BACK TO  SDK INDEX TO DIRECTORY IMPORTANT PEOPLE

Wilhelm Wien Wilhelm Wien worked at the Physikalisch- Technische Reichsanstalt in Berlin- Charlottenburg where he was a colleague of Planck. Wien was appointed professor of physics at Giessen in 1899 and professor of physics at Munich in 1920.

FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MODERN SCIENCE, NEVER BEFORE SEEN, THE ACTUAL APPEARANCE OF FUNDAMENTAL MICROCOSM SHOWING THE MOVEMENT OF SURFACE ENERGY MOVING THROUGH THE FIELD.  THESE ARE NOT WILSON CLOUD CHAMBER BUBBLE TRACKS NOR SCATTERING IMAGES, BUT IMAGES OF THE SIMPLEST POSSIBLE ELEMENTS OF NATURE.     THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE, SCHOLARS IMAGINED EVERYTHING FROM THE REFLECTION OF LIGHT CORPUSCLES FROM MATERIAL OBJECT TO PLUM PUDDING MODELS OF THE ATOM, NONE OF WHICH PROVED CORRECT.     ULTIMATELY, SPACE-TIME APPEARED UPON THE SCENE, NOT AS REAL BEING STRETCHING BETWEEN US AND DISTANT STARS, BUT AS AN IMAGINARY, YET REAL, LOGICAL ESSENCE, BASED UPON ANTHROPOMORPHIC REASON. (Something Kurt Gödel might claim as being truly oxymoronic, along with all other ontologists and good mathematicians.) BECAUSE ALMOST ALL SCIENTISTS BELIEVED IN EITHER PANLOGISM OR DIVINE ORIGINATION, THIS WAS DEEMED CORRECT, DESPITE BEING INSUPPORTABLE THROUGH COMMON SENSE, A COMMON SENSE WHICH THE PROPONENTS OF SPACE-TIME RIDICULE, DESPITE THEMSELVES BEING DRIVEN BY THEIR OWN DISPARATE  AND ESOTERIC REASON, WITHOUT QUESTION, ENTHUSIASTICALLY EMBRACING THE MYTHOLOGY OF DIVINE CAUSE.

Imagination is everything.                   -Albert Einstein

A new study of geometry provides insight as to why the Universe is neither based on time nor space, nor even ultimate particles, but rather an ubiquitous field, much as Albert Einstein had proposed, which continually increases in density from near zero to near infinity, giving the impression that the Universe is expanding.

    Imagine looking at the stars on a crystal clear and dark evening, but with everything sped up so that you can see the stars moving and the galaxies turning, but all running backwards in time.
    Of course cars going down a nearby road would be moving backwards invisibly fast, as would everything else surrounding you, from houses, trees, hedges, as millions of seasons passed backwards before your eyes, to time before now.
    Even the sun and the moon would be impossible to see, because at this time pace, the earth would be spinning so fast, that they would less than a blur.  If you were to stand there too long with time rushing backwards, even the ground would vanish, for the earth would not have been formed.
   But now, everything is there to see, in its actual position;  the Andromeda galaxy some distance from us, where from our location in one of the thinned out arms of the Milky Way galaxy, we can see it with our naked eyes.  Though we know that it will be spinning backwards, will be moving towards or away from us?  If one were to factor in the scale of space, what P.A.M. Dirac referred to as space-gauge, we might be able to determine which way, if at all, it might be moving relative to us.
    Four hundred years ago, scientists never considered space-gauge, more or less believing in a poorly defined metric standard subsequently know as the Principle of Similitude;  the vague notion that size, weight and strength were considered to be proportionately variable, that is, until engineers suffered the routine collapse of very large structures.
    The Principle of Similitude was not scientific, but an adjunct of common sense, its spell subsequently broken in part by Galileo's experiments from atop the Leaning Tower of Pisa.  Up and until then, larger objects were though to fall faster than smaller objects,  complementing the incorrect notion that a bridge twice the size of another, both being constructed from materials of identical strengths, could carry twice the load as the other.
    Today, the Principle of Similitude still lurks within the Standard Model, but in a somewhat different way.
    The Standard Model is based on the study of atomism;  a particle hypothesis, though many feel that high energy physics has a better ring.   Whatever you might wish to call it, high energy physicists share a common notion with the early Greek philosophers, the notion that particles are separated by space.
