The Null Physics theory is a cosmological model developed as an alternative to current models such as the Big Bang theory and Steady State theory. Unlike other theories, Null Physics begins by deriving why the universe exists in order to eliminate the numerous numbers of constants that are necessary in order to support other cosmology theories. The Null Physics theory’s primary assertion is that the universe has always been in existence; therefore, the universe never had an origin.
This theory has recently been released and is under review by a number of members of the scientific community.
OVERVIEW
Null Physics. Def: The study and quantification of the relationship between the physical states of existence and nonexistence.
Null Physics1 can best be described in terms of its many premises, which are categorized as formative, foundational, and cosmological. A subset of a few of these premises is outlined below.
FORMATIVE PREMISES
1. Why. The single most important question concerning the natural world is “why does the universe exist?” Although this is typically viewed by cosmologists as a philosophical question, it is not. It is a physics problem, because the reason for the universe’s existence is tied directly to the properties it has, to include its universal constants, and its universal constants define all physical interactions. The reason for the universe’s existence is physics problem #1.
2. Models versus reality. Current physical theories are incomplete because they do not adequately address the question of why the universe exists. The standard model of cosmology, or Big Bang, does not tell us why the universe exists or why it has the properties it has. It is an empty mathematical model that describes, based purely on the interpretation of cosmological measurements, the universe’s alleged emergence 13.7 billion years ago.
3. Something from nothing. Null Physics restates the problem of why the universe exists in the following way: The universe either had an origin or has existed forever. If the universe had an origin, it was necessarily from the lack of the universe, or nothingness. If the universe had no origin, the problem becomes why does the universe exist, rather than nothingness? In either case, the reason for the existence of the universe is defined by the relationship between existence and nonexistence. More simply, how is existence (something) derived from nothing?
FOUNDATIONAL PREMISES
1. Null Axiom. Existence is derived from nonexistence by the following relationship:
0 = 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + …
which is the statement that the sum of nothing is nothing. This is the basis of space’s geometry. Space is composed of geometric points, whose only property is their position relative to other geometric points. Spatial points are represented in the above equation by 0’s, and their relationship to each other is their mutual summation, +. Energy arrives as a distortion of space of the form:
0 = 0 – 0 + 0 – 0 + 0 – 0 + …
which is the statement that the difference of nothing is also nothing. In short, existence is composed of nonexistence. Our universe is the internal substructure of nothingness. In Null Physics this premise is called the Null Axiom.
2. Infinite and eternal. Nothingness is the only state that requires no reason for its presence. Existence is a required internal component of this state. As such, the universe never had an origin because existence and nonexistence are codependent and inseparable. Further, the universe is infinite because there is literally no limit to the amount of nothing within nothing:
0 = 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + …
In short, the universe is composed of nothingness as there is quite literally no other building material available. Each and every one of the universe’s overall properties, such as its extent and perpetuity, arise from its overall sum, nothing.
COSMOLOGICAL PREMISES
1. Intergalactic redshift. The key observation that led to the idea of universal expansion is the redshift of light from distant astronomical sources. It is a very precise process, where: photons lose energy (are redshifted) in rough proportion to distance traveled; the breadth of transient pulses is expanded in rough proportion to distance traveled; photons of any energy lose the same fraction of energy for a given distance; photons of any energy released at the same time arrive at the same time; and photons maintain their trajectories (there is no associated scattering). All of these properties indicate that the intergalactic redshift is not caused by any conceivable interaction between light and matter, energy or anything else. Hence the idea of metric expansion of space.
2. Nonexpanding universe. Since, by the Null Axiom, the universe is infinite and eternal, and since its size is the size of nothingness, it cannot vary, and therefore cannot expand. This means that the intergalactic redshift is caused by an alternate mechanism. Other than matter and energy, the only known thing in deep space is the universal gravitational field. This, by the process of elimination, is the progenitor of the intergalactic redshift.
