to the universally acclaimed principle of the expanding universe can in fact be explained in a better way by the rotation of the Uniglobe. If the Uniglobe is rotating, obviously the portions distant from the axis will be rotating faster than ones closer to it. When the light from distant zones enters the closer zones, the slower speed of the Zane would try to slow the speed of light. In order to maintain its speed, the light would utilise its inherent energy changing its frequency to a smaller one. Another way to explain is that the energy associated with the photon will decrease in the smaller zone. Both these would cause the redshift. Obviously, the more distant the sources of light are, the more pronounced the redshift would be. However, as the universe we now see is not the current universe, some of the redshift may be representing the early expansion of the universe. Even the observational "proofs" of an expanding universe do not prove that the universe is currently expanding.

Third, the gamma factor and the rotation of the universe prove that the mass acting as a force increases with the increase in the speed of the object. The energy-mass equation given by Einstein, viz., E=mc² does not indicate the mass/energy equivalence. If mc² represents the rest mass/energy, what causes this rest mass/energy to be there and survive? This in fact represents the kinetic energy associated with the mass in the zone, which is moving with great speed along with the rotation of the Uniglobe. It can be easily calculated that the speed of the zone in which the solar system exists is about 420,000 kilometres per second. This much high speed should not cause much of a surprise. Because even on the basis of the redshift as the effect of the expansion of the universe, there are galaxies the speed of which relative to earth has been found almost as much as the light speed. Taking Quasar BR 1202-0725 as a reference point, the earth would be moving at 282,000 kilometres per second. As this quasar is one of the most distant objects known, it moves away from us at the incredible speed of 282,000 kilometres per second (94% of the speed of light). And if we take the quasar as a point of reference, the earth will be the one moving at this mind-boggling speed. The objects farthest away from us appear to be receding at near the velocity of light. Obviously, in years to come, even farther regions of the universe may be seen, which may appear to be receding with a value greater than the velocity of light. (In fact, already evidence of such regions is surfacing.)

With the speed of the zone of the solar system known, the relative speed of different areas of the universe can be calculated by using the formula given by this author's Universal theory of relativity.

Fourth, the motion of planets and other bodies within the universe is explained by the theory of Universal Relativity better than the Nebular Hypothesis of the origin of the solar system, which still remains a hypothesis.

Fifth, according to cosmological estimates, only one fifth of the total mass of the universe is baryonic matter. It has been observed in clusters of galaxies that the motion of galaxies within a cluster suggests that they are bound by as much gravitational force as is available from 5 -10 times much more matter than can be accounted for from the luminous matter in the said galaxies. Furthermore, the outer stars in galaxies seem to rotate too fast to account for the amount of matter observed in the galaxy. These observations have led to the speculation that there might be dark matter present in the universe, which means this matter is not visible to our instruments. But the UTR will give another explanation, which can count at least for a significant percentage of the ratio between the gravitational effects and the observable mass. According to the UTR, the universe is rotating at a huge speed, and the galaxy in which our planet lies may be rotating at around the speed of 420,000 kms/second. According to the formula of gamma factor proposed by the UTR, the gravitational mass becomes about 4 times at the speed of light. This can account for the discrepancies in the observable mass and the real mass, and it is quite possible that there is much less dark matter present in the universe than is being anticipated.

Sixth, it will help us understand the origin of the universe and the present state of affairs in a much better way. It will demonstrate why there seems to be a hierarchy of various structures in the universe: planets, stars, galaxies, clusters, superclusters, and Megagalaxy. It will be easier to see why all these rotate.

Seventh, it will help us understand the mystery behind the detection of different forms of electromagnetic waves from different, often unknown, sources in the universe. Different forms of rays may be due to two reasons. (1) As the waves reach the slower zone from a faster zone, there will be decrease in the energy content shifting the frequency towards the red end (Infrared, microwave and radio waves). The opposite will take place when the waves enter faster zones from the slower zones, causing shift towards the blue end (ultraviolet, gamma, X-rays and cosmic rays). (2) The high energy content of the particles in the faster zones would give rise to high-energy reactions producing some of the waves.

Postulate 3:

Gravitational attraction moves hugely faster than light.

Gravity has always been a controversial subject with physicists. Describing the development of the theory of gravity, especially the role of Einstein, "Einstein's Legacy" says, "But Newton's theory of gravitation was a "descriptive theory". It did not explain how the force of gravity was exerted, a fact that has an interesting parallel in Einstein's work and which remains a hot topic for future research." (NCSA website) Newton's theory of Gravitation was extremely effective in understanding the day to day phenomena. But with the promulgation of the theory of Special Relativity, Einstein had no option but to present a theory of gravity consistent with his special theory that made any communication by a speed more than that of light impossible. Newton talked of instantaneously acting forces of gravitation. To counter this instantaneous propagation, Einstein gave the idea of the curving or warping of space-time and the propagation of continuous gravitational field with the speed of light. With his concept of the warping of space-time, he could predict many things, which later experiments proved with considerable accuracy. But the theory still remains inconclusive. It cannot explain the huge influence the force of gravitation is having on the overall maintenance and survival of a universe so huge that the transmission of any communication from one corner to the other at the speed of light may take billions of years. How can such a gigantic universe be sustained without any means of communication between them? Despite about ninety years having passed since the GTR was presented, the proofs of the theory are very few, and alternative theories have also explained those results. Furthermore, even the relatively small-distance-relations between massive objects creates several problems. A massive object cannot maintain its warping effect on a huge area surrounding it without a regular communication. For example, the warping effect of the Sun is spread over distances that light takes minutes to several hours to travel. Moreover, the running of distant planets on a curved path around the Sun could have been more plausible had the Sun been at rest. But the fact is that the Sun itself moves with much greater speed than the planets on a much less curved path within the Milky Way. As discussed before, the planets would have ideally been rotating not around the real Sun bit around a virtual Sun different for different planets depending upon their distances from it.

It makes sense then that we have to find a position between the instantaneous nature of the Newton's gravity and the propagation of gravity with the light-speed, as understood by Einstein. Nothing can move with an infinite speed in the universe, and no forces within the universe can act instantaneously. But for the force of gravity to play the role it does, it must travel with a massive speed, much greeter than that of light. This is essential because, in the backdrop of a huge universe, light-speed is extremely slow. If a person has the privilege to be able to visualise the universe as a whole from outside it, a ray of light starting from one part of the universe would look to him to be crawling with much slower than snail's pace. For the universe to sustain itself, it requires a much faster source of communication. As we know that the gravity is the binding force of the universe, gravity must act at a much greater speed than the speed of light. What can that speed be? I will call the influence transferring gravity as Universal Wave.

We have seen above the gamma (of the UTR), which is different from that of special relativity. Its value comes to be (c+v) 2/c2. Now the question arises: what causes these relativistic effects? These effects will depend on the change of the speed of the universal wave, as the speed of the object changes. With the change in the speed of the object, the changes produced in the Universal Wave will cause an increase in gravitational attraction that will increase the mass, decrease the volume and slow down the clock. It can therefore be safely argued that c² in this formula is not actually the speed of light, but is the numerically equivalent value of the normal speed of the universal wave.

We can assume that force depends on the speed of the wave/particle that carries this force. The faster the speed, the farther will it reach, and the less would be its strength. So it can be said that force is inversely proportional to the speed of its propagation. It can also be justified to assume that the constants related to these forces must have 1/the speed of the force-carrying particle/wave as its essential constituent. Now, as we see c² appearing in so many constants, we can assume that this in fact represents the speed of the fastest moving force, that is gravitation. Is it not justified to presume that the gravitation-transferring wave is in fact the Universal Wave? It has both electrical and magnetic components blended in a way that unlike the electric and magnetic forces, it always works as an attractive force, and carries the force much farther with the speed of 9x1010 kms/second. When several universal particles (particles carrying the gravity) combine, they form photons, in which the electrical and magnetic components break in a way that they lie perpendicular to each other as well as to the propagation of the wave. This results in the speed becoming c from c² and increase in the force by almost a similar difference.

We can thus safely assume that the speed of the wave that caries gravitation is somewhere near the range of c², or more probably exactly equal to that. When several universal particles combine together to produce a photon, its electrical and magnetic components separate in equal forces, and their acting at right angle to each other as well as the direction, reduces the speed of photon to c. But there is still a lot to explain. However, it can be more beneficial and understandable to give that speed to the speed of Universal Wave, as it will explain the effectiveness of the force of gravitation in the universal affairs in a much better way.

I have used the terms Universal Wave and Universal Particle in preference to gravitational wave and graviton, because the former are being given a much higher velocity, and much more fundamental character than the latter. The higher speed of the universal wave may also explain how light can be affected by a massive object, and the black hole. If the Universal Wave had been of the same speed as that of light, it could not have trapped or pull a photon back. Moreover, if nothing can escape the black hole, how can even the gravity escape if the velocity of its propagation is equal to or less than the speed of light? This will actually reduce the blackhole to an object of no physical significance at all; for in that case, not only can it not be seen but will also have no gravitational effects on anybody. There can hardly be an event horizon in that case, and there will be no danger of an astronaut getting trapped in a massive blackhole unless he hits the surface. For the gravity to escape the pull of the massive blackhole, its speed has to be greater than that of light.

The speed of Universal Wave will also better explain why the planets keep revolving almost relative to the centre of the Sun, and the stars relative to the Centre of the galaxy. Had gravity moved with the speed of light, the distant objects would have moved around an imaginary centre far from the real centre of the body around which they move. The solar system is part of our galaxy, and is about 30,000 light-years away from its centre. If gravity takes 30000 light years to reach, how can it play such a huge role in keeping the group together?

The warping effect is also not understandable. First, it could have been more plausible if the massive object was not moving at all. With the massive objects also moving, the Sun for example, the curving path would need to be constantly changing. Secondly, the question arises, why the warping effect would make the space around it curved in a way that the planets rotate around it rather than slide towards it. The usual method of explaining the warping effect is by putting a big ball on an elasticated sheet of cloth, which will deepen a certain area around it. Now if a small stone is put on the sheet, it will move towards the bigger stone. The truth is that this example confirms the fact that if gravity is nothing but a warped geometry on account of the presence of a massive body, smaller objects must not have rotated around it; instead they must have been moving towards the bigger object. The comparison with the surface of the earth is misleading, as a moving vehicle cannot gravitate towards the centre of the earth on account of the hardness of the surface.

The UTR does not however abandon the concept of warping altogether. Even if warping is there, it will have to be under the influence of a more speedily travelling gravity, rather than with the speed of light. That would better explain the warping effect at huge distances. The UTR will have no effect on the observational evidences supporting the GTR like gravitational lensing.

It will also be seen in the coming pages why this theory can make the understanding of the quantum mechanics and origin of the Universe much easier.

Arriving at some of the Most Fundamental Principles Governing the Universe

Fundamental Principle No.1: motion the sine qua non for the universe

Einstein had already argued that there is no absolute or preferred frame of reference within the Universe. My theory has made it almost a prohibited possibility that there can be anything at absolute rest. The Uniglobe rotates; so there is no possibility of anything in the universe acting as an absolute resting frame of reference. The Theory of Relativity has already established that the mass that acts as a force (not the inherent material) keeps changing with the change of the speed of the object. If the absolute speed of the object becomes zero, obviously its mass and energy must also become zero. From the three postulates of the Universal Theory of Relativity, it becomes clear that motion is the most fundamental property in the universe. The existence of the Universe as a whole and each and every single entity within the universe—matter or space-time, is dependent on the motion. Furthermore, there is nothing stopping me from laying down the principle that

Each and everything in the universe seeks to attain the maximum speed possible towards the periphery of the universe (ultimately moving along with the rotation of the universe) and its speed is only halted by its own weight and the presence of objects around it.

All the small particles within an object that are free to leave the object will leave it with a speed determined by their masses and the presence of the forces influencing them. It is this tendency to escape towards the periphery of the universe that gives origin to the various forces. Had this not been the fundamental property of the particles to attain maximum speed possible, these forces would not have arisen.

The lighter particles travel faster; their forces therefore have a wider range. It is also this property to move at the highest speed possible, and to be affected by the motion of the zone of the universe that helps currents, and magnetism to develop. It can be seen that within the universe, nothing can move in a straight line, as the rotation of the universe will have a uniform curving effect on it.

Not only do the particles move with the fastest possible speed along with the rotation of the universe, they also spin as fast as possible on their own axes, as if to imitate the rotation of the universe. This spin again is affected by the mass of the particle itself and the presence of matter around it. When particles are not free to spin independently, they combine to form larger bodies, which then spin as a whole. This will also ultimately explain the conservation of the angular momentum.

Fundamental Principle 2: Fundamental Prohibitions

Nothing can be at absolute rest

As the motion is the most fundamental property of all the existing matter and states, due to the fact that the Universe as a whole is rotating on its axis, it follows that nothing can be at absolute rest in the universe. Whether the rotation of the universe as a whole is due to the property of the matter that it seeks to travel at the fastest speed possible towards the periphery or this property is the result of the rotation of the universe can be debatable. But it is surely the second option that is more plausible.

Nothing can achieve a zero or infinite while existing

Zero and infinities cannot exist as properties of the matter in the universe. Zero would mean only a negative attribute denoting the absence of anything rather than the existence of anything with zero value. Any matter that exists would have a nonzero mass, nonzero volume and nonzero energy. Likewise infinities within the universe do only mean a very high value, not easy to determine, or not determined yet. Zeroes and infinities exist outside and not inside the universe.

This position is close to the objectivists' position on infinities. Leonard Peikoff says, "Every entity, accordingly, is finite; it is limited in the number of its qualities and in their extent; this applies to the universe as well. ... For example, one can continually subdivide a line; but however many segment one has reached at a given point, there are only that many and no more. The actual is always finite" The UTR has this position not just as a philosophical basis, but as physical reality, which is based on very strong foundations.

Consequently no forces in the universe can act instantaneously. There has to be a time lag howsoever small it is. Speed cannot be infinite; it has to be finite howsoever big it is. Time can therefore neither stop nor move with an infinite speed.

It means every matter has to have a mass, energy or temperature, size and momentum, which all will be finite nonzero values. It also follows that there can be no singularities in the universe. This will be discussed in detail later.

Fundamental Principle 3. No two things can occupy the same position; except particles of forces.

This is Pauli's Exclusion Principle. Pauli's Exclusion Principle states that two similar particles cannot exist in the same state that is, they cannot have the same position and the same velocity, within the limits given by the uncertainty principle. This is supposed to explain why the matter particles do not coalesce to form soup of very high density under the influence of forces produced by the particles of spin 0, 1 and 2

There exists of course the exclusion principle in the universe. But this comes as a result of the fundamentals described by the UTR. First of them is that no two particles can occupy exactly the same position, because particles cannot have enough vacuum in themselves to let the other particle fit in it, without altering their states or sizes. Second, every particle tends to achieve maximum possible speed and wants to escape away towards the periphery of the universe, and its speed is stalled only by its own weight and the influence of the surrounding particles and states. No two particles can therefore have exactly the same speed. Third, on account of the rotation of the Uniglobe, different areas of the universe are moving with different speeds. These three factors combine to form the exclusion principle.

Fundamental Principle 4. Nothing can always remain in the same state

As the time can never stop, and as there is no absolute rest, nothing can remain in the same state of space-time. The position of everything--matter or space, continues to change every moment though the change can be too slow or too small to notice. The second thermodynamic principle is the result of the same prohibition, but it will be seen later that there are forces that oppose the thermodynamic principle of the increase in entropy. Left to itself any state or matter will approach disorder and ultimate decay, but with the supply of energy from outside, it can stall or slow the process of decay, for a certain period of time. Similarly the universe as a whole continues to increase in disorder, but its disorder is resisted by the supply of energies, which have to be from outside the universe. This will be discussed later.

Fundamental Principle 5. Uncertainty of knowledge

It is a fundamental prohibition that man can never know all things with absolute perfection. This, however, does not necessarily point to the correctness of Copenhagen Interpretation. According to Quantum Mechanics, the product of the inaccuracies in the measurements of the position and momentum is not less than h/m. It follows that the inaccuracies diminish with the increase in mass. So, it can be argued that uncertainty is not inherent in the particle, as has been vociferously claimed by some quantum theorists but only in our limited ability to know the reality. We know that the inaccuracies in the measurement are because we have to use at least a single photon to measure, and the photon changes the position and momentum of the particle. We can minimise the inaccuracy but not abolish it altogether. The knowledge of man can therefore never be perfect. But it is quite possible that in future, other waves (like Universal Waves) may be detected and used with a better effect. With the knowledge of the rotation of the universe and the velocity of the zone in which the earth lies, the uncertainty can be reduced to a considerable degree. It will point to the reality of the existence and the uncertainty of our knowledge.

As it is known that uncertainty or inaccuracy in the measurement of position and momentum correspond to a certain figure, it automatically follows that this uncertainty too has some kind of certainty, because this has an evident relationship with a certain mathematical constant. Direct relation with a constant signals certainty and constancy rather than uncertainty.

Uncertainty of knowledge is also because of the fact that we can see neither present nor future; we can only see the past. The past too can be seen only within certain limits. To know, we have to depend upon the means of communication that travel at a certain speed. Presently, we use the means of communication that cannot travel faster than light. We can see with our eyes or instruments the events of the past the information of which has reached them only after the lapse of a certain portion of time. The farther the place of the event, the later we can know of it. It means the greater its distance is from us the more distant past we can know of an event. We can not know the more distant past of the entities that are closer to us. To summarise,

We can never observe the present and future; we can only predict them on the basis of the knowledge of the past and the laws governing them. The more accurately we know the factors responsible for the event, the more precisely we can predict the present or the future. It can be seen that in fact, nothing known as "present" is presently observable though we know that in reality, present is present.

We can see the past; but our capability of observing the past is limited. We can know the immediate and not the distant past of the objects or events that are relatively close to us.

We can observe the distant past of the distant objects; the more distant the object is, the more distant its past is observable. But the recent past of these events or objects cannot be known.

If in future, we can use a means of communication travelling faster than light, we can observe the more recent past of all events or objects, but we can never observe the present or the future.