    If you increase this distance of separation, particle theory states that the many virtual particles causal to forces-at-a-distance, such as gravitation, magnetism, nuclear, inertial and electrostatic forces, move into this gap in ever greater numbers, even if this gap enlarges to extremely great distances measure in billions of light-years.  In and by itself, this is a difficult act, but even more difficult, how do those who might believe in particle theory explain the consistency of these forces?   For example, how does starlight coming from exceptionally distant sources, say five billion light-years away, acts upon the retina of our eyes as though it was coming from across the street?
    Without question, from the viewpoint of particle theory, for local chemistry to match ancient chemistry operating billions of years ago at some far away place in the universe requires independent, stable and identical intrinsic conditions of state for all particles everywhere and at all times.
    One of the most principal of these conditions within the Standard Model governing particle character and behavior, is that their size must be identical, be it a clear-cut radial dimension or the dimensions of a fuzzy and wobbly spheroid with different major and minor axes.  Even more rigorous in this example, since we are also talking about photon packets, the spatiality of this dimensionless quanta, somehow must also demonstrate everywhere and at all times, these similar constraints, at least it would be expected, in their wave size and frequency.
    Progressively in scientific history, with more accurate measurements of scientific parameters, such as the speed of light, and especially the gravitational constant, scientists were beginning to discover a variance to these constants, and most notably occurring within the constraints of time, distance and acceleration, the three keystones of physics.
    Uncertain as to what was changing,  Thomas C. Van Flandern engaged in a series of exacting measurements of the occultation of certain known stars by the moon's limb.  In an article in Scientific American, Is Gravity Weakening, in 1976, he announced that he had determined that the moon was slowly receding from earth, as though it was drifting away, as indicated by an increasing orbital period.  Assuming this was caused by a weakening gravitational constant in associated with the earth and moon mass, Van Flandern failed to notice exacting similarity between his observations and that of Hubble almost fifty years before:

    In each case, there is apparent recession, one detected through spectography, the other through radar and stellar mapping.  In the case of the latter, time, utilization of a cesium clock was essential, whereas Hubble's measurements were passive, without the need for timing devices, other than to swing the telescopes.
    Given such diverse and unrelated observational methods, no common causal mechanism can be ascribed to either observational measurement;  the earth-moon recession not being the result of a primal cosmic explosion, nor the red-shift the result of a weakening gravitational constant.
    Within the constraints of the widely accepted Standard Model, lumping microcosmic activities and macrocosmic activities together, there is little room to doubt that there are two causal mechanisms for these absolutely identical results, one being exceptionally local, and the other remote.
    Dictated by the Standard Model is the clear-cut understanding that the red-shift, as the Doppler effect of recession, as the fundamental and sole contributor to what scientists see today, though this light had been emitted a very long time ago.  At the time of emission, according to the accepted conclusion of lunar occultation studies, the gravitational constant ought to be greater by the same proportion as the spectral shift during the time it takes this light to get to earth.  Such being the case, should we not expect to see a variance of Hubble law, because of a much stronger gravitational pull in those more distant regions of the universe then, than today?
    One might ask, should not light take longer to reach us;  departing in a much stronger gravitational field and should we not see such variation?  At its time of emission, should not nuclear forces be proportionately stronger commensurate to the gravitational constant, or does the Standard Model include temporal invariance between strong and weak forces?
    Presently in this regard, all that scientists claim to observe is the relativistic departure from a pure linear Hubble curve because of the exceptionally high speeds of emission sources at great distances, which are traveling at a high percentage of the speed of light.
    The complete absence of other variation which might be associated with the red-shift, indicates one of two possibilities in contradiction to the Standard Model, that local change in the gravitational constant is not happening at great distances from us in the universe, or that these local changes manifest everywhere, and that rather the red-shift being the Doppler effect of recession, of which there is no proof, it is instead caused by the same mechanism Van Flandern observes as causing lunar recession, sans changes in the gravitational constant.  Simply put, though Hubble's and Van Flandern's observations are correct, their respective interpretations seem wrong, implying that there must be another reason for both, ergo the field.
    I say this, because the vastness of this operative scale can only be associated with field behavior, a field immediately surrounding us as observers, yet stretching billions of light-years away into the far reaches of our universe.
    Without knowing what this field comprises, we can imagine an abstract field consisting of orthogonal flat surfaces, all able to pass through each other, forming closed rectangular compartments, the bubbles so-to-speak, of quantum foam.
    If one were to measure the average distance from wall to wall of any given compartment, taking the average for a finite field, this would be the quantitative expression for the field's fineness.  The reciprocal of this, would then be the field's density.  Of course, as observers, we need some sort of standard of measure to do this.  This we call a metric standard;  considered invariant both subjectively and objectively.  Unfortunately, the iridium metric standard at Sevres will not do, it being variant as it molecules change to its own ambient field.  We may however, as a subjective standard, evoke invariance, creating an imaginary Descartian rigid coordinate frame of reference, exclusively for the observer.
    In the following illustration, we see two fields which have undergone variance, being dissimilar.  As convention, we may claim each equal size views, to be the observer unity, one frame showing the field in the past, when fewer surfaces cut through it, and the other in the present.  If we were to measure the number of surfaces in each, this will give us a quantitative expression for the field density.
    For example, in Frame A, five lines cut the field from top to bottom, and seven from left to right.  The lines represent the edge view of orthogonal surfaces directed into the paper (screen raster).  Not shown, but understood, are surfaces parallel to the paper extending along the z-axis, of which, there might be six, giving a total of all surfaces cutting through this three-dimensional frame of eighteen surfaces, for a unit field density of eighteen.
    In Frame B, there are more, roughly speaking, 10 + 13 + 12, giving a unit field density of thirty five.  (Because I did not draw perfect cubic regions, I averaged the count for each arbitrary unit volume.)
    The shaded cubic regions inside each frame, represent intrinsically the same blocks comprising twenty seven field compartments each.  These blocks are related to each other in terms of their intrinsic number of compartments, and independently associated with the field.

    In each case and in the most abstract sense, we may conclude that the size of these blocks relative to the observer, is inversely proportional to the field density.
    If one were to correlate this geometric rule to known physical properties, such as the size of elementary particles, we gain a possible understanding of what scientists are observing in nature.
    In a new branch of geometry, known as dynamic geometry, such a field is shown to increase in density from one successive instant to another, or what one might refer to as time in a real inertial system.  Though this may be logically demonstrated by gedanken, the reverse cannot.  In dynamic geometry, the field cannot become less dense,  For this reason, Frame A, being of lower density, always occurs before Frame B, arbitrarily denoted as the field condition in the present or NOW.
    In reality with time running forward, lunar molecules, or in the least their basic constituents, namely partons, should progressively become smaller in time, viz., their radii should decrease, because of the continually increasing ambient field density.
    Though we might imagine a whole cadre of associated changes related to force constants, this would be premature to infer.  What should be clear, if there is any change at all, no enlargement of particle assignments should be anticipated.  In this accord, if any change occurs, it can be concluded that everything from particles, moons, suns, stars, galaxies and physical objects should be smaller but not bigger.
    By strictly confining this behavior to known physical law, given a collection of like objects, they should not be moving away from each other, but each becoming smaller and smaller;  the first acceptable interpretation being that the distances center to center, remain constant, but surface to surface, increase.
    This would be unquestionably true in the case of partons.  I believe that it will be most likely true for other more complex, heavy and unstable particles derived from quarks.
    As far as mass collections, such as beach balls, heads of cabbage, meatballs and in particular and quite specifically the moon, Van Flandern's observations offer close-range evidence, whereas Hubble's provide long distance evidence of what might be called mass decrement based upon an increasing field density.
    Currently, there is no evidence that this is happening to the Andromeda galaxy, being too close for Hubble's methods, and completely inappropriate to Van Flandern's methods.
    Historically speaking, because of about a one half century separation between these two studies, with Hubble operating within a highly electrified and exciting period of scientific discovery and debate, with the demise of luminiferous ether, the advent of relativity, the 200-inch Hale telescope at Palomar, aviation, the World Wars, background radiation, Georges Lemaitre and George Gamow, any reason to make this connection has obviously been overwhelmed by the Big-Bang, as has any interest in making it, faded.  Ergo, the scientific method and popularization of the Standard Model.
    Given the promise of the unified mechanism of mass decrement in the common explanation of long and close range changes currently attributed to two distinctly unrelated causes:  the Big-Bang and a weakening gravitational constant in the earth's vicinity,  what might we expect at cosmic distances?
    We may lay claim that like the moon, objects at these ranges, including stars, are withdrawing surface to surface, while remaining constant center to center.  Observationally speaking, it is not possible to observe;  such changes being imperceptible to distant observer through and by any and all means of measurement and techniques.
    One thing not mentioned is that speed is not affected by variations in field density.  Geometrically speaking, this is demonstrated by waves, notably change in curvature, whose speed of propagation cannot be readily altered, to say the least, since there is no geometric mechanism which has been discovered, which can cause this to happen.  By extrapolating this behavior of constant motion to the natural world, specifically in terms of electromagnetic and nuclear motion, the former identifiably photon motion, and the latter, nuclear orbital spin speed, some interesting possibilities arise, causing an apparent reddening of the electromagnetic spectrum in the band of visible light for observers at great distances.
    Imagine some emission source ten billion light-years distant.  The time of emission would be ten billion years ago.  The field at the time, both here and there would have the same density.  It would also be less dense than today's field at both locations.  Electrons in orbit would have the same period for any given emission series, and consequently the same emission frequency.  This is because the electron's orbital speed is universally constant and the orbital radii identical for any given series.
    If this radius was to become smaller, the electron could make it around faster, shortening the period and hence increasing the prospective emission frequency.
    Once emitted and during the time the light is coming towards our future location, though the field is increasing in density, there is no reason to think that the frequency of this light should change in accordance.  Thus, when the light arrives, spectral lines will show a lower frequency in comparison to local emission sources, given the impression to the observer that the incoming light has shifted towards the red-end.
    If the observer misinterprets these measurements by thinking only in terms of Doppler recession, then the scientific method will have been compromised, a perspective which I can well imagine you now appreciate.
    As already mentioned, the only solution of course to this common behavior, is not particle theory based upon the old atomism of Democritus thousands of years ago, but the very self same field theory Einstein was about to pursue just before his untimely death in 1953, as well as the work of others, such as Ernst Mach concerning universal inertia, Max Plank concerning the constant of fine structure h, James Clerk Maxwell and Gauss, in association with electromagnetic field expressions and the very recent advent of the notion of dark matter.
    Dark matter is the theoretically invisible mass, essential to our current evolutionary cosmological model in conjunction with particle theory within the presently accepted scope of the Standard Model;  the firm handshake between astronomy and physics at the formal theoretical level.  It is considered to be as nearly fundamental as time and space.
    Dark matter is considered the outward flow of mass, away from the epicenter of the Big-Bang, and outward flow once projected by Einstein, though ridiculed at the time, because it would require a clearly imagined cosmological constant to make things work this way, in order to override the widely accepted gravitational constant proposed by Sir Isaac Newton almost three hundred years earlier.
    As observers, when there lies question as to what we observe, or pretend to observe, not knowing better at the time, what we call interpretation, if indeed in answer to this question, where several answers might be given, we are not bound to accept only one.  Once forewarned by Erwin Schrodinger, we as scientist, still ask the wrong questions, does it not seem?
    Today, armed with better fodder for our cannonballs, we should embrace anew all options, in order to enhance the scientific method.
    For example, rather than dark matter rushing outward, consider it at rest, constant in density and isotropic, considering instead, that we as observers and our material support system are progressively become smaller.  Is this possible?
    To answer this, one must be clear as to what was just described.
    Essential to the support of this concept, are speed and time;  all three: space, time and speed, serving as fundamental keystones to modern physics.  For example, given two distinctly different positions in space, one might readily prove this distance by firing a projectile past both locations, causing a sensor to be tripped;  both events being recorded on a time graph, such as an oscilloscope.  By altering the distance between locations, the duration of time elapsed between trips would change proportionately, indicating the presence of another ubiquitous medium, we know as time, which seems to be somehow metrically linked to space.
    In this example, space and time are thought to be constant in their relationship, which means that both might be metrically invariant, or that both might be metrically variant, providing both change in the same way.
    Metrically variant is the same as saying that the space-gauge is not constant, and relates to the physical size of things, such as atoms.  If the space-gauge decreases in time, objects become smaller, and atomic distances shorter:  such as the orbital radius of electrons associated with cesium atoms, as example.  Since this relationship is commonly used in laboratory timekeeping, with shorter orbits and electrons moving at a fixed speed around the central atom, laboratory time would speed up.
    There is the question of speed, as to whether or not speed is invariant.  If we allow speed to be invariant, there is the third combination in the relationship between time and space, that time is invariant and space is variant.  Let me explain.
    First, if space and time are invariant, then over time, objects moving between two locations at some constant velocity, would always take the same length of time, each and every time the experiment was conducted, year after year.
    On the other hand, if space and time are variant, proportionately so, then over time, objects moving between two locations at some constant velocity, would always take the same length of time, each and every time the experiment was conducted.
    Finally, if space is variant, then over time, objects moving between two locations at some constant velocity, would take different times moving between these two locations, each and every time the experiment was conducted.  If the locations were closer, then it would seem that the time it takes to travel between would be quicker, and if further apart, longer.
    If this distance, rather than a straight line between locations, was instead the distance an electron would travel in completing a single orbit around its respective atom, then laboratory time would be variant, exactly offsetting any perceived time changes in the projectiles transit between locations.  In other words, though the projectile travels, say a shorter distance between locations at an always constant speed, since time also speeds up, the observer would never experience any difference;  all three possibilities yielding the same results.  So which is correct?
    If one considers the universe as our laboratory, and if the third possibility is correct, that time is subjectively invariant, speed invariant, or nearly so, and space variant, then light emitted by distant galaxies, will have been emitted at some time past when orbital distances were greater than they are now, which means that emission frequencies were lower.  This of course, would be the cause of the red-shift, rather than the Doppler effect of receding galaxies.  If on the other hand, size became greater, we would see a blue shift towards the higher frequencies since the emission orbits would be smaller than those of today.  This forth option is not illustrated.

    As well as the observation of the red-shift, one would also observe the moon to progressively become smaller in time.  If this were to be true, the occultation of starlight by the moon should also reveal a compression of the moon's limb, for and aft, in relationship to stars occulted and stars emerging from behind it.  Since Van Flandern presupposed something else was happening, his observations though incredibly accurate and demanding;  requiring extraordinary perseverance and perspicuity, as an experiment, was incomprehensive, unfortunately not taking into account this possibility:  not having any observations recorded as to the time of stellar re-emergence from behind the moon.
    At the time, Van Flandern, as nearly everyone else was on the wave of enthusiasm supportive of the Big-Bang, Hoyle's old steady-state tossed aside.  During this period, any opposing views were quickly rebuffed.  Today though, even the Big-Bang is falling into question;  unable to answer a great deal of criticism, making it all that more important today for physicists and astronomers to carefully weigh other alternatives.
    One of the major criticisms of the Big-Bang concerns time rate comparison outside an expanding universe model to those inside.  In the following illustration, the interior of the box is empty, representative of any astronomical region outside the realm of the Big-Bang, at any time during its expansion.  Outside the box is the region at various locations inside the Big-Bang universe.    In this region, there are various levels of energy, density and activity.  Inside the box, there is nothing, other than two spheres representative of our imagined objects of choice, from atoms, molecules, quarks, planets and stars.  The box is assumed to be shielded, so that observers inside the box have no knowledge of outside conditions, nor do these outside conditions, inclusive of space-time, enter within.  The two spheres in this case are just floating in zero space, separated by some finite distance, during some instant of time, construed to be simultaneous and instantaneous to both.  What is their distance apart?    Without the presence of ponderable bodies, space-time is quantitatively indeterminate, meaning that there is no gauge of space, meaning that space is meaningless, in terms of pragmatic and theoretical reasons.

    Knowing that space-time is altered at the fringes of an expanding universe, where radio and optical sources intermingle, and the home of theoretically hazardous anomalies, why should we expect that photons emitted near this edge a very long time ago, should nicely bang into the organic flesh of our retina, with such fine handshaking?  What is the magic here?  Why would they not have minute traces of the inordinately powerful energies common to the stellar anomalies of this region?
