Antimatter, the EU & Tom Findlay
In response to the article I wrote on Plasma Physics, Tom Findlay, who is known to the EU Thunderbolts Project team, sent me a very kind email. Findlay is the author of "A Beginner's View of Our Electric Universe" and he is offering his book as a free PDF download here:
So I proceeded to ask him a few questions, one of which was about the existence of antimatter. What follows is his very interesting reply:
Dear Susan … you have touched a "general" hot button of mine, one which goes beyond the subject of "antimatter" ... First, however, I'm going to set the scene for my point of view ...
There is one overriding principle in play, this is that nature does things or is seeking to do things in the least complicated way, always and everywhere. The last thing I want to come across as is arrogant, but I truly believe that we can take what follows, to the bank!
A fundamental fabric (framework) exists on which everything, everywhere is built.
Everything in the physical realm, which we perceive as our reality, consists of some form of matter. Matter exists due to energy; therefore, everything everywhere represents a form of energy. In the Electric Universe (EU) model, the fundamental force of energy is electromagnetic; electro and magnetic; meaning one is present because of the other; a form of ultimate co-dependency.
Electricity creates magnetic fields - i.e. - the flow of electric current along any path creates a magnetic field around that path; this is fact, we know this for certain, as this is fundamentally how electric motors work. And in reverse. Magnetic fields create electricity - i.e. - when a conducting path moves through a magnetic field; a flow of electricity occurs within that conducting path. Again, we know this for certain, as this is fundamentally how electric generators work.
What is an electric current and why does it tend to flow in a particular direction?
This is where the word "balance" enters the discussion.
Electric current flows in a particular direction that is dictated by an "electric (electrostatic) charge imbalance" between that which is negatively charged and that which is positively charged. The flow of electric current is described as the flow of electrons (these being negatively charged particles) from that which is more negatively charged (i.e. where there is an abundance of electrons), towards that which is less negatively charged (i.e. where there is a deficiency of electrons, or in other words, where, relatively speaking, there is a more positive charge). This "directional flow" is due to the overall electric charge, seeking what that word represents … "balance" ... where in electrical terms; this is the state of neutrality; no charge ... or one could think of it as being at peace; at complete rest; the end of the line!
If all matter everywhere exists due to energy - in our case this energy is the electromagnetic force - then everything everywhere is ultimately seeking balance. Ours is a dynamic, electrically charged universe of unknown size and unknown specific composition, so the chance of overall balance being established throughout its entirety, should appear to us to be very slim indeed. Therefore, it would appear, if this analysis is basically accurate, then the equation required to find the length of time it would take our entire universe to achieve electrical balance, would have to take into account things that we have no idea about. These are things such as, the total charge differential that exists throughout the universe, the distribution of that charge differential, and the overall size and differential matter composition of the universe itself, all of which, of course, we don't know.
What can we take from this? Only the certainty that we don't know enough to say anything much about the overall state of our universe, its likely age, and its likely lifespan. This is true; apart it would appear from one major thing. Since our entire universe exists and operates due to the existence and interaction of electrical charges, from the microcosm to the macrocosm, there does exist something to say about the overall composition of the universe. Here we learn that particles and collections of matter that are charged in some way, are considered as matter that has been ionised, or in other words, ionised mater is what we call, matter that is in the "plasma" state. If we take this a step further to consider our universe in its entirety, we can see that we live in a Plasma Universe. A basic understanding of plasma, electricity and their relationship are the doors through which one can pass to appreciate the full power and implications of EU theories, which together describe our Electric Universe model.
I am proud to say that I subscribe to the simple notion that everything everywhere is based on the electromagnetic force (EM). It is the characteristics of EM that give us our visible and apparently solid reality. And from the smallest to the largest scales imaginable, EM is at the heart of everything everywhere as it seeks to attain balance.
This notion of balance is intrinsic to everything from human behavior and beliefs, to fundamental biology, and all aspects of science in our perceived reality.
The exception to all of this, one that cannot be analytically dissected, is that, forces exist beyond our awareness to trump the level of explanation attempted here. I do not dismiss this notion, for everything, everywhere is an illusion created by something that exists beyond our reality; I know this. The journey I am on is towards an understanding of this, or at least, to a place on the way to that greater understanding. I recognise that this is likely close to the reason you give for asking the question about antimatter in the first place. I hope that you are finding what I am writing here is, at least, interesting.