3. Expanding photons. The General Theory of Relativity indicates that space has an average curvature caused by the distribution of matter and energy throughout the universe. This average curvature represents a differential velocity field, where any small distance dx has an associated velocity difference of dv. Space itself does not expand, because it is not a material thing, but photons that move through space are subjected to the differential velocity associated with its gravitational curvature, and this velocity difference, applied over their wavelength, causes them to expand and lose energy. In short, their trailing edge moves slightly slower than their leading edge, distending their wavelength. The curvature of space is very small, so photons only lose about half of their energy every ten billion years. Even so, this means that half of the universe’s entire fusion output is lost every ten billion years. The universe is a steady-state system, so the energy lost in intergalactic redshift is by the universe’s fusion output.
4. Cosmic microwaves. The prevalence of the cosmic microwave background radiation suggests an ancient cataclysm because they represent far more microwave energy than contemporary astronomical objects could possibly generate. The amount of microwave energy that stars and galaxies radiate is only a few parts per million of their total output, yet the cosmic microwave background is far and away the most energy dense background in space, with more than ten times the energy of starlight.
5. Decaying photons. When photons expand on their intergalactic journeys, the energy they lose has to go somewhere, because it is a conserved quantity. Since this energy loss is so enormous, its signature has to be similarly massive, and it is. Expanding optical photons lose energy by emitting microwaves. The conservation of energy and momentum require that these microwaves be emitted collinear to their source photon. Since optical signals have such a low microwave content, and since the cosmic microwave background has a perfect thermal spectrum, it follows that the microwaves emitted by intergalactic photons are thermalized into the microwave background soon after their emission. This is why the cosmic microwave background has so much energy and is also why all of these microwaves originate from deep space. And as it turns out, this microwave emission has been directly observed. William Tifft identified quantization in the intergalactic redshift that corresponds to the discrete energy steps that optical radiation incurs upon microwave emission. These quantizations are not evident in large-scale galactic surveys because they are obscured by the redshifts produced by the random motions of galaxies. They are evident, however, in smaller clusters and groups.
6. Eternal equilibrium. The universe has existed forever, so any cosmic process that produces byproducts must have a complementary process that reverses this production. The universe’s predominant cosmic process is fusion, which uses hydrogen and produces light and compound atomic nuclei, such as helium and carbon. This means that mechanisms have to exist to capture this light energy and use it to disassociate compound nuclei back into hydrogen for an infinitely renewable supply. The first step of this process is intergalactic redshift, which converts light energy into microwave energy. The next step is to transfer this energy to an environment where it can be applied to break compound nuclei back down into hydrogen, to provide an eternal source of universal fuel. This process requires the existence of galaxies, specific galactic motion profiles, galactic banding, massive black holes at the centers of galaxies, and it is why jets of hydrogen have been observed leaving the core regions of galaxies.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1. Zero, The Biography of a Dangerous Idea, Charles Seife
2. The Book of Nothing, John Barrow
BOOKS
A more complete description of Null Physics can be found in the volume Our Undiscovered Universe, published in 2007. ISBN 0-9785931-3-8
The now "ages-old" book "The Big Bang Never Happened" basically said what you've said, but with the wrong fundamentals - this gets it right. I still think that plasma physics in going to play a big role in Null Physics though.
Guest
4. 27-07-2008 18:38
on the subatomic level, it appeaers that there is no actual substance to elemental matter only rapidly rotating electrical potentials. Has anyone given thought to the process of spin as being fundemental to the existence of reality. If all space were comprised of free points randomly moving and sudden rotation is introduced would not the existence of one point rotating around an axis consist of an elimination of one direction of free travel. Perhaps this reestriction of free travel is the source of forces such as centrifigal, electromagnetic, gravity and other primary natural forces.
I guess the question who came first the chicken or the egg is mote! May also explain why Zeros keep cropping up in formulas. All this is hard to input but it points out that we have miles to go b4 we will truely understand the nature of the universe. I for one like a good mystery.
Guest
7. 27-08-2008 01:35
I guess the question who came first the chicken or the egg is mote! May also explain why Zeros keep cropping up in formulas. All this is hard to input but it points out that we have miles to go b4 we will truely understand the nature of the universe. I for one like a good mystery.