    This is the problem with particle theory in a large universe;  when every particle in support of its characteristics, needs to emit or absorb other particles, some by necessity virtual, each of which must travel vast distances, far exceeding those within a bell jar, across the universe.
    Such demand, placed upon each particle, as though it were a seed filled with all kinds of commands and constants waiting to be utilized, is very typical of modern science and scientists, who insists not to question the how and the why of it, but rather accept observation and measurement as it is integrated into the golden rule of scientific hypothesis.  But is this prudent?
    Under rigorous control, it just may be the best scientific method we have.  But in light of the fact that a great deal of fact supportive of this scientific method, what is called the standard model, the golden rule of physics, itself is derived in part from interpretation.   Much worse though, the golden rule is oft cited in the interpretation of observation pertinent to fundamental law, in itself, potentially endangering what might be other and better theoretical excursions into the unknown of the fundamental, if not primal order, without the hand of god, without purpose and without the logic of order itself present.  A more prudent approach instead, is to limit our study to only Being and the observer.
    If the observer wishes to be logical, and as such breaks down Being into its own fundamental components, then such Being observed could not be as such.  For Being to be fundamental, it must be non clinical.
    By limiting ourselves in this way, we recognize that observation can be suspect, thus forcing ourselves as scientists to provide the hows and whys instead.
    For example, how can a particle persistently correspond, coinciding in time and space, to a choice making mechanism, governing its behavior?  How can two particles of kindred behavior correspond in their size at immensely great distances, and at different times of existence?  To do so, requires something else, an invisible and huge field, where the gauge of space remains constant and stable for long periods of time.
    Considering this particular dilemma among atomists in general, right down to today's high-energy physicists, it becomes unnecessarily amplified at the fringes of a Big-Bang universe.  I say unnecessarily, because what if our universe has no edge, because it is not exploding as we imagine it to be.  What if Hoyle's old steady-state universe is right, for surely, in light of all of today's advances, problems like old matter and Olber's paradox might no longer remain inexplicable.  What if there is this great field which we are all in.  What if it does progressively increase in density, such that those material objects within it, are dimensionally connected to its gauge.  What might we expect?  What might we see, for we should see the same as before.
    Science it seems, is at the forefront of a great new frontier, for the questions of the past, once serious setbacks for traditional hypothesii, may now, once and for all, become manageable, setting a new course for mankind in field study.
    So now when you look up at the stars above you, and the Andromeda galaxy, imagine them to be all drawing away, not because they are drifting away from us, but because you are shorter in the knees than before.  That everything around you, tree tops, houses and  tripod legs are closer to the ground, your soles of your shoes thinner and lower to the grass, and your eyes, mouth, nose, the distance between your ears and your brain, smaller!
    One additional note.  Density.  If time were reversed and your head was getting larger, you brain becoming infinite, it is not safe to assume that there might occur a greater proliferation of thoughts, only that they might become spread out more, with each covering a greater area, really a volumetric region.
    If time were set moving correctly, in its normal forward direction, with everything becoming smaller in a finite region of space, though the number of your thoughts should not decline, the physical density of your brain should increase, because the atoms and molecules from which it is comprised, will be closer together.
    Assuming that we are discussing non clinical Being, there can be no other argument, though other types of correspondence between Being and the Observer, should be examined.
    So now, with greater imagination, if not confidence, with time running backwards, the Andromeda galaxy will be drawing closer to us, its stars one by one, popping out of sight, as they reach the existence of their birth, the great galaxy itself slowly disappearing, fading from sight, while all this time, our galaxy is doing the same.
    If we were to stop here, at the birth of these two neighboring galaxies, and then set time in the right direction, they will both slowly become smaller and smaller, floating at some separation distance solely under the influence of gravity, which may or may not cause them to move relative to each other.
    Eventually in time, both galaxies will become exceedingly small, each reaching the size of a walnut in about 111 nonillion years, with all their old matter tucked inside with dead stars, lifeless, cold and dark planets, and entropically inert dust clouds and gases;  and the old matter which plagued Hoyle's steady-state model becoming both negligible and inconsequential to both the observer and physical system.
    Of course, these galaxies will never last that long, but if they were to, observers living there would notice a faint glow, of distant background radiation, shifted well into the red, caused by the emissions of all of the galaxies long before, in our infinite universe.