I have come across too many situations now, where those who feel they should or are expected to know, make things up to explain that which none of us currently understands. What a shame that more acceptance for not knowing about something is not more openly practiced. Our egos get involved and we think it is a devaluing display of ignorance and/or inadequacy, to admit that we don't know something, especially if people are being paid to know and want to continue enjoying respect and the position they feel they have earned in life. Such is the moral wrestling match they must take part in as a fundamental aspect of their contract; that is, if they are aware they made one.
A case such as this, for me, is the one to do with "antimatter". Why was the term invented? It was a term invented and reified as part of the explanation for the so-called big bang and the associated inflation event that was supposed to have accompanied it. I believe this story to be total codswallop. Sorry to be so blunt, but if one subscribes to the EU model, while also having in one's back pocket an intuitive awareness of what science is likely more accurate and what science is likely not, in the story so far of our universe, then I feel I am on firm ground with saying this.
Antimatter is a term invented by those who were in the position to do just that, for the purpose of explaining -- on the basis of science which we now strongly suspect (know) doesn't work -- that which could not be understood through accepted knowledge at the time. I don't think that any reasonable person could call this a form of "proper approach" to science discovery. Nevertheless, this is what has happened in may areas, especially in astro-science research. And to make matters worse, these invented terms and the theories they come to underpin, have been used to create other, more fantastic theories … woe is me!
Physicists claim that antimatter has actually been "created" … well, what are they judging this claim on? ... the observation at sub-atomic level of instances of "energy presence" that appear and disappear in amounts of time that can hardly be measured (this is what is called the discovery of "new particles"). Keep in mind here that today's theoretical physicists are basing all of their observations, analyses, and conclusions, on a particular model of particle physics, which appears now, far from being accurate, with its zoo of particles and its building blocks of imaginary quarks, Higgs bosons, and other exotica. Funding for the Large Hadron Collider must go on, however; after all, too many important jobs depend on the search for non-existent dark matter and its magical companions.
Antimatter as a term, is an invention
Antimatter as a term is an invention that has no place in that for which there is available a far more simple explanation. I class the word along with dark matter, dark energy, worm-holes, black-holes, white-holes, multiverses, string theory, membrane theory, and all the other falderals of modern theoretical physics. It really is very sad that mathematical modeling, which all of these things are based upon, instead of being a tool used to prove real life observations and results of experimentation, have become the all-powerful and impressive, but sadly and predictably the standard approach, for those of weak scientific research imagination and drive. These "masters of imaginative illusion", together with the stories they invent, and due to their abdication of personal, independent thinking, have been allowed to take over the driving of the bus from those who work with proven knowledge, experimentation, logic, and common sense. You'll possibly be aware of the first law of thermodynamics, Susan … which essentially states that "matter cannot be created or destroyed" … This in itself cancels the idea of antimatter. Either that or it proves that theoretical physics is in a total state of confusion these days; which in fact, ironically, is true as well!
The URL you supplied that led to an "antimatter description" … let's look at the language used in the text one is greeted by there …
"Antimatter is simply matter that is made up of antiparticles. These are objects that have an opposite electrical charge to their matter-based counterparts.
(What a sweeping claim to put forward as scientific fact.)
All subatomic particles have been proved to have their anti- equivalent (bollocks - excuse my French!). Thus, an anti-electron is the opposite number of an electron and has been called a positron. (This is an odd statement, by using "opposite number"? This is not scientific language, but it is a clue not to pay much attention to the author.)
It is one of the greatest unanswered questions in physics, as to why there is so much matter in the Universe and so little antimatter (Who has measured what here? When did they do it? How did they do it? Did I miss something?). At the time of the Big Bang, it is thought (Ah, an admission! Rather contradictory is it not for the sense of everything else he says.) that there was an equal amount of each. Any contact between the two would result in mutual annihilation, so why is there, in the present Universe, so much of one and hardly any of the other? (How can anyone claim this? This is so typical of the loose language, which so many so-called "science writers" have used for so long, and it's getting worse!)
The currently accepted theory is that, in the early Universe, a number of mysterious (Hmmm!) interactions occurred, which resulted in tipping the balance in favour of matter. This is a bit of a cop-out, I know, but there you go." (So everything that you "the author" have just said, is pointless … oh, for heaven's sake!)
I know I'm being a bit OTT here, Susan, but I just want to clearly make the point that so much is being claimed as fact in public these days, which is either totally untrue, untestable, or unproven, and the public is lapping it up as valuable information to be taken seriously. This is the whole reason why I say at the beginning of my book … "We should not surrender our judgment to others; we must reclaim our ability to doubt and think for ourselves".