Guest
8. 05-09-2008 00:02
At first I thought; wow,somebody has good drugs. But, as a special education assistant working with autistic kids, I can see where this obsesive thinking can come from. For more good math reads, check out The Design Revolution by William A. Dembski. His Ph.D. in mathematics & Ph.D. in philosophy provide him with an interesting insight into this topic. :zzz
Guest
9. 18-09-2008 15:39
Awesome! :p
Guest
10. 04-11-2008 04:13
See this review of “Our Undiscovered Universe” by Terence Witt from a professional physicist: http://web.mit.edu/~bmonreal/www/Null_Physics_Review.html
Also see my review at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~fiski/ouu_review.html The flaws of this crackpot book are many and include: Redefining the concept of infinity as a length with magnitude. Defining a line as a series of points written as zeros, treating them as numbers so that they add up to zero and then treating the number zero as a point again! A really bad atomic model "proving" that a electron orbiting a proton has a ground state that it cannot decay from by creating a new physical law. Using the high school description of a neutron as a proton plus an electron and not realizing that this is just his atomic model! Postulating that galaxies have "galactic cores" which are super massive objects that are not quite black holes and not realizing that the centre of the Milky Way is well observed. These recycle stars into hydrogen. Oddly enough astronomers have not noticed dozens of stars vanishing from the galactic centre in the many images that they have taken over the last few decades.
Conclusion: Bad mathematics and even worse physics. :grin
Guest
11. 06-12-2008 23:06
:grin Before I read it, I thought it might be an intriguing new theory. Then I started reading it and thought "Is this a joke?" It is so riddled with logic errors and mathematical errors, it is inconceivable. I has to have been written by someone with no education. Then, I was laughing out loud. Soooooooooooo insane its funny!!!!!
Guest
12. 21-12-2008 15:13
I]null[/I]Since the Universe is an eternal recicling primal process of energy through photons- particles-matter back to photons taking place in the space and obeying Physical Laws or information we can assert that there are three fundamental elements: Space, the events place, Energy, the events's executor and information, the events driver and being eternal and infinite or limitless the more probably is that there are infinite Verses in all states of its evolution from start to vaish all across and all along.
Starting with this model would be more meaningful and easier built up the whole thing.
To start with the advantages are the taking out the equaton the concept of God that is a pain in the back of the humanity.
Guest
13. 04-01-2009 09:31
Actually Terrence Witt is a biomedical engineer and business man. He has never published any scientific papers.
His Redshift and Black Holes white papers are fatally flawed. Read the reviews on OUU where these papers also appear: http://web.mit.edu/~bmonreal/www/Null_Physics_Review.html and http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~fiski/ouu_review.html
He has a "visiting scientist" title at FIT as a courtesy probably in return for renting an office there.
Guest
14. 29-01-2009 04:53
A businessman AND brilliant cosmological physicist with every answer to the questions that scientist have been searching for since science was science... That is what I would call, improbable.
Guest
15. 14-02-2009 17:34
A FEW THOUGHTS. i DISAGGREE WITH THE THEORY OF AN EXPANDING UNIVERSE. tHE CANDLE THEORY DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR DARK MATTER IN THE FORM OF COSMIC DUST CLOUDSD TRAVELING THROUGH OUR OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE PARTIALLY BLOCKING THE PHOTONS CREATING THE ILLUSION OF MOVEMENT AWAY FROM EARTH.aLSO cONSIDER THE OBSERVABLE DISTANCE TO A GALAXY 86b LIGHT YRS. AWAY AND THEN ADD TO THAT ANOTHER 86b LT.YRS. FARTHER OUT OF OUR OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE. rANDOM KINETIC ENERGY OF CHARGED AND NON CHARGED (LIGHT EMITTING AND DARK) MATTER COLLIDING IS THE SOLE SOURCE OF FUSION PERPETUATING THE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE. tO SUGGEST A BEGINNING OR AN END TO THE UNIVERSE IS A HUMAN EMOTION THAT GETS WAY TOO MUCH AIR TIME.
Guest
16. 10-04-2009 01:26
woah :eek
Guest
17. 12-04-2009 23:01
What a coincidence that commenter #12 posts a compliment about the book from an email address at the book's publishing house. :x
Guest
18. 24-05-2009 18:47
The first problem is that energy, as defined, does not exist. I think we all can agree that
(1) 0 = 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + ...