Pauli's Exclusion Principle states that two similar particles cannot exist in the same state, that is, they cannot have the same position and the same velocity, within the limits given by the uncertainty principle. This is supposed to explain why the matter particles do not coalesce to form soup of a very high density under the influence of forces produced by the particles of spin 0, 1 and 2. Because if the matter particles in a nearby position have nearly the same position, their velocities will be different, which means they cannot exist in the same position for long. This principle seems to refer to the real rather than the objective uncertainty of the world. This is true we cannot observe the position and velocity simultaneously with a precision more than what is required by the principle of uncertainty. This only demonstrates the uncertainty of our ability to view the reality rather than the uncertainty of reality itself. This is another matter this uncertainty in our inability to know with precision lies in the reality itself, as we are dependant on photon to measure and know. But this uncertainty does not denote the uncertainty of position and velocity in reality.

Fundamental Principle 6. Nothing can be two-dimensional

As we have already seen, zeroes and infinities cannot exist within the universe; it automatically follows that two-dimensional things cannot exist. This is because for a two-dimensional thing to exist it requires zero thickness. Consequently we have to have a second look at the string and membrane theories that require the smallest particles to have less than three dimensions.

#  Functional Implications of the UTR

## 1.12Structure of the Universe

It is interesting to note that in the natural sciences scientists are not interested in the universe as a whole including themselves, but direct their attention to some parts of the universe and make that the object of their studies. It is only with the development of the UTR that for the first time we have come to a stage where we can examine the universe as a whole. Normally we make relative studies among different parts of the universe. In the UTR, it has become possible to examine the universe as a whole in relation to the preferred frame that surrounds it and has unknown or unlimited properties.

There have been several questions that have been baffling physicists throughout the history of science. A great number of solutions have been proposed but none has been fully convincing. Some of these questions are:

Why do the planets revolve round the Sun? Why does the gravitational pull of the Sun not make these planets ultimately unite with it? What carries the centrifugal forces that make the planets orbit round the Sun in a specific manner and does not allow them to fall into it?

Why do all planets and minor planets revolve around the Sun in slightly ellipsoid orbits in almost the same plane and in the same direction in which the Sun rotates? And why most of the planets, minor planets, satellites (with few exceptions) spin in the same direction in which the Sun rotates?

Why does the ring of the Saturn always point in the same direction in reference to the fixed stars?

Why is the universe uniformly homogenous on a large scale? As Hawking says: "Why does it look the same at all points in space and in all directions?"

Why is the temperature of the microwave background radiation almost the same?

Why does the universe seem to be ever expanding at just above the critical rate? Or what does prevent the universe from collapsing owing to its own gravity?

Why was the early universe so hot?

How did the universe originate and how would it come to an end?

What causes energy-mass equivalence (E=mc2 )

What causes quasars to have so much energy as they seem to possess?

What is the reality of Dark Matter and Dark energy?

What is the nature of different forces of nature and how they work?

Let us first analyse the solar system. When we study the revolutionary and rotational motions of the different types of bodies that comprise the solar system, namely the Sun, the Planets, the Minor Planets and Satellites, the following important facts emerge:

1. All planetary orbits are almost circular and lie in the same plane. These orbits tend to be more elliptical in case of some of the planets than the others. Another important feature is that the planets move around the Sun in the same direction as the Sun itself rotates. Except the orbit of Pluto, which has a tilt of 17 degrees, all the planets have a tilt of less than 7 degrees.

2. The satellites also move about the planets in almost circular orbits, mostly in the same plane.

3. The terrestrial planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars) are relatively small, dense and near the Sun. The giant planets, on the other hand, that include Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, are relatively large, though of low density, and are farther from the Sun.

Most of the planets also spin about their own axis in the same direction as they rotate about the Sun. The exceptions are Uranus and Venus. The axis of Uranus, nearly in the plane of the elliptic, is tilted over so far that it rotates in a retrograde manner. The Venus rotates extremely slowly in the retrograde fashion.

Most of the satellites also revolve in the same direction. These include Moon, the Earth's satellites, the two satellites of Mars, about a dozen satellites of Jupiter and 9-10 satellites of Saturn. However, some satellites revolve in the retrograde directions.

All the asteroids which number more than 1700 revolve around the Sun in the same plane and in the same direction as the planets. Most of them move in near circular orbits. But some of them move in elongated orbits.

Now, this is a unique situation. There must be some reason why all the bodies - planets, asteroids, comets and satellites, should orbit the Sun in the same plane and why an overwhelming majority of them should spin in the same direction in which the Sun rotates. Why did they not occupy orbits in different planes, which could have made their places even safer? Then there would have been lesser chances of their orbits crossing one another. Nebular Hypothesis tries to provide an answer, but the rotation of the whole Uniglobe proposed by this theory provides a more plausible answer. Even if the nebular hypothesis were correct, this we have to find an explanation of why all the components of the gases that made the solar system would align in a way that would produce a system like what we see today. The Sun's gravitational pull is almost the same in all the innumerable planes possible having tilts from 0 to 360 degrees. Does this not point to the possibility of some major external factor trying to keep them in the same plane and make them revolve and rotate in the same direction? If the Uniglobe as a whole is also rotating on its axis, the solar system in its entirety must be moving with a great speed in a particular direction. This motion would almost be linear considering the huge size of the universe. It is only natural for the individual revolutions and rotations of the bodies belonging to the solar system to correspond to the direction of the movement of the portion of the Uniglobe in which the solar system exists.

Let us try to understand this with the help of an analogy. Let us suppose, a big stone is thrown in a still water. It will sooner or later sink to the bottom and the path travelled by it will be almost vertical. If on the other hand, an object is thrown in a fast moving river, it will also move in the direction in which the river is flowing. This movement will be opposed by the gravitational pull of the Earth, which will try to make it sink down. How long the object takes to settle down on the bottom of the river, and what path it follows, will obviously depend on the depth of the water and the speed of the river. The greater the depth of the water and the faster the speed of the river, the greater will be the time taken by the object to settle down; the bigger will be the distance it covers after its fall in the river. The path travelled by the stone before touching the bottom would be a part of a circle or an ellipse. If several stones are thrown at different points in a fast flowing river, the paths followed by them before touching the ground would all correspond to the direction of the flow of the river. It can also bee seen that an object with greater density will cover lesser distance before settling down than one with smaller density will.

Now, let us suppose, instead of one stone, two stones, one much heavier than the other, mutually connected with a long cord, are thrown together in the river. What path would they follow before settling down at the bottom? The direction of the flow will try to take both of them forward with the same speed but the heavier stone will move slower than the lighter stone. Had they not be connected with a rod, the lighter stone would have left the heavier stone far behind. But being connected with the rod, this cannot leave the company of the heavier stone. The lighter stone will then go down towards the base of the river as if it is moving around the heavier stone. We can also visualise the case of mutually connected stones of varying sizes, one stone greatly heavier than others, in a fast flowing river. But the analogy is not complete because, in the case of a river, the attraction between the Earth and the stones is very large. Had this attraction been zero and the depth of water immensely large and the attraction between stones appreciable, the system would have perhaps been more comparable with the solar system.

In the solar system, the planets are able to move round the Sun because, on the one hand, they are being pulled (directly or through the warping effect) by the gravitational pull of the Sun, and on the other hand, they are being kept at a specific distance due to an opposite pull generated by the inertia consequent of the high velocity of the zone. Scientists, till now, have believed that the centrifugal force is supplied by distant rotating bodies. Heisenberg says: "Since the centrifugal forces had to be considered as due to physical properties of empty space, as had been discussed before, Einstein turned to the hypothesis that the gravitational forces are due to properties of empty space." He then says, "The centrifugal forces in a rotating system must be produced by the rotation (relative to the system) of distant masses". The UTR suggests that the centrifugal forces are the effect of the rotation of the universe as a whole, of which empty space is also a part. Without the rotation of the Uniglobe, centrifugal forces could in fact not have been sustained, as the influence from distant objects will take time to reach the rotating systems. The presence of the rotation in the rotating system is clearly due to the combined effect of the rotation of the universe, and the centripetal force created by the gravitational effects of the larger body on the small body, whatever way they operate. The former tries to carry the rotating body along with it; the latter curves it towards the bigger object. In fact if the centrifugal force would have been provided by the distant masses, the combined effect of the centrifugal force and the centripetal force would have led ultimately to the suspension of the body in between those distant objects and the massive body, rather than its rotating around it. Furthermore, with the expansion of the universe, the centrifugal force would have gradually weakened Were the universe expanding, as is commonly believed, the attraction by distant bodies, if any, would constantly become weaker. And because the universe is said to be expanding at a rate of about 75000 Kms/Sec, (much more in the distant regions) this weakening of the attraction by the distant bodies would grow at a considerable rate. This means the orbits of the planets must have kept on contracting at a regular rate. Einstein's idea that the planets only follow the nearest body on a curved path, because the space-time is also curved is also not convincing. Describing Einstein's theory of gravitation, Hawking says "Particles try to follow the nearest line to a straight path in a curved space, but because space time is not flat, they appear to be bent as if by a gravitational field". This theory could have been better appreciated if the Sun would have been at absolute rest But the Sun is also moving at a considerable speed, about 360 Kms/sec; so the field around the Sun is not continuously constant but is moving around in a particular direction. It can be argued that, in an expanding universe, the curving effect due to Sun on space-time would also have been constantly increasing. Now, if the particle tries to follow the nearest thing, it must constantly be in the know of the position of that thing, which requires regular communication. Suppose the particle tries to follow the nearest object. Had there been no inertia, they would have continued at the same distance between them in a parallel line. Or they could have moved in spherical orbits in a way that the distance between them would have always remained almost the same. But due to inertia (created by the rotation of the universe), the bigger particle cannot move as fast as the smaller particle. In this case, it becomes imperative that the much smaller particle rotates round the bigger particle because that alone would maintain the distance between them to within a specific range.

A very interesting fact that further proves the rotation of the Uniglobe is the direction of the rings of Saturn. What is important about the position of the ring plane of Saturn is that, viewed from the Earth and the Sun, the tilt of the rings is continually changing. Twice in each Saturnian revolution, on alternate interval of 13 years 9 months and 15 years 9 months, the plane of the rings passes through the Sun. A few months before and after each such occasion, the plane of the ring must pass through the Earth. This is due to the fact the Earth is near the Sun, as viewed from the Saturn. However, what is most interesting about the plane of the rings of the Saturn, from the point of view of this theory, is that it remains in an almost fixed position with reference to the fixed stars. What does this prove? As the rings are mostly in gaseous forms and are not firmly fixed to the surface of the Saturn, they try to remain in the plane of the rotation of the universe. Had this not been the case, there is no reason why they should have been continually tilting as viewed from the Sun. Their position as viewed from the Sun, should have remained constant but, in reference to the fixed stars, it should have been continually changing.

It is also interesting to note that the planets nearer to the Sun rotate around it with higher speed than farther ones. This is usually explained by the argument that in order to avoid falling in the sun, and keep revolving in the orbit, the nearer planet has to increase its speed because it experiences greater pull from the Sun. The question again arises: why should the planet avoid falling in the Sun? Why should it be so conscious of its decision that it increases its speed only to avoid falling? Who tells it to increase this speed? If planets move in the orbits only due to a warped space, not due to the attraction of the Sun, and they simply follow a linear path in a geodesic, as explained by Einstein, then there is no need at all for the closer planets to increase their speed. Whether their speed is slow or fast, they would follow the curved path. This is explained better by the UTR.

As I had discussed earlier that the planets lying closer to the Sun move faster than those lying farther. This is said to be due to the fact that, in order to avoid falling in the Sun, the closer planets have to increase their speed. Einstein's theory of General Relativity argues that the planets seem to be revolving around the Sun only because the space in the vicinity of the objects becomes warped. Planets revolve not due to attraction by the Sun, but because they just follow the curved path. If this is so, and planets are not attracted by the Sun, why do they have to increase their speed in order not to fall in the Sun. The distance from the Sun should not have any effect on the speed of the revolution of the planets, because they just follow a curved path. If someone argues that the nearer planets revolve faster on account of the greater curvature of path, this would be an erroneous conjecture. The curved path is not like a steep path. The more steep a path is, the greater the speed of the vehicle, because of the increasing proximity to the centre of gravitation. But that is not the case with a curved path. In fact vehicles tend to become slower on a curved path. The more a path is curved the slower will be the speed of the vehicle. This is a fact, which we observe daily in our life. The motion of planets is better explained by the UTR. As discussed above, motion is the fundamental property of the universe, and all its constituents and every particle tries to achieve the highest speed possible in the direction of the periphery of the universe, because the universe is rotating as a whole on its axis. Its speed however is hindered by its own mass and the presence of bodies around it. A planet does not want to fall in the earth, because it is trying to achieve the fastest speed possible along with the motion of the universe as a whole. The closeness of the Sun wants to pull it towards it. So the speed relative to Sun will increase but it will not fall in the Sun.

## 1.13Rotating versus Expanding Universe

The UTR is different from the current theory of Physics in that while the latter is based on the continuous expansion of the universe the former is based on the continuous rotation of the universe. The concept of the expansion of the universe is based on Hubble's Law, who interpreted the redshift, which is observed in the universe, as the evidence of the expansion of the universe. Hubble said that the velocity of the receding galaxies is directly proportional to the constant H and the distance of galaxy from the earth. His law states that the farther the galaxy the greater is the rate of expansion. The presentation of the UTR will in fact lead to a hot debate between a rotating universe and an expanding one and its success will ultimately emanate from its better ability to explain events and phenomena. The expanding universe has led to the Big Bang theory. But lots of issues still remain unresolved. Different scientists have different questions in mind that they think still remain unanswered or incompletely answered. For example, some of these have been enumerated as follows in an article, "The Hubble Law" by Dob B. DeYoung:

"What is the true value of the Hubble constant?

Why is the solar neutrino flux less than half its expected value?

Why has extraterrestrial life not been detected in many other places in space?

What was the origin of the assumed Big Bang 'kernel' of mass-energy, and why did it 'explode'?

How did the first stars and galaxies spontaneously form?

Are there actual planets circling other stars?

Is the redshift of starlight actually due to universe expansion, or could there be another cause?

How far away are the quasars, and what actually are they?

Do galaxies evolve with time?

Where is the missing mass required by the Big Bang? This is also variously called hidden, dark, cold or exotic matter.

What is the origin of cosmic radiation?"

The UTR will explain most of these in a fitting manner in due course of time. Hubble's law will have to be revised. v in the Law would then indicate not the velocity of the galaxy but the velocity of a particular zone of the rotating universe. The velocity measurement will also change. The new gamma factor will have to be taken into account, while calculating the velocity based on the redshift. Moreover, the velocity of our zone (about 420, 000 kms/sec) will be required to calculate the speeds of other zones. In the rotating universe, following considerations will play an important role:

First, there will be no bar on the speed; many areas in the universe will be found rotating with thousands of times the speed of the light. The outer zones will be speeding with much greater speed than the inner zones.

Second, blue shifts will also be important, as there may be some regions, which may be lying in slower zones than ours. There are many evidences of blue shift. For example, Andromeda galaxy is in our 'nearby' local group of about 30 galaxies. Its light shows a slight blue shift. It is to be seen whether it is due to the gravitational attraction between this galaxy and our galaxy, or it may be due to its lying in a slower zone. With more extensive mapping of the universe in future, predictably the innermost zones may be found containing nothing but Hydrogen, without any stars and galaxies. The chances of observing blue shifts in substantial numbers may therefore remain scarce.

There is a possibility of reaching the conclusion that the variety of radiation detected from time to time are due to their arising from different zones rotating with different velocities. The greater-frequency-radiation (gamma rays, ultraviolet rays, cosmic rays etc.) may be coming from the slower zones, the higher frequency being due to their having gained in energy while crossing the faster zones. The lower-frequency-waves (Infrared, microwave, radiowave etc.) may be coming from faster zones, as their energy will decrease as they enter the slower zones.

Third, galaxy formation will be seen in the view of different time-scales, as the time will show distinct changes from one zone of the universe to others. Some galaxies may in fact be younger than ours, and some older, relative to our time scales. Those nearer the axis of the universe will age much faster than do those away from the axis. The rate of the decay of stars may vary.

Fourth, the energy component of each particle will be greater in zones distant from the axis. The nuclear reactions will therefore take different forms, as greater amount of energy will be produced. Quasars may be such distant objects.

Quasars are very bright centres of some very distant galaxies, where some sort of energetic action is assumed to be occurring. It is thought that the falling of matter into the super-massive black hole can result in very hot regions where huge energies are released, powering the quasar. The visible emission only occurs very near the centre of the galaxy. But huge regions of radio emission, produced by the quasar, can stretch out to large distances outside the galaxy. It is argued that the electrons near the centre of the quasar can be accelerated to speeds near the speed of light. In the presence a magnetic field, (which is present in these same regions), the electrons move along helical paths (paths that look like a stretched out slinky). As a result, they emit radio waves, called synchrotron radiation, since these waves are observed on Earth when physicists send high-energy electrons around in circles using magnetic fields, in particle accelerators called synchrotrons. It appears that galaxies may act as quasars only during the early stages of their lives.

Quasars have become controversial on account of the extraordinary redshift they show. The present day understanding of the quasars shows that (I) they are not necessarily star-like and have complex structures, (2) though many of them are radio sources, all of them are not, and (3) the high red-shift is the continuing hallmark of the quasars. Till now, the highest red-shift available is 3.78. On the basis of the understanding of the Doppler shift, any red-shift over that of 1.00 means a faster than light-speed velocity of the source, A value of 2.00 would mean a relative speed of double the light speed. This would clearly mean that they are moving at much higher speeds than the light. But again, Einstein's ghost scared the cosmologists who started finding out alternative explanations for this high redshift. Obviously, these attempts have not been convincing. These have led to still bigger complications. The controversy is summed up in "The Universe of Motion" by Dewey B. Larson. He says:

"While the high redshift problem was circumvented in conventional astronomical thought by this sleight-of-hand performance with the relativity mathematics, the accompanying distance-energy problem has been more recalcitrant, and has resisted all attempts to resolve it, or to evade it. Reference was made to this problem in... ..........If the quasars are at cosmological distances—that is, the distances corresponding to the redshifts on the assumption that they are ordinary recession redshifts—then the amount of energy that they are emitting is far too great to be explained by any known energy generation process, or even any plausible speculative process. On the other hand, if the energies are reduced to credible levels by assuming that the quasars are less distant, then conventional science has no explanation for the large redshifts........Obviously something has to give. One or the other of these two limiting assumptions has to be abandoned. Either there are hitherto undiscovered processes that generate vastly more energy than any process now known, or there are hitherto unknown factors that increase the quasar redshifts far beyond the normal recession values."