To round this off with some opinion from a source, which I staunchly support, here is what Wallace Thornhill; lead scientist for the Thunderbolt Project has to say on the matter of antimatter (mini-pun intended) … (The following four extracts are taken from four different articles on Wal's website at www.holoscience.com)
"In the Electric Universe model, there is no antimatter forming antiparticles. An electron and a positron are composed of the same charged sub-particles in different conformations. They come together to form a stable neutrino, emitting most of their orbital energies in the process. They do not annihilate each other. In that sense a neutrino embodies both the electron and the positron. It can have no antiparticle. The bookmakers would be wise not to bet on the Standard Model of particle physics."
"So, the good news for Star Trek fans is that Einstein’s speed limit is repealed. But the Warp Drive and Teleporter are out, I’m sorry. They are illogical. Space cannot be warped. And matter can neither be destroyed nor created, despite the widespread misconception that the “m” in E = mc^2 means matter, and that antimatter annihilates matter.
"The notion that matter can be annihilated when normal matter meets antimatter is a confusion of language. Matter can neither be destroyed nor created nor can matter be exchanged for energy. Einstein’s E = mc2 refers to mass, a property of matter, not matter itself. The mathematical relationship represents the restructuring of resonant systems of charge. What seems to happen in “annihilation” is that the complementary resonant charge structures of a particle and its antiparticle combine so that almost all of the internal energy is radiated away and the combined charges form a new collapsed particle of low internal energy."
"At the level of the atom, the Electric Universe model takes a lead from the work of Ralph Sansbury, an independent New York researcher. Foremost is the simple recognition of the basic electrical nature of matter and the primacy of the electrostatic force** in matter interactions. It also rests upon the simple assumption that the proton, neutron and electron are composed of smaller charged particles, orbiting each other in a classical sense in stable, resonant orbits. That is, the energy exchanged between those sub-particles in elastic deformation during each orbit sums to zero. Being charged, the sub-particles interact via the electrostatic force. A simple calculation shows that the sub-particles that form an electron must travel at a speed far in excess of the speed of light – some 2.5 million light-years per second, or from here to the far side of the Andromeda galaxy in one second! So the electrostatic force must act at a speed which is almost infinite on our scale for the electron to be stable. It is the stable orbital resonances of these sub-particles, both within and between particles that give rise to the phenomena of protons, neutrons, electrons and atoms. Other denizens of the particle “zoo” are merely transient resonant states of the same charged sub-particles. The so-called “creation” of matter from energetic photons is an illusion in which pre-existing matter is reorganized into new resonant states that give the impression that a particle has suddenly materialized. Antimatter is a misnomer since it too is formed from the same sub-particles as “normal” matter except that the total charge is mirrored. Matter cannot be created or annihilated."
Where I personally might amplify things very slightly in relation to Wal's words is that, I subscribe totally to the notion that all matter exists due to frequency inter-relationships and the interference patterns (results of phase relationships) and forces, which subsequently arise from those interactions. I am describing here the thin end of the wedge into the notion that we all live in a form of holographic reality, one that was instigated and is now maintained by those forces I mentioned previously, the ones (or one) which exist outwith our realm of current scientific and intellectual understanding.
I thank Tom Findlay for being so generous with his time and knowledge. I will leave you with this from the Sanskrit text, the Rig Veda X.129, which is thousands of years old and the source of all the others:
Who here can grasp the colossal
boundless far-reaching entirety?
This universe is only a fraction,
a single portion of the infinite forever
Who can speak further of far away creation?
On this side of it the One that moved integrating
became the senses for perceiving,
thus sliding away afar.
As we are ever in motion
opening unfolding the God-within,
so the axis of the universe is
undulating, two serpents embracing,
all pervading within the highest creation,
even far away space ever expanding,
stretched out and spreading in all directions.
We know not if it can be held,
the continuum - indeed
if it can be known at all.
What Tom Findlay says about himself:
I have no academic achievements to parade for anyone to inspect. However, through my career, I have knowledge and experience of electrical, electronic and computer engineering, and radio communications, plus, I believe, a measure of common sense and an ability to think logically.
Since then, a lack of funds and cold and cloudy nights here in Scotland have steered my interest in astronomy towards the mental challenge of understanding what I can about the workings of our universe. Looking back, this could be considered the low-cost option, because learning from the work of others through books and other sources, does not necessarily come with the additional expense of buying equipment.
or comments about articles on this site:
Copyright© V. Susan Ferguson
Technical questions or
comments about the site: