 
# Book Title

Universal ECHO Theory

(Infinity to the Power of Infinity)

A Metaphysical Theory of Existence

Written By

Alan Crossley

Text copyright © 2017 Alan Crossley

All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be copied, reproduced in any format, by any means, electronic or otherwise, without prior consent from the copyright owner and publisher of this book.

### Smashwords Edition

# Contents Page

Introduction

Preface

Chapter One

Chapter Two

Chapter Three

Chapter Four

Chapter Five

Chapter Six

Epilogue

#  Introduction

The nature and meaning of existence has been the greatest mystery since the dawn of humankind's ability to contemplate their surrounding perception of the universe, a universe which has grown exponentially in the collective consciousness since the advent of modern science and technology. Yet still there is not a definitive solution and many, therefore, are compelled to resort to the belief in a God creator; however, a mere knowledge of the existence of such a God cannot in itself provide an absolute conclusion to the fundamental questions of how and why. Ultimately, it is irrelevant whether or not there is a mediator to our existence; the real question is: what is existence?

Physics demands mathematical equations to explain the meaning and nature of the universe, but all physics is born of philosophical ideology, neither of which need be discernibly logical in order to make a workable theory – in fact, physics is evolving in increasingly counterintuitive directions. Of course, formularising physics is essential to its practical application, which is the principle purpose of all science, but for the non-mathematical geniuses who constitute the majority of the human race, it is necessary to depend upon philosophical conceptualisation as a means to achieving some comprehension of the universal questions. Such is the motivation for this humble tome, in which a journey of understanding through a maze of confusion and incomprehensibility will eventually, I sincerely hope, provide guidance into an intelligible insight of the mystical meaning of existence itself.

Be warned: the "revelations" that I present will not bring comfort, but nor will they bring despair. Hope will not be eternally shattered, just rendered pointless. Your life will not, and should not, be changed. But perhaps, some sense of liberation through enlightenment may be possible.

ECHO = Equilibrium of Chaos & Harmonious Order

I was first inspired to contemplate the nature of existence while attending an A' level physics lesson in 1980. The teacher was a substitute and not familiar with the coursework. Consequently, the lesson became a rather impromptu ramble; interesting, but mostly irrelevant to our primary purpose. This prompted one particularly annoying fellow pupil (of the nerd variety) to field an entirely superfluous and completely random question. I cannot recall the scope of the issue raised, but this lead the tutor to engage in an extremely abstract discussion which concluded with a simple, yet strangely thought provoking premise, to wit that light cannot exist without dark and equally, that matter cannot exist without space. This caused some consternation amongst the majority of the class, who were of the opinion that such philosophical musings were of no value to the objective of passing A' level physics – the discussion was abruptly curtailed and the tutor returned to more classical considerations of the subject.

Thus the metaphysical seed was sown in my mind. On the face of it, a remarkably obvious and simplistic precept, but I realised at that moment that there could be profound conclusions to be deduced from the contemplation of the source of existence. The belief that matter was created from nothing has prevailed through religion and science alike, but neither has been able to explain how. Whether one contends it to be the power of nature or of God, doesn't enlighten us to the mechanism by which this logically inexplicable event occurs. After pondering this and many other related aspects of the fundamental physics of the universe for over 30 years, I believe I have arrived at some enlightened solutions to the primordial questions of "life, the universe and everything".

This book represents a philosophy of existence; it is not a scientific dissertation and there are no mathematical equations – except for one incredibly simple one. In that sense it is not a conclusive thesis, but an infrastructure upon which (perhaps) others can construct a concrete theory. However, I believe it is essentially a complete hypothesis, which I hope can provoke a sense of closure. Though for some it will undoubtedly raise as many questions as it attempts to resolve and may challenge many generally accepted assertions of modern physics, it is also completely complementary to much of current thinking in relation to the understanding of the many phenomena associated with such intangibles as time, gravity and the meaning of life. Sometimes the differences to accepted thinking which I am proposing are quite subtle and yet can have very far reaching consequences, while some ideas are not entirely new, just approached from a unique angle and thus promoting some new somewhat surprising directions of reasoning. In entirety, my postulations represent emancipation from the constraints of the currently entrenched ever-decreasing circles of opinion that surround fundamental physics. I am daring to suggest the taking of a deviation from the increasingly pot-holed road of conventional thought, to take a small trip across country and circumvent the congestion of established prevarication. Infinity to the power of infinity is mathematically meaningless, but by the end of this book this concept will make perfect sense.

# Preface:

# A note from the author

May I apologise in advance for any difficulty you may have in understanding some of my ideas: these are difficult (and often quite abstract) concepts to have to convey within the limitations of existing vocabulary. A certain basic level of scientific knowledge is required in order to comprehend much of this book – but not all. On the other hand, readers with advanced levels of scientific understanding may find some elements of this book too simplistic and/or quite possibly opposed to their entire mindset and consequently prejudiced towards much of the content. Whatever your issue with any of the given material may be, please don't be dissuaded from continuing with the rest of the book. Although I am attempting to proffer a more or less complete philosophical theory, many of the ideas in the book do stand-up completely independently of some or all of the others. My hope is that I have provided at least some food for thought for everybody, regardless of any potential vexation or incomprehension that some elements may cause to a given individual. So, please persevere to the bitter end and remember that most of that which is presented here are just hypotheses and not necessarily fact – and there is no intention to suggest otherwise. I also openly admit that many pre-existing ideas have been incorporated into my overall theory: it is the whole that constitutes a novel philosophy.

Some of the scientific material given in this book may be disputed by mainstream doctrine and should not be regarded as verbatim fact. Readers with expert scientific knowledge should not read on, unless they have a very open mind to the subject matter and are prepared to overlook minor factual inaccuracies, while being willing to consider highly imaginative ideas. Other readers are advised and encouraged to seek reputable established literary sources of scientific wisdom to broaden their understanding of basic physics and chemistry – this book is not and does not purport to be entirely "scientifically" accurate. The author does not claim to be an expert in any scientific field.

In this version of my book I have attempted to address certain apparent "factual" anomalies and discuss a number of scientific developments in relation to my theories. These musings can be found in the extended Epilogue.

Alan Crossley

# Chapter One

# In the Beginning

In order to understand ECHO theory, we must start at the beginning. This unfortunately does involve an equation, but it is an essential one. Any theory of existence has first to explain how something can arise from nothing and then justify the why. In this chapter I will attempt to provide a complete and definitive hypothesis to reveal the very nature of existence.

+X + -X <=> 0 [an equilibrium equation] is a philosophical formula, rather than a bona fide mathematical equation. Mathematically, it is essentially meaningless [i.e. x – x = 0], but philosophically it means everything – quite literally!

This starts to make more sense when 'X' is substituted with the primordial particle symbol 'S', as follows:

+S + -S <=> 0

Where +S can be thought of as the primordial particle and -S can be thought of as the primordial anti-particle. Space is represented by the 0. Therefore +S combines with [annihilates] -S resulting in nothing [space]. But we can also look at this equation from the reverse perspective, i.e. that space can give rise to two particles which when combined revert back to space. So, nothing can give rise to two things. In conventional particle creation theory +S and -S are different particles – almost identical, but with opposite charge. The fundamental problem with this idea is how to account for the proliferation of particles with elimination of most (or all) of the anti-particles. Various theories have been posited, but all suffer from an inherent illogicality, i.e. that the particle and its anti-particle are not exactly "identical". Although it would be anomalous to some aspects of ECHO theory to insist that this is impossible, it is a far less elegant an idea. ECHO theory postulates that +S and -S are symmetrical particles which diverge on opposite paths of existence, and which, unless their paths are changed, will only meet at infinity – at which point they would annihilate. In ECHO theory, +S and -S can be thought of as mirror-particles (or achiral-particles); exact reflections of each other: a single particle S, which is effectively its own anti-particle. This constitutes the base particle of all matter, (with the possible exceptions of the photon, neutrino and electron). In fact, ECHO theory implies that anti-matter (as it is conventionally perceived) does not exist; rather, matter that is currently interpreted as anti-matter, is in fact chiral-matter: superficially identical, but non-superposable; or to put it another way: identical in its base configuration, but asymmetrical in structure. It is this that gives rise to (apparent) opposite charges [and possibly the peculiar phenomenon of particle spin]. The only true anti-particle is the pre-primordial particle, which is its own anti-particle. All "tangible" matter is constructed from S particles and any two particles can partially annihilate, such that each is its own anti-particle and potentially an anti-particle to any other – this is a slightly different concept to the "anti-particle" in conventional physics. Nonetheless, the reason why there appear to be few naturally occurring "anti-particles" in comparison with the overwhelming majority of "normal" matter, does still require an explanation, even given the chiral model. However, the chiral model does allow ECHO theory to offer a more reasonable (albeit very similar) solution to the conventional ones, which will be made evident further on; it also eventually suggests a new interpretation of what electric charge is, which (perhaps shockingly) implies that the nature of this force has previously been entirely misconceived and that electric charge does not really exist in the conventional sense – this is one of the more radical concepts posited by the theory.

Now that a basic mechanism for the creation of matter from nothing has been established, the next step in the journey is to comprehend precisely how and why this occurs. The how is a great deal more satisfactory than the why, so we will start there. Firstly we need to describe the character of the S particle, which it would be more meaningful to represent as ±S. However, in the context of the primordial particle ± does not refer to apparent electric charge per se, but to potential existential opposites, the meaning of which will become clearer in due course. The primordial particle is the simplest possible "tangible" particle that can exist and therefore is 2-dimensional. We can think of it as a line of force projecting across an infinitesimal-thin layer in a specific spatial plane. Of course, in the human 3-dimension spatial mind the existence of a 2-dimensional thing is an absurdity. Yet space is either dimensionless or infinitely dimensional, an equally incomprehensible concept, but one that cannot be denied. In conclusion, it is necessary to accept the existence of the 2-dimensional primordial particle in order to progress the theory of something from nothing. Any idea that the primordial particle must have three spatial dimensions presupposes the constraint on nature that only that which we can conceptualize in our minds as real can exist. Clearly phenomena such as gravity defy such a criterion, anyway, so there is no good reason not to conceive the existence of a 2-dimensional particle. So, therefore, by the same rationale we can conceive of a 1-dimensional particle, which we can think of as line of force acting on an infinitesimal point in a specific plane. This is the pre-primordial particle. The reason for skipping this stage in matter creation theory is because it is impossible to visualise a 1-dimensional particle, even in a virtual sense. However, the mechanism by which the 1-dimensional particles interact to form the 2-dimensional particles is exactly the same as that which is proposed for the formation of 3-dimensional particles from 2-dimensional ones. Until we reach 2-dimensions, there is no perceivable form with which to construct particle activity – if one draws a simple line, it immediately takes a 2-dimensional form, because otherwise it would be invisible and it is obviously impossible to apply any physical characteristics to something which is invisible.

Let us imagine a line of force [or "wave"] of finite length and which acts across a finite width of space; this creates an area over which the force exists and thus produces a string-like particle – however, any similarity to conventional string-theory is entirely unintentional. This force-particle [or "wave"] acts in a given direction. In order to satisfy the creation equilibrium equation given above requires the simultaneous creation of an "equal and opposite" particle – thus conforming to basic Newtonian law. Consequently, two identical particles are created, but which act in opposite directions; the overall balance, however, is still zero. In a sense, these particles exist and yet they do not. In terms of the pre-primordial particle, this is doubly true as they also exist without any discernible form. This paradox of existence is an important concept which underpins some profound elements of ECHO theory. These two particles then propagate through space at finite intervals of time by effectively polarising the space ahead and momentarily creating a virtual particle of opposite force; this in turn polarises the space ahead of it regenerating the particle at a finite distance from its previous position, that distance being twice its finite length [the distance from wave front to wave front]; it is (in effect) a wave transition. It then ceases to exist in its previous location having been cancelled out [or annihilated] by the virtual particle that was generated in its path, which is also annihilated. This wave like propagation will then continue ad infinitum, unless and until acting upon or acted upon by another particle. The result of this could (rarely) be annihilation, but more probably would be the creation of a larger particle, due to a fundamental quantum entanglement process, whereby the two particles become existentially linked, their nature and motion becoming a combination of the two. Such a particle could possibly be 2-dimensional, but more probably would be at least effectively 3-dimensional in its nature. For such a process to occur on any significant scale would require the instantaneous and simultaneous creation of a vast number of primordial particles in a vast array of different orientations, but all exactly in phase in terms of their existential time interval while contained within a relatively small volume of space. At the point the universe came into existence (or just before), this process would have had to have occurred on an unprecedented scale, a scale beyond human comprehension, which would have subtended to infinity. Once this process began, a chain-reaction of innumerable further interactions, combinations and annihilations would have been inevitable, leading to the creation of all the matter in the universe in a few infinitesimal moments immediately prior to the Big Bang. The distribution curve of the different particles that were created was a random one and not necessarily a perfect one. Probability would allow any possible distribution to have occurred, from one extreme to the other and anything in between. This may be the explanation for the apparent imbalance between conventional matter and anti-matter or, the various chiral forms of matter allowed by ECHO theory. It would seem that our universe contains a somewhat uneven [skewed] distribution at one of the extreme ends of what is possible. This could be viewed as rather convenient, but can also be viewed as necessary in order for our universe to exist in the form that it does; were the distribution different, then our universe would likely be very different too, or perhaps impossible. One could speculate endlessly about what kind of universes might or might not be possible, but what is certain is that our universe exists as it does because of the creation distribution curve that it has.

We have established that the formation of a pre-primordial or a primordial particle is a spontaneous random event. Science has already discovered the existence of zero-point energy and that even the smallest volumes of space have the potential to generate an infinite amount of energy, so it would seem that the creation of (at least) pre-primordial particles is an ongoing process. That being the case, then something must have been happening that was slightly different at the moment the universe came into existence during and/or following the Big Bang – or indeed, just before! This is where we must enter the world of statistics – though thankfully only in the simplest of terms. Spontaneity by nature is random and therefore conforms to the "laws" of probability. As stated above, the quantitative distribution of particle varieties is an entirely random process giving rise to a state of chaos, irrespective of any apparent order. For this reason we do not need to explain why some particle structures formed while others did not or why there are varying ratios of different particles. This is simply how it is, so we only need to examine the structure of the particles that we know do exist and not concern ourselves with why it should be that way. But why does matter exist at all and why should this process ever occur? The only answer to this question can be: why not? It is, superficially at least, a very unsatisfactory answer. What this comes back to is probability. What is the probability that anything should exist? Clearly, it is not impossible.

It is at this point that I found solace in a brilliantly funny work of science-fiction. I refer to Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. This book contains many ingenious concepts, but the one that always stuck in my mind was the infinite-improbability drive. Or, more specifically, infinite-improbability itself: a condition of probability which is to all intents and purposes impossible, but not quite. This is the answer to "why?" Let us consider a state in which there is no matter, just empty space – nothing. The creation equilibrium equation asserts that there is ultimately no difference between nothing and space that contains matter, because there must always be a perfect balance in which its entirety amounts to nothing. The reason (or chance) that any matter will exist is purely a question of probability. So empty space has a probability that matter will spontaneously come into existence and that probability is an infinite-improbability. Now we begin the journey into the world of infinities: empty space must be infinite and relative time is also (effectively) infinite; given an infinite amount of time and an infinitude in which any event could potentially occur, the infinitely-improbable becomes infinitely-probable, or put another way: almost certain. The inference from this is that spontaneous creation is, in effect, a certainty. But that much is obvious – after all, we are here, are we not?

Having now established a mechanism and a rationale whereby the particular combination of matter that exists in our universe is both justified and explainable, we can tackle the issue of what precisely is the nature of that matter. Firstly, all matter is constructed from the ±S particle. This particle has two spatial dimensions but, there are more than two spatial dimensions; in fact, ECHO theory postulates that there are more than three spatial dimensions and specifically, that there are four [however, more may be possible and indeed, necessary in order to explain the nature of all matter]. Assuming that there are four spatial dimensions, this means that six chiral forms of the ±S particle are possible, i.e. if we represent each spatial dimension by the letters w, x, y and z then the six different forms can be given as ±Swx, ±Swy, ±Swz, ±Sxy, ±Sxz & ±Syz. Interestingly, this is the same number of quarks that conventional physics has determined to exist. Moreover, because each S type can be + or -, the total is twelve – again matching conventional physics. I should say at this point that this correspondence is purely coincidental and was not contrived this way. However, the comparison is compelling and, I would suggest, not insignificant; but, in this model ± does not correspond to charge (in the conventional sense) and two +particles or two -particles have the potential (hypothetically) to annihilate each other, as well as a combination of a +particle and a -particle. In summary, what this all means is that there are twelve building bricks from which all particles are constructed – that allows for a considerable number of potential combinations: including the twelve individual particles, the total is 4997. Of course, this omits the possibility that individual ±S could also combine, or any combinations thereof; in fact, theoretically, the permutations are endless. Logically, some combinations are more likely than others, e.g. a combination of two would seem more likely than a combination of twelve; moreover, some combinations would probably require the formation of smaller multiple units prior to their subsequent combination into larger units, which probably would result in a greater number of smaller units being created compared to the larger ones, i.e. a statistical distribution. As before, though, this distribution would not necessarily be a perfect one and could be skewed in an almost infinite number of ways. So, again, the reason that the universe contains the specific set of particles that it does, is just down to random chance; and only in a Big Bang-like scenario could complex particles come into existence in any substantial quantities; so although primordial particles may continue to be created after the universe formed, it is unlikely anything more complex will continue to form – at least, to any notable extent; and that certainly seems to be the case. Moreover, it is probable that the majority of activity observed as zero-point energy is due to the continued creation of pre-primordial particles, rather than ±S particles; despite its indiscernibility, there may be considerable effects that have relevance to some of the more bizarre physics phenomena that apply to our universe [more on this later].

It would be a truly gargantuan task to speculate as to all of the possible particles that could exist and an ultimately futile one. It is far more productive to focus upon those which are known to exist and speculate on those that might make more sense of the known and/or observable models – hence the search for the Higgs-boson. Interestingly though, the discovery of the Higgs-boson, (once heralded as the holy grail of physics,) does not appear to have brought closure to our understanding of particle nature or enabled an absolute theory of existence. Clearly there are still missing pieces to the puzzle and, perhaps, some flaw in the conventional thinking. Admittedly, ECHO theory is also not a definitive theory and there are plenty of areas which require further research, both experimental and mathematical. ECHO theory is therefore a philosophical framework intended to direct and inspire some measure of deviation from the somewhat entrenched thinking that has been prevalent for some decades in the field of fundamental physics. Sometimes science needs a nudge in a slightly different direction in order for significant progress to emerge. Therefore, in approaching the issue of the structure of known matter, i.e. the photon, neutrino, electron, proton, neutron and the various other exotic particles, ECHO theory does not offer any finite answers, but proffers some general ideas, the inspiration for which are mainly drawn from macro-nature, biology and chemistry. There is every reason to believe that patterns of structure are repeated through the micro-world into the macro-world, thus providing a glimpse into the sub-atomic. This principle is an underlying precept of ECHO theory, hence the acronym, which deliberately infers the existence of a repeating "plan" that permeates the entire universe at every level. Unfortunately, this is anything but simple or straightforward; rather it is a highly variable and abstract correlation which can require some stretch of the imagination in order to discern any sense from it. To put this into context, take the following set of examples: male/female, right/left, black/white, in/out and positive/negative. Many aspects of nature can be equated in these types of simple analogies; of course, in reality things are often a great deal more complex than they appear on the surface and when the details are revealed, there may be more differences than similarities. Nonetheless, what can be discerned are natural themes: basic correspondences that seem to echo through all levels of the physical world [more on this later].

The photon, electron and neutrino are believed to be absolute particles which are not divisible into any smaller units; experimental observation appears to support that tenant. This is also the case with the quark. ECHO theory postulates that all matter is constructed from a group of twelve primordial particles, so it may be that the quark and the proposed ±S particle are one and the same; however, even if it should transpire that there are more basic particles than even the quark, this does not undermine ECHO theory – the correspondence may be purely incidental. It is not going to be possible (without experimental research) to determine the precise construct of any given fundamental particle, therefore, what follows are suggestions, which even if incorrect – according to the theory – will likely be characteristic of the actual particles and possible sub-particles. As already established, the ±S particle isn't the absolute base particle: that honour falls to the pre-primordial particle; but as this is almost certainly undetectable, the ±S particle will at least appear to be indivisible. Consequently, ECHO theory agrees with current belief within conventional physics, if we assume that the ±S particle and the quark are indeed the same particle. However, where ECHO theory differs is in regard to all other particles: photons, electrons and neutrino are not indivisible, but must be composites of different ±S particles. The proton and neutron (and the other known particles) are more complex structures, not merely clumps of a few quarks as conventional physics would have it. That said: the idea that protons (for example) are probably a blend of three quarks is based on experimental results from particle accelerators. ECHO theory therefore challenges this interpretation and as a result, also challenges the current understanding of the relationship between the proton and electron and the true architecture of the atom.

# Chapter Two

# Something and Nothing

The electron is the particle that gives rise to chemistry and consequently all of the chemical/ biological activity in the observable universe – the ultimate result of which is life. Inside stars, electrons cannot reside as free particles, as the temperatures are too high; therefore, only nuclear reactions can occur inside stars: these interactions are responsible for the generation of a star's heat/light and drive a perpetual chain-reaction. However, electrons are bound-up inside neutrons, which appear to be a combination of a proton and an electron: hence, the existence of the electron is critical to both chemical and nuclear reactions.

It had always seemed very peculiar to me that the electron is so very much smaller than the proton and yet they have equal (albeit opposite) charge. Explaining this apparent anomaly (I believe) is central to initiating the formulation of a viable theory of matter beyond the primordial level, while remaining logically consistent with it. But first we must establish the "true" nature of the electron. Based on the fact that experiment has demonstrated that the electron does not seem to be divisible, that it is extremely small and has little mass, it is reasonable to assume that it is a "simple" particle, with few constituent components. It also manifests some behaviour comparable with the photon (i.e. electromagnetic radiation). The photon exhibits both wave and particle properties simultaneously, has no measurable mass or charge and its size is determined by its wave properties, rather than having a discernible diameter. The photon is equally fundamental to both chemical and nuclear reactions and provides the primary energy conveying medium within the universe. Logically, the photon would be expected to be a simpler particle than the electron, but the structure is likely to be only subtly different, unlike the larger particles, such as the proton. The neutrino is something of an enigma, like the photon it has no measurable mass or charge and is even less tangible than the photon, passing through matter essentially unnoticed and rarely interacting – it is somewhat phantom-like. The neutrino also appears (at least theoretically) to exist in six different forms, which include the "anti-particles". It should also be mentioned that the electron belongs to small sub-group of particles, known as the leptons, which includes the muon and tau particles – these particles only exist for tiny fractions of a second inside particle accelerators, but are also present among (or derived from) cosmic radiation. There is another sub-group called the bosons and such oddities as the gluon, pion and kaon. Fundamental particles also exhibit some rather odd properties known as spin, isospin and parity (among others): these will not be examined in any further detail, but I believe that particle-chirality effects can provide the best explanation for them. What also appears to be evident is that the photon, electron and neutrino are stable and do not decay under "normal" conditions – another indication of simplicity of structure. ECHO theory agrees that these are primordial particles – but not ±S particles. Therefore, these must be constructed from pre-primordial particles.

At this stage we need to return to the beginning and the pre-primordial particle: the 1-dimensional particle. ECHO theory asserts that the universe has 4-spatial dimensions, which gives rise to four pre-primordial particles. Using the symbol ʘ to denote this particle and the letters w, x, y and z to indicate the four different spatial dimensions, we can represent the four particles as follows: ʘw, ʘx, ʘy & ʘz. These four particles are their own anti-particle and exist on completely independent spatial planes – they cannot annihilate each other, only themselves. Given the indiscernibility of both the ʘ and S particles, it should be realised that annihilation cannot occur randomly (except rarely) under "normal conditions", otherwise the universe would probably not exist. For these particles to line up precisely enough to facilitate annihilation would be akin to trying to thread the eye of a needle from a billion light-years away with only the aid of the human eye - tricky! In other words, the probability that it will happen is miniscule; that is unless the density of particles is so great that the probability is sufficiently decreased for it to occur on a measurable level.

In this model: x, y and z denote the three spatial dimensions that we are familiar with, while w denotes the 4th spatial dimension [sometimes referred to as hyper-space]. ECHO theory further asserts that each spatial dimension exhibits a force which are experienced as gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear and the weak nuclear, i.e. the four fundamental forces – a possible fifth force will be discussed later – and that it is the w-dimension that is perceived as gravity. The precise strength and nature of these forces is, as postulated for many of the properties of existence, is purely a matter of probability – so we have to simply accept that this is how it is. However, force strength may also be affected by particle configuration and be exhibited differently in varying environments.

It is not necessary to specifically assign the relevant forces to all of the pre-primordial particles, as it is not the intention to attempt to provide a definitive structure for any given particle beyond the ±S particles. As far as ʘx, ʘy and ʘz are concerned, it is only within the scope of the theory to accept that they represent the remaining three fundamental forces between them. As will become evident, the w-dimension is critical in explaining certain phenomena which otherwise defy any truly satisfactory explanation. The precept that one of the ʘ particles is responsible for electromagnetic force and, therefore, particle charge but, that electric charge is a subtly different entity, is a critical element of the theory in that it leads to a new explanation of the atomic structure. One issue on which ECHO theory does agree with conventional thinking, though, is that all the forces converge at the zero-point.

The photon is posited to be an indivisible 3-dimensional particle, i.e. that it is constructed from three types of ʘ particle. Critically, this excludes the ʘ particle responsible for charge [which for this exercise we can assign the symbol ʘz] and includes the ʘw particle. Consequently, the photon is a unique particle, which is its own "anti-particle". This implies that the photon does have mass, but this will be the smallest amount of mass possible and may be immeasurable. Theoretically, of course, there are three possible particles which could have the w-dimension, but only the photon is charge-neutral, while the other two will have charge and consequently opposite chiral versions. The photon's chiral version is indistinguishable. Whether or not either of the other two 3-d particles exist in nature is unknown, but either the creation-distribution is heavily skewed to the photon and/or the properties of these particles has resulted in them clumping together – possibly as dark energy. How the photon would have formed is open to two possibilities: either, it was a spontaneous formation of the three relevant ʘ particles, or a subsequent interaction of some S particles and the relevant free ʘ particles – or possibly, both. However, once formed it is stable and therefore an absolute particle. Its wave nature being a consequence of both the inherent behaviour of all matter and that, from the human perspective, it appears to be 2-dimensional and rotates about the w-dimension's existential plane. Its particle nature arises from the fact that it has 3-spatial dimensions even though one of those is beyond our direct perception. This will later be shown to explain certain seemingly bizarre behaviour exhibited by light.

The electron is posited to be the simplest (and the only absolute) 4-dimensional particle. Obviously, therefore, it is constructed from all four ʘ particles and so no other 4-d particles are possible, other than the chiral version (or "anti-particle"), commonly known as the positron. To clarify the concept, charge is posited as not being positive or negative: charge is charge, a single force; the apparent difference of behaviour in a magnetic field which is interpreted to be opposite forms of charge is the consequence of particle-chirality – magnetism is also chiral in nature – [as the electron is 4-dimensional, it is not possible to visualise this type of chirality]. Like the photon (and all particles which have the ʘw, the electron rotates about the w-dimension's existential plane. The electron could have formed in several ways: a 3-d particle combining with a ʘ particle; the combination of two S particles, or a spontaneous formation in the 4-d state – or, of course, any permutation thereof. Again, like the photon, once formed it is stable and therefore an absolute particle. It should be noted that conventional physics states that the electron lacks the strong nuclear force; clearly this contradicts ECHO theory. In order to explain this, it is suggested that the electrons 4-dimensionality has an effect that masks its strong nuclear characteristic, at least within the limitations of the method employed to measure this aspect of the electron's behaviour, coupled with a misunderstanding of the magnetic force – but more on this later. The muon and tau particles are considered to be part of a sub-group of fundamental particles which includes the electron, known as the leptons. The muon and tau are more massive and may be hybrid particles, which would account for their instability.

The neutrino is proposed to be a photon and S particle hybrid and may exist in a number of chiral versions. Like the photon, it will also exhibit mass, but this will be equally immeasurable; though a number of varieties are possible, one variety appears to be overwhelmingly dominant. The neutrino's structure is extremely stable, yet as a hybrid particle, it may "decay" into a photon and S particle under some conditions – this could be why it has an important role in nuclear interactions. The structure of this particle is difficult to visualise: as a photon has no charge-giving dimension, the S particle (provided it does have the charge-giving dimension) can fit into this "empty slot". The charge force will be directed at the zero-point and therefore not exhibited – hence the neutrality of the neutrino. This will also give the particle some odd properties that are only evident at the sub-nuclear level. [The kaon and pion are hypothesised to be hybrids of two S particles]. Neutrinos may be created deep inside stars where hybridisation of photons and S particles may be possible.