The UTR will explain this by stressing that none of these two factors need be abandoned. The UTR will lead to the assumption that very distant bodies lying near the periphery of the universe will have much lesser effective age than our galaxy has, despite the fact that they may have been created almost simultaneously. This is because they are speeding with a velocity much greater than that of light and also than that of ours. This will produce high red-shift. The energy content in those galaxies will also be greater for the same amount of matter. This is because, according to this theory, E=mc2 indicates the kinetic energy content of the particles in a particular zone, depending upon its velocity. c here is in fact the speed of the zone. The matter in the faster zones will therefore have much greater energy content than that in our region. This may ultimately answer not only the presence of quasars but also their specific nature—their high redshift and excessive energy.

The Microwave Background Radiation is uniform heat radiation found everywhere in space. The Big Bang theory states it is the light from the Big Bang red-shifted to a fantastic extent. But the UTR has an alternative explanation. This fantastic shift may be due to the light coming from very distant regions of the universe, which are rotating at very huge rates. As the light travels to comparatively very small velocity zones, it loses energy giving it the huge shift towards low frequency.

Another source of controversy in recent years has been the source of gamma rays. More recent observations indicate that gamma ray sources are not in our galaxy but lie at far distances outside our galaxy. This is now argued that they must be coming from high-energy sources or from the merger of two balckholes or two neutron stars, because such enormous amount of energy suggests a gravitational source. The UTR offers another possible alternative, which may be explored. These may be coming from areas in the slower zones and may have gained in energy after having entered the faster zones. Alternatively, they may be coming from faster zones, where the energy-contents of the particle are higher. The first possibility however seems to be more plausible.

One of the most fundamental principles of the modern cosmology is that the universe looks isotropic. We can assume that though the universe has a periphery like that of the surface of the earth, we cannot see that periphery or beyond that. The universe will always look the same howsoever distant we see. This is because the rotation of the universe rotates everything in it including the light waves. Light waves coming from very distant portions of the universe will rotate before reaching us. It is also possible that light waves coming from distant areas may in fact be the echoing effect of other stars, which we can also see directly.

Let us assume an animal (or an instrument), which can only "see" through sound waves. It is not able to detect light at all. Now, it can only detect the sources of waves only from within the atmosphere of the earth. For it, earth will be infinitely vast. It can detect the sound from the same source coming from different directions. Due to the change in the properties of the sound coming from different directions, it can infer it to be coming from different sources. It cannot see the periphery or beyond the periphery of the atmosphere, and would see almost a similar picture on all sides. To detect the objects of the universe, we have or can have only waves, which cannot cross the Periphery of the Universe. Due to the rotating effect, the light waves from a very distant source may curve back after reaching the outermost areas of the universe and then reach the observer on earth. But if the human detectors cannot see beyond the universe, it does not mean that anything does not exist beyond it.

### 1.13.1Origin of the Universe

How did the Universe originate and what will its fate be? These are questions that have always and will always haunt the philosophers and scientists. Physicists have been trying to find the answer. Scores of models have been presented. Most of them are based on General theory of Relativity. Despite its successes, the Standard Model has plenty of known problems. In the June 2003 issue of Scientific American, in an article, captioned, "The Dawn of Physics beyond the Standard Model," Gordon Kane has listed ten theoretical problems:

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

The expansion of the universe is accelerating, and this cannot be explained by the standard model.

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

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

About a quarter of the universe is invisible cold dark matter that cannot be particles of the Standard Model.

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

Quantum corrections apparently make the Higgs boson mass huge, which would make all particle masses huge, which is obviously not the case.

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

The values of the masses of particles cannot be explained by the Standard Model.

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

Recently, Quantum mechanics has been used to explain some of the unanswered questions. But almost all the scientists agree that the universe began at the Big Bang. Describing the beginning of the modern theory of the origin of the universe, Hawking says:

"At that time, which we call the Big Bang, the density of the universe and the curvature of space-time would have been infinite. Because mathematicians cannot really handle infinite numbers, this means that the general theory of relativity on which Freedman's solutions are based predicts that there is a point in the universe where the theory itself breaks down. Such a point is an example of what the mathematicians call singularity. In fact, till now, our theories of science are formulated on assumption that space-time is smooth and nearly flat, so they break down at the Big Bang singularity, where the curvature of space-time is infinite. This means that even if there were events before the Big Bang, one could not use them to determine what would happen afterward, because predictability would break down at the Big Bang."

The inflation theory states that the initial expansion was very fast. But scientists have raised several objections to this theory. They have argued that, to expand this fast, objects must have been moving faster than the speed of light. This objection has been answered by the argument that although objects in space cannot travel faster than the speed of light, space itself can expand this fast, carrying the objects with it. This is a strange argument though. Space is no empty space; it contains various fields and may contain Dark Matter. Secondly, there is no proven mechanism for creating this massive expansion. Einstein's corrective force and a concept called false vacuum have been presented to explain the effect. It is argued that, when the Big Bang took place, there was only one type of super-force. As the universe grew, this split into the four forces we have today. The energy released during this split is said to have been responsible for inflation. But the truth remains that this cannot be proved; for until we can perform experiments at 1028°K there is no way in which to prove the theory as either correct or incorrect. Finally, there is no observational evidence of inflation. The evidence flatly contradicts its claim that the universe is a closed one.

Now, let us try to visualise what would be the picture of the beginning of the universe after the acceptance of the UTR. I have to admit at the outset that I have not yet worked on this aspect in detail, as it will require a substantial time to work out all the details, but certain things are evident:

First, the UTR declares motion as the most fundamental property of the universe. If motion is not there, the matter can have no property and there can be no laws in force. The theory says that the universe is rotating as a whole (Uniglobe). It is this rotation that has provided all the properties to the matter. So, it would be in the fitness of things to say there was a time when the universe did not rotate on its axis. The matter then was spread in a huge space in the form of a haze. There was absolutely no movement; the matter did not have any mass acted upon by forces; there were no forces and no form of energy including temperature. Everything, including space was devoid of property. Time did not exist. In short, the universe was nothing but an inanimate ocean of inanimate or dead material, which may have been the debris of an earlier universe. Thus, while the accepted theories of the origin of the universe visualise the universe as beginning from a singularity having infinities and breakdown of laws, the UTR would visualise the origin of universe from a huge space filled with inert material, where there was no law in action. The modern theory is untenable because it is highly unlikely that laws could have originated from a situation where the laws had broken down. The origin of laws from an earlier event witnessing the breakdown of all laws of Physics also disturbs the law of causality. Causality and determinism have been the cornerstones of classical Physics as well as the Theories of Relativity, and was vehemently defended by Einstein and other physicists including the most vociferous opponents of the Copenhagen Interpretation. The truth is that the origin of law from a situation of lawlessness is something that cannot be acceptable. On the other hand, the UTR would visualise the origin of laws not from a situation where there was lawlessness but from a situation where there were no laws in force yet, because the matter in the universe was not yet in position to understand and follow the laws.

Second, the first step in the origin of the universe would be the beginning of the rotation of the universe on its axis. It will be discussed later how this rotation started. But it is clear that it got underway owing to the supply of energy from outside the universe. As soon as the rotation began, the universe would have awakened from the slumber or got revived from death. The material present in the universe started moving, and with the movement the properties and forces started appearing. The material particles started running towards the periphery of the universe where the supply of energy was coming from, and the gravitational attraction and the kinetic energy created by the motion started attracting them towards one another. Every single particle in the universe and space started rotating. Time started to move. So the beginning of space-time as a functional entity took place not at the Big Bang but at the beginning of the rotation of the Uniglobe.

Third, with the beginning of the rotation of the universe, the gravitational attraction between the finest components of the haze led to the coalescing of material. One of the likely courses of development would be like this: The massive amount of kinetic energy associated with particles would eventually lead to the formation of nuclei. As the mass-energy of the material in the outer zone will be much greater, the matter from the inner zones will first get attracted towards the outer zones, and a ring like universe may develop. Then the attraction between the matter would lead to condensing of the matter at the centre. The structure that formed in the centre would be a spongy mass with central region containing hydrogen atoms. The temperature within the condensed mass would continue to rise. As the density increased further, the temperature increased even more. When the matter condensed substantially, the pressure in it became too big to keep it as one single mass. It exploded with a Big Bang, and with the explosion the material ran in all directions towards the periphery with extremely high (much much higher than the speed of light), though different, speeds. Soon the materials started concentrating in different areas that gave rise to different components of the universe. The universe continued to rotate and the gravitational forces between the masses led to the development of various rotating frames, which we now know as planets, stars, galaxies, clusters, superclusters, Megagalaxy, etc.

Fourth, it has to be studied whether the atomic particles that exist today were created in the pre-bang phase or the post-bang phase. It is more likely that the atomic particles had already formed, and even the elements had appeared in the pre-bang phase. To visualise what happened at what stage, the most important point that has to be noted is that the rotation of the universe would impart different speeds to the different areas. Those near the axis will have smaller speed and those farther away will have a greater speed. Therefore, the energy will be the maximum in the outer zones and will smoothly taper down towards the inner zones. What effect will these differences in energy create would be an important consideration in finding out the sequence of events.

Fifth, it has to be studied what form of radiation would have been produced in the whole process. While the big condensed mass at the centre would be rotating with huge speeds, the rest of the space might have been filled with radiation. Can microwave background radiation be that radiation?

It is clear from the above that Big Bang will be a hugely different event from the Big Bang of the current theory. To differentiate the two we will call the Big Bang in the UTR as the BIG BURST from hereon. The most important distinguishing features between them are as follows:

First, Big Bang started from Singularity having infinite density, zero size and infinite temperature. Big burst would be a much subtler event starting at a massive density and massive heat. But neither it would start from a singularity nor start from a state of infinite heat and zero size.

Second, in standard theories, the space-time is assumed to have begun at the Big Bang, but not in the case of the Big Burst of the UTR, which had a phase where time had already begun. In the UTR, Big Burst is not the starting event but an intermediate one.

Third, the Big Bang started from a stage where laws were broken, but Big Burst would start from a previous event, where there were laws already existing. Causality will therefore be better maintained.

Fourth, in the Big Bang, it is hard to imagine how density fluctuations began giving rise to galaxies and stars. The use of quantum mechanics to describe the earliest events is nothing but an attempt destined for failure. The uncertainties of quantum mechanics have been assumed to be the cause behind density fluctuations on the ground that the universe was of an extremely minute size, where quantum mechanics could work. This is an absurd idea because quantum mechanics is related not just to the size of microscopic structures, but also the properties of the subatomic particles. Subatomic particles are not only of extremely mall size but also of a minute mass. The universe at the start of the Big Bang, on the other hand, had infinite mass. The heat content in the initial phase was extremely high compared to that in the atom. Furthermore, there is a special relationship between the particles acting within the atom, and between the particles and other atoms surrounding them. Obviously, such relationship was non-existent at the beginning of the universe. The problem of density fluctuations does not arise in the Big Burst, because density fluctuations would have already appeared in the condensed mass, which could in fact have been a spongy structure.

Fifthly, the uniform microscopic radiation can also perhaps be better explained in the UTR.

Sixthly, while Big Bang was an explosion, not in, but of space, there can be two possibilities in the Big Burst. As the UTR assumes the beginning of the creation of the universe with the beginning of the rotation of the universe, the extraordinary speed of the rotation would cause contraction of space, but the gravitational pull among the particles would cause them to get denser. Obviously, there will be a free space or vacuum (with no matter except the particles of different forces) outside the concentrated mass at the centre. The Big Burst can either be a burst into space, or that into the space as well as of it. These possibilities have to be discussed in arriving at the Final Model of the Origin of the Universe.

The vast difference between two theories can therefore be appreciated. In the Big Bang theory, there is no answer to where the infinite mass and energy of the singularity came from, and what was there prior to the Singularity. It leads to the compulsion of the continuous creation of space, for the Big Bang was an expansion of space, which is still continuing, and can continue forever. Where from this space is coming, there is no answer. In the Universal Theory of Relativity, the origin of universe would not begin at infinities, but from a position having absence of any matter with properties. The need of the Creator is there in both theories, but the Big Bang starts at an event where there had already been created a huge energy-mass, while the UTR starts with the creation of energy-mass itself. The role of God will be discussed later.

Thus it can be seen that the origin of the universe in the UTR has three main stages which are akin to the stages of human development. First stage can be called a Prenatal or Foetal Stage. In this stage, the foetus of the universe started to form at the centre of the Universe. Once the foetus got fully developed, began the second stage: the Natal Stage or the Stage of Delivery, the Big Burst. The matter gathered in different areas in several rotating frames of universe, like planets, stars, galaxies, clusters and superclusters. Then started the Postnatal Stage, in which the development of the Universe continued with eventually the creation of the complex chemical structures and living beings.

There are many problems at the structural level also, which the standard model of the origin of the universe cannot fully explain. The universe is made up of billion of galaxies, some of which are smaller and some greater than ours is. However, what amazes cosmologists is that most of the universe is devoid of any luminous matter, and is formed of gigantic empty spaces. It is hard to find how these gigantic voids were formed and whether these voids are empty. One thought is that the universe may contain just one gigantic void in which large superclusters and clusters are floating. The other possibility is that superclusters form one gigantic chain within one gigantic void so that it is possible to traverse through one chain to the other. The third possibility is that galaxies cluster to form sheets separating vast regions of empty space just as soap filaments and bubbles formed out of them. These structural features are also not easily explainable by the Big Bang models. If the universe started from a highly dense singularity, what caused these voids to appear? At the same time there are structures like Great Wall, which is a gigantic structure of up to at least 100-200 Mpc scales. The truth is that these structures and more generally the formation of galaxies have been puzzling scientists, because it is difficult to imagine these on the basis of the Big Bang models. Let us reproduce here some of these concerns:

"My view is that there is something fundamentally wrong in our approach to understanding such large-scale structure—some key piece of the puzzle that we're missing." (Waldrop, M. Mitchell; **Astronomers Go Up Against the Great Wall, Science** , 246:885, 1989)

"The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn't be there, yet there they sit. It's hard to convey the depth of frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists." (Trefil, _The Dark Side of the Universe,_ p. 55)

"We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe." (Michael Rowan-Robinson, "Review of the Accidental Universe," _New Scientist_ , Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 18)

"A completely satisfactory theory of galaxy-formation remains to be formulated." (Joseph Silk, _The Big Bang_ San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1980 p. 22)

"The theory of the formation of galaxies is one of the great outstanding problems of astrophysics, a problem that today seems far from solution." (Steven Weinberg, _The First Three Minutes_ _,_ New York: Bantam Books, Inc., 1977, p. 68)

"Fifty cosmologists attended a conference on galaxy formation. After summarising much observational data, two of the most respected authorities optimistically estimated the probability that any existing theory on galaxy formation is correct is about 1 out of 100. (P. J. E. Peebles and Joseph Silk, "A Cosmic Book," **Nature** , Vol. 335, 13 October 1988, pp. 601–606)

"In its simplest form, the Big Bang scenario doesn't look like a good way to make galaxies. It allows too little time for the force of gravity by itself to gather ordinary matter—neutrons, protons and electrons—into the patterns of galaxies seen today. Yet the theory survives for want of a better idea." (Peterson, _Seeding the Universe_ , p. 184)

" _The discovery of the Great Wall of galaxies and the filamentary clumping of galactic matter has greatly surprised traditional astronomers who think that galactic matter should be uniformly distributed—according to their theories, at least. Until these discoveries, almost everyone was betting their house on a uniform distribution of galaxies throughout the universe. In fact, the exact opposite has proved to be the case: galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and even superclusters (clusters of clusters) are distributed in gigantic filamentary and sheet-like patterns...._

"Cosmologists have tried shoehorning these discoveries into their existing theoretical structures by hypothesising different kinds of dark matter or by asserting that the Big Bang contained irregularities, which resulted in clumping of galaxies and clusters. However, all these attempts to account for the Great Wall and other structures run into other problems. For example, postulating irregularities in the Big Bang fails to explain the observed uniformity of the universe's microwave background radiation...

" _Some cosmologists are trying to piece together models containing both cold dark matter, which may explain the stability of galaxies, and hot dark matter (neutrinos), which may explain the larger-scale structures. However, this approach seems inelegant to many theorists, who are uncomfortable hypothesising agents for which there is no observational or experimental evidence." (New Science Paradigms, The Great wall)_

We know now that stars group into galaxies. Some 100 billion of galaxies are observable in the universe. They form huge clusters journeying through space. Galactic superclusters may contain thousands of galaxies and may stretch hundreds of millions of light years across. Superclusters are arranged in filamentary and sheet-like structures, separated by gigantic voids of apparently empty space. Fifteen or sixteen smaller galaxies along with Milky Way and Andromeda form the Local Group cluster of galaxies. Near Local Group, there is huge Virgo Cluster. These clusters and clusters of clusters are moving. The Milky Way and Andromeda are moving toward each other, the Local Group is moving toward the middle of the Virgo cluster; and the Virgo cluster and a neighbouring supercluster are speeding toward a mysterious destination called "The Great Attractor". Moreover, using shape-finders some scientists have been able to show that for a wide range of model universes, clusters of galaxies align themselves to form one-dimensional filaments. Indeed they predict that the larger the size of a cluster the more likely it is to be filamentary in nature. This filamentary nature will also be better explained by the rotation of the Uniglobe. Commenting on these structures and their movement, a report on the web-page of New Science Paradigms says:

"These structures and their movements cannot be explained as part of the general expansion of the universe. Conventional astrophysics theorises that they must be guided by gravitational forces. But astronomers have not detected enough matter to account for the tremendous gravitational pull needed to explain the motions of stars in galaxy arms, galaxies and larger structures. For years now, astronomers have been haunted by a sense that the universe is controlled by forces they don't fully understand. Recent observations provide a striking confirmation ....

"Astronomers are up against the wall—the Great Wall of galaxy clusters. The Great Wall is the largest known structure in the universe: a 15 million-light-year thick sheet of galaxies, 500x106 light years long by 200x106 ly wide—and it may extend farther, into areas blocked from observation by the spiral arms of our own galaxy. The Great Wall is about 200-300x106 ly from earth. It limits vast voids of nearly empty space containing almost no galaxies at all—only some vast, diffuse clouds of hydrogen. ......Both the Great Wall and the adjacent voids are far too large for classical gravity-based astrophysical theories to explain. All theories currently popular among traditional astronomers have great difficulty accounting for such enormous structures. One important observable, the 2.7 degree K cosmic background radiation—which is usually described as the afterglow of the Big Bang—argues for a very smooth, uniform distribution of galaxies. According to conventional astrophysics, the Great Wall is definitely anomalous."

In the UTR, these voids and huge structures will be easier to explain. The big mass formed in the centre after the rotation of the universe began was not a singularity as singularities are banned in this theory. As the big mass in the centre coalesced from a haze of matter due to newly acquired gravitational attraction as the result of the rotation, which was at different speeds in different regions, the density fluctuations in the big mass would be obvious. And as the big burst was not just the burst of the space as claimed by the Big Bang, but the burst in the space, the formation of voids can be understood. The great filaments and voids can be explained only by the second postulate of the theory that says that the universe as a whole (Uniglobe) is rotating on its axis. The presence of great voids with nothing but Hydrogen is an important pointer to the truth of the theory. According to the theory, the regions near the axis will be rotating with very small speeds compared to the outer regions. In these spaces, the energy content of the particles will be greatly lower than in other areas. The strong nuclear force will therefore be not strong enough to bind the protons among themselves or with neutrons. The hydrogen alone will therefore be formed. With the big burst, the hydrogen may spread in other areas of voids but the greatest concentration should remain in the regions close to the axis.

### 1.13.2Fate of the Universe

Physicists have predicted the fate of the universe in different ways. There are many models. In the Open Universe theory, the universe will continue to expand forever. In the Closed Universe theory, the universe will eventually start contracting and will again end at the singularity after which another phase of expansion may begin. (There are researchers who claim that this is not inevitable.) In the Flat Universe theory, the expansion will just remain at the critical rate. In all the theories, the universe will have a deadly end. In the UTR, another possibility looms large on the universe. As soon as the universe stops rotating, all the properties of the matter and space will be met with an immediate death. The absence of the force of gravitation would cause the matter to again become like a haze. All the movements will stop abruptly. Time will cease to exist. Space will again become dead. There will be one time death of the universe as a whole, which can be called the Final Catastrophe. In the current theories of the universe, the death of the different portions of the universe will not be simultaneous. There may be a gap of millions of years between the death of different stars. In the UTR, the death of stars or individuals can go on within the universe while the universe as a whole survives, but a time may come when the rotation of the universe as a whole stops, which will cause the death of the universe as a whole. In fact, it can be realised that in the current theories of the universe, there is no birth or death of the universe as such and it deals only with creation and death of the parts of the universe. Th UTR on the other hand talks of the birth and the death of the universe as a whole. As has been described earlier, the stages of the universe are similar to those of human development. First, there was a prenatal stage, then natal and then postnatal. The universe has already grown quite old, and it may die a sudden death anytime.

#  Philosophical Implications of the UTR

## 1.14Role of God

From time immemorial man has talked of God. Most of the humans have believed God created the universe and sustains it. A minuscule percentage of humans have argued that man created or invented God and their psychological and social needs sustain Him. In sciences too there has always been a huge controversy on the role of God in the creation and sustenance of the universe. The evolution of knowledge including natural sciences in the last two centuries has been under the influence of what I call Economic Fundamentalism. Industrial Revolution resulted in progressive strengthening of the grip of the industrialists over the world and the ideology they propagated. The impact of the economic fundamentalism on the growth and form of sciences has been one of the issues that I have discussed in my earlier works, "The Devil of Economic Fundamentalism" and "The Killer Sex". I feel it is worthwhile to reproduce parts of those discussions here:

"Science is the name given to the efforts for arriving at the truth and knowing the realities. It unfolds mysteries of nature and explains how scores of natural forces combine to maintain perfect harmonious equilibrium essential for the sustenance of the universe and the survival of all living beings. It teaches us how to avail ourselves materials and energies for different purposes. It would however be dangerous to presuppose that science is merely an informer and has nothing to do with our morals. What is incontrovertible is that science too, like religion, has been and is being misused by the vested interests. The dagger of blame falls not on science, but on those who misappropriate it. .......A general empathy towards religion that was the outcome of maledictory campaigns against it by the forces of economic fundamentalism influenced scientists too, who strove to present science as an antidote to religion. Religion had already been equated with orthodoxy and retrogression. It was therefore natural for the emerging edifice of science to maintain a safe distance from the faith. Hence, when science discovered that there exists a most wonderful equipoise in the universe that keeps life intact, that there seems to be a common cause of all the causes (or a common force behind all the forces), and the common cause has to be cognisant of the needs of all the creatures, scientists and philosophers named this common cause Nature. Had it been called God, the avowed antagonism of religion by science would have suffered a major setback. The acceptance of the One by science could have been a big boost for moralists. Materialists could have faced encumbrances in their naked pursuit of money. Thus, numerous laws governing the vast universe were labelled not as God's or Creator's Laws but the laws of Nature. The laws of gravitation and motion, for instance, were called Newton's Laws of Gravitation and Motion rather than the Creator's Laws, as if Newton created these laws, who in fact only tried to elucidate them. Despite all these attempts to banish God from the realm of science, the truth is that science cannot move an inch without assuming the presence of a being who is all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful, eternal, wise, calculating and all-pervading. It has only tried to infatuate itself by calling this omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient being as Nature. Can science enlighten us how particles, or space, or waves forming "Nature" possess faculties of intelligence and wisdom? Can it explain why all the physical laws remain the same everywhere in the universe. (Einstein's theory of relativity postulates that physical laws are the same in all co-ordinate frames all over the universe.) Science claims itself to be the truth and nothing but the truth, or an effort to arrive at the truth. But its signal failure has been its inability to recognise the greatest truth of the universe. It is not that science transformed its exponents into atheists. In fact, the greatest scientists of the world including Einstein, Darwin and Newton had an unshakeable belief in the presence of the One. But what their hearts were cognisant of, their pens could not describe in a scientific jargon. It was less perhaps because they found their belief scientifically untenable and more because they were scared of becoming targets of anti-religion elements that had a dominating presence in society. Both capitalism and socialism, the two great faces of economic fundamentalism had anathema for God whose fear and love created "unnecessary" impact on human morals."

The above was a part of a book written for the common people, and was not a work of Physics. The purpose of reproducing that is only to stress that the development of modern sciences has been in an environment of antipathy towards religion. It was therefore accepted as a fundamental principle by scientists all over the world that God has to be kept out of science at all costs. Heisenberg confirms this when he says:

"The mechanics of Newton and all the other parts of the classical physics constructed after its model started from the assumption that one can describe the world without speaking about God or ourselves. This possibility soon seemed almost a necessary condition for natural sciences to grow."

Why should natural sciences start on that assumption when there was no need to disprove God? Had God's existence been accepted, what bad could it have done to sciences? Still, sciences could have tried to understand "God's mind" and His creation and the laws that governed the universe. But this would have weakened the position of the economic fundamentalists against religion, which had belief in God as the foundation on which it rested. Religion posed huge risks to the advance of the economic designs of the forces of economic fundamentalism. Religion promoted morality, abstinence from certain practices like alcohol, gambling, extramarital sex and simplicity in life. All these things were seen as the foes of "development", and religion therefore was not acceptable. Faith in God and His punishment to the evildoers would greatly reduce the speed of the "growth". If scientists started confirming the existence of God, it would make life difficult for the big business. They will find it hard to promote consumerism and commercialise evils; there will be no place for bars, beaches, casinos, brothels, night-clubs and pornography in such a dispensation. The economic fundamentalists realised the huge commercial potential of human weaknesses, and would take every possible measure to use them for multiplying their wealth. Steps were taken at every level. At the legal level, the concept of Fundamental Rights was advanced with an unparalleled aggression in the ideological history of the world. Absolute freedom will give men and women freedom of choice in even choosing harmful courses. This freedom would in effect help the big business use their weaknesses for promoting their trades. The scale and tone of punishment for crimes was reduced and the scope of crimes continued to contract. Sex outside marriage, gambling, betting, sexual perversions, etc ceased to be crimes. The biggest challenge to their plan was posed by religion. It was therefore imperative to banish religion from society. When there was a huge campaign against religion and God at the social and political level, how could scientists be allowed to talk of God? The on-going battle between Church on the one hand and the Political, Economic, and Scientific community on the other further distanced sciences from God.

In spite of the general antipathy in the scientific community towards religion and God, sciences could never get free of God altogether. Top scientists couldn't keep away from talking of God. Einstein and Bohr had constant debates about the role of God in the formation and functioning of the universe. In response to the idea of uncertainty that Quantum Mechanics advanced, Einstein, in the now famous duel with Bohr, remarked, "God does not play dice". To this Bohr retorted, "Don't try to tell God what to do!" While discussing the laws of science as we see today without talking of God was not unavoidable, the creation of the universe automatically warranted such discussion. Let us try to sum up the position of the current Physics about the role of God.

Scientists have always wondered the beauty of the universe, especially how it has led to the creation or evolution of intelligent beings like us. There is a certain beauty in the underlying plan. John Polkinghorne says:

"...the universe, in its rationale, beauty and transparency, looks like a world shot through with signs of mind, and maybe, it's the "capital M" Mind of God we are seeing........there is some deep-seated relationship between the reason within (the rationality of our minds - in this case mathematics) and the reason without (the rational order and structure of the physical world around us). The two fit together like a glove."

The laws all over the universe are the same. The Question arises why. In the theory of Big Bang, there has not been an enough time for the distant regions to communicate with another, seeing that nothing can travel faster than the light, according to the theory of Relativity. Hawking says:

"Nevertheless, it leaves a number of questions unanswered:

Why was the early universe so hot?

Why is the universe so uniform on a large scale? Why does it look the same at all points of space and in all directions? In particular, why is the temperature of the microwave background radiation so nearly the same when we look in different directions? It is a bit like asking a number of students an exam question. If they all give exactly the same answer, you can be pretty sure they have communicated with each other. Yet in the model described above, there would not have been time since the Big Bang for light to get from one distant region to another, even though the regions were close together in the early universe. According to the theory of relativity, if light cannot get from one region to another, no other information can. So there would be no way in which different regions in the early universe could have come to have had the same temperature as each other, unless for some unexplained reason that happened to start at the same temperature."

Hawking has progressively grown into an agnostic as far as the role of God is concerned. He has been busy finding solutions in which the universe could be thought to have had no beginning. In the above writing, he has raised an interesting example of students solving the same question with the same answer. If they have responded with exactly the same answer, there can be two reasons. First reason has been given by Hawking that is they must have had communicated with one another. But if there can be a surety that they could not communicate with one another, then what? There still remains a possibility, and that possibility is that they might have received the dictation from the same source.

In the Big Bang models based on the General Theory of Relativity, singularity was unavoidable. Penrose-Hawking Theorem proved that singularity at time zero is inevitable and that time-space fabric would break down at the singularity. The Big Bang could not have occurred, it was argued, without the creation by God. But this position has not been acceptable to those who do not want the existence of God within the realm of sciences. So, efforts have been on led by Hawking to find solutions where we can have a no-boundary situation for the universe. Hartle and Hawking proposed a situation where the dimension of time becomes fuzzy turning into a fourth spatial dimension as we approach towards singularity. At that point, time becomes meaningless. And that makes Hawking swell with confidence, which made him remark, "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place then, for a creator?"

But the truth remains that even this proposition does not abandon the concept of the beginning of the universe altogether. Because there again is an event where time becomes meaningful from a meaningless situation and the universe can be considered to have begun when the time becomes meaningful. The position of scientists regarding the beginning of the universe due to Divine creation has been conceded in an article written to counter the more popular belief. The article captioned "Theism, Atheism and the Big Bang Cosmology" by Quantum Smith, published in Australian Journal of Philosophy, March 1001 says:

"The idea that the big bang theory allows us to infer that the universe began to exist about 15 billion years ago has attracted the attention of many theists. This theory seemed to confirm or at least lend support to the theological doctrine of creation ex nihilo. Indeed, the suggestion of a divine creation seemed so compelling that the notion that 'God created the big bang' has taken a hold on popular consciousness and become a staple in the theistic component of 'educated common sense'. By contrast, the response of atheists and agnostics to this development has been comparatively lame. Whereas the theistic interpretation of the big bang has received both popular endorsement and serious philosophical defence (most notably by William Lane Craig and John Leslie, the nontheistic interpretation remains largely undeveloped and unpromulgated."

Another important discussion is centred about the Anthropic Principle. Before the 16th Century, the general understanding of man's position in the universe was based mainly on theological and other ancient concepts, which were represented by Ptolemic principle. This principle states that we have a privileged position, perhaps in the centre of the universe. Galilee and Copernicus countered this and went on to pronounce that we have no privileged position in the universe. They argued that the part of universe we are living in was like any other part of the universe. But the 20th century cosmology again led to a visible transformation in thinking. It was argued that we ourselves are in fact the products of the evolution of the universe, and had we not been there, there would have been none to appreciate the beauty of the universe. This position is represented by three principles called Anthropic Principles. These three are Trivial, Weak and Strong. Trivial principle regards the existence of human beings as nothing but a mere datum and does not give it any other significance. The Weak and Strong Anthropic principles are based on the acceptance that the existence of human beings is extraordinary. The creation of the human being depends upon a series of striking coincidences. Hawking says, "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." The striking coincidences that led to the formation of intelligent life have been briefly summed up on a website, "St John in Wilderness: Physics and Faith":

"Elements up to Lithium-7 were produced in the Big Bang. All heavier elements were made later inside stars. Hence all of us are "star-stuff". Most of the molecules making up our bodies using elements manufactured in an earlier generation of stars that enriched the interstellar medium through their stellar winds or when they died in supernovae. Our own solar system then formed from this enriched interstellar medium, which contained the elements necessary for life.... However, the synthesis of the heavier elements is difficult \-- the only reason they are produced at all is the extraordinary coincidence that carbon has an energy level that is nearly the same as the energies of three alpha particles (helium nuclei) inside a star. This correspondence allows the reaction: three Helium-4 nuclei colliding to form one carbon-12 nuclei (3 4He \----------> 12C) to occur with a high enough probability that a reasonable amount of carbon can be made, and from carbon, still heavier elements. (Physicists say the "cross-section" for the process is resonant, which is a consequence of the matching of the energy levels).

"Paul Dirac (1902-1984), one of the founders of quantum mechanics, noted that very large dimensionless numbers often arise in particle physics and cosmology. For example, ratio electrostatic force/gravitational force between a proton and electron=0.23x1040; ratio of cosmological distance horizon ("radius of the universe") and "classic electron radius"=3.7x1040. It can be shown from the physics of stars that these large ratios are required for the lifetime of the average star to be in the range of billions of years. The rate of expansion of the universe is to be such that several generations of stars have time to age that is, the laws of physics and the initial conditions of the universe seemed "tuned" to allowing several generations of stars to live and die (a requirement for the production and dissemination of the heavier elements). The lifetime of an average star has to be sufficiently long to potentially allow a process such as the evolution of life to occur."

Hawking describes the extraordinary combination of coincidences as follows:

"... For example, if the electric charge of the electron had been very slightly different, stars either would have been unable to burn Hydrogen and Helium or else would not have exploded. Of course, there might be other forms of intelligent life, not dreamed of even by writers of science fiction, that did not require the light of star like the Sun or the heavier chemical elements that are made in stars and are flying back into space when the stars explode. Nevertheless, it seems clear that there are relatively less ranges of values for the numbers that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty. One can take this either as evidence of a divine purpose in Creation and the choices of the laws of science or as support of the strong Anthropic principle."

But even the arguments of strong and weak Anthropic principle have been dismissed by those who do not want to see any Designer behind all this design. They try to explain this on the basis of random selections. For example, the same website ("St John in Wilderness: Physics and Faith") counters this on the basis of Execution Parable. L:

"A perspective on the explanations of "many universes" or "many domains" (Weak Anthropic Principle) versus a Designer (Strong Anthropic Principle) is offered by the Execution Parable of philosopher John Leslie..... You are blindfolded and about to be executed by ten expert marksmen aiming at your chest. The officer gives the order to fire the shots ring out, and you find you are still alive, unscathed! What is the rational explanation for your survival? Leslie suggests there are only two rational explanations: there were an enormous number of executions that day. Occasionally even the most expert marksman will miss, and you happened to be in the one execution where all the marksmen missed, (and second that) your survival was intended and the marksmen missed by design."

This is difficult to understand however why there is insistence on finding a solution without God when a solution with God deals problems much easily. For example, scientists try to argue that coincidences and accidents, random selections can occur repeatedly in a way that it can lead to evolution of a better and more intelligent life. But they are not ready to accept that more than the probability of finding innumerable number of such coincidences in a way that they lead to what is desirable, the more probable is the presence of a Being who is designing this. This is like assuming numerous coincidences that led to the making of car rather than accepting that it has been designed and manufactured by a company.

It is also entirely incomprehensible why Occam's Razor is also disregarded while discussing the role of God. According to the well known scientific principle, "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate". This means the number of entities required for explaining anything must be kept at minimum. If there are many ways to explain something, the easiest and straightest one should be preferred. If there are many roads to reach a specific point, the straightest one should be used. This principle was described by a mediaeval philosopher, Occam of Razor, and is still regarded a strong principle in all sciences. Why then is this principle forgotten when we find that the easiest way to describe the creation and evolution of the universe and intelligent life within it is to accept the presence of an All-Knowing, All-Powerful, Wise God.

## 1.15The UTR and God

Though even based on the knowledge of the universe we have till this date, it is easier to accept than not accept God, the UTR can prove to play a decisive role in arriving at the truth. The UTR says that the universe as a whole rotates on its axis. It is this rotation, which has led to the creation and sustenance of the universe, and is responsible for all the properties of the universe as a whole and its parts. Now, the rotation requires regular supply of energy from outside. Thus the universe exists because it is rotating due to an incessant supply of energy from outside the universe, and would cease to function as soon as this supply is discontinued. As the supply of energy is stopped, the Uniglobe will stop rotating and all its components will lose their individual and collective properties. The universe will be dead. The rotation of the universe as a whole thus leads to two fundamental conclusions. First, if the Uniglobe is rotating, it must be rotating relative to a preferential frame of reference that surrounds it on all sides. Second, the universe is having an uninterrupted supply of energy from that external source. That external source can be none other than God.

The UTR completely and dramatically changes the relationship between the universe and God. While all the theories of Physics describe the parts of the universe, their properties, their motions, etc, the UTR in addition describes the universe as a whole (Uniglobe). The universe becomes an entity in itself, which can be seen separately from its components. Its relationship with the Creator becomes more profound and subtler. The universe does not merely remain a container of matrices and forces that it is, in accordance with the present theories, but becomes an existence in itself that bows to God, by rotating itself relative to Him, in response to the supply of provision to it. The universe and God become intimately connected. The former becomes a well-organised state and the later its majestic king. The role of Creator is not limited to somehow cause the beginning of the universe or the Big Bang, after which the universe takes control of itself and the role of God ends forever. In the aftermath of the UTR, it can be seen that the role of God becomes permanent. It ceases not for an iota of time anywhere in the universe. He makes the universe rotate and creates it. He keeps rotating it by continuous supply of the provision for its existence. If the laws in the universe are regularly in force and the energy and mass retain their status, it is on the account of the continuous rotation of the universe at God 's behest. Ultimately, He may choose the time of its death and preside over its demise by deciding to abruptly suspend or terminate the supply of energy causing the rotation of the universe to stop within no time. The universe will not die because the entropy would ultimately become universal, as demanded by the second law of thermodynamics. It will also not die because, due to long, continuous burning of fuel, stars will lose their lustre. Finally also not because, due to freezing of the planet, animals and planets including human beings will be deprived of the source of their life. The universe will take its last breath because God may decide enough is enough. He may think of replacing it with another kind of the universe with another set of laws and principles. Or He may want to resuscitate the world to see what they did in the previous world.

According to the current theories based mainly on General theory of Relativity, the universe even when it began had certain properties that were not well defined though, because they were infinite, mathematically. But the universe existed as a singularity, which had infinite mass-energy. How can it be called a non-existing universe? It was in fact existing from an infinite time. It can be argued that time did not start at the Big Bang but started its ticking in a way that it could then onwards be measured. The universe then existed at the singularity; the Big Bang only led to its huge expansion. That was no creation of the universe itself, but the beginning of the creation of the components of the universe. In a way, it can be said that the universe ceased to exist as a single body after the Big Bang, and instead transferred its life to its individual components. The Big Bang, in a way, was not the birth of the universe but its death. In the UTR instead, the universe had real birth, and the time had real beginning. The universe before had no structural or functional existence, and time had no existence at all. The process of the birth began as son as the universe began to rotate. The process of creation of the universe had three main stages: Pre-(Big) Burst stage, Big Burst and Post-Burst stage. Pre-Burst stage can be regarded as the foetal stage, and at the Big-Burst, the universe was delivered. Then followed the growth of the universe.

It is interesting to see how the UTR blends physics and metaphysics together. It establishes a lasting, never-ending relation between God and the universe. God supplies the universe the provision for its existence and the universe thanks Him by rotating relative to Him, which is its bowing or prostration to God. The UTR has proposed that every particle tries to achieve the highest speed possible and goes towards the periphery of the universe; this speed is slowed by its own weight and the effect of the surroundings on it. Metaphysically, as soon as God started distributing the provision, all particles speeded to receive their shares, and thanked God by rotating individually and collectively relative to Him. It is this combination of providing by God and thanking by the creatures that sustains the universe.

What was the purpose of the creation? Why did God create the human being? These are questions that again lead to the overlapping of physics and metaphysics. Some take the existence of the human being as the sign of God, others the result of Strong Anthropic principle. The UTR takes this to new heights. Before the beginning of the rotation of the universe, God was alone. There was none to recognise Him, to describe His creative designs, His bounties and His powers. He made a plan so that he would be recognised. First he created the universe, which recognised Him by prostrating to Him and by following the Laws He decreed. Every single particle and portion of space would rotate with the rotation of the universe relative to Him, which in a way meant submitting to Him. Their submission, however, was of lesser quality, as they submitted not out of their free will but by their inherent nature. God's plan would ultimately lead to the creation of an intelligent being who would have the free will to submit or not submit to the commands of God. All the particles that formed man would still submit to the Creator by rotating along with the rotation of the universe, individually and collectively with its group. But at the social and personal level, he would be free to work in accordance with the demands of God or those of his own wishes. This would give him a privileged position. He would be bestowed upon the intelligence to appreciate the beauty of the creation, to study how it works, to try to know how it was formed and to comprehend his own nature and his relationship with the universe and its creator. Thus the UTR would combine temporal with spiritual and physical with metaphysical.

Another interesting combination of physical and metaphysical is the fact that there is a relationship between God and the components of the universe based on the principle of collective existence. Atom has a nucleus at the centre, which can be described as the leader of the atomic world. The stars are the leaders of the stellar systems, and stars form galaxies, galaxies clusters and clusters super clusters. Superclusters or even larger structures like the proposed Megagalaxy form the universe. So every particle is submitting to the God individually as well as collectively in various groups. The Uniglobe submits to Him with all its constituents. God may choose in the next universe a principle by which every individual particle rotates separately relative to God.

God does not play dice nor He needs to be told what to do. He knows what He wants, and how this has to be done. He makes man exist. He provides him the means to survive-- to admire the beauty of His creation, to ponder over the mysteries of His Empire and to endeavour to know His Mind. God has programmed man's life but has given the keyboard and the mouse to him to let him function with sufficient freedom.

## 1.16Time

Time is the vehicle in which everything that exists has to travel. It is the grinder that breaks, forms and reforms everything and every event. It is an experience, which every conscious individual does realise and every particle does undergo through. The human behaviour turns time not only into an objective observation but also a subjective feeling, which differs from individual to individual. The same period of time can be expressed differently by different individuals; and differently at different times even by the same individual. For humans, time laughs and cries; time runs, crawls or stops; time brings new hopes or new fears; and time sleeps or awakens. Time may even rule our lives or submit to our dictates. For most, at times time blossoms and at times it withers. Whether one is capable of defining it or not, every living and nonliving thing except the dead perhaps knows what time is. Depending upon its magnitude, it becomes moments, hours, days, weeks, months, years, centuries and eras. When time indicates developments without any pattern, it becomes history; when it represents transformation with a visible pattern, it is called evolution. The history of the evolution of the knowledge of time is interesting.

In terms of physics, time is an entity that gives us an idea about the rapidity of the change of an event or events and the position of an object or objects. Time was considered absolute in Newtonian Mechanics. With the transformation of the three-dimensional space into a four-dimensional one, time lost its absoluteness with the beginning of the era of Relativity. Here we shall discuss what impact the UTR will have on time and the Arrow of Time.

The first question arises: When did the time begin? The current theories based mainly on the Einsteinian ideas of General relativity and Hubble's idea of the expanding universe describe the initiation of Big Bang as the initiation of time. At singularity, there was no time, which as explained before, in fact meant that time was not measurable. It is argued that time-space continuum had broken at the singularity so that no laws of nature could be perceived. It will therefore be safer to conclude that, according to the Big Bang models, time was already there but was moving with zero speed, that is, it had temporarily stopped moving or was moving with an immeasurably slow rate. At the Big Bang, the clock of time started ticking; the time became measurable. It became a part of the time-space continuum, and has since then been moving. Now, it leaves two questions unanswered:

First, whether time was at any time in the past measurable before the Big Bang or not. Was singularity a result of the collapse of an earlier universe? In that case, time did never in fact die, but only collapsed as a measurable property, measurable through the means that now exist in the universe.

Second, is there any universal time as such? We know from Einstein's theory that time is not absolute but relative, with its value being different in different co-ordinate frames depending upon their speeds. The faster the speed the slower the clock ticks. There is no scope for considering a universal time, which can regard time as a universal phenomenon, related to the state of the universe as a whole.

The UTR answers the questions in an entirely different conceptual framework. It has proved that the universe is rotating as a single body (Uniglobe) on its axis. This rotation of the Uniglobe is responsible for the existence of the different components of the universe individually and collectively and the universe as a whole. There was a time when the Uniglobe had not started rotating yet. It was a non-living, non-moving container having in it a haze of matter without properties. Then the universe was given a switch-on signal, and it started rotating. The process of the birth of the universe commenced, and with it commenced time. Thus, unlike the Big Bang theory in which time existed at singularity but was moving with zero speed, in the UTR, time had no existence at all. Space was there but it had no property. With the rotation of the universe, not only did the time begin but also the space become alive; then this combined birth of space and time combined them together into a four-dimensional universe.

Secondly, the UTR visualises the universe not as mere container of the huge number of parts, but also as a single body, which has its own properties apart from the priorities of its parts. There is therefore a universal time as well apart from the times of individual components. This universal time determines the progress of the existence of the universe.

Relative time too assumes a novel proposition in the Universal Theory of Relativity. Einstein's theory describes time only as dilating with the speed. In the UTR, as the universe rotates, different zones of the universe rotate with different speeds. The zones that are away from the axis rotate much faster than the zones that are nearer to the axis. In the areas closer to the periphery of the universe, the time runs much slower than the areas closer to the axis. It leads to interesting results. Our zone may be in a position, relative to which there are certain zones moving faster and others moving slower. So if somebody is able to somehow reach a zone with higher speed, his age will pass more slowly than on the earth. If he wishes to make sure his attending the wedding of his grandson, he can go to a planet in the faster zone, and after passing a few years there, he may come back. While his own age in that period might have passed only a few years, the age of his grandson, would have increased several fold. It will be possible for him to see events and meet persons, which would not have been possible for him had he continued to live on the earth. He has another option, if he does not want to travel. He may send his grandson to a planet lying in the slower zone for a few years. When he comes back, he would have grown by several years compared to a situation if he had passed all his life on the earth. Christians and Muslims may rest assured that Jesus is living in a place lying somewhere in the faster zone, and at the time of his Second Advent, he will still be young enough to show to the world the light of hope.

It is also interesting to note that the subconscious mind of the human beings experiences time to be moving much more slowly than does the conscious mind. Whenever one wakes after a deep sleep, one is often amazed to see the clock; one finds it difficult to realise that one has slept for so long. This may be explained by the UTR in an interesting way. Our conscious mind is accustomed of seeing objects, which are moving very slowly. The zone of the universe in which our planet moves is rotating at the speed of about 420,000 kms/hr. When we fall asleep or unconscious, our subconscious mind starts experiencing the effects due to the extremely fast speed of our zone. One therefore feels time to be passing at much lesser speed than when one is awake and conscious. The same effect takes over when one is too much engrossed in some activity of one's choice.

### 1.16.1Arrow of Time

The events observed in the universe can be mainly of two categories: reversible and irreversible. Irreversible events are described by what is known as Arrow of Time. This indicates that the time flows in a particular direction. Reversible events are common in the universe, such as the motion of planets around the Sun, changes of season, events observed in Newtonian, Einsteinian and Quantum mechanics. Time is not considered important, as the events can be reversed. Irreversibility on the other hand is a notion, where the time makes the event change only in one direction. If a cup is broken, the cup cannot be brought back to its former position, if the milk is soured, it cannot be reversed to its original taste and transfer of heat cannot be from the cooler to the hotter body. All the chemical reactions are examples of irreversible processes. Similarly, Hubble's Law is considered an example of irreversible processes. There are many types of the arrows of time such as Thermodynamic, Psychological, Social, Biological and cosmological. In Physics, usually three of them are discussed: Thermodynamic Arrow of Time, Psychological Arrow of Time, and Cosmological Arrow of Time.

The larger part of the universe is considered by Thermodynamic Arrow, which is based on the second law of thermodynamics. This means the entropy of the universe always increases with time. There is always an irreversible flow from Order to Chaos. This is considered now to be a fundamental property of the universe.

Psychological Arrow of Time is the one, which makes it possible for us only to remember the past and not the future. This means we cannot know of an event before it has occurred, though we can predict a future event on the basis of the knowledge we have of the past events.

The Cosmological Arrow of Time tells us that the universe is expanding and not contracting. Events of the universe can be understood only in the expanding phase. All celestial objects are going away from each other; and it is because of this property of the universe that life has evolved.

In the UTR, the universe has stopped expanding after the big burst or is expanding slowly, and is at the same time rotating around its axis, which and not the expansion is its chief characteristic. It can therefore be said that the Cosmological Arrow of Time is in fact rotating and not moving in the linear direction. It is this rotation, which in fact makes it possible for events to be reversible and irreversible. All arrows of time are related to the rotating cosmological Arrow of Time. Even irreversible processes show a kind of recycling. For example, the matter keeps circulating in the living bodies. In terms of space-time, nothing is in fact reversible, because if the process is repeated, it can be reversed in appearance but the position of the event relative to the other parts of the universe has changed, due to the various motions.

It can be argued that all the arrows of time have their origin in the cosmological Arrow of Time. As has been stated above, the cosmological Arrow of Time in the UTR is different from the Big Bang physics. In the Big Bang cosmology, the universe is expanding, in the UTR cosmology rotating. How would an expanding universe give rise to a universe in which every body and every group of bodies is rotating? How could in an expanding universe anything other than thermodynamic arrow occur, which only increases Disorder? Disorder is bound to increase, as there is nothing that can help the universe avoid it. In UTR, on the other hand, the on-going entropy will be resisted by the continuous supply of energy that passes through the rotation of the universe from outside to the innermost inhabitants of the universe. Thus the rotating universe gives rise to another arrow of time, which can be called Spiritual Arrow of Time. The universe thus has mainly two arrows of time, one is Cosmological Arrow of Time, and the second is Spiritual Arrow of Time, which are opposite to another. The former is due to the change in position due to the rotation of the universe, and the second is due to the energy supplied through it, which tries to maintain order in the universe at every level. Had the universe not been rotating or starts rotating at a decreasing rate, the disorder will proceed much faster than it is proceeding now, and the entropy would have by now reached a very high level. Furthermore, if the Spiritual Arrow of Time had not been there, the evolution of the conditions for the evolution and survival of living beings would not have been possible. Furthermore, it is the Spiritual Arrow of Time that keeps the living beings survive till the ageing process takes over them, and then when they have died, it recycles the matter into new lives. It is this arrow that allows living beings to reproduce and sustain their species despite the fact that the total matter forming them does never change in amount in the earth. This arrow is also responsible for the social behaviour of man, which is also influenced by Thermodynamic Arrow of Time. The latter tries to bring disorder into human life by trying to mix all things, while the former tries to bring order by distancing the harmful and useful things from one another.

This can be argued that the change in the state and not the reversibility or irreversibility is the fundamental property of universe. Change may be from Order to Disorder and from Disorder to Order. Even the so-called reversible processes represent change because, while with the passage of time, they can appear to have come back to the previous state, the truth is that the state has changed, on the account of the fact that position and time both have changed.

Thus while Thermodynamic Arrow of Time is one of the fundamental properties of the universe, the new Spiritual Arrow of Time will be an even more fundamental property, which impedes the increase in entropy. This is also responsible for the uninterrupted, undiluted and incessant enforcement of the laws of nature and incessant possession of properties like mass and energy by the constituents of the universe.

Another question arises here: did the universe originate from a highly disordered state or highly ordered one. Though, both possibilities have been proposed in the Big Bang theories, the beginning from an ordered state has been stressed as a greater possibility. If the universe had begun at a disordered state, then the entropy, according to the second law of thermodynamics would have increased more or at least remained the same. The present relatively low-entropy state of the universe would then have become incomprehensible. In the UTR, this question again assumes a different status. The creation of the universe with its stages from pre-Burst to post-Burst stage would surely increase the Order and decrease the entropy. But then the entropy started to take over. The order came first and then did the entropy, and not the vice versa.

What requires explanation, is not the movement of the universe towards higher entropy towards an increasingly probable state of disordered state, but why the entropy today is so low, and why the universe is at present in such an unlikely state. It will be worthwhile to quote from "Quantum Physics: The Nodal Theory" by Hector C Parr:

"...... _..We decided that the temporal asymmetry was not due to any of nature's fundamental laws, but rather to the very special state of the universe, at the present time, a state of low entropy, with significant temperature differences and gravitational instability. This state of affairs must ultimately be due to boundary conditions existing immediately after the Big Bang, conditions, which, until we know their underlying reasons, seem highly unexpected. If the universe had started out in what seems to us, a more reasonable state of randomness and disorder, then long ago it would have reached a state of equilibrium, with all the matter condensed into one gigantic mass or black hole, or with everything at the same temperature so that nothing of any significance could ever happen."_

We cannot offer this explanation assuming that energy cannot be created or destroyed. If the entropy has remained low, the UTR presents an easy answer. The world by itself is sure to increase in entropy unless there is a regular process of sustenance. With the universe continuously in an accelerated state owing to its rotation made possible by an uninterrupted supply of energy from outside, there is a process of Sustenance (represented in the UTR by the Spiritual Arrow of Time). This maintains the universe in a low entropy state. While the entropy leads to decay, Sustenance leads to the maintenance and rebirth of the decaying material. It will be worthwhile to also quote from an article by M. Waldrop here. He says:

" _A laser is a self-organising system in which particles of light, photons, can spontaneously group themselves into a single powerful beam that has every photon moving in lockstep. A hurricane is a self-organising system powered by the steady stream of energy coming in from the sun, which drives the winds and draws rainwater from the oceans. A living cell—although much too complicated to analyse mathematically—is a self-organising system that survives by taking in energy in the form of food and excreting energy in the form of heat and waste......._

"The second law asserts that all of nature is on a one-way ticket to disorder and decay. Yet this does not square with the general patterns we observe in nature. The very concept of "entropy," outside the strict limits of thermodynamics, is a problematic one.

"Thoughtful physicists concerned with the workings of thermodynamics realise how disturbing is the question of, as one put it, 'how a purposeless flow of energy can wash life and consciousness into the world.' Compounding the trouble is the slippery notion of entropy, reasonably well defined for thermodynamic purposes in terms of heat and temperature, but devilishly hard to pin down as a measure of disorder. Physicists have trouble enough measuring the degree of order in water, forming crystalline structures in the transition to ice, energy bleeding away all the while. But thermodynamic entropy fails miserably as a measure of the changing degree of form and formlessness in the creation of amino acids, of micro-organisms, of self-reproducing plants and animals, of complex information systems like the brain. Certainly these evolving islands of order must obey the second law. The important laws, the creative laws, lie elsewhere."

It cannot be overemphasised that the UTR will prove to be an important chapter in the book of energy. It will help understand all the intricacies of the natural processes involved in the survival and flow of energy.

## 1.17Quantum Mechanics

Apart from Classical Mechanics and Relativity, Quantum Mechanics is the third important branch of Physics, which has proved most successful in practical terms but equally controversial in the philosophical arena. Quantum Mechanics deal mainly with the matter and radiation at the atomic level. The development of Quantum mechanics has led to several fundamental concepts. The most important of them are:

Discreteness of energy

The wave-particle duality of light and matter, and

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

The spectrum of light emitted from energetic atoms is composed of individual lines of colour. It is not continuous. These individual lines represent the discrete energy levels of the electrons in those excited atoms. When an electron in a high-energy state jumps down to a lower one, the atom emits a photon of light, which corresponds to the exact energy difference of those two levels. Thus energy is not released as continuous emission, but in certain bundles called quanta. When an electron jumps from one higher state to the lower-energy state, a photon is released having the energy equal to the difference between those two states. It is this principle, which has given the name Quantum Mechanics to the study of the atomic particles and radiation. It is also the fact that electrons can only exist in some discrete energy states that prevents them falling in the nucleus.

The second important component of the Quantum mechanics is the duality of electromagnetic radiation. In 1923, Loui De Broglie hypothesised that a material particle could also exhibit wave-like properties. In 1927, Davisson and Germer showed that electrons could behave as waves indeed. On the other hand, light was also exhibiting particle like behaviour. It necessitated the duality of light, which sometimes behaved as wave and sometimes as particle, It was argued that light actually acts as a particle and the wave in fact represents only the probability of finding it at a certain position.

The third important constituent of the QM is the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which states that the position and momentum of a particle cannot be measured simultaneously with precision. This was because, at least one photon was required for measurements, and that photon would change the position and velocity of the particle. If we shorten the wavelength, the measurement of position becomes more precise and that of momentum less precise, and vice versa.

Quantum Mechanics led to huge debates, as it challenged many of the previously held philosophical views. Uncertainty principle was presented as representative of the objective uncertainty of nature. It was advocated that one cannot know the truth of nature, as uncertainty is inherent in nature. This and the wave-function-collapse, the formulation of Bell's inequalities and subsequent evidences that they are violated caused an enormous controversy over determinism. It was argued that Quantum Mechanics proved the indeterministic nature of nature, a position that was aggressively opposed by a number of scientists, led by Einstein. He once wrote to Born,

"The quantum theory provokes in me quite similar sensations as in you. One ought really to be ashamed of the successes, as they are obtained with the help of the Jesuitic rule: 'One hand must not know what the other does.'"

The great debate reached a flash point in Copenhagen Interpretation with Bohr being its chief architect. Describing the basic premises of the Interoperation, Darrell Rowbottom says:

"... _.there are certainly salient characteristic features that most physicists would understand as being 'Copenhagen' in origin:_

It is assumed that the wave-function is a complete description of the quantum mechanical state of an individual system or an ensemble of systems prepared in the same fashion. .....To be more direct, this is a statement that any parameters in addition to the wave-function, which would further specify a quantum mechanical state, are not necessary. Feyerabend agrees, in his description of this interpretation 'A quantum system does not possess any properties over and above those that are derivable from its wave function description.'

Complementarity between particles and waves is introduced; a quantum entity is described as either a particle, or a wave, depending upon the circumstances. ....My favourite definition of 'wave-particle duality', put forward by Tipler, is: 'Everything propagates like a wave and exchanges energy like a particle'. Bohr's definition, however, was not nearly so precise; he made no reference to situations other than interference experiments in his discussions and furthermore, as Jammer notes: 'Bohr never gave a clear-cut explicit definition of the term "complementarity".' It is important to emphasise that Bohr, himself, did not necessarily believe that it was correct to refer to a quantum mechanical entity as being either a wave or a particle, but rather it was the best way to discuss them in terms of established classical concepts: 'The quantum theory is characterised by the acknowledgement of a fundamental limitation in the classical physical ideas when applied to atomic phenomena. The situation thus created is of a peculiar nature, since our interpretation of the experimental material rests essentially on the classical concepts.' ...Nonetheless, it should be noted that the two classical concepts of 'wave' and 'particle', in the sense which complementarity employs them, are considered to be mutually exclusive. But why should we try to explain quantum mechanical entities in terms of just these classical ideas? This is an arbitrary decision, which proves to be restrictive. As Home correctly points out: 'It is... possible to go beyond Bohr's wave particle complementarity by not adhering to classical pictures but still retaining visualisability in terms of wave and particle amenable to an event-by-event realist description.

Any apparent interpretation problems that are based on classical thought are dismissed as being 'wrong'. Squires elucidates, 'If we abandon them then we will have no problems. Thus questions which can only be asked using classical concepts are not permitted.'  
This statement should not be seen to imply that classical physics cannot be considered, in principle, to be a 'special case' of the quantum mechanical theory. No explicit attempt is made to say that the correspondence principle is invalid; thus we are still permitted to expect that the results of quantum mechanics will reduce to those of classical mechanics at a certain parameter limit. The foremost analogy of such a 'classical limit' is the reduction of special relativity to Newtonian Mechanics in the limit of velocities, which are a small fraction of the speed of light, such as those experienced in daily life on Earth.

An anti-realist stance is adopted, and the results of measurements are taken to be the only valid concern in quantum mechanics. In fact, a broader statement is implied, that physical theories should only be concerned with predicting reproducible results that can be empirically tested; this approach mirrors that of the logical positivist 'Vienna Circle', which was very philosophically active in this period. In the words of Bohr: 'The entire quantum formalism is to be considered as a tool for deriving predictions.' ...No direct comment is made regarding the physical reality of fundamental particles, or their properties such as mass, charge, or spin. On the contrary, as Home explains, it is assumed that there is 'no physical reality to dynamic properties (position, velocity, energy) of a quantum system, unless they are measured'.

The act of measurement itself is conveniently ignored; no credible explanation of what constitutes a measurement is included. Bohr himself relied on the explanation that the measuring apparatus was 'classical'... 'The essentially new feature in the analysis of quantum phenomena is... the introduction of a fundamental distinction between the measuring apparatus and the object under investigation. This is a direct consequence of the necessity of accounting for the functions of the measuring instruments in purely classical terms.'

In the Copenhagen Interpretation, it can be argued that Quantum Mechanics is considered completely separate. Copenhagen Interpretation was in fact a work of the ideology of Bohr, who went on to say:

"'There is no quantum world. There is only abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature.'

Einstein was a great opponent of Bohr's ideas. Describing their debate over the issues related to Quantum formalism, Home sums it up:

"Bohr's pragmatist thesis was too anthropocentric for Einstein. Einstein held that the primary aim of physics is to construct theories that "approximate as closely as possible to the truth of physical reality." For Bohr however the main task of physics is to enable us to make sense out of our empirical or perceptual experience. He did not contest that our experience is of an independently existing physical world, but unlike Einstein, Bohr was reconciled to a non-realist and acausal representation of quantum events in terms of a self-consistent, mathematical formalism.' Darell Rowbottom says, "Like it or not, the aggressive tone with which I refer to both Bohr, and his vain 'interpretative' attempt, is unashamedly intentional. The Copenhagen interpretation is not really an 'interpretation' at all, in any meaningful sense of the word. It is simply not acceptable to say 'Do not ask that question', and give no logical reason why the question cannot be asked; this is the behaviour that one would expect of an irate secondary school teacher. Deception and illusion, smoke and mirrors, these are the tools that are employed by the anti-realists in this curious intellectual game. If Bohr and his cohorts truly believed that the purpose of physics is only to gain predictive power, then why bother wasting time in adopting an 'interpretation'? Merely to satisfy the 'ignorant'? Is it not indicative of the dishonest nature of this entire process that, rather than make a clear 'Copenhagen Dictum', which would presumably have stated 'Get on and do the maths', the adherents to this orthodoxy instead entered into a misleading discourse designed to 'comfort' its victims? This wasteful exercise in 'swings and roundabouts' only served to convince scores of intelligent people that it was simply safer to toe the line than it was to question High Priest Bohr, or his flock."

Einstein was disillusioned with Quantum Mechanics, as he did not like the idea of abandoning the Locality, Causality and Determinism. He also tried to support his ideas through an experiment, called EPR Paradox. But the idea of locality was constantly troubling the quantum physics. Bell's theorem, published in 1964, braved a very strong challenge to the locality. Bell proved that the idea of locality was not compatible with the Quantum Mechanics, as there seems to be a faster than light influence on very distant events. Rowbottom says,

" _With the realist approach that I advocate, it should be of no surprise to the reader that I find these results, which are widely accepted as being correct, to be of serious concern. They could be perceived to be an indication that we must abandon not only the concept of locality, but perhaps ultimately determinism or causality, in our pursuit of a description of physical reality. For, furthermore, this type of non-locality is independent of the distance between the particles involved; it implies that a physically real description of quantum entanglement would involve a potentially 'faster than light' connection between the entangled bodies."_

It is clear from the above that Quantum Mechanics produces several problems, two most important of which are that it challenges the concept of locality and that it talks of uncertainty, which like a black cloud shrouds the great concepts of classical physics, causality and determinism.

Let us now try to evaluate the situation after the UTR proposed in this work. The UTR is based on three basic concepts: (1) that light-speed is not the maximum speed present in the universe, and there may be faster modes of the communication of influence; (2) that the universe as one single body (Uniglobe) is also rotating on its axis with speeds in a significantly large zone of the universe much, much greater than that of light; and (3) that the propagation of gravity takes place at a huge speed, in the range of the square of the speed of light.

This theory immediately sets in to have a huge influence on Quantum Mechanics. This instantly slaughters the Bohr's view that classical and quantum mechanics are independent of one another. This is because the extraordinary speed of the rotation of the universe would create a massive impact on the particles inside the atoms in contrast to the slow speeds of the earth or galaxy. The UTR sees the Universe as a single entity apart from the collection of its constituents. Quantum Mechanics can therefore not be separated from the classical one. Both will remain very much parts of the greater picture, which in the UTR comprises four, not three, important constituents: Rotation of the Universe, Classical Mechanics, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. The rotation of the universe will have more pronounced effect on the atomic particles because of the ability of some of them to move very fast, and spin, their miniature sizes and their microscopic orbits. The macroscopic objects, like the earth, have very large size and their deviation (due to the gravitational effects of the Sun) from theirs running along with the rotation of the universe are very slow. But the microscopic particles move very fast, and their directions change extremely rapidly. The fundamental property of the particles to move as fast as possible will not allow them to fall into the nucleus. This effect may be the only reason or the additional one apart from the commonly understood reason, which is the discrete nature of energy that stops electrons from spiralling to the nucleus. This hidden movement of the particles along with the rotation of the universe may be responsible for certain uncertainties. It is possible that when this is worked out in detail, the uncertainty will be found diminishing.

The relationship between the universe as a whole, and its components, with the microscopic world is extremely important, not incomprehensible as some Quantum theorists led by Bohr thought. The universe may be compared with the world with the atoms being the unit houses. The way the social and geographical world is composed of regions, countries, provinces, cities, colonies and houses, the universe of physics consists of the Magagalaxy/s, superclusters, clusters, galaxies, star systems, planets, molecules and atoms. Every component has its own unique system in addition to the one that prevails everywhere. Thus the universe has a federal kind of system. But the universe as a whole retains several significant powers. Atoms and the particles within them cannot be separated or isolated from the universe; they may have their unique system of forces, but they are also influenced by the universal forces like the gravity and electromagnetic radiation. There may be other forces that may not have been explored so far. The rotation of the Uniglobe requires a close connection between all the constituents, which alone can make the rotation of such a huge body possible.

It may shock some readers but I have to say that the universe comprises small particles rather than that the universe is composed of the particles. One may fail to immediately appreciate the difference between the two. But when one ponders it with a little deeper contemplation, one can note the difference. The difference is the same as between saying that "He is their father" and "they are his sons". Both may sound to mean the same, but from a chronological or historical point of view, the former is more correct than the latter, because, he was present before them, and it is he who fathered them, rather than they who chose him as their father. It can be argued though that he too had no authority in choosing his children. But this is another question that belongs to a different field. However, in terms of Quantum Mechanics, it is to be understood that the universe started functioning as an entity before the microscopic world started making its appearance within the universe. Repeating the above-mentioned example, it will be more correct to say that "the children are like the father" rather than that "the father is like the children." The QM is the product of the universe; its particles gained energy and mass and all other properties due to the rotation of the universe; and therefore, the rotation of the Uniglobe has to be taken into account to understand the mysteries of the Quantum world.

The other important question in the QM is that of locality. In the UTR, locality too will acquire a new meaning and status. The UTR says that there can be and there are many influences travelling much faster than light, but instantaneously acting forces are prohibited. We are therefore midway between locality and nonlocality. Nonlocality in terms of the Einstein's theories of Special and General Relativity will have to be abandoned forever in favour of the Universal Superlocality introduced as one of the implications of the UTR. If Einstein's locality breaks down in Quantum mechanics, it is because Einstein's theories put a bar on the highest possible speed of any information, which cannot travel faster than light. There is no such bar in the UTR, which proposes that the speed of gravity is as high as of the order of the square of the speed of light. Thus, the electrons can know about each other almost instantaneously (not absolutely instantaneously) about distant electrons. This would explain the breakdown of locality, but there will be no breakdown of universal superlocality. Locality is a constant thorn in the flesh of QM, and many believe the two are not compatible with each other. Rowbottom says:

"So which of the two remaining options is it that I propose to take? Well, as I have already explained, the successes of the formalism imply that is should be altered only as a last resort; such alterations are, moreover, outside the scope of this dissertation's title. It would seem, then, clear that I should agree with option (b), and 'accept that a realist model of quantum mechanics must be non-local'. Indeed, my conclusion is the same, but with one important proviso." Prof. Home agrees with him, "You are correct in saying that what I meant to imply (perhaps I was not very clear)... is that in order to reconcile with the observed violations of Bell-type inequalities one needs to give up one of the "macroscopic" or "classical" prejudices." Then Rowbottom remarks:

"The choice to abandon locality, which I indeed support, is based upon 'weighing up' the relative advantages of each macroscopic prejudice, respectively, and reaching the conclusion that locality will require the least intuitive effort to sacrifice. Non-locality is also the most appealing choice because of the work which has already been done in this direction, by de Broglie-Bohm."

It is therefore the most feasible option that locality must be abandoned and Superlocality must be introduced so that instantaneous actions do not become possible at any level within the universe. The UTR will thus prove to be a philosophical saviour of Quantum Mechanics. The UTR has made it automatically possible to preserve most of the classical "prejudices" including causality and determinism, and has only given a new status to locality.

It is clear that Bohemian ontological interpretation is much better than the Copenhagen Interpretation. Asserting this position, Rowbottom says,

"I believe that the Bohemian ontological interpretation, combined with environment-induced decoherence, is decidedly superior to the Copenhagen Interpretation. At a small, but necessary cost, namely the sacrifice of locality, we can obtain a real description of quantum mechanics that will serve to satisfy our intuitive needs, and allow us to relate our experience in the macroscopic world to that which occurs in the microscopic domain.

"The other supposed 'price' is the adoption of a 'quantum potential', but I contend that this is entirely acceptable in the circumstances. My 'practical realism' speaks of introducing 'supplementary concepts..., (which) answer more philosophical, and physical, questions than they ask'. In this case, we have managed to retain the objective reality of position and velocity, the principle of determinism, and the principle of causality. As I mentioned, towards the beginning of this dissertation, physicists were willing, for hundreds of years, to accept Newtonian gravity's implied 'action at a distance'; is the 'quantum potential', then, really any different? Is it not possible that this 'apparent problem' will be resolved, in times to come?"

Bohm rightly took the view that the abandonment of causality had been too hasty:

".....it is quite possible that while the quantum theory, and with it the indeterminacy principle, are valid to a very high degree of approximation in a certain domain, they both cease to have relevance in new domains below that in which the current theory is applicable. Thus, the conclusion that there is no deeper level of causally determined motion is just a piece of circular reasoning, since it will follow only if we assume beforehand that no such level exists."

Furthermore, the uncertainty principle implies that a particle can never be at rest, but is subject to constant fluctuations even when no measurement is taking place, and these fluctuations are assumed to have no causes at all. This is clearly understandable in the UTR. The UTR has declared it as the most fundamental property of any particle that it cannot exist at rest, and tries to achieve the maximum speed possible to move along with the rotation of the universe. The particle therefore tries to move out towards the periphery of the universe, and its movements are impeded only by its own weight and the influence of the bodies around it. The influences on the particles in the atom are too great to let it break that barrier in order to travel independently with the rotation of the inverse. But it is free enough to fluctuate inside the atom. These fluctuations are not independent of any external influences as the standard quantum theory believes, but are definitely due to the rotation of the Uniglobe.