Energy is supposed to represented by
(2) 0 = 0 - 0 + 0 - 0 + 0 - 0 + ...
But since almost everyone can agree that 0 = 0 - 0, we can substitute 0 for every 0 - 0:
(3) 0 = ( 0 ) + ( 0 ) + ( 0 ) + ... = 0 + 0 + ...
We have just shown that equations 1 and 2 say the same thing, so then how can equation 1 have no energy and equation 2 have energy? This is the first contradiction. There are more.
You can't have something come from nothing. See links such as http://www.steljevraag.nl/viewquestion?questionID=256 for discussions on how something (still not identified) existed before the Big Bang. Some current ideas are m-branes, vacuum energy, and the Big Collapse.
Guest
19. 08-08-2009 21:36
the reason theories like witt's are appearing at this time is because physics, particularly cosmology has lost its way. all sorts of whack-job ideas are getting serious airtime now on popular science programs on t.v.(for example: the multiverse, multiple dimensions of string theory, time travel, wormholes, etc). nearly all such ideas will flourish in a scientific environment where we have only a glimmer of understanding of what is really going on. i do think a revolution in physics and cosmology is near and when it comes there will we be many changes in the way we view the universe and how it works.
Guest
20. 08-08-2010 12:57
i bought this book hoping yo learn something since the big bang theory is unsatisfying and full of conjecture. well, i did learn something: by the time that i got to page 60 it was obvious that witt was using convuluted logic and invalid assumptions and funny equations to support his premise and that i had just wasted my time and money on this book.
Guest
21. 08-08-2010 17:59
Dear wonderers,
My name is Mark Maloney. I am writing to invite you to visit my website Epluribusunum56.com. This website has eight subject synopses:
1 – The origin of the “Universe.” 2 – The nature of “Light and Colors.” 3 – The nature of “Time.” 4 – The nature of “Dreams.” 5 – The nature of “Human Behavior.” 6 – The nature of “Technological Discovery.” 7 – The nature of “Morals.” 8 – The nature of “Religion.”
Epluribusunum56.com is a high-end interactive website; it has a posting board that allows you to use whatever materials you wish to compose your response, i.e. text, illustrations, pictures, animations, PowerPoint presentations, and video, to clearly make your point. In addition, it has a live video conferencing platform where you can directly interact in real time face to face discussion with others; in any one of the eight subject synopses.
The primary subject of this website is to introduce and teach entirely new physics and cosmology; discussed in the synapse “The origin of the Universe;” as a prelude to “DSFF (Dimensional Symmetry Field Formations,)” which are the complete mechanics composing every aspect of both the physical and material universe in absolute extreme detail. The other seven synapses deal with cognition.
This website is a place where you can teach the world… or a place where you can learn new conceptualizations.
Knowledge grows best – when fertile minds are not at rest. Bring your intelligence when you visit.
Sincerely, Mark Maloney
This website has no, spammers, porners, advertising, or soliciting; it is strictly a clean discussion forum. It is absolutely free.
Guest
22. 12-08-2010 00:40
ther is no such thing as nothing. (hmmm.)
Guest
23. 23-09-2010 09:15
Modern science does not explain why everyone and everything of the universe has divisibility, comparability, connectivity, disturbability, reorderability, substitutability, and satisfiability.
I hope this theory also do not explain the properties of things in the universe!!!!!
Guest
24. 10-01-2011 02:51
The theory is a non sequitur from start to finish. You might as well prop up the Quran as the theory of everything.
Guest
25. 02-02-2011 17:00
Sheldon lives!
Guest
26. 21-10-2011 15:25
The mathematics are sound. This isnt a joke either.this is subsequently the largest breakthrough to date.. Yet we knew it all along. This is common sense in science. The hey get real. Instead of counting trees try looking at the entire forest. Its a catostrophic discovery bc.of what religion has done to society.
Guest
27. 27-10-2011 21:26
I get hung up at the very beginning of the theory where it claims that something is an intrinsic part of nothing. I cannot go any further until I can understand this foundational idea. Any help?