The proton is a more complex particle. A composite that is exceedingly stable (under "normal" conditions), which exhibits all of the forces. It has substantially more mass than the electron – yet the same (overall) charge value – and is considerably bigger. It is not the intention to propose an exact structure – determining this poses a considerable challenge and would require further experimental research. Instead, a general concept is hypothesised, that being a lattice-like structure constructed from S particles and based on the same principle posited for the combining of a photon and S particle to form a neutrino [a form of quantum entanglement]. This structure would be pulled into a spherical form, perhaps looking superficially like a golf ball – though, there would be no solid surface as such. A better analogy would be that of the structure of a fullerene molecule, combined with the appearance of a sea urchin. When protons are smashed together in a particle accelerator (or crushed together at the core of a star,) partial annihilation occurs causing the proton to fragment; some "chunks" may even momentarily clump together forming more massive particles. All this debris will quickly unravel into base components, i.e. S and ʘ particles; some other larger "stable" matter may also be created. However, explaining the results from particle accelerator experiments is no simple undertaking, but ECHO theory suggests that current interpretation may suffer from a number of misconceptions. So what does conventional physics say about the structure of the proton? Basically, that it is three quarks bound tightly together; specifically, two up-quarks and one down-quark. To explain this finding in terms of ECHO theory can be done in two different ways: either, that the overall balance of particles making up the proton equate to a ratio of two fundamental particles [the quark or S particle] that is 2:1 in favour of one of them; or, that the decay gives rise to this ratio. Why experiment has indicated only three particles in total is open to a considerable number of hypotheses and would be beyond the scope of this book, but I contend that this does not undermine ECHO theory: merely, it indicates that a different interpretation of the data is required.

The remainder of the known particles, all of which can only exist for tiny fractions of a second, will have structures that derive from the same construction principles outlined above; many are only found in the proton debris of particle accelerators and as such are likely to be mostly artefacts of proton decay and partial combinations of proton fragments. This does not preclude their potential existence in nature, but clearly the evidence suggests that for most, if they do exist, they exist in miniscule quantities; moreover, as they are very short-lived, they've never hung around long enough to have much (if any) affect on the nature of the universe, with the possible exception of the moments leading up to or just after the Big Bang. So far, there is no evidence of any other stable particles, despite the potential for an inordinate number.

The neutron is a proton that has "captured" and electron. Given the posited structure of the proton, it is easy to imagine an electron trapped inside the proton. The effect of the electron's presence is to neutralise the proton's charge characteristics, thus creating a particle with no charge. Neutrons will only form under extreme conditions, such as deep inside a star or during a Big Bang-like event.

—————◊—————

In order to understand the structure of the atom and the effect of the electromagnetic force, it is necessary to return to the principles posited for the nature of the S and ʘ particles. All particles can move freely through 4-dimensional space, irrespective of whether or not they have all of the ʘ particle elements. All particles will rotate at the same rate as they propagate in order to maintain existential equality – this is another facet of particle behaviour that must be accepted as integral to the existence of our universe; without it, no "our" universe. This rotation will give rise to a helical-like wave motion, which is most notable in the photon. When forces are "held" in complex structures such as a proton, not all forces are able to continuously propagate and as a consequence the space is "polarised" along the effective line of each force, a process which is similar to particle propagation, travelling at the same velocity, only virtual; this effect weakens exponentially over distance, so despite all forces being capable of acting to infinity, any measurable effect will diminish until it is eventually indiscernible. The distance over which a given force can measurably act, depends on its strength from the outset, which may be affected by a number of factors: its inherent strength, the density of the projected force [dependent on the type and number of particles acting in a given general direction] and effects caused by forces acting "together" on a given point in space, due to particle configurations. The strong and weak nuclear forces only have a discernible effect when fundamental particles are in close proximity – extremely important to the nucleus of an atom. Gravity being the facet of the w-dimension is perceived as acting everywhere at once. The electromagnetic force is strong but highly directional.

The distribution of the charge force will be uniform over the surface of the proton, but due to the surface architecture of the proton the spatial-polarisation effect is staggered, such that the space surrounding the proton is uniformly, though unevenly, polarised; in addition, the proton will be oscillating, such that the field is constantly varying; this oscillation is a result of the necessity to maintain existential equilibrium [more on this later] and along with electrostatic effects gives the illusion of solidity . The effect upon an approaching electron would be to both virtually repel and attract as the lines of force (real and virtual) continuously overlap; the repulsive and attractive force always being equal to that of the electron's charge force, thus giving the impression that they have an equal charge value. The outcome of these effects is that the electron is coaxed into an orbit around the proton, rather than crashing into its surface or continuing past. Of course, this will only occur when an electron comes into close enough proximity for the forces to interact with sufficient strength. Incidentally, an "anti-proton" would have an identical but chiral structure to the proton – explanation of this, however, is beyond the scope of this book.

Having established a general hypothesis for the interaction of electrons and protons to form a "simple" atom, such as that for hydrogen [one proton and one electron], we need to consider the role of photons. All matter is usually drenched in photons and it is this that gives rise to the perception of temperature. A hydrogen atom can exist at absolute zero temperature [i.e. approximately -273.15⁰ Celsius], but will be at its ground state: it will retain its inherent kinetic energy – its finite energy of existence – but will have no thermal energy, (thermal energy being the effect of photons on other matter, causing excitation). [However, even in the ground state there may be some zero-point energy present – but more on this later]. Therefore, the more photons present the greater the excitation of the particles – but what does this mean? Clearly, having a particle with no charge flying around inside an atom will not disrupt the electromagnetic effect, but despite the photon being in effect virtual when compared to the 4-dimensional electron, it will nonetheless affect the space in which it exists and occupy a 3-dimensional volume. This will drive a wedge as it were between the proton and electron, so that if the density of photons is great enough [i.e. the temperature is high enough] then the electron will escape the grip of the proton and become a free electron – hence atoms do not survive inside a star, only atomic nuclei. Single proton hydrogen is known as protium and is a stable atom, (that is to say that it does not experience radioactive decay). However, there are two other forms of hydrogen: deuterium and tritium. These forms have either one or two neutrons in their atomic nucleus, not just a proton. As neutrons have no role in chemistry, it is the number of protons in the atomic nucleus that dictate which chemical element an atom is; accordingly the neutrons do not affect the number of electrons. Therefore, regardless of the number of neutrons present, the natural state of an atom is one electron for every proton. In conventional physics the reason for this is obvious: one positive charge for each negative charge. In the ECHO theory model this cannot be true, as the proton does not have a single charge – even though it appears that way. Instead, the reason is a matter of chance, in that the size of the proton and the dynamics of the electron are such that there is only enough "room" for one electron per proton in its effective electromagnetic field where the electron orbits.

Atomic nuclei, with the one exception of protium, contain both protons and neutrons – why? For protons to co-exist in close proximity something is needed to hold them together; this is the role of the neutron. The neutron exhibits a nuclear "stickiness", probably as a result of the effect of the electron in its core, which bond the protons and neutrons together into a highly stable clump; however, too many neutrons and that stability is threatened. The ever present photon also has a role in stabilising the nucleus: depending on the total number of nuclear particles and the balance of protons to neutrons, dictates how many photons are needed to keep the nuclear structure together and so they are also "bonded" into the nucleus; this latent energy is fixed for each element and not affected by external levels of photons, i.e. heat does not destabilise the atomic nucleus under normal conditions. Only if the temperature [i.e. the photon density] reaches extraordinary levels, can heat affect the structure of the atomic nucleus [due to the oscillation effect, free photons cannot penetrate the nucleus unless the density exceeds a threshold level], whereas an imbalance in the number of neutrons present can cause the atom to break up, or split [nuclear fission]. When the atom splits, some of the photons held in the structure are released hence, the splitting of the atom results in a huge release of photons, (which apparently makes for a fantastic incendiary device). However, this is only true for unstable nuclei; with stable nuclei, the opposite is true – hence a process known as fusion. The reason why too many neutrons destabilises the atomic nucleus may be due to neutrons "competing" to provide the strong nuclear force which glues the nucleus together, causing a tug of war-like situation that eventually leads to some protons separating and giving rise to a nuclear split. When nuclear fusion occurs, energy is also released: this is because this will only occur when the result is more stable than the component parts; hence less energy (i.e. photons) is required to sustain the resultant structure.

Conventional theory also includes the involvement of another particle in the nuclear processes discussed above. This particle is known as the gluon which has a mediating role. ECHO theory postulates that this is in fact a virtual ʘ particle created by intense polarisation of space which can only occur over the tiny distances within the atomic nucleus. Eight gluons have been identified, which matches the eight potential ʘ particles if the "anti" forms are included. Pre-primordial particles are their own anti-particle and as such can act in either direction along a line of force; there is no reason why a virtual ʘ particle cannot be created that will act in either direction. Where ECHO theory does agree is that they probably do play an important role in stabilising the nucleus and are genuine phenomenon. In fact, virtual ʘ particle creation inside the atomic structure may also account for the belief that virtual positron creation can occur. The graviton would equate to the ʘw particle.

Understanding the structure of matter enables a comprehension of how nothing becomes something. Matter is an illusion which is intensified by only fully experiencing 3-spatial dimensions in a 4-dimensional space. But, what is light? This is regarded as energy rather than matter. Light is a composed of a stream of photons, which are 3-dimensional particles. It has an exaggerated wave nature compared with the S particle. [It should be noted that electrons also exhibit some wave nature.] Matter appears solid, but light seems insubstantial, almost ephemeral. Light really is something and nothing. Light has many strange properties and exhibits the electromagnetic force. In conventional physics the electric force and the magnetic force are both facets of one force. In ECHO theory, the photon has no charge parameter, so electromagnetism cannot be associated with charge or the electric force. Instead it is posited that magnetic force is a separate force to the electric force and is a facet of the strong nuclear force which results from existential rotation and is true for both the photon and the electron. This would explain why these forces act at right angles to each other, the electron exhibiting both forces. This is one of the more radical concepts advanced by ECHO theory, challenging many accepted interpretations of conventional physics. Not least of all that the strong nuclear force only acts over sub-nuclear distances. But this apart, this new understanding of these forces does not necessarily undermine much (if any) of the established physics of electromagnetism [and the work of many eminent scientists], just the precise way in which it is perceived; whether or not this has any implications in extending our knowledge of electro-magnetic force is beyond the scope of this book. Evidently the magnetic force interacts with the electric force; consequently, light is able to affect an electric field. Again, this effect is a facet of existential rotation which is what has lead to the belief that the two forces are actually a single phenomenon.

Light is regarded as energy because it gives matter mobility at the post-nuclear level. The way that light affects sub-nuclear matter is briefly dealt with later. Although all matter has inherent energy, on the atomic level this energy is spatially constrained and exhibited as an oscillation in a confined volume of space. Light enables atomic matter to transmit through unlimited volumes of space. How this happens is explained in the next chapter.

# Chapter Three

# Phenomenal Technicalities

If ECHO theory is to have any credibility it must be able to explain at least the most familiar of the natural phenomena; moreover, one of the primary purposes of this new theory is to enable more satisfactory explanations for some of the stranger phenomena, but in changing some of the foundations of accepted physics, it becomes necessary to also explain how this impacts on our understanding of the nature of matter in general, particularly the field of Chemistry. This chapter attempts to address the more obvious questions that changing the rules inevitably presents as well as offering some new insights in to some age old mysteries. As before, it is not within the scope of ECHO theory to propose complex mathematical proofs or to indulge in the specialised language of scientific disciplines at their higher levels; the intent is to keep things as simple as possible and hopefully, intelligible.

To begin, we will discover how ECHO theory defines the phenomenon of electricity (or electric charge). In Chapter Two it was established that the force of charge isn't strictly positive and negative in the conventional sense; the nature of electricity has even less to do with the conventional charge concept. The general principles of the science of electricity are not affected by the new theory; it is only the underlying mechanism that is being re-evaluated. Electricity is of course a flow of electrons within a medium that is able to facilitate such a flow. What dictates whether or not a medium will conduct electricity is its molecular structure, although in general, most substances will conduct electricity to some degree, particularly if the current is high enough. The ability of a substance to conduct electrons is known as its conductance, while its opposition to electron flow is known as resistance. Molecular structure always involves the sharing of electrons between the various atoms and it is the prevalence of that sharing that affects a substance's conductance/resistance. In highly conductive materials such as metals, the outer shell [more on electron shells later] electrons are collectively shared (or more precisely, exchangeable) throughout the entire mass, which makes electrical flow far more fluid than in atomic structures where the electrons are rigidly held in their own "personal" orbits. Electrons, like photons, have a wave function created by rotation about the w-dimension's existential plane but, unlike the photon, it exists in three other dimensional planes, which introduces a more complex nature to the wave function; the chirality aspect of its charge and strong nuclear (magnetic) forces is what creates the apparent positive/negative effect in an electric circuit. The direction of flow of electrons generates an electron/positron like chiral-polarity; this effect is relevant to both electromagnetism and natural magnetism [more on this later]. However, what we experience as electric charge is the electrons themselves as opposed to the charge or magnetic force. Heat decreases resistance to electron flow by expanding the molecular structure, making more space for flow to occur; while resistance to electron flow will generate heat. The difference between AC and DC is that in AC current the electrons flow in pulses, whereas in DC current it is a continuous flow.

As has been established, the difference between a photon and an electron is only the charge-dimension. These two particles are therefore very similar and both are responsible for energy transfer. What is now proposed is likely to be the most controversial hypothesis of ECHO theory, and that is, that under certain conditions, photons and electrons are interchangeable. Moreover, this process of photon/electron interchange is fundamental to the dynamics of macro-matter. This of course does require a change in our understanding of the concept of energy. It is conventionally understood that matter cannot be created or destroyed under normal conditions. In ECHO theory, the photon is regarded as a particle which causes an effect we perceive as energy; the electron is characterised likewise. At the sub-nuclear level, space is constantly polarised by particles, creating virtual particles (usually, ʘ particles). In certain ("intense") circumstances, photons can gain the necessary ʘz particle [i.e. the ʘ particle responsible for charge] to form an electron; similarly, an electron can lose its ʘz particle by virtual-annihilation to form a photon. This is neither creation nor destruction of energy or matter: it is simply a process whereby one particle converts into another. This is why when a material resists electron flow, it heats up; electrons are forced into close proximity whereby the ʘz particle annihilation can occur. In the photo-electric effect, the reverse occurs, whereby photons gain the ʘz particle and convert into electrons. In short, all energetic processes involve photons or electrons (usually, both,) in some form of interaction with other particles or themselves. In complex processes, such as a human throwing a ball that hits the ground and bounces (etc), there are many stages and combinations of different effects that eventually string together into what we perceive as a continuous event – in fact, the number of individual events required for such a process are colossal, each occurring at or close to the speed of light and therefore, in tiny fractions of a second. All of these tiny factions of time add together to what is a perceivable event period. In general conclusion: protons and neutrons (atomic nuclei) are propelled about in space principally by the action of photons and electrons, (with some influence from the gravitational force,) thus creating the activity of the apparent material world, while electron chiral effects (i.e. attraction/repulsion) provide the illusion of solidity.

Magnetism (including electro-magnetism) is the other important phenomenon associated with the electron. As outlined above, when electrons free-flow through a material, there is an effective chiral differential between the two "ends" of the flow, which creates the positive/negative illusion of the current, where the electron wave-front is regarded as negative and the "tail-end" is regarded as positive. A good analogy would be to imagine spiral springs rotating at right-angles to the line of travel; if the tail-end and wave-front collide, they could coil into each other – this represents the attractive force of the negative and positive ends meeting; if two tail-ends or two wave-fronts collide they could deflect each other as by meeting head on, they are effectively rotating in opposite directions. This effect is due to the chirality of the charge and strong nuclear forces dimensionality rotating at right-angles to the particles direction of travel along the w-dimensional plane. Unfortunately, the mathematics that would be needed to describe this adequately would are not only beyond the scope of this book, but beyond most peoples' comprehension. For this reason, we will continue using analogies, even though they don't represent the dynamics in a completely adequate or accurate way – some concepts are simply beyond existing language. In essentially non-conductive molecular structures, the electrons are rigidly confined to their individual bonded atoms; in more conductive materials, such as metals, the electrons in the outer-shells can interchange between the various bonded atoms and may be fairly fluid, but there is no flow of electric current, with the electrons essentially restricted to their local group of atoms, with no excess of electrons. When additional electrons are applied to the material, the excess electrons are able to flow freely: or as freely as the structure will allow. Materials which are essentially non-conductive are more likely to build up a static charge, because electrons that have been captured at a surface cannot distribute throughout the material; equally, electrons can be "brushed off" of a surface, as electrons near the surface are held "rigidly" to the atoms and if the bonds are not overly strong, they can be "dislodged". This is what causes electro-static effects. In naturally magnetic materials, the structure is such that it creates a combination of conductive and non-conductive properties, whereby shared electrons are polarised into layers which mimic an electron free flow, yet are held static, creating "strings" of uniformly aligned electrons, such that on either side of a molecular layer are chirally opposite electron-polarities; the consequential spatial polarisation generates a force that extends beyond the surface of the material. Therefore, when a "front" face comes into close proximity with another "front" face, there is a strong repulsive effect; likewise, when a "rear" face comes close to another rear face. When a "front" and "rear" face come into close proximity, then a strongly attractive force is generated. Naturally magnetic materials will also be conductive, unless they are composites with non-conductive materials, e.g. as with fridge magnets.

Electro-magnetism operates by similar principles to those given above. In an electric motor, electrons flow through coiled wires creating a polarised electro-magnetic field which when exposed to a natural magnetic field causes deflection/attraction in a given direction at right-angles to the fields; when the electron flow is reversed, the effect is reversed, allowing a motor to turn in the opposite direction. A dynamo is effectively a motor in reverse: the motor is turned mechanically in the natural magnetic field which causes electrons to flow through the coiled wires; if electrons are then drawn off by a connected circuit, a flow of electricity is generated. In a motor, some of the electrons [assuming an excess] will be converted to photons (mainly as heat) via the mechanism previously outlined. In the dynamo, photons are converted to electrons by the effect of the electro-magnetic field upon the "static" electrons – these photons originating from within the material and the surrounding environment. The current generated by a dynamo will be alternating in nature, because it is pulsing due to the "electro-magnetic field" being formed from a series of "magnets", such that there are gaps in the flow.

Atomic electron shells are another seemingly odd phenomenon. However, the ECHO theory explanation is fairly simplistic: in Chapter Two the relationship between the atomic nucleus [specifically, the proton,] and the electron was explained for hydrogen. In larger atoms, where there are more than one proton (and additionally neutrons present), there will be more than one electron. In fact, a stable atom contains the same number of electrons as protons – the neutron does not affect the number of electrons. Using the principles outlined in Chapter Two, it is easy to imagine that in a helium atom, where there are two protons, the volume of charge-polarised space available to attract electrons is doubled and therefore, two electrons will orbit the helium nucleus, and this is indeed correct: two electrons orbiting together in the same shell-volume around the atomic nucleus. What we get when there are three electrons orbiting a three proton-nucleus is not three electrons in single shell-volume, but two orbiting in the inner shell and the other one in another shell further away from the nucleus – regarded as a higher energy level: because there will be more photons present in a higher energy level shell, as there is more volume available to occupy. The hypothesis is that there is a limiting volume in which an electron can reside in orbit around a nucleus; the presence of another electron in the same volume is possible, but there is also a "density" limit. The result of these limits is that only two electrons can reside in the inner shell-volume, so any further electrons are forced into a more distant orbit. This effect is caused by the complex dynamics of charge-polarised 4d-space both by the protons in the nucleus and the other electrons present. Beyond this change in conceptual mechanism, the dynamics of the electrons in their chemical role is in agreement with conventional physics.

Modern physics has determined (as part of quantum mechanics) that electrons inside atomic shells appear to be everywhere at once and their precise location at any given moment cannot be predicted. ECHO theory posits that the reason for this comes as a result of electron 4-dimensionality: we simply cannot always perceive where the electron is when contained in a confined spatial volume and travelling at close to the speed of light. Photons may also play a role, and there may also be a further factor: zero-point energy [more on this later].

—————◊—————

Light's wave-particle duality is one of the great wonders of science, as are the phenomena associated with that nature. In ECHO theory, the photon can be imagined to be a capital Y lying on its side: the two tails represent the photon's strong nuclear (magnetic) and weak nuclear dimensions, both at right angles to each other and both at right angles to the leading line, which represents the w-dimension. Of course, this is a 3-dimensional conceptualisation; though the photon does only have three dimensions, one of those is the fourth spatial dimension. This is what gives the photon [i.e. light or electromagnetic radiation] its odd properties; it is also what makes it so difficult to comprehend. The consequence of this is what we perceive to be a particle that displays a 2-dimensionallity with seemingly anomalous attributes.

Although the analogy of a Y-shaped particle is strictly an erroneous one, it is the only simple way to imagine it. With this proviso in mind, we can proceed to understand the nature of the photon. In order to maintain existential equilibrium the photon must rotate about the w-dimension [i.e. the plane of direction of travel]. The effect of this is to create a spiralling wave function: the angle between the strong nuclear (magnetic) and weak nuclear dimensions in the w-dimensional plane is flexible from a 3-dimensional perspective, allowing a range of possible angles and thereby facilitating what is observed as wavelength: the greater the angle, the longer the wavelength; the smaller the angle, the shorter the wavelength – thus enabling an infinite range of potential wavelengths. [It is possible then, that photons with wavelengths at the extreme ends may be difficult to detect, yet could still exist – that is assuming there is any mechanism by which they could be generated.] As the photon has no charge dimension it is unaffected by particle charge, but both protons and electrons do have the strong nuclear [magnetic] dimension and it is this that (via spatial polarisation) creates the electromagnetic effect exhibited by light; it is also this effect that (provided the right conditions) can affect the wavelength of light. When light travels through a medium, depending on the molecular structure of that medium, it will be affected by it in a variety of different ways. Although its speed cannot be affected, both its direction of travel and wavelength can be, and it is these effects that are observed as various phenomena, e.g. the splitting of the visible light spectrum when passed through a prism, or the generation of radio waves by electromagnetic manipulation (including the manipulating of the wavelength) and the reverse effect of generating an electrical voltage from radio waves [the latter effects also involving photon/electron interchange].

But there are some much stranger phenomena exhibited by light which conventional theory struggles to explain. The most perplexing is the light interference effect, as can be demonstrated experimentally by using a diffraction grating apparatus. Prior to modern techniques allowing this experiment to be conducted by pulsing individual photons, electrons and even atoms, to produce interference effects, it was believed that simple 2-dimensional wave interference patterns could explain the behaviour of light under these conditions; subsequently, this was no longer a tenable theory. The reason why the beautifully simple wave theory collapsed was that the interference occurred even when only one photon was passing through the grating slits at any given moment; moreover, the experiment still worked when electrons and small atomic nuclei were also tried – which of course are supposed to be "solid" particles. The only conclusion that could be drawn is that the individual photons and particles must pass through both grating slits simultaneously and then proceed to interfere with themselves! Within the confines of conventional particle theory, it is difficult to determine how this could be possible. ECHO theory brings a whole new dimension (quite literally) to bear upon this problem: because photons, electrons, protons and neutrons are posited to all possess the w-dimension, this means that these particles have a greater spatial existence than that which we able to perceive, giving them the ability to effectively be in two places at the same time. This is a fundamentally incomprehensible concept [apart from, possibly, mathematically] for the human mind to contemplate. We are only able to perceive a 3-dimensional universe, so it is necessary to accept that there are interactions occurring outside of perceptible space. The only way to visualise this is to imagine a 2-dimensional universe where there are associated activities happening in the 3rd dimension that can only be experienced when they intersect the 2-dimensional universe's planal-interface. This is inadequate analogy, but the only one available to the spatial restrictions of our mind; in reality, it means that the various forces at work operate inside an infinitely larger universe than the one that we are able to observe and, therefore, beyond our logical comprehension. From our 3-dimensional perspective, individual particles at the sub-atomic level can co-exist (albeit partially) at two separate points in space in the same instant, without breaking any governing rules of physics. It is a difficult concept, but a critical one in explaining such bizarre behaviour.

Other light phenomena require no special explanation within ECHO theory, because they are complementary. For example, light polarization, (including elliptical polarization,) makes perfect sense using the ECHO theory photon model. The only difference here is that instead of an electric field we substitute the strong nuclear magnetic field; but otherwise the understanding is the same and involves wave chirality, which is of course is a fundamental element of particle structure and behaviour as hypothesised by ECHO theory. Phenomena associated with other elementary particles can be understood by employing the concepts given thus far. The neutrino, for example, exhibits some pretty odd behaviour: in many ways it is much like a photon, but one that has suffered a mutation that renders it incapable of interacting with matter except for on rare occasions and in exceptional circumstances; so it continuously passes through everything almost entirely unnoticed and unhindered. In fact, tens of billions pass through every square centimetre of everything on the face of the Earth every second, the vast majority produced by the sun. Such notions are completely mind-boggling and yet it is such notions that must be grasped in order to embrace the reality of the universe that surrounds us.

As we delve further into ECHO theory, it will become evident that nothing is what it really seems and that while there are an infinite number of possibilities, there are still some things which are not possible; and while everything that happens was always going to happen, nothing ever really happens at all.

# Chapter Four

# The Speed of Existence

The first three chapters of this book have set out a theoretical framework to explain how matter could come into existence from nothing (and that this is inevitable); how simple particles can combine together to form the complex matter that makes our universe and, how relatively "simple" concepts of particle nature can explain the plethora of observed behaviour and phenomena. So far it has been necessary to employ somewhat technical forms of illustration in order to explain the underlying precepts that support the overall philosophy that is ECHO theory. Some readers may feel that this has been conveniently undeveloped, while others may feel that has been excessively elaborate. Unfortunately, this is a subject that does require the reader to have a reasonable understanding of the basics of physics, including particle physics and it is not the object of this book to educate the reader to that level of understanding. Equally, it is not the ambition of this book to set out a definitive working theorem, as this is beyond the scope of the book and (in all honesty) the ability of the author, and would make the book inaccessible to the vast majority of readers, in any case. Ultimately, whether or not the precise details of the theory so far are correct isn't really the point. What is important is that the broader general hypotheses are essentially true. I have attempted to provide some justification for the founding principles of ECHO theory and although I would hope that some of the detail is at least vaguely correct and might inspire some new comprehension of the nature of matter/energy, should it be proved to be chiefly erroneous, this does not affect the greater portion of the philosophy; indeed, whatever the exact facts are, whether as proposed by current conventional physics or by some future development, it is mostly irrelevant – only the very basic concepts of my theory are critical and these are not in any substantial way in conflict with the existing scientific beliefs.

Although Einstein's theories of Relativity are certainly not disputed by ECHO theory – they are in fact the solid foundations upon which I have built my ideas – there are a few subtle differences of interpretation, which will become evident in this chapter. However, it should be realised that there are few (if any) that can claim to fully comprehend all of the implications of Relativity and no one truly knows exactly how Einstein conceived many of the concepts it embodies, anyway. So, though ECHO theory is in broad agreement, I don't imagine that my reasoning is necessarily in concordance with Einstein's on many (if any) of the technicalities of his thinking. That said, there are no general suppositions posited by ECHO theory [I am aware of] that are in any sense fundamentally or substantially in disagreement with my modest understanding of Relativity, nor any other commonly known Einsteinian principles.

One of the key laws that Einstein established was the speed of light. All photons [electromagnetic radiation/light] travels at a fixed speed and this speed cannot be exceeded by either the photon or any other particle. ECHO theory does not necessarily contradict this cardinal rule: the speed of light may well be the fastest attainable within the observable universe. It is certainly the fastest that any particle of equal or greater structural complexity can travel. It is possible that the S and/or ʘ particles may travel faster, depending upon whether the oscillations required by existential-equilibrium affect the particles speed of propagation. Though I think this is unlikely and therefore agree that the speed of light is indeed a universal limitation, it is worth noting that Stephen Hawking has predicted that some elementary particles may travel faster than the speed of light at the singularity of a blackhole. However, it is not the speed of light (per se) that is critical, it is the speed of existence, because this speed is a result of the ʘ particles propagational constraint: it is literally the speed at which matter exists. In terms of Relativity this subtle change makes no difference, but this specific concept is an intrinsic principle of ECHO theory, as I will now elucidate.

Matter exists because it is in perpetual motion: if that motion ceases, then that matter ceases to exist. It is the inherent propagational spatial-polarization that separates matter from ordinary space. The speed of that propagation is fixed in our universe at 299,792,458 metres per second (in a vacuum) [commonly denoted as c]. If a particle had a different speed of existence then it would not readily interact with the matter/energy of our universe: employing a Trekky term, it would be out-of-phase. Whether this would completely preclude any interaction ever would likely depend on the precise ratio of the out-of-phaseness. Nonetheless, I think it would be reasonable to assume that any out-of-phase particle would not have any significant role in the physics of our universe. This raises the possibility that such matter/energy could co-exist within our universe, yet be, not only essentially undetectable, but also completely unrecognizable. This may offer an explanation for dark matter/energy and allow the potential for parallel universes [more on these later]. In conclusion, all matter/energy in the observable universe must have the same speed of existence. So why does most matter normally appear to be static and how could complex particles even exist? The reason is existential-equilibrium: the character of all post- ʘ matter which enables all component parts of a particles' structure to maintain its existence regardless of whether that part exists in the plane of propagation – which for most particles in our universe will be the w-dimension. This creates rotational [angular] momentum and plays an important role in many processes, particularly at the sub-atomic level, where even photons may be "trapped" in confined spaces.

The speed of existence is only one of the defining properties of matter/energy within the observable universe. ECHO theory proposes that there is a fixed minimum length of existence, and in combination with the speed of existence, this dictates the minimum time of existence. Along with the fixed strength and nature of the dimensional-forces, these are the determining constants of our universe, upon which everything we know is dependent. These constants have profound consequences in respect to what is and what is not possible. However, the speed of existence is the critical concept and making the distinction between this and the speed of light is of fundamental importance. Normally, light is not thought of as matter: ECHO theory does not make an existential differentiation between what we think of as matter and what we thought of as energy; light is a particle and like any other should be regarded principally as a type of matter. Ultimately, there is just matter and space, which exist in equilibrium; energy is an expression of existence.