Uncertainty Principle says that the position and momentum of a particle cannot be measured simultaneously with precision. For example, there is no guarantee where a positron or electron will be in the orbit or which direction will it adopt if it moves in a straight line. Let us examine some facts:

The Universe is moving as a whole. So the zone in which we lie is also moving with tremendous speed. 420000 kms/sec) in more or less a straight line owing to the vast size of the universe. Now in 24 hours, the earth rotates 360 degree. That means, in one hour, it rotates 15 degree, and in one minute, 1/4 degree. Now if an electron is experimentally moved in one direction, say at 6.00 AM, due to the motion of the universe in a specific direction, it will tend to move in that direction. Now, if the same experiment is performed at 8.00 PM, within two hours the earth is rotated about 30 degree. It means, the direction of the motion of the universe is now 30 degree different from the previous position. So, the electron can now move in a direction about 30 degree away from the previous one. Not only the direction of the electron will keep changing, the direction of photon that would measure it may change a little. In the macroscopic world too, this would happen, but the larger gravitational attraction between the earth and the objects will not let the change be pronounced. Also, the macroscopic objects have much smaller speed than the microscopic particles. Therefore the speed of the zone plus the speed of the macroscopic object will not change much. The speed of the zone plus the speed of the particle on the other hand will cause much larger effects in different directions.

The Quantum Mechanics strengthens the case of the UTR, as it talks of two possibilities, both of which can be explained only by the second postulate of the rotation of the Uniglobe. One of them is Bohm's Implicate Order. Bohm rejects the assumption that wave-function collapse gives the most complete picture, and avoids the notion of the collapse altogether. Bohm's ontological interpretation assumes the existence of real particles, which are complex structures, and are always accompanied by a quantum field. It argues that these particles are not only acted upon by the electromagnetic forces but also by what is called the Quantum Potential. It is this potential that carries the information and provides nonlocal connections. It corresponds to the Implicate Order, which is like a vast ocean of energy on which the physical world is just like a ripple. The Standard Quantum theory, on the other hand, points to a universal quantum field—the quantum vacuum or zero point field--underlying the material world. The energy density of this quantum vacuum is estimated to be about 10-108 J/cm2. The rotation of the Uniglobe will help in better understanding, which of the two seems to be the better approach.

There cannot be a more preposterous logic than that the Quantum Mechanics demonstrates a detachment between the microscopic and the macroscopic worlds. The crossroads where the present physics seems to be stuck at the moment leaves an unmistakable impression that the two are separate indeed. If the Quantum Mechanics were accepted as different from the macroscopic world, it would only mean that our world has two faces; the outer and greater picture is entirely different from the inner and smaller picture. This is like saying that a living being is totally different from its cells. The problems we face today in reconciling the two is basically the result of the philosophically unfounded principle of locality, which has outlived its utility as a genuine limiting principle in the physical world. Light cannot be allowed to adorn divinity, which turns its small speed into an infinite one for all practical purposes. Light-speed barrier is an artificial barrier erected by Einstein's mind. Physicists have unfortunately turned this barrier into a wall that cannot be scaled. This is despite the accumulating evidences at the microscopic as well as the macroscopic level pointing to the brittle nature of the foundation of this wall. To talk of light-speed as the fastest possible speed is as to talk in the tenth century of the speed of the horse being the fastest achievable speed on the earth. Furthermore, the set of laws in the larger world cannot be different from the set of laws governing the inside of its constituents. This is another matter that the significance of different laws assumes different proportions at different levels. The genes functioning within the cells have no parallel in the macroscopic world. But this does not make cells a different world from the world of living beings. Bohm's endeavours to bring in the two closer, is admirable, but he has not succeeded in presenting a plausible ground for his ideas of Quantum Potential and Implicate Order. What brings this Implicate Order into action? The Universal Theory of Relativity will not only make the microscopic and macroscopic worlds as inseparable parts of the same system, but will also give a plausible ground to this organisation. The universe will not remain a passive container where the constituents are fleeing away, as if they are scared of the presence of one another. The constituents and the constituents (microscopic particles) of the constituents (macroscopic structures) will not remain unaware of the properties and characteristics of one another. The Universal theory of Relativity will make everyone indispensable for the gigantic system. They will become inseparable parts of the universe, each of them significantly contributing within its own domain to the overall organisation and functioning of the Great Empire. The Uniglobe will have an axis, the axis that will make it an enviable Kingdom, worthy for all of us to follow in our social world.

## 1.18Determinism

Determinism denotes the world is governed by laws, and the future can be predicted on the basis of events in the past. This means what the world is today had in fact been determined much earlier; to be more precise just when the universe began to make its appearance. Under the assumption of determinism, one might say that _given_ the way things have gone in the past, all future events that will in fact happen are already _destined_ to occur. According to Laplace,

"We ought to regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its antecedent state and as the cause of the state that is to follow. An intelligence knowing all the forces acting in nature at a given instant, as well as the momentary positions of all things in the universe, would be able to comprehend in one single formula the motions of the largest bodies as well as the lightest atoms in the world, provided that its intellect were sufficiently powerful to subject all data to analysis; to it nothing would be uncertain, the future as well as the past would be present to its eyes. The perfection that the human mind has been able to give to astronomy affords but a feeble outline of such intelligence.'

Determinism in Physics has very well established roots. This is one of the major principles of Classical as well as Relativity physics, and is sometimes referred to as one of the classical "prejudices" along with causality and locality. In QM, probabilistic outcomes play a major role, and future events cannot be predicted precisely. However, Bohemian Quantum Mechanics has clearly established that, if locality can be abandoned, QM can become deterministic in nature. Even otherwise, probability should not be viewed as the opposite of determinism. If a certain outcome is more probable than others, it indicates a certain amount of certainty. The outcome is not wholly, at random. If it can be predicted that the probability of finding an electron at a certain place is greater than at other places, it clearly shows a preference. If a formula can be derived to indicate this preference, this must obviously have a reason. If we know the reason, we can become more certain. The Universal Theory of Relativity may help in finding that cause because it has added several new dimensions to the theory of Physics. I am not a mathematician and I don't intend to involve myself into it. But I am confident that the new features of the UTR will help reduce that uncertainty to a remarkably low level. The rotation of the universe has to play an important part in the events occurring at the quantum level also.

Locality and determinism are also dependent on each other because if actions are instantaneous without any time lag in between, it cannot be determined, which caused which. Quantum Mechanics is now regarded as nonlocal. The UTR however makes it possible to preserve determinism by abandoning locality in Einsteinian terms and replacing it with superlocality. The UTR establishes that light speed is only rigid and not constant, and has given a formula for gamma that makes it possible for the matter to travel faster than light. The theory has also postulated that the Universe as a whole (Uniglobe) is rotating on its axis and a huge portion of the universe is rotating with a speed faster than light. Furthermore, according to the theory, gravity has to travel at much higher speeds than that of light to enable the world to continue with its existence. Thus, Quantum Mechanics becomes superlocal rather than nonlocal. The actions in one part of the world would continue to influence the actions in other parts, and the cause and effect will preserve their sanctity. But all these influences will become much faster than the current physics visualises. Determinism will become not only rapid but more meaningful. Because, in the present state of Physics, while the ability of the past events to affect the future is surely very much there, this ability becomes highly restricted on account of the slowness of the speed with which they can influence others. This also means, in reality, it is erroneous to assume that a certain event has happened in the past; for though it may have happened in the past, for practical purposes it will occur in the future for a distantly lying object. For example, what has happened on the Sun one minute before will actually happen for the earth after 7 more minutes.

By putting a bar on the speed of information or influence, which is a very slow speed in the backdrop of a huge universe, Einstein's theories have not strengthened but weakened determinism. What we see as its result is that, soon after the Big Bang, the portions of the universe start distancing from one another, not only in terms of their physical positions nut also on terms of their ability to influence one another. Soon, most of the components of the universe get so far from one another that it requires not minutes, hours, days or weeks but years for them to communicate with one another. There are huge regions, which require not tens or hundreds but thousands, even millions and billions of years to know about their well being. Effectively, it can be said that if light-barrier is real, the universe's collective existence has no meaning at all; for objects only lying in close vicinity are physically capable of influencing one another, positively or negatively. The universe's status then becomes of the ancient human society when men and women belonging only to their village or tribe were in position to interact. The universe at a collective level will then emerge as a very backward organisation, where there is hardly any communication between various regions. This is an awkwardly unceremonious proposition to believe; for the universe then cannot even be called an organisation, as every organisation needs a regular communication between at least most of its members. If the news of the death of a star takes millions of years to reach the other stars who cannot even shed a few tears on the death of their fellows, the life of the universe loses the very foundation of collective existence. This makes Einstein's position ludicrous. On the one hand, he has an unshakeable faith in Determinism and is not ready to accept any theory as a complete theory if it violates it. On the other hand, he makes determinism lame by making it unable to move with a significant speed. As a natural corollary to that the principle of cause and effect lose its raison d'être. Theoretically, we can claim that one event is the cause of another event that preceded it. But practically, we delay the effect by drastically curtailing its velocity. The information or force or influence of any kind from the causing effect will only crawl at the speed of light before it reaches its destination changing it the way it wanted to, or the way the affected object wanted to be changed a long time back. What meaning would then causality have? The picture that emerges is of a universe in which a present event may have been determined a long time back in the path of its history, but hardly by events that lie outside the path of its history. In totality it can be said that the present state of the portions of the universe is only the effect of a tubular past leading to the Big Bang, and it has hardly any effect of what has been happening in the rest part of the history of the universe. There is no time for others to take care of one another, or even say "hello," as this hello will take so much time that it would hardly reach the one for whom it was intended. The world thus becomes totally disorganised and individualistic; it is reduced to a mere container of selfish individuals with no desire or ability to communicate with one another. But is this the real universe, we know? The universe that stares us is far from that disorganised state of affairs. It seems to be well-organised and well-knit unit. Its constituent parts seem to be constantly in touch with one another. They do not appear to be unconscious of one another's presence; they seem to form a universe that seems to be in a perfect state of harmony, a harmony that cannot be there without mutual trust and knowledge of one another's' limitations and capabilities.

Compare this picture of an unsociable type of the universe with the image of the universe that emerges as a result of the application of the Universal Theory of Relativity. Determinism gains enormously in strength in the new theory, for the objects of the universe do not seem to be as far away from one another as in the GTR. The principle of causality is not as meaningless, and of little practical utility, as in the current physics. The distance between different constituents of the universe may still be the same in terms of kilometres. But their proximity is far greater in terms of their ability to communicate with one another; for there is no curb on the speed of information that is exchanged between them. They are not merely dependent on the tortoise of light; they also have the horse of the gravity, which runs hundreds of thousands times faster than the tortoise. And there is no bar on having even faster means of communication. Whether they really have any is a matter of speculation. For any event to affect another event it has not to wait for thousands of thousands of years; it can do the same within months or hundreds of years; even less if there is an unknown faster means of communication. The horizon of the ability to influence within one second increases hundreds of thousands of times, if the gravity is the means of communication; even more if there are other means hitherto unknown. It is not the tubular history of past events that would affect an event at present or in the future, but a more spherical and wider sum of histories. These histories, unlike the case in GTR, will not necessarily go back to 10-35 second just after the Big Bang, but to almost all the areas of the universe. The universe thus becomes a much better organised social and collective unit; it is not just the individuals that matter but the whole world that plays a role in its functioning. The universe is not merely a land having different tribes or villages not connected to the outside world but a globe having a state like system.

It can be said that the causality and determinism in GTR are local, because nothing can be nonlocal; in the UTR they are not nonlocal but superlocal.

There is another remarkable feature that the Universal theory of Relativity presented in this book adds to the causality. Max Born (1949) stated three assumptions that dominated physics until the twentieth century:

"Causality postulates that there are laws by which the occurrence of an entity B of a certain class depends on the occurrence of an entity A of another class, where the word entity means any physical object, phenomenon, situation, or event. A is called the cause, B the effect."

"Antecedence postulates that the cause must be prior to, or at least simultaneous with, the effect."

"Contiguity postulates that cause and effect must be in spatial contact or connected by a chain of intermediate things in contact."

What are laws? Aronson, Harré, and Way (1994) say:

"Laws are invariant relations between properties. We have argued that judgements of verisimilitude are based on similarity comparisons between the type of object referred to by a scientist and the actual type of the corresponding object in nature. The relative verisimilitude of laws can be thought of in the same way, namely as the degree to which the relationships between properties depicted in relevant theories resemble the actual relationships between properties in nature"

In the currently accepted version of Physics, causality the way it is understood has become geriatric. The ultimate cause was the Big Bang event, when the laws were already formed that will determine every single event in the future universe. The laws that hold today are the same laws without any change whatsoever. Despite such an old age, how they are surviving is not known. What causes them to maintain their sublimeness? Why does a law like the second law of thermodynamics not affect the life of the laws themselves? When everything else degenerates or gets recycled or undergoes evolution, why not the laws? If it is these laws that lead to the evolution and then degeneration and/or recycling within the universe, why do they not degenerate themselves? How come they did not undergo a phase of evolution themselves instead of appearing within an extremely minute fraction of the first second? Who made them, and who sustains them?

The UTR changes the whole picture in an entirely novel way. The properties of the matter and the laws governing them did not come into existence at a certain point, and then continued their existence on their own. It was not that God chose the laws at the time of the Big Bang, or laws appeared themselves, and then they would continue to exist as they were forever. The UTR informs that the whole universe rotates around its axis. It is this rotation that causes the universe to continuously exist. The properties and the laws of nature are ultimately all the result of the rotation of the Uniglobe. This position has a very interesting impact on the understanding of causality and determinism. If the present events are being caused by the events in the past, it is not merely due to that fact that the past events were responsible for the present. It is also because the continuing rotation of the universe has made it possible for the laws and the properties to survive between the past and the present. The causality and determinism are therefore continuous; they were not created once at the Big Bang, but are being safeguarded incessantly through the sustenance of the universe by its rotation. So, all causes are unified in one cause, and that one cause is being controlled by an external agency, the most Powerful, Greatest and Wisest God. If the determinism is real, it is on account of the specific properties of the space and time, such as mass (both gravitational and inertial), inertia, energy, etc, and laws such as laws of gravitation, electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. If the matter has mass and energy, and it is governed by certain laws, it is not because these are inherent in the matter or in the universe, or they had been created once in the past to exist forever. On the contrary, it is because they are the effects of the non-stop, smooth, orderly and regular rotation of the universe. Causality is therefore Continuous. As soon as the Final cause, that is the rotation of the universe will stop, at the behest of the Power that regulates it, all the effects will cease to happen. The matter will lose its properties, the laws will no longer be functional and energy will become unavailable. In short, the universe will become dead. Cause and effect will have no existence.

What is happening on the earth is not being resulted from a single cause. It is the combined effect of the numerous causes, and all these causes and effects are ultimately the result of One Cause: the rotation of the Uniglobe.

#  The Ultimate Picture

The landscape of the knowledge of the universe that emerges in the wake of the Universal Theory of Relativity is vastly more picturesque than what we have been enjoying till now. The universe viewed in the light of General Theory of Relativity and Big Bang Cosmology is a passive, clumsily stark looking collection of individual groups of matter. Quantum Mechanics makes it even more shambolic by shrouding it in the dark clouds of uncertainties. The universe itself appears to have hardly any dynamic existence. It seems to be a universe, which was in a highly excited state at the time of Big Bang, but has since then lost its virility; it has willy-nilly bequeathed all its properties to the material that it contains without retaining anything for itself. The sphere of the universe itself continues to expand without anything adding to it except an increasing emptiness in space. It is becoming more and more hollow with the ticking of the clock; its hollowness is making the components of the world strangers to one another with every passing moment of time, because galaxies are falling apart from one another. The distance between all the parts of the universe is growing but the vehicle of communication, that is available to them, is limping with the same old velocity. The space is continuously growing, and growing fast; where it is coming from, nobody knows. The expansion of the universe is not expanding its wealth, resources and means; the communication is getting harder, the overall density is declining and the matter is huddling into ghettos. God has either been banished to a place from where He cannot regulate or control it, or has been converted into a nominal Head of a defunct State soon after the first tiny fraction of the second of the beginning of the creation. Even if He is there, He cannot play any discernible role. There are many, of course, who are not ready to assign anything or any role to God, in the past, present or future, declaring Him to be the creation rather than the creator of the creatures.

The Universal Theory of Relativity rescues the universe from this sorry state of affairs. This theory resuscitates it, as an entity in its own; it is excitingly lively and systematic. Its components are neither selfish individuals who do not want to connect with others, nor ignorant creatures that have no means of knowing about one another. They are individuals, but they also belong to different tiers of organisation, and ultimately they are the active citizens of an active State of Uniglobe, which has a unique King. They are the part and parcel of a fraternity that knows its aims and objectives. The Uniglobe provides them the raison d'être by rotating relative to a preferred frame of reference that surrounds it, and as grateful recipients they are ready to be the denizens of the universe significantly contributing in all its activities.

The chief foundations of the modern Physics comprise the two mutually contradicting theories of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. One argues that there can be no communication faster than that of light, the other vehemently challenges it by apparently enabling particles to communicate at much higher velocity. Nevertheless, Einsteinanism rules. This is despite the fact that Einstein himself accepted that light constancy was logically difficult to explain but empirically proved by experiments. Ironically, in his development of the special and general theories, he depended on empirical facts, but did not accept the same logic in Quantum mechanics, where he insisted on refuting the experimental results on the basis of his idealism, founded on the empirical constancy of light. The question here is: can anything empirical be illogical? Whatever we observe as the results of experiments has to be based on certain laws, and even if our experiments or we differ from what is actual or real there has to be a basis of this difference. There was nothing diabolical with the empirical "constancy" of light-speed. The absurdity is the unexceptionable fascination Einstein developed for light, turning constancy into an absolute dogma that gives light a sheet anchor role. Taking a clue from Scriptures perhaps that often describe God as "Light", he too started believing light as divine. This resulted in his giving a kind of absoluteness to light that was only a prerogative of God. He had developed an unshakeable belief in his heart and mind that nothing can surpass light in attributes. This was evident in his total approach in the development of the infrastructure of physics. He made the light-speed constancy as the foundation stone of the edifice he wanted to construct. This, not his idea of cosmological constant described by him as "my greatest blunder", was in truth his greatest folly. There is no logical reason why a small speed like that of light—small in the backdrop of the gigantic universe—can be accepted as the maximum. It was perhaps his belief in the absoluteness of light that he devised a formula for gamma that had the stamp of divinity for light. It made impossible for anything to travel faster than the electromagnetic wave-particle. It positioned light as the Final Criterion relative to which all speeds would be measured and all the properties of the matter would change. This is also perhaps the reason that he used c2, instead of a numerical constant, in his famous mass-energy equation. Does that not mean that he might have believed everything was created ultimately of light? And as nothing has so far been proved beyond to travel faster than light, no physicist has dared challenge his ideas. The increasing likelihood of the nonlocality of quantum mechanics, the apparent faster than light speeds of quasars, the faster than light initial expansion of the universe—all these evidences have faded before Einstein's thunderous claim. Physicists have simply prostrated before the idol of Einstein.