The time of existence is derived from the distance of existential propagation [i.e. the distance over which ʘ and S particles translate, as described in Chapter One] and the speed at which this occurs – which is fixed for our universe as c. The length of existence is twice the finite length of the ʘ and S particles: ECHO theory does not propose to define this value, though it may be determinable. What is important here is that there is a finite unit of length and a finite unit of time, which applies to all matter in the observable universe. This concept underlies the way in which ECHO theory conceives the nature of time. Conventional physics promotes the principle of space-time and a time-continuum; moreover, it treats time as a separate dimension. ECHO theory adopts the alternative view. To put this into context, imagine a ball falling from a fixed height towards the ground; ignoring all variables (such as air resistance), a time-continuum understanding would see the ball drop continuously through time and distance until it hits the ground. Conversely, ECHO theory sees the ball drop continually, i.e. in a series of time and distance steps until the time/distance from the ground is that equal to the minimums possible [the time of existence and the length of existence], at which point it would then contacts the ground. In terms of calculation, this variant thinking makes no difference; it just changes how we understand what is happening. The most radical consequence of this is that rather than thinking in terms of space-time, we now have to think in terms of matter-time. Of course, in a sense, there is no real difference, as space and matter are ultimately just different facets of the same thing: thinking in space-time still works perfectly well. The difference is subtle, yet profound: time does not exist as a separate dimensional continuum; instead we have to think of time as an artefact of existence itself – an illusion. If matter did not exist, time would not exist; time is an arbitrary measure between one or more events which occur as the result of the existence of matter. Mathematically, this differentiation of understanding has no effect, but really there is no such thing as time. Existential propagation creates an illusion of a time-continuum, because the precise spatial location of matter can never be quantified, as it is in a state of continual and continuous propagation. Matter only exists in the present; it can never exist in the past or the future, and the present is an infinitesimal moment during which matter expresses itself as separate from space: existence resides within a series of perpetual infinitesimal moments. Effectively, the whole universe is constantly phasing between existence and non-existence – one could visualise this as a flickering light bulb that pulses so fast that it appears not to glow continuously. This is perpetual existential-equilibrium, as per the equation given at the beginning of Chapter One: the very essence of existence.

In conclusion, every part of every particle exists in its own matter-time-continuum and every particle in the observable universe is exactly in synchronous phase with every other. There is no reason for this other than sheer chance: an infinitely improbable inevitability with a finite outcome. The speed of existence is the absolute constant of our observable universe; any particle that exceeded that speed would simply not be part of our universe, but it could be part of another universe and that could potentially be a parallel-universe. Moreover, if a particle had a different speed of existence, whether faster or slower than that of our universe, then it would exist "outside" [or "inside"] of our universe: a completely separate co-existence. Equally, any particle with a different length of existence would also be "outside" of our observable universe. These possibilities give rise to the potential existence of any number of co-existing parallel universes within the space of our universe, each one being anything from completely different to almost identical and/or anything in between, i.e. an infinite number of possibilities. These parallel existences could have formed at the same time as our universe or at any time before or since our universe came into being. In fact, this could be an ongoing – even, perpetual – process. On the other hand, ours could be the one and only universe that has ever existed. I would suspect that it is impossible to determine when the first existence, anywhere in space, occurred, but whenever and wherever this was, this would have been the beginning of absolute relative-time. Time in terms of our universe, is relative only to our universe. Time and space can only ever be perceived as relative quantities, as space is infinite and absolute time is indeterminable. This is why there is no absolute space or time and everything that exists can only be perceived to exist relative to some other thing's existence. Given that everything is in perpetual motion, depending on where and when (relatively) a given thing appears to be in the universe, depends on where and when (relatively) the point of observation is, and the moment that point of observation changes, so does the apparent where and when (relatively) of everything else. In other words, no two observers can perceive the universe in exactly the same way. The number of possible relative permutations tends to infinity.

Taking these concepts a step further: infinite space could contain an infinite number of universes in an infinite number of separate locations, with each location containing an infinite number of co-existing parallel universes on an infinite number of occasions during an endless (i.e. infinite) absolute time span. And as there is no absolute limit to the potential speed or length of existence or spatial locations, then the number of potential existences and number of particles within those existences is potentially infinite. As there are infinite possible quantities and variations thereof, over an infinite period of time, the number of potential existences is infinite. In effect, not only will every possible universe exist, but each one will exist on an infinite number of occasions in every one of an infinite number of locations during infinite time. Therefore, the number of possible universes that could (and will) exist is: infinity to the power of infinity.

Mathematically, an "infinite number of infinities" are a nonsense quantity because any number of infinities (one or more) still equals infinity. But as a philosophical concept, the idea of infinitely intertwined layers does make sense. Yet, despite this infinite number of possibilities, there are still some things which are not possible – at least within the bounds set by ECHO theory, for example: time travel. Although conventional physics does not provide a means by which time travel could occur, theoretical physicists use the uncertainties of Relativity and Quantum mechanics to postulate circumstances in which time travel may be possible. ECHO theory's simple logic dictates that such a phenomenon is not possible. Personally, even within the scope of a space-time continuum, I would assert that time travel is not possible; so before explaining the ECHO theory-logic, I would like to deal with "more conventional" theories: it isn't even necessary to delve into the mechanisms that some propose, in order to debunk the idea in principle, instead we can simply consider what outcome such time travel would effectively result in. Let's say we step off the time-continuum carousel and somehow move to a point ahead of the present: what would we find? Well, nothing, because nothing in our universe would have reached that point in time; and if we were to wait there, then the present would never reach us, because we would continue to move forward in time at the same rate as the present, which would perpetually be playing catch-up – something of a pointless exercise. Of course, travelling faster than the speed of light could be pretty useful: but not if it just placed one in a non-existent future. Another problem with the idea of travelling to a future-time is that this would then imply that one was starting from a point in the past and not from the present; which neatly leads us on to time travel into the past. Going backwards in time would first require that existence is a conserved propagation whereby matter remains in existence in each "frame of time" while propagating by copying itself into the next time-frame, but to a slightly different point in space-time. Whether that be in steps or continuous, it would have to be a perpetual recording process; if continuous, that would mean an infinite number of frames – which could make identifying a specific time-point rather difficult. Either way, if one was to travel to a past point, what one would find is a recording, which one would then be pulled along with through time – unless one stepped back off the carousel. I would suggest that this recording could not be changed in such a way as to change the future outcome: it would simply be replaying. It might be possible to permanently disrupt this recording, but that would have no effect on the future, as each moment would be a separate recording. It would probably also be fatal, as any "new" matter arriving in the recording would either be pushed out of the way at a sub-atomic level or would become permanently melded to it. The other possible scenario is essentially as given above for travel to the future, i.e. when one got there, everything else would have moved on to the present, so as with the future, there would be nothing there.

In ECHO theory, each individual fundamental particle exists on its own "personal" time-continuum and all the other particles in that particular universe exist on identically synchronised time-continuums whilst remaining independent of one another. Time travel within the confines of this hypothesis is simply impossible.

—————◊—————

Einstein's Relativity makes a number of predictions which have been confirmed experimentally, such as time dilation. ECHO theory provides an explanation of the mechanism by which such effects are induced. Relativity predicts that when anything [except for photons] approaches the speed of light its mass increases, its size decreases and time (relative to an observer) slows down. Although the speed of existence is very probably identical to the speed of light, there is a subtle difference in the application of these quantities in respect to Relativity, when viewed from the perspective of ECHO theory. The speed of light is the finite fixed speed of the photon particle; larger particles will suffer some drag that makes it impossible to attain the full speed of light. Electrons – posited to be 4-dimensional – may be slightly "retarded" in its propagation by the electric charge dimension that it carries: although they can be accelerated to speeds close to that of light, they cannot attain 100% of the speed of light [at least as far as is known]; this is probably due to a slight rotational retardation effect. However, simpler particles, such as the quark (in conventional physics) and the S and ʘ particles will propagate at the speed of light [if the speed of existence is greater than the speed of light, then the difference is likely to be so miniscule that is not consequential to the explanation of the Relativistic effects and does not undermine the basic principles of Relativity, so it could be ignored for the purposes of these notions]. Larger particles, such as the proton, require a lot of energy to accelerate them to speeds close to light and probably could never attain 100% of the speed of light. In fact, protons, neutrons, atomic nuclei and atoms/molecules tend to remain relatively static in comparison and require external forms of energisation to attain significant straight-line speeds – straight-line within this context meaning any distance at least equal to the maximum width of the particle, not necessarily in a continuous straight line. This difference between the abilities of large particles [which are regarded as matter] and that of light [which is regarded as energy] to travel in a straight line, combined with the speed of existence, are what give rise to the Relativistic effects.

As previously posited, protons can be thought of as having a matrix structure, where different facets of the particle are orientated in varying planes of existential propagation which require the particle to frenetically oscillate at high speed in order to maintain existential equilibrium; consequently they will naturally reside in an relatively "static" state, unless energised in some way. Energisation of any particle occurs as the result of collision with another particle (or multiple particles) with greater kinetic energy than itself, which can include the photon. All particles generate spatial polarisation fields in each of the force-dimensions applicable to that particle. In the case of the proton, because it is oscillating at high speed, all of its' spatial fields will appear to act everywhere at once. When a photon "collides" with a proton, it may very rarely interact so as to disrupt the proton's structure; more usually, it will pass through the proton unnoticed or, be deflected around it, due to spatial field interaction. Spatial field interactions occur because the polarisation effect causes either a virtual attraction or repulsion of an overlapping like-field. The primary interaction will be via the gravitational field in the w-dimension, which will always be in the plane of the direction of travel. When a photon is aligned precisely behind the proton's w-dimensional spatial field, both the attractive and repulsive field effect (peculiarly) has the same result, in that it forces the proton momentarily propagate at the same rate as the photon – the rotational field effect will almost immediately deflect the photon around the proton, but the proton will retain a small gain in its velocity. Individual proton-photon "collisions" will have a negligible outcome, but increasing photon "collision" density will propel the proton to greater and greater velocities/energies: this is the principle at work inside a particle accelerator and the same principle can be applied to all particles. Therefore, protons can gain velocity/energy via cumulative photon bombardment concentrated in single line of travel. However, the faster the proton (or any particle) travels in a given direction, the less it can exist in any other, i.e. its total speed in all directions cannot exceed the speed of existence. This idea is critical in understanding the "illusion" of time-dilation.

All Relativistic phenomena are the consequence of 4-dimensionality observed from a 3-dimensional perspective. Although the effects are measurable in 3-dimensional space, from a 4-dimensional perspective nothing really changes and only 4-dimensional matter will experience the apparent 3-dimensional relativistic effects. Because the gravitational force-dimension acts in the 4th spatial plane, from the 3-dimensional perspective it appears to act in all directions at once and its effect is consequently "diluted". But as matter approaches closer to the speed of light/existence, more and more of its existence is focused in the direction of travel [i.e. the 4th dimensional spatial plane]. The illusion of time that we experience from our 3-dimensional perspective depends on experiencing matter's existential effects in all directions simultaneously; as matter approaches closer to its maximum attainable speed, all forces become focused towards a single infinitesimal point [in the direction of travel]: the result is a reduction in the volume of the material and concentration of the gravitational force, leading to an apparent increase in mass (in the plane of the direction of travel). To appreciate how these effects cause apparent time-dilation, one could imagine a clock face travelling exactly in the direction of the twelve in a precise straight line in a single plane; the clock hands can only travel clockwise and as the speed increases their ability to move is increasingly retarded, as their motion is focused more and more in the direction of the travel, such that angular movement is steadily reduced [i.e. they are forced into greater and greater perpendicular motion, thus decreasing any possible angular rotation], until eventually (at the speed of light/existence) the hands cannot turn and time stops. In reality, time does continue, but only at a single infinitesimal point in the line of travel; from all observable 3-dimensional perspectives, time has stopped.

# Chapter Five

# The Big Picture

In the beginning there was nothing... Or was there? Well, to avoid some difficult semantics, let us at least assume (for the moment) that nothing existed before our universe came into existence – which certainly isn't impossible. Then, by a completely random and spontaneous process, an enormous quantity of matter/energy instantaneously [or more or less instantaneously] came into existence within a relatively minuscule volume of space. The density and precise nature of this matter [either initially or soon after all (or most) of it came into existence] was not consistent or contiguous: as a result, it immediately [or quickly] became unstable and the forces of which the matter/energy was constructed interacted in a violent explosive event – which we call the Big Bang. Following this event, all the material that constitutes the observable universe cascaded outwards in all possible directions of at least one plane of 4-dimensional space. The densest chunks were or became blackholes; many of these dragged large quantities of less dense matter along with them and formed galaxies. From the swirling maelstrom of the primordial galaxy, stars were born; as these stars were forming, less dense matter started to clump together, eventually forming planets. More complex matter (i.e. atoms) created by and thrown out from embryonic stars also accumulated together with all of the other material that was forming planets (and other solar objects), so that some planets (at least) contained an abundant range of different elements, from which even more complex matter (i.e. molecules) could proliferate. With the eventual emergence of organic molecules, the chemical structures which are necessary to support life were propagated. Then, following several billion years of evolution, modern Homo sapiens finally took their place in the universe. All in all, from start to finish, this process took (approximately) some 13.8 billion years, (give or take).

The first question that needs to be addressed is "what is beyond the perimeter of the observable universe?" In my view, the answer is simply infinite space. The universe could be imagined as a tiny bubble within an infinite sea of space, and if space is indeed infinite [which it logically must be] then there is no reason to suppose that there could not be other universes. In fact, I would suggest that there could be any number between one (ours) and an infinite number. Moreover, any number could have existed in the past [i.e. relative to our present] at any point in infinite time throughout infinite space. As discussed previously, it is possible that matter can exist on any scale and phase relative to our own and therefore, any number of different universes could coexist within the same space and time, (as well as with different forces, physical rules and any number of dimensions). The overall consequence is that an infinite number of universes could exist in an infinite number of locations on an infinite number of occasions, and that given infinite time, the likelihood is that this is or will be the case. To elucidate further: an infinite number of universes could co-exist on an infinite number of occasions in an infinite number of locations – infinity to the power of infinity? It is unlikely that we will ever know the true answer. What must be true though is that it is infinitely probable that an infinite number of universes have or will exist during an infinite time period; simultaneously, it is infinitely improbable that any will exist – though clearly one does! This is another great paradox of existence, that it is both infinitely probable (certain) and infinitely improbable (impossible); or in fact, an equilibrium between the two. Given that every quantity is relative, any quantity is possible and anything relative to infinity is effectively zero, then it could be said that nothing ever really exists – relatively speaking. So, on numerous levels, we both exist and do not exist in a perfect harmony!

Obviously, one can only speculate about what lays beyond the gravitational boundary of our universe. A viable universe is likely to be of a generally similar structure to our own, primarily because of the posited initial creation step and regardless of its specific set of formative parameters, though this can only be an informed guess. On that basis, it might also be reasonable to imagine that infinite space is effectively a limitless collection of universes with a structure much like our universe, where one could interchange galaxies with universes; it may also possibly exist on an infinite number of dimensional levels. ECHO theory imagines that all existence is a series of random repeating patterns, so what is evident at one level is likely to be similarly evident at all levels; unfortunately, this does not necessarily mean everything is within our perception or 3-dimensionally constrained imagination, but it is assumed that everything is at least metaphorically analogous. I believe that is as satisfactory an answer as we can ever realistically hope to attain.

Returning to the one universe that we do know some definitive things about... Astronomical research has established that (at least) most galaxies have a blackhole at their core and this most likely is what drives the dynamics of galactic system. Long before this discovery I had already predicted that all galaxies would contain a blackhole and that this was essential to their formation. Current research suggests that there may be some galactic and star cluster systems which do not contain a blackhole. In these cases it may be that there is a large accumulation of mass within the system that is enough to hold it together, but not enough to form a blackhole – this would also mean that they formed without the need for a blackhole. However, although this may be true, I believe that the material at the core of all star systems originated as clumps thrown out by the Big Bang. The most stable and larger galaxies I would surmise would require a blackhole, either from the outset or to have subsequently formed from very dense matter in close proximity. Still little is known about blackholes, but theories abound, many as the result of mathematical hypotheses. The problem with these purely theoretical mathematical models is that they remain unproven, so their value is questionable; nonetheless, there are some basic conclusions that have been drawn that do make sense within ECHO theory and largely agree. Of course, ECHO theory offers no mathematical support of its own and is mainly supposition, but no less valid in my opinion – although mathematical and observational evidence to support the concepts would obviously add credibility. Ultimately, with the level of current observational evidence, ECHO theory is as good as any other contemporary theory.

According to ECHO theory a blackhole must be spinning; there are some theoretical models for non-spinning blackholes, but this is not possible within ECHO theory: this is because my theory requires rotational motion for a blackhole to maintain its existence. A blackhole will be a disc of immensely dense matter, with an infinite density at the centre. It may have some measurable "thickness" at its outer edge and will become increasingly thinner towards the centre, yet the mass, and therefore gravitational force, will increase exponentially. As has been established earlier, matter must be in perpetual motion in order to exist – that is the very nature of existence. As density increases, so there is ever decreasing space between the particles of matter, which forces it into rotating single plane. The nearer to the core of a blackhole, the more simplistic the matter becomes, such that it will be composed of purely S and ʘ particles; close to the centre, the blackhole will be an almost infinitely dense sheet of ʘ particles. Eventually, some ʘ particles will coalesce and cease to be matter, i.e. they will laterally annihilate forming empty space. So, a blackhole really does have a hole at its centre! This hole probably will be miniscule [a minute pin-point], at least within a stable blackhole. It could be imagined to be like a vinyl LP record, identical on both sides [i.e. there is no "white hole"]; as in a whirlpool, matter rotates increasingly faster the nearer to the centre it is and decreasingly slower towards the edge – at the core, S and ʘ particles will rotate at the speed of existence. Once infinite density occurs, two things can happen: either the blackhole becomes dormant, or if it is able to continue absorbing more matter/energy then it may grow in diameter and/or emit "excess" material through the hole at the centre, where there is an incredibly fine path of zero gravity allowing elementary particles to escape and spread out along a narrow funnel into free-space: this phenomena of narrow plumes of energy emerging symmetrically from either side of a seemingly empty point in space has been observed and is the tell-tale signature of a blackhole usually found at the centre of a galaxy. Other super-dense stellar objects (e.g. neutron stars, quasars) also behave in a similar manner, in that they tend to spin at high speed and emit a narrow beam of energy. There may be a scenario whereby a dormant blackhole could gradually leak out its contents, eventually unravelling itself and collapsing: such an event might result in a quasar-like object.

It has been postulated that blackholes could be used as time-travel portals [wormholes]. ECHO theory does not allow this possibility. This is at least partly due to the idea of matter-time as opposed to space-time, as well as the reasoning previously proffered against any possible kind of meaningful time-travel. A blackhole merely presents a substantial gravitational obstacle to any would-be space traveller, something for which there would be no choice but to go around. Even if were possible to navigate along the path of and through the singularity, no complex matter can survive such a journey, so this offers no shortcut; moreover, it would require travelling a considerable distance from start to finish without any deviation in trajectory in order to avoid being pulled into the blackhole, which would likely be counter-productive anyway. In conclusion, a blackhole serves only as a route to destruction; they are also fundamental to the structure and existence of the universe.

Although time-travel is effectively negated by ECHO theory, such principles as the speed of existence do give plausibility to some other potentially fantastical possibilities. Though the concept of parallel universes is certainly not a new one, ECHO theory now provides a mechanism by which it may be feasible to detect (and interact with) such alternative existences. It also offers credibility and an explanation for the existence of dark matter/energy.

If it were possible to manipulate such facets of matter/energy as their underlying phase or length of existence (for example), then it may be possible to send a message to a potential parallel universe – though the chances of receiving a reply would certainly be at least as unlikely as SETI detecting a stray intelligent-alien signal; not impossible though. Perhaps more interesting is ECHO theories understanding of dark matter/energy. If we accept that the material from which the observable universe is constructed is the result of a considerable skewing of the statistical random possibilities, then it is entirely reasonable to suggest that there may be other material generated by the Big Bang that isn't observable. All astronomical research would seem to point towards this being the case – so what could dark matter/energy actually be like and what is its role in the structure of the universe?

Measurements to estimate the total mass of the observable universe seem to indicate insufficient mass to provide the gravitational field that would be required to sustain its existence, given the spread of material. This suggests that there is some hidden source of mass. Blackholes may account for at least some of this, as they may not always be identifiable and current astronomical research does suggest that there could be a great many more blackholes than previously realised. However, this still may not be enough. The idea of so-called dark matter/energy was postulated to explain this apparent discrepancy and observation may be starting to add credibility to this hypothesis. So, what kind of matter/energy could be responsible for all this missing mass? Returning to the structure of elementary particles as posited by ECHO theory, it is possible to predict particles which could potentially form that would have little or no lateral mobility, while also unable to significantly interact with "normal" matter/energy: in particular, hybrid particles (more complex than the neutrino) and clumps of w-dimensional S and ʘ particles. Some of this material may be peppered thinly throughout the whole universe and some hidden inside galaxies (especially those without blackholes). A high density of non-static dark-matter material at the boundary of the universe (like a skin) may even be responsible for the continuing expansion, whilst simultaneously maintaining the entire geometric structure: another possible paradox whereby (some) dark-matter may be travelling outwards in 3-dimensional space, with a "reversed" 4th-dimensional field [i.e. their direction of travel is not in the 4th dimensional plane], which causes it to act like the surface of a bubble in a vacuum. Of course there must come a point at which this effect would wane... Unfortunately, this is one subject that without observational proof can only ever be purely speculative, although mathematical modelling could perhaps narrow down the possibilities.

What can be definitively concluded is that gravity is the force that binds the universe into the relatively stable structure that we know. Gravity propagates its force along infinitesimally thin lines of polarised space within the 4th dimensional plane, the force becoming exponentially weaker over distance, yet extrapolating to infinity – however, eventually the force is too weak to have any detectable effect. From the 3-dimensional perspective, these lines of force are infinitely wide, but they are never static and therefore appear to be acting in all directions simultaneously. In the 4th dimensional plane, gravity is an immensely strong force, but from the 3-dimensional perspective it is infinitely diluted; however, this is compensated to a considerable degree by the constant merging and overlapping of the force lines, as result of existential equilibrium induced oscillation of the larger particles. The overall effect is an apparent curvature of 3-dimensional space into the 4th spatial dimension, such that even photons can be directed along a seemingly curved path. But there may be other effects at work which make a subtle (perhaps virtually indiscernible, though important,) contribution to causality. Specifically, zero-point energy and, an apparent "anti-gravitational" force which helps to explain the continuing expansion of the universe [a contributory factor of the Hubble constant] which would constitute a very weak 5th fundamental force. If the latter is a genuine factor in expansion, I would suggest that this is actually due to matter/energy being destroyed inside blackholes and thus adding to the volume of space in which the universe is effectively contained. The main cause of the increasing speed of the expansion is probably best explained by the "dark-matter skin" theory.

Zero-point energy is a truly enigmatic quantity that scientific observation appears to support. ECHO theory posits that this apparent spontaneous emission of energy is due to the continued creation of ʘ and/or S particles throughout all (or most) of the space containing the universe. Precisely what effect this energy has upon causality can only be guessed at: at the micro-level of the atomic and sub-atomic, there may be some small (though significant interaction) – this may be a contribution to the unpredictability of the exact location of such elementary particles as the electron in there atomic orbits; this may also result in rare transient effects in chemical reactions and molecular structure. On the macro-scale of the tangible physical world, there would be no noticeable effect. However, though this phenomenon may be of relatively insubstantial consequence, it is a possible source of randominity that is not connected to the Big Bang. The potential significance of this will become evident later.

—————◊—————

Gravity isn't the only factor that dictates the grand plan of the universe: matter-time is also a critical factor. Matter-time is easiest to comprehend when split into its component parts, i.e. speed and distance. As established earlier, there is a speed of existence and a length of existence. These existential factors are fixed [constant] for our universe, otherwise it could not work the way that it does; the precise quantities for these factors were created by random chance and have a significant bearing not only on the micro-world, but also the macro-world – the structure of the whole universe is dependent upon these factors. Because complex matter cannot form instantaneously, (i.e. it takes a relative long period of time,) the apparent time of existence that applies to the universe isn't critical in that respect; because time is relative, only its relationship to the length of existence is important; but relative-time clearly is significant, i.e. the differential in relative time between different events has a bearing on the whole mechanics of the universe and it may be that relative-time is a constant throughout infinite space. If this is the case, it would mean that all potential stable universes would be limited in their range of historical and structural formation, i.e. all stable universes would, in relative terms, be similar. Yet time is another great paradox of existence, because strictly there is no such thing and therefore nothing ever really happens! A time of existence unit represents an existential transition – there is no exact present: the absolute present is an infinitesimal slice of time, which means that it takes an infinite number of slices to complete and an infinite number can never be completed; moreover, any length of time is effectively infinitesimal relative to the infinite time of infinite space and therefore, non-existent. However, our existence quite clearly runs contrary to that notion, hence the paradox.

Another critical constant is π. The circle is fundamental to the structure of matter and therefore, the whole universe. The constant π relates to some absolute differential in angle, i.e. the minimum angle that can exist between two particles of matter/energy to produce the "perfect" circle or sphere. This will be related to the minimum possible wavelength of light, (which will be dictated by the length of existence). Both the minimum possible size for a circle/sphere and the maximum possible size for a circle/sphere will be dependent upon these constants, and therefore, the exact value of π. The way π is calculated will result in an absolute value, which may not be the value that is true for our universe; however, any possible difference would be so miniscule as to be of no importance to calculations, as once past about the 20th decimal place, any difference would be irrelevant. The Universal value of π however, will be important in dictating the smallest and largest possible circle/sphere [in fact, it's actually the other way around] for our universe. The smallest possible angular curve may have technological significance, whereas the largest possible sphere may have significance for the entire universe. If the expansion of the universe is in any way driven by a "dark matter bubble" then the maximum spherical limit would mean that the "bubble" might eventually burst: the consequence would be a gradual slowing of the acceleration of the expansion – which might ultimately lead to the universe collapsing in on itself.

An interesting aside to the issue of the value of π is that it may even be a variable quantity, depending on the nature of the material from which the circle or sphere is made! Again, though, any variation would be so miniscule as to have no practical mathematical consequence.

Finally, there are the consequences of Relativity: specifically, that it predicts that there can be no such thing as absolute space or time [which is not in conflict with ECHO theory]. Because everything is in perpetual motion: from the elementary particle level all the way up to the rotation of a planet on its axis; a planet's orbit around a star; a star's spiral motion within a galaxy; a galaxy's "outward" motion as a result of the Big Bang and, possibly, the travel of the universe itself through infinite space, there are no absolute points of reference, so that a location in time and space (and a body's velocity) is always relative to the point of observation. Since space is infinite, nothing can ever have a specific location in time or space, which also applies to any point of observation. In conclusion, existence cannot be considered finite: it is an eternal fluctuation.

# Chapter Six

# Subjective Matter

Some years ago I had a hospital sample tube sitting on my bathroom shelf for several months [I can't recall why] which had a 5-figure sample number printed on it. For some weeks I had been looking at this number on a daily basis and felt sure that it was familiar; then one day it dawned on me that the number was identical to one of my bank account numbers! What were the chances of that? Well, on closer inspection I realised that the number on the tube was in fact the middle five numbers of that particular 7-figure bank account number – though as this did start with a zero, you could argue that it was the first 5 digits of a 6-figure number. Quite a coincidence I think most people would agree, nonetheless. So, what were the chances of that? Surprisingly, less than 100,000 to 1; still pretty extraordinary, though...?

One of the primary techniques that the human mind constantly employs is pattern recognition. We constantly search our mental database to find matches and comparisons with the world we perceive around us – this is a basic function of the human mind, allowing us to make sense of our environment. Of course, it can be fooled because it is subject to a whole series of assumptions: these usually help us to understand the world, but can also confuse and mislead us. In fact, we all suffer from a myriad of personal misconceptions and many of these are shared by the majority of the human race. A primary example is the belief that when something unexpected happens which has some correspondence with another event that we are experiencing or have previously experienced, we tend to make associations that are not always valid and/or imagine that they are somehow mysterious because they seem to be very unlikely. However, even when something may be statistically improbable, does that mean it is really that unlikely? This may seem like an absurd question: if something is improbable, then it must be unlikely! But probabilities are entirely relative; therefore, probability should be understood as a purely mathematical concept, whereas "likelihood" should be regarded as matter of subjective human perception. With that in mind: how likely is that at least one person will win a state lottery in any given draw? Most draws are won by somebody, often several people and yet the odds are millions to 1 against matching the jackpot numbers. 'Euromillions' is won on a fairly regular basis; the odds are currently 116,531,800 to 1. Yet we are not shocked when someone wins, or even several people in the same draw. In the US 'Powerball Powerplay' jackpot odds are 175,223,510 to 1: it is hard to imagine anyone ever winning this, but they do. Many apparent coincidences or apparent near impossibilities are not as unlikely as they seem. I once dropped a coin from standing height and watched it disappear into thin air. It had actually landed on its edge, bouncing straight up behind the gap in a cupboard door, before landing upright on its edge on the immediate other side of the cupboard's supporting plinth. It took some determination to locate it, but I knew that it couldn't really disappear into thin air, so it had to be somewhere in that room, I just had to persevere. The odds against something like that happening must be pretty substantial – too many variables to even hazard a guess, though. As unlikely an event this is, the reality is that it is equally as probable as any other outcome. The human mind is very good at grouping things together to simplify the world we perceive. When a coin is tossed and allowed to land on the floor, the actual number of possible outcomes is (for the sake of argument) 100 million; but the mind reduces this to 3 possible outcomes, i.e. heads, tails or landing upright [or simpler still: landing flat, landing upright]. If we presume that the number of possible upright landings is 1000, then the chance of the heads or tails (combined) possibility is 99,999,000: clearly, the chance of an upright result is considerably less likely than a heads or tails. In conclusion: if we toss a coin into the air and allow it to land on the floor, most likely it will land face down, either heads or tails; very occasionally, it will land upright on its edge. The probability that it would land in any precise orientation is exactly the same as the probability that it would land in any other; in fact, there are an immense number of different possible consequences [100 million is just a conservative guess], but it happens that there are significantly more that result in the coin landing face down than there are that it will land upright, therefore it is far more likely to land flat down and extremely unlikely to land upright. This is a matter of perception, because the human mind likes to group things together. In reality, every possible outcome is equally probable. Perhaps this is why life [to our knowledge] perceives the universe in three dimensions and not the four that ECHO theory proposes really exist: it is just much easier, with far less apparent probabilities to consider.

Another scenario of coin tossing is the likelihood of having a run of ten heads or ten tails: this seems like a very unlikely event, but the odds are only 1024 to 1. So, if one tossed the coin 1024 times, then in all probability, one would achieve at least one run of ten consecutive heads or tails – not really that unlikely, after all. Now consider an outcome that really is highly improbable: for example, a run of a trillion head coin tosses. The odds here truly are mind-bending; in fact they tend to the infinitely-improbable. Yet, if it were possible to toss the coin an infinite number of times, then it would be infinitely-probable that a run of a trillion heads would occur, and not just once, but an infinite number of times; moreover, any possible run of consecutive like results would be infinitely-probable to occur an infinite number of times.

Schrodinger's cat is dead – well, it's infinitely-probable, anyway. No complex biological entity can survive inside a sealed container without food, water or air for any length of time, so there is a point beyond which the cat could not still be alive; unless, that is, something inexplicable happened – perhaps something to do with zero-point energy, whereby an "abnormal" emission of energy occurred which somehow sustained the cat's life. Therefore, it can't (probably) be said to be impossible, though infinitely-improbable. What it can't be is both alive and dead: it's either one or the other, even if you could never be absolutely certain. There are going to be some limits to what can spontaneously occur, though: complex matter takes time to form, so there is no possibility of a pink elephant suddenly coming into existence out of thin air; pink elephants take billions of years to evolve.

When something "strange" happens it is a natural human instinct to suspect the paranormal at work and of course, everyone loves a mystery. Attempting to understand the unknown can be a fabulous and exciting pursuit, until totally unsupported and/or unjustifiable explanations are presented as fact. ECHO theory is not proven fact and there is no intent to suggest otherwise, but it does at least offer in-depth reasoning for its postulations. Too often "paranormal" and religious notions are paraded around as genuine knowledge – they are not. Humans are all too often eager to believe the most outlandish explanation available, rather than a boring mundane one, despite that usually being by far the most likely.

Science can only attempt to suggest possible solutions to some of the apparent mystery phenomena; now ECHO theory offers some new potential insights into these bizarre subjects. It is not possible to cover everything strange and mysterious, but I will attempt to tackle the most obvious examples.

—————◊—————

Not a shred of tangible evidence exists to support the general premise of 'ghosts', let alone that they are the 'spirits' of the dead. Most so-called "evidence" is anecdotal: unfortunately, human testimony is subject to illusion, delusion, embellishment, exaggeration and downright lies. However, many people really do believe they have experienced a genuine phenomenon – but human perception is anything but reliable. Science offers numerous speculative theories as to the true nature of 'ghosts': hallucination, delusion and optical illusions. Favourite solutions are the possible effects of electromagnetic fields and ultrasound, which can be generated by a variety of sources, both natural and artificial. Little is understood about how these can affect the human perception, but there is some evidence to suggest that both can induce visual and/or auditory hallucinations. Mental aberration and hysteria caused by heightening of sensations and/or cognitive psychological interference also have a role. There a few alternative explanations offered by ECHO theory – though I must emphasise that conventional science still provides the most sensible solutions: (i) Unusual bursts of zero-point energy may cause strange effects; (ii) The presence of dark matter/energy may occasionally give rise to some bizarre effects; (iii) Inter-dimensional interactions could perhaps account for some phenomena; exactly how that could occur, one could only speculate, but there may a some potential (albeit, extremely rare) mechanisms (e.g. zero-point energy bursts and sporadic interactions between matter/energy and [normally incompatible] dark matter/energy) that enable fleeting connections with alternative dimensional existences; (iv) The effect of zero-point energy and/or dark matter/energy interacting inside the human brain. These are admittedly pretty exotic possibilities, though.

The 'afterlife' is a somewhat different issue to that of 'ghosts' – the two are not necessarily related. Neither conventional science nor ECHO theory provides any credence for this belief; in fact, ECHO theory completely dispels this belief as pure myth – this is covered further on.

Another popular phenomenon is the UFO. There are those that seem to want to believe that all UFO's must be of extra-terrestrial or extra-dimensional origin. The fact is, many UFO's are not unidentifiable; some UFO's are not flying (at least not in any conventional sense), while others aren't even solid objects. The term 'UFO' is a bit of a coverall for quite a number of phenomena, though it does usually involve non-human life forms. So, what is the chance of an alien encounter? Given the immenseness of the universe and abundance of star systems, it would seem likely that somewhere "out there" is an another intelligent life form – though it should be said that it is entirely possible that the human animal is the pinnacle of our universes' creative potential. The main obstacle to an encounter with any possible alien intelligence is distance – the universe is so vast that even if it were teeming with intelligent beings, the probability is that the nearest one will reside at an enormous distance from us. ECHO theory limits travel to the speed of light/existence, does not allow for time-travel or using 'wormholes' for instantaneous travel. At the speed of light, (although the nearest star is ca 4 light-years away,) the probability is that it would be necessary to journey 100's or even 1000's of light-years to reach a planet that could support an intelligent life form – at least one within the realm of our existing comprehension. That being the case, casual space-tourism really isn't a realistic proposition. Firstly, even if it were possible to travel at the speed of light/existence and perhaps barely age, and manage to survive, it is going to take 100's of years to make the round trip – and no intelligent being is going to do that casually. It will also require substantial resources, which are not likely to be available on a frivolous basis. Secondly, even if a biological entity could survive the necessary speeds needed – ECHO theory negates this – there is also the acceleration/deceleration problem: there is a limit to how much g-force any biological entity could withstand, which means the speeding-up and slowing-down phase could add a significant amount of time to the whole enterprise. So, although it can't be said to be impossible, casual alien visits are not all that realistic, and this is essentially what Ufology demands that we believe – though there is of course the state and global conspiracy theories: however, this doesn't really gel with the belief in such a proliferation of sightings. Or perhaps they live on the moon...? Most Ufology belief requires the invention of completely unsupported hypotheses, which are easily disprovable or so ridiculously unlikely that it means suspending all reasonable common-sense belief. ECHO theory's view is that alien visitation is so improbable that it is only sensible to seek out more "down-to-earth" solutions. Conventional science can offer plenty of sensible explanations for the UFO phenomenon, which essentially run along similar lines to that of "ghosts", plus some little understood or unknown natural causes. ECHO theory also suggests similar possibilities to that given for "ghosts". Ultimately, though, this is one phenomena for which no definitive answer is currently available and cannot be completely dismissed.

Other paranormal disciplines include such psychic abilities as psychokinesis, clairvoyance, spiritualism, and the occult. The occult requires some odd beliefs, in particular, "other realms", supernatural beings and magic: such concepts are a hangover from the pagan past, before science took centre stage. What of "Other realms"? Presumably this refers to alternative dimensions – something which in principle is accepted by ECHO theory, and who knows what might reside there? However, contact on such a level simply isn't viable. Supernatural beings are not beyond possibility – those with superhuman powers, anyway. Though there may be some odd hybrid animals and, conceivably, genetically engineered ones on the loose, there's not a scrap of tangible evidence to seriously support anything remotely demonic. Real magic implies the existence of harnessable forms of energy and forces not known to science: this is negated by all sensible science and certainly has no place in ECHO theory. Spiritualism also has no place in ECHO theory: the exact reasons will become evident later. Telekinesis, mind-reading and precognition may be not be impossible, though: as it is not known whether space/matter can be manipulated in such fanciful ways as would be required by telekinesis, it cannot be dismissed entirely, but, this (if it exists) and certainly supposed mind-reading and precognition are explainable by the Universal ECHO – this aspect is explored further on.

Religion (and quite often the paranormal) requires a belief in God and sometimes magical powers imbued by God. No religion clarifies precisely what God is, other than to imply some ultimate higher being: an immortal with unlimited powers. Science has made it increasingly difficult for religion to explain where and what God is and consequently it has been forced into progressively more abstract definitions. Before the domination of Christianity, multiple gods were the common belief; though Judaism was the originator of this concept, and of course, Islam later embraced the same single God, once Roman Catholicism took hold, the god for every occasion culture was at an end. Perhaps surprisingly, ECHO theory doesn't negate the possibility that humans, the Earth, even the universe is the creation of a god – or possibly gods – just not in any kind of religious sense. The ancients weren't quite as daft as we might sometimes think today: religion is essentially a philosophy that attempts to explain that which defies comprehension and quite a lot of the creation stories, though obviously fanciful and dependent on the existence of a god or gods, do have some interesting elements which weren't that far off the mark. Though I would seriously doubt the likelihood that another being has had a hand in creation at any level, it is not possible to definitively say that it isn't true. What is certain, according to ECHO theory, is that it doesn't actually matter: the fundamental reality of random spontaneous creation is that regardless of what intermediate phases may occur, it must always start with nothing [empty space] and ultimately have no meaning. It is remotely possible that a highly advanced alien entity could have had a hand in the emergence of humans on Earth, or even life itself. But this is not the God of religion. It is also not beyond all possibility that a greater intelligence, possibly existing on a completely different scale and dimension to ourselves, could even have created the entire universe – or at least instigated the Big Bang and directed the development of the universe. This might be the god of religion, yet if such a entity did exist, it is improbable that it would not exist in isolation; moreover, whether it did or not, it would have had to have been created as part of a lengthy process of spontaneous random creation, irrespective of how similar or different that might have been to that of our own universe and, a God on such a level isn't likely to have much interest in the feeble creatures on a remote planet in an unremarkable galaxy – we would be but amoeba to such a being. There could even be an infinite sequence of gods, each creating an infinite sequence of universes and giving rise to an infinite sequence of more gods... ad infinitum. When one considers the concept of God on this basis, it quickly ceases to have any significant importance.

And, of course, we should not forget Astrology, the great pseudo-science. There are those that confuse Astrology with Astronomy. Both involve the study of heavenly bodies – but that's where the similarity ends. Astronomy is one of the purest forms of scientific endeavour, in that it is predominantly observation-based. Astrology also involves observation; however, it is entirely unscientific in this pursuit, not least of all because it relies for the most part upon relationships between heavenly bodies that are (in any meaningful way) completely non-existent and therefore erroneous. Most stars of any given astrological sign [or astronomical constellation] are not related and may be separated by enormous distances; any correlations made are entirely dependent on one's location in the universe. The night sky as observed from another point even within our own galaxy would be unrecognisable and yet contain essentially the same visible stars. So, how can observing the night sky enable predictive divination? In short, it cannot. But according to ECHO theory, everything in the universe is effectively connected and therefore, hypothetically, conclusions about the future can be drawn from events in the past. Well, hypothetically, yes; but practically, no. Nonetheless, any prediction of the future or recollection of the past by any means could potentially be accurate, either by pure chance or as a consequence of the ECHO. Personally, I consider astrology to be a ridiculously antiquated method of understanding the universe, with no scientific value whatsoever, and most astrologers to be charlatans (or at least deluded). Yet, may be, just 'may be', someone somewhere sometime might actually make a series of genuinely accurate predictions, but, not as a result of their "astrological knowledge" (per se), but simply as the result of an artefact of the ECHO.

—————◊—————

In The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy the "answer to the ultimate question of life, the Universe and everything" is revealed to be "42". In The Restaurant at the End of the Universe [Douglas Adam's follow-up novel] the question is discovered to be "what do you get if you multiply six by nine?" to which the main protagonist comments "I've always said there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe." This may all be comic nonsense, but 'never a truer word said in jest' might just be applicable to this concept. Imagine that the actual value of π transpired to be 3.1415926536 precisely: what ramifications would that have upon our understanding of the Universe? Though the numerical differences would be tiny, the implications for our understanding of the physics of the Universe would be significant. However, I am not suggesting any such thing really is the case: I just pose it as a hypothetical possibility. We cannot suppose that everything we "know" about the Universe is necessarily correct and it just might be that there is something fundamentally wrong with the current conventional understanding. ECHO theory poses a determining question of its own: incidence or coincidence; ordinary or extraordinary?

When the Universe came into existence, [ignoring zero-point energy for the moment] all matter/energy that exists today was created. That matter/energy was initially distributed entirely at random; thereafter, the location of any given particle at any given point in time [relative to the Big Bang] was and always is dependent on that particle's velocity, physical characteristics and relative locational relationship with every other particle [particularly those in relatively close spatial proximity] at the moment of the Big Bang. Therefore, hypothetically, given a precise 4-dimensional map of all matter/energy at relative time zero, it would be possible to predict the exact location of every particle produced by the Big Bang at any point in relative time. This predisposition of all matter/energy that exists, means that everything that happens in the Universe throughout its entire existence was effectively determined at the moment of the Big Bang, i.e. approximately 14 billion years ago. Since the moment of creation, everything that ever happened was pre-destined; assuming levels to have been relatively consistent and constant throughout the whole Universe for the entire period then, zero-point energy would not have had any significant effect upon that predetermination. Even assuming considerable zero-point energy effects, though hypothetical prediction of events would be diminished, everything that happened would still be pre-destined because those effects would also be spontaneous, random and effectively pre-ordained. In conclusion: ECHO theory predicates that absolute Universal determinism must be fact.

Universal determinism is a very difficult scientific tenet to come to terms with, because it has some incredibly profound implications for human beings. Everything about life tells us that we do have free will and that we have control over our actions; it also gives us the belief that the future is amorphous and though [some believe] open to a degree of predictability, not a fait accompli. The notion of events being incidental or coincidental; ordinary or extraordinary, are inherent human traits intrinsic to our ethereal consciousness: that tenuous human capacity that provides the spiritual home of our very being and our essential nature. But is it real? Many now think that consciousness occurs on a quantum level – which may well be true – but, quantum physics is not compatible with Universal determinism. So, perhaps quantum physics is in need of a little tweaking and some re-understanding; ECHO theory is not in conflict with quantum physics, it simply requires a change in our understanding of how the quantum world operates. On the face of it this is a contradiction, however, if you have fully understood the principles of ECHO theory, it does make sense, albeit paradoxically.