But, how long? Einstein's dominance on physics continues because there have not emerged alternative ideas that can provide the philosophical basis for a new theory of Physics. The Universal theory of Relativity hopes to initiate filling of that vacuum by providing an alternative philosophical basis to Physics. Its postulates are logically easy to understand, and have experimental evidences to support them. These evidences will grow in quality and quantity when physicists would take a fresh look at the foundations of Physics in the aftermath of the presentation of this theory. The philosophical discussion will enter a new phase, where physics would ultimately stand on the same podium to express its viewpoint on which metaphysics stands. God will be recognised as the True Lord of the Universe, who holds the ultimate reins. The origin of the universe will become a more interesting field of sciences, and the fate of the universe will be debated with a sense of purpose that seems to be currently missing. Knowledge itself will emerge as a new incarnation; it will be better equipped, healthier and stronger.

There are many questions that have to be answered. As the theory of Physics stands today, there is still doubt why the universe does not fallback in the centre because

According to theories of gravity, mutual attraction between the particles would lead to the collapse of all the matter in the centre, and

The Uncertainty Principle leads to the conclusion that even empty space is filled with pairs of virtual particles and antiparticles. These pairs would have an infinite amount of energy and therefore they would have an infinite amount of mass. That will curve the universe to an infinitely small size.

The Universal Theory of Relativity will solve these problems in a very simple way. Its postulates of the rotation of the Uniglobe and the principle that everything seeks to achieve the highest possible speed along with the rotation of the universe better explain why the matter does not collapse in the centre. And in the UTR, there is no admission to infinity; there cannot be infinite energy or infinite curvature of space-time in the centre.

The Universal Theory of Relativity remarkably strengthens the gravity so that it becomes a truly important performer in the affairs of the universe. Physicists have always realised the importance of gravity because of its ability to act at long distances and its unique nature of always being an attractive force. But they have not been convinced about the way in which it functions. Newton thought that gravity acted instantaneously, but Einstein made it paralysed by putting a bar on its speed, which cannot be more than that of light. But, due to its ability to influence the distant objects, Einstein had to take the help of Geometry to let it function without disturbing his self-created barrier of highest speed. The UTR has reactivated the gravity by providing it a faster vehicle to travel. It will now be easier to understand the nature of gravity and the role it plays in the administration of the universe. Geometry may still be required to understand it but faster communication will make it easier to understand it as a force to reckon with.

It will also be noted that, while Einstein talked of relativity, there are no more than a few evidences in the current physics to observe the relativistic changes that his theory visualises. The relativistic speeds are not anywhere seen, except in the expansion of the universe itself in some areas, which is ironically regarded as the speed of the expansion of space and not that of matter; matter is only dragged with the space. Moreover, there seems to be very little practical utility of the relativistic changes in understanding the universe as a whole, as the relativistic effects become pronounced only when the speeds become very close to the light speed. The use of the relativistic changes in understanding the origin of the universe has in fact only further confounded it; it has produced singularities, which like their infinite nature pose infinite problems. The Universal Theory of Relativity, on the other hand, makes relativity an effective player, and without causing the infinite problems of infinities. This is a remarkable achievement indeed. The UTR does not challenge the idea of relativity that Einstein proposed but makes it more plausible by reinterpreting the empirical constancy of light. The Uniglobe is rotating with relativistic speeds, except perhaps in the innermost zones. There are areas where relativistic effects, in accordance with the new gamma rather than that presented by Einstein, must be noticeable. They will be seen as having considerably younger age. The Universal theory of Relativity will make it more understandable why the universe looks isotropic and homogeneous in all directions but not of the same age.

It has to be stressed here that physical laws are only qualitatively not quantitatively identical in all co-ordinate frames all over the universe. The velocity with which a man can throw a ball upwards is different for different planets and moons. The value of gravity keeps changing from one place to the other. The UTR tells us that time is moving with different speeds in different zones of the universe. Even the mass and energy related with particles differ from place to place, depending upon the distance from the axis. Chemical and biological laws may take different forms in different areas. Radioactivity may be lesser in faster moving zones. Elements having higher atomic numbers may form there. Chemistry may be more stable. The nuclear reactions in faster zones would produce more energy than the slower zones.

Dark Energy was a wild idea before but has now become an essential part of the discussion of the structure and function of the universe. Today's cosmologists and physicists are in agreement that almost 70 per cent of the universe are made up of dark energy and 30 per cent of dark matter. This means the observable matter and energy form very little of the universe. Einstein had first given this idea in the form of a cosmological constant. At that time he gave this concept to count for the reason why the matter does not fall back at one place due to gravitational attraction. Omega is the ratio of actual cosmic density to the critical cosmic density. If omega is less than one, the universe will continue to expand forever. If it is more than one, the universe will expand to a point after which it will start contracting. An omega equal to one would keep the universe expanding with the ratio of actual density to critical density staying the same. Another important observation that led to the possibility of the dark energy being present is the fact that the outer portions of the galaxy are rotating as fast as the inner portions. This could be possible only, they inferred, if there is a dark energy present there.

After the presentation of the UTR, we will have to take a fresh look at the concept of the dark energy. A rotating universe with very high speeds especially in the outer regions would be having immense amount of energy. The rotation of the universe is enough to stop the fall of the universe to a single point. It will account for both the dark matter and dark energy present in the universe.

In short, the comparison between the modern understanding of the universe dominated by Einstein's ideas of relativity and Hubble's ideas of an expanding universe and the more vivid comprehension of the universe as the result of the Universal Theory of Relativity will show immensely striking differences. The comparison is based on three main foundations:

First, the current theories take light-speed as constant, and make it impossible for any matter, or influence to travel faster than light. The UTR describes light-speed not as constant but rigid with an inherent stabilising mechanism, making it possible for matter to achieve speeds much beyond that of light. Moreover, the current theories make matter passive mover along with the expanding space. The UTR makes matter dynamic by proposing that each and every particle tries to achieve the highest possible speed, which is opposed by its own weight and surrounding influences.

Second, the current theories talk of an expanding universe, while the UTR talks of a rotating universe. This brings a massive transformation in the understanding of the structure, function, origin and fate of the universe. It changes in fact the whole philosophical edifice of our knowledge. The rotating universe makes the universe a vibrant entity and not mere passive container of matter, space and events. It is not matter, space and events that form the universe; but it is the universe that contains, guides and regulates matter, space and events. This concept imparts a new look to the relativistic concepts, quantum mechanics and philosophical issues like locality, determinism, role of God etc.

Third, the current theories talk of gravity as a slowly moving (only with the speed of light) but long ranging influence; the UTR makes gravity a much faster, smarter and effective force in the overall governance of the universe.

The space too assumes a special significance. The so-called empty space too is rotating along with the Uniglobe. The Big Bang cosmology starts from a singularity, which is a point, and then the space is created; this creation of space continues till now, and will continue forever. But this space is progressively diluting all the properties of the universe and its components. The contradiction here is for all to see. While, neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed -- even natural laws cannot be created or destroyed --, claims the current Physics, space is being continuously created. This leaves us in an aesthetically shabby situation where nothing can be created or destroyed, except the empty space, which is being continuously created, and according to some models (like oscillating universe, closed universe, etc.) can also be destroyed. The universe before its beginning was a single space-less singularity, and the universe now has enormous space with numerous singularities inside it. What a massive gain for space, while nothing else has gained anything! In the UTR cosmology, space was always there, but it was a dead space having no property whatsoever. With the commencement of the rotation of the universe, space too came alive and got fully functional. The rotation of the Uniglobe is not only sustaining the enforcement of natural laws, the existence of matter and energy but also that of the dynamic space.

Similarly, the UTR better explains the incompatibility of Quantum Mechanics with the "prejudices" of Classical Physics by abandoning the concept of the constancy of light in favour of the rigidity of light; this makes speeds beyond that of light possible. It will be interesting here to understand Bohm's ideas of seeing the universe as a whole, for he seems to have come very close to what the theory of Universal Relativity establishes. David Bohm says:

"It is proposed that the widespread and pervasive distinctions between people (race, nation, family, profession, etc., etc.), which are now preventing mankind from working together for the common good, and indeed, even for survival, have one of the key factors of their origin in a kind of thought that treats things as inherently divided, disconnected, and "broken up" into yet smaller constituent parts. Each part is considered to be essentially independent and self-existent. _(Wholeness and the Implicate Order)"_

_David Bohm's position of the wholeness of the universe has been described in an article, captioned "Of David Bohm's Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot. The article says:_

"Bohm began his theory with the troubling concern that the two pillars of modern physics, quantum mechanics and relativity theory, actually contradict each other. This contradiction is not just in minor details but is very fundamental, because quantum mechanics requires reality to be discontinuous, non-causal, and non-local, whereas relativity theory requires reality to be continuous, causal, and local. This discrepancy can be patched up in a few cases using mathematical re-normalisation techniques, but this approach introduces an infinite number of arbitrary features into the theory that, Bohm points out, are reminiscent of the epicycles used to patch up the crumbling theory of Ptolmaic astronomy. Hence, contrary to widespread understanding even among scientists, the new physics is self-contradictory at its foundation and is far from being a finished new model of reality. Bohm was further troubled by the fact that many leading physicists did not pay sufficient attention to this discrepancy. Seeking a resolution of this dilemma, Bohm inquired into what the two contradictory theories of modern physics have in common. What he found was undivided wholeness. Bohm was therefore led to take wholeness very seriously, and, indeed, wholeness became the foundation of his major contributions to physics. According to quantum physics no matter how far apart two quanta's of light (photons) travel, when they are measured they will always be found to have identical angles of polarisation. This suggests that somehow the two photons must be instantaneously communicating with each other so they know which angle of polarisation to agree upon. Eventually, technology became available to actually perform the two-particle experiment, but no one was able to produce conclusive results. Then in 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. There are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science. Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. .... This meant that either Einstein's long-held theory that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light or the two particles are non-locally connected. Because most physicists are opposed to admitting faster-than-light processes into physics, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations. David Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion. Bohm postulates that the ultimate nature of physical reality is not a collection of separate objects (as it appears to us), but rather it is an undivided whole that is in perpetual dynamic flux. For Bohm, the insights of quantum mechanics and relativity theory point to a universe that is undivided and in which all parts merge and unite in one totality. This undivided whole is not static but rather in a constant state of flow and change, a kind of invisible ether from which all things arise and into which all things eventually dissolve."

The UTR has made this wholeness of the universe not just a philosophical conjecture but an established reality. I have great respect for Bohm for his extraordinary insight that was comparable to that of Einstein. But unfortunately, Bohm did not have sufficient time to convert his ideas into a complete theory that would explain everything. More unfortunately, Bohm was closely linked to Einstein who would critique the every chapter of the book he wrote. Instead of building a theoretical basis for his results that proved the nonlocal nature of quantum mechanics, and his idea of the wholeness of the universe, he sat on assiduously submitting these ideas to Einstein's light-speed barrier. This made him think of the universe as a hologram and his quantum potential as an entity that would make the world phantasmic rather than real. The UTR not only confirms that his basic idea of the wholeness was correct in essence, but also establishes the true nature of this wholeness. The theory provides the axis on which this wholeness rotates by concluding that the universe (named Uniglobe in this theory on account of its unified nature) as a whole rotates on its axis. But, unlike Bohm's ideas based on the absence of an objective reality, the unified Order of the UTR is not an illusion or phantasm but a reality. As has been explained at several places in the book and in the beginning of this chapter, the universe after the establishment of the theory of Universal Relativity will transform into Uniglobe, which is a well-established, well-organised, state kind of entity having an unfailing system of governance. Uniglobe comprises the components, not that the components form the Uniglobe. Uniglobe sustains its denizens by arranging provision for all of them, and therefore despite their individual statuses they are also the miniatures of the Uniglobe.

What are the prospects of finding a unified theory of everything. The prospects have been certainly on the rise in the wake of the development of Superstring and M-theories. But still there are lots of unanswered questions. The Universal Theory of Relativity will surely become the gateway for the ultimate unification of the theory of Physics. There are many reasons for this assertion:

First, the UTR raises the status of motion as the most fundamental property of the universe and its components. Mass, energy, inertia, charge and time, and all other properties are the direct result of the motion. If there is no motion, the matter will be dead having no property whatsoever. This is the first important step in the unification.

Second, the rotation of the Uniglobe as a single body makes all the matter and forces a single body having their functional existence due to the collective motion. The rotation of the Uniglobe means different parts of the universe are moving with different speeds, depending upon the distance from the axis. Obviously the circumference perpendicular to the axis is moving with the greatest speed. This speed has to be millions of times the speed of light. On this circumference, therefore, extraordinary energy situations can be visualised that would be enough for the unification of all the four forces of nature, namely gravity, electromagnetic, strong and weak forces. This super fast strip might not have just caused the beginning of the forces in the universe immediately after the universe began to rotate as the first step in the origin of the universe, but must also be having the same nature now. It may be regarded as the Mother of all Forces.

Third, infinities have no place in the UTR. The solution of the problem of infinities by the artificial and dubious mathematical methods like renormalisation is therefore not required in the UTR. The presence of infinities has been the biggest headache in all attempts to unify the forces including the Superstring theories. The fundamental principle that infinities do not exist in the universe, along with the disrobing of light-speed from its infinite status will make things easy for all those who are looking for a unified theory of physics.

Fourth, the presence of Uniglobe as well-organised functional entity will give the universe the unification that no idea or philosophy in the past could give.

Fifth, the Strong Force can be better understood as the effect of the rotation of the universe. It is this force that combines the nucleons together. The immense energy possessed by the nucleons on account of their having a relatively big mass and the extraordinary speed of the universe would make them high-energy particles. Their same size and mass would keep them glued together.

I have to admit that I am primarily a thinker. I happen to be neither a physicist nor a mathematician. I have built the whole edifice of the Universal Theory of Relativity without using but a very little, primary level mathematics. Even in the little mathematics I have used I might have made errors. I hope physicists and mathematicians will now find it much easier to develop formulas and equations on the basis of the scientific and philosophical foundations I have provided. Then the true picture of the unification of the theory of Physics will become abundantly clear. I do hope this would come sooner than later, and we will soon enter a stage in the history of knowledge when all the fields of knowledge will lie within the belly of the mother of all knowledge, Physics.

#  Papers and Books consulted

1. Consciousness, Causality, and Quantum Physics

David Pratt, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 11:1, pp. 69-78,

2. Processes and Causality

John F. Sowa

3. The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

by Ben Best

A Brief History of Time  
SW Hawking

Afterglow of Creation , Marcus Chown Published 1996, by University Science Books

Ancient Light , Alan Lightman , Published 1991, by Harvard University Press

Before the Beginning , Martin Rees

Black Holes - The End of the Universe? , John Taylor, Published 1973, , by Souvenir Press Ltd.

Black Holes and Quasars and other Mysteries , Stan Joinler

Dreams of a Final Theory , Stephen Weinberg

Einstein's Greatest Blunder , Donald Goldsmith ,Published 1995, by Harvard University Press

Relativity, Thermodynamics and Cosmology  
Tolman

The Accidental Universe  
PCW Davis  
Published 1982,

by Cambridge University Press

The Cosmic Blueprint  
Paul Davies  
Published 1987, by Heinemann Books Ltd.

The Exploding Universe  
Nigel Henbest  
Published 1979,

by Marshall Caverdish Books Ltd.

The First Three Minutes  
Stephen Weinberg  
Published 1977,

by Andre Deutsch Ltd.

The Last Three Minutes  
Paul Davies  
Published 1994,

by The Guernsey Press Company

The Nature of Space and Time  
S Hawking and R Penrose  
Published 1996,

by Princeton University Press.

The Runaway Universe  
Paul Davies  
Published 1978,

by Biddles Ltd.

A Realist Philosophy of Science,

Jerrold L. Aronson, (1984) ,

St. Martin's Press, New York.

Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance,

Max Born (1949)

Dover Publications, New York.

"Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper,"

by Albert Einstein (1905) translated as "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies," in A. Einstein, H. A. Lorentz, H. Weyl, & H. Minkowski, The Principle of Relativity, Dover Publications, New York.

"Causation and nonmonotonic temporal reasoning,"

Peter Grünwald, (1997) in G. Brewka et al., KI-97:

"Causation," Kim, Jaegwon (1995) in R. Audi, ed.,

The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy,

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Second edition, 1999, pp. 125-127.

Morphology of galaxies: An overview

by R. Buta  
Department of Physics & Astronomy, University of Alabama, USA

"A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae"

by E Hubble, 1929.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 15:168-173.

Black Holes and Baby Universes

by S. Hawking, 1994.

Bantam Books, New York,

Creation and Time

by H. Ross, 1994.

NavPress, Colorado Springs

"Origin of the Universe as a Quantum Tunneling Event"

by D Atkatz., and H Pagels (1982),

Physical Review D 25: 2065-2073.

"Singularities in Homogenous World Models"

by S. W Hawking and R. Penrose (1965),

Physical Letters 17: 246-247.

"Gravitational Collapse and Space-Time Singularities"

by, R. Penrose (1965)

Physical Review Letters 14: 57-59.

"The uncaused Beginning of the Universe"

by Quentin Smith

**"The Anthropic Cosmological Principle"**   
Author(s): **John D. Barrow** & **Frank J. Tipler**   
Publisher: Oxford Univ. Press

_Of David Bohm's Holographic Universe_

_by Michael Talbot, Internet_

The Hubble Law

By Don B. De Young

(Gospelcom Net)