Acceptance of Universal determinism is integral to the general assertions of ECHO theory and it means: no God(s) watching over us, no afterlife, no free will and no meaningful consciousness; in fact, no meaning whatsoever. I am writing this and you reading this because we have no choice and our whole lives were effectively decided 14 billion years ago. We don't even have a choice as to whether we believe any of this or not. What is more: although every event is connected to a single point in time [the Big Bang], at any given infinitesimal moment, every event is completely independent and unconnected – another bizarre paradox of existence.

So, if there is no meaning, what is there? The answer is endless patterns. Just as there is an equilibrium between space and matter, so there is between chaos and order: conventionally, a random sequence is regarded as chaos, but any random sequence once repeated becomes a pattern, so it could be contended that any sequence, however apparently random, is a template for a pattern. There really is no such thing as order and disorder, there just is, and given long enough, any given starting sequence will eventually generate repeating patterns. There is no incidence or coincidence: both are always true. The Universe represents a random-pattern generator on a colossal scale with such a vast quantity of individual underlying components [subtending to "near infinity"] that it is beyond human comprehension to properly appreciate. This patternation has been disseminating into space for nearly 14 billion years, consequently a myriad of perpetually fracturing matrices have been able to blossom into the entire Universe that we know, creating layer upon layer of complementary structural arrays of existence. Certain basic characteristics will likely be common to all stable potential universes, but as there are an infinite number of possible templates, it is infinitely-improbable that any two would ever be exactly alike. Therefore, there is a generalised homogeneity that is essentially unique to our Universe and which permeates every level of its specific existential essence. [However, given infinite relative time, all possible outcomes must have an infinite-probability of being repeated an infinite number of times.]

The proof for the Universal ECHO can be observed throughout all levels of existence, from the sub-nuclear up to the extragalactic, and everywhere in between. An obvious example would be the analogy between the atomic structure and that of a solar system. They may be different in more ways than they are similar from a purely technical standpoint, yet the correlation is plainly unmistakeable. This type of amorphous correspondence is typical of the ECHO and indicates that there is rarely precise repetition in randomised-patternation on the scale of the universe. Of course, as previously expounded, the human mind seeks out patterns: this is because they are there to be found and that is why the human mind is programmed to find them; it is all part of the ECHO. Another obvious example is the correspondence in behaviour between light-waves, sound waves and waves propagated in a liquid; technically, these are all distinctly different and yet they are clearly analogous. In everyday life we often experience what are commonly perceived as "coincidences": these apparently unusual/unexpected correspondences between seemingly unconnected events are a perfect illustration of the intricate cascade of ripples which proliferate throughout the infinite layers of the Universal ECHO, with a single point of origin at the Big Bang. Thus, events which are ultimately unconnected, display an echo of their original connection that has radiated out and permeated all later events. Any correlations between events in the present are the result of connections that occurred 14 billion years ago.

Neuroscience is now able to offer some insights into the human brain's sub-conscious functioning and what has been revealed suggests that sub-conscious decisions are generated several seconds before being transmitted to physical actions, which would seem to support the probability of an absence of free will. Research seems to indicate that, for example, the decision to catch a ball is made before the ball is thrown and therefore the decision of where (and precisely how) to position one's hand to catch the ball is an anticipation of where the ball will be at the moment the catch is to be made: effectively, a demonstration of precognition. Therefore, all humans [and presumably all living creatures] continuously exhibit the ability to predict the future. If this is correct, then this is yet further proof of universal determinism and the Universal ECHO. Should we really be surprised by this, though? Both human and animal behaviour is predominantly instinctive, involving a great deal of repetitive generalised patterns. We are fundamentally just chemically programmed biological entities. So why not pre-programmed?

Such realisations put a completely different complexion upon our understanding of the dubious and controversial abilities of clairvoyance and psychokinesis, et al. The irony would seem to be that these apparent abilities could genuinely [in some few cases, at least] have some "real" manifestation – and yet, just be part of a pre-written plan: the Universal ECHO. Or perhaps we are all taking part in an immense 'Matrix'-like computer game played by the real humans! Either way, the fact is that it still makes no difference to the reality of Universal determinism and the Universal ECHO. It is quite a nice idea, though, and one that has been seriously proposed as being true on the balance of probability – so who knows? Another idea that appeals is that human consciousness [the spirit] is connected across parallel universes, as portrayed in the science-fiction movie 'The One'. I suppose it cannot be said to be impossible, as the nature of consciousness is far from fully understood. Even more comforting to some, might be the fact that having no free will, along with Universal determinism, means that no one can be held responsible for their actions. A convenient excuse for the criminal fraternity, but this also means that retribution, revenge and the system of justice and punishment are also beyond our control; if one commits a crime, one should still expect to pay the price – it's just the way it is. In the end there is no such thing as good or bad and there is no such thing as luck; it is all just an inevitability: whether you like it or not, there is no choice; and there is no choice in whether you like it or not.

—————◊—————

Existence is a self-perpetuating paradox of infinite proportions: Infinity to the power of Infinity might just be the best way to describe it.

\---------------------------------------------------------------

NB: The Author of this book can be contacted at the following email address: alanrazen@gmx.com.

# Epilogue

This book (of course) represents a paradox in its own right: people will believe whatever they believe, right or wrong, because they have no choice and so my writing this book is a lost or meaningless cause – but one that I also had no choice in. Then again, without writing and publishing this work, there could be no possible impact on anyone: which is all rather a circular concept inclined to make anyone a little dizzy. Ultimately, I am just relieved to be able to think about something else during those periods when my mind is largely unoccupied.

Certainly, I accept that some [possibly all] of the ideas presented in this book will be quickly dismissed [rightly or wrongly], others subsequently proven to be incorrect or even completely misguided. But I do hope that at least some of the concepts will be of value to scientific endeavour, if only to inspire others to reconsider the meaning of existence and perhaps conceive some new enlightened concepts of their own. After 30 years of sleepless nights, one has to hope for some measure of success.

—————◊—————

Although this book is mostly conjecture, some things surely must be true: universal determinism as determined by ECHO theory has an undeniable logic. Some believe that existence cannot be solved by a logical approach, but as we are part of existence, why shouldn't human intuition (including counter-intuitiveness) and good old plain logic, provide the key to the understanding of the true nature of existence? It's something to think about, anyway....

\---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since originally completing this book in May of 2014 I have had some further thoughts on a number of details and also wanted to include some reaction to certain scientific developments which have occurred during the intervening period.

The fields of contemporary fundamental Physics and Astrophysics are regularly enhanced by new discoveries and ideas, and whenever this happens I am compelled to scrutinize my theories accordingly. I will discuss the ones that I am aware of from item 3 onwards in addition to some expanded thoughts relating to the theory in general. However, before that, I have been compelled by my own son [who has an Msc in Physics] to address some potential criticisms in respect of certain scientific "facts" that my book appears to contradict:

(1) Neutrons, according to current theory, are composed of quarks. The exact details of this are something that my book is potentially challenging. A neutron decays to produce a proton, an electron/positron and some energy. This is not in dispute and has a roll in the nuclear physics of the Sun. Another fact is that neutrons outside of the atomic nucleus decay with a half-life of less than 15 minutes. That would indicate instability not obvious from the quark model. Protons and electrons are considered to be stable – or at least, their decay is so long that they are immeasurable. Therefore, the idea that a neutron is a hybrid particle of an electron trapped inside the structure of a proton isn't beyond possibility.

(2) The physics of the Sun is extremely complex and voluminous, (not to mention, largely theoretical). It would require a very thick textbook to cover the subject. For the layman, such details are beyond their necessitous understanding. But in order to respond to criticisms of my over-simplification of this science, I proffer the following observations:

There is a limited amount of chemistry which occurs in the Sun, mostly at the cooler outer regions, where even some molecules can exist. However, for the greater part, the Sun (like all stars) is too hot for chemistry to be possible; most atoms exist as plasma – ionised particles (electrons and charged atomic nuclei). Plasma electrons are not strictly free electrons, as they are still associated with the nuclei. At the surface of the Sun, plasma is emitted at high energy as the solar wind.

Even Helium can ionize at temperatures of 20,000 K, so any dissociated electrons would not remain inside the Sun for very long: the outer photosphere of the Sun is at a temperature of approx. 6000 K, although there can be regions where the temperature is as low as 4000 K – at this level, some chemistry is possible; but, the corona layer of the Sun is at a temperature of 1 – 2 million K (and in places can be as high as 20 million K). The core is said to be at a temperature of 15.7 million K. At the core (I would surmise) the gravitational pressure may be great enough to enable "chemistry" involving heavy ions, but there aren't likely to be many electrons hanging around.

Thermal ionization is where heat brings about electron dissociation. Temperatures as low as 1200 K can be enough to cause dissociation in a vacuum. The Sun is not a vacuum, but it is exceedingly hot and is composed of ionized hydrogen nuclei (e.g. protons) and ionized helium nuclei in a ratio of about 75:24 %, [with all other elements amounting to less than 2%] (plus associated electron-plasma).

The Sun (as with all stars) is fuelled by a nuclear reaction, which involves a principle process known as quantum tunnelling – which I will not attempt to explain. The nuclear fusion of the Sun is (in its simplest terms) hydrogen nuclei fusing to form helium nuclei (at millions of K) and producing a large amount of energy which facilitates a chain reaction. That reaction involves neutrons decaying to protons and electrons. Electrons being significantly less massive than protons will inevitably be lost (as part of the solar wind) to a greater extent than the protons, therefore "free electrons" are expelled from the Sun. Any explanation beyond this level is strictly for the Physicist and broadly theoretical (albeit based on observation).

(3) A recent experiment was reported whereby the shape of a photon was manipulated; observation indicated that they were slowed down as a consequence and maintained that reduced velocity on entering free space. This is admittedly not something I had imagined, but I believe it lends strength to the idea that even photons have structure – and are not necessarily finite. It also seems to show that the speed of light is not a fixed parameter. I also recently read in a reliable scientific source that "spin zero particles travel faster than light when quantum tunnelling". In addition, there is a school of thought that quarks are divisible. All of which may support my concept of a speed of existence being the universal constant [and that this must, in fact, be greater than the speed of light]; and lends credibility to the case for the existence of the ±S particle (and the ʘ particle).

(4) Another recently reported experiment related to the conversion of photons to electrons. Electrons were already "known" to annihilate to produce photons, but this was the first time the process had been reversed [artificially]. All of which surely lends support to the idea that the electron and photon can be interchangeable.

(5) Another scientific article I came across recently stated that magnetic/electric field anomalies indicate that at some levels there is no +/- force. A further article talked about low temperature magnetism, where again there appeared to be no +/-, but that the forces appeared to be operating together. This does (at least) sound like some sort of vindication of some aspects of my theories of the nature of electro-magnetic forces and electric charge.

(6) An astrophysics article stated that all stars spin, but slow down with age. However, quasars and neutron stars have been observed to spin rapidly, so I'm not clear what the full implications of this phenomenon are – I would suggest that this a very complex matter. Nonetheless, I think it may lend support to the idea that all blackholes spin, in that it would appear that all "non-solid" celestial bodies have a propensity to spin. Quite why older stars spin slower is not immediately explainable, but (at a guess) may have something to do with gravitational inconsistencies [i.e. non-uniform distribution of mass] in their structure causing retardation.

(7) An article relating to the composition of the universe stated that about 50% of all stars existed outside of galaxies. The reasons for this may have something to do with how the universe developed sometime after the Big Bang, but when everything was still relatively close together – perhaps many galaxies were ripped apart or some stars were able to drift away due to gravitational variations.

(8) Apparently Professor Brian Cox [someone I have a great deal of respect for] believes in the concept of multiple universes. Though far from a unique opinion, I nonetheless find that supportive of some of my theories for the nature of existence on the grand scale.

(9) It was recently reported that analysis of the infra-red background radiation of the universe did not indicate an extra inflation following the Big Bang, as had been previously accepted. This is more consistent with my theory of universal creation and the nature of the Big Bang.

(10) Researchers recently developed a photon tractor-beam. On the face of it, this would seem to indicate some physics that is difficult to explain. However, (as I understand it) it appears that this works by heating the medium immediately in front of the beam and therefore requires an atmosphere to work; so, not quite the tractor-beam of Star Trek fame.

(11) Robotics researchers ran an experiment where individual "bots" were programmed to follow a few simple rules and then allowed to randomly interact. The outcome was patterns that could be pre-determined. For me, this is further evidence for the ECHO, which might be visualised as concentric ripples emanating in a pool of water, such that every ripple is the product of the previous one, and therefore, all are connected by (and dependent upon) a common origin, making them hypothetically predictable: this further ties in with the mathematical reality of statistical probability, which is evidence itself of a Universal ECHO. The existence of a collective consciousness (if real) and the way that history repeats itself are also possible evidence of the ECHO.

(12) I recall many years ago a documentary about someone touting an electrolysis apparatus that purportedly could generate more energy than was needed to power it – making it self-perpetuating and a potential source of free energy.

I don't know whether this proved to be based on false data (like the cold fusion experiment some years ago,) or was some sort of con, but I can't find anything on the web relating to this – or even the concept: a cover-up? Well, I suppose if it were genuine, it wouldn't be difficult to imagine that certain worldwide organisations might want to suppress it.

The premise of this process was the cycling of AC current at 20,000+ cycles/s, [mains electricity operates at 50 cycles/s]. It was an interesting idea, which might tie-in with my theories about electron/photon interchange ability and interaction with space/zero-point energy/dark energy or dark matter. Admittedly, I have no substantive theories as to the mechanism, but it is intriguing.

A phenomenon that is better represented is the Casimir Effect, which relates to zero-point energy. This certainly gives the impression of supporting my theories of space, matter and gravity. However, it is not proven.

Finally, I would like to further discuss the nature of matter-time. It occurs to me that if matter is constantly in a propagating phase, then the present only exists in an infinitesimal moment. We constantly observe in the past because the brain takes time to process sensory information, by which point, reality has moved forward in time. I wonder whether this concept may provide an alternative or contributory explanation for the apparent existence of "ghost particles" [virtual particles] under certain experimental conditions. In other words, it may help explain the phenomenon that matter can appear to be in two places at once, i.e. that it is just an artefact of our perception and the machines that record such findings. (There is also the possibility of faster than light travelling particles, which could also produce a false result.)

In conclusion, all advanced life forms effectively act out pre-destined existences, mentally registering that existence slightly after it has actually happened, such that the perceived present is in fact the past. This might explain why when someone has a serious head trauma they usually have no memory of the event; at the time the event occurs, the brain is not able to record that event, so they don't subsequently experience it and hence no memory of it is formed. Put simply: an event occurs; the brain records this and we experience it a few moments later, while simultaneously, the event embeds into the memory, such that our 'present' actually occurred some moments in the past, i.e. our perception is not simultaneous with time.

—————◊—————

Whether this incarnation of my book will be the last, I honestly could not say, but all of this new material is just supplementary to the original explanation of ECHO theory and is certainly not requisite.

170
