“Good! First of all, let’s just assume for the sake of my argument here that the big bang does indeed begin with, as I said, electromagnetic radiation propagating helically outward from the initial point source at the speed of light. If I were to give you the long tour I could explain more of why I think it does this, but for now let’s just assume for the sake of the argument here that it does and let it go at that. Let’s then also assume, as most physicists currently do, that some sort of cataclysmic, symmetry-breaking event occurred such that the propagating electromagnetic waves, or some of them anyway, are torn up into bits and pieces. My guess is they either somehow interfered with each other since they were so bunched up at the beginning of the big bang, or maybe they ran into some sort of external high energy field as the physicist Higgs has already suggested. Anyway, let’s then further assume that work is done on these bits and pieces of traveling waves, i.e. energy is transferred to them in such a way, that these quanta, as we call them, are somehow, in some way, twisted around and rolled up into a ball. The result of which is that instead of propagating through space at the speed of light like they were originally doing, they are caused to propagate in circles. Sort of like a dog chasing its tail. Only instead of just spinning in place in two dimensions, these standing waves are also precessing due, again, to the generally helical nature of wave propagation I’ve proposed. Thus the standing waves form perfect little spheres. Which we call particles.

Because of the symmetry-breaking event, then, however it happens, and the helical nature of E waves, what we have now are two types of wave quanta. Those propagating helically through space at the speed of light--the original electromagnetic waves, and those spinning and precessing spherically in place, but also at the speed of light, which we call particles.”

“So what you’re saying is that the particles which make up all the matter in the universe are really tiny spinning balls of electromagnetic radiation. That fits pretty well, then, with the current definition of matter as being energy at rest. You’re saying particles are still E waves, they’re just not going anywhere.”

“Basically, that’s about it. However, these particles of wave energy exhibit different properties than they did when they were traveling waves.”

“You mean properties like mass and charge.”

“Correct.”

“But why? What makes them act so different? And how come particles have properties different from waves?”

“Well, then, you’ve asked some big-time questions, haven’t you? Physicists have been trying to figure out the mechanics of E waves and particles for almost a century now.”

“Are you saying that all they need to do is factor helical motion into waves and then they’ll be able to explain quantum mechanics?”

“No, no. Unfortunately, that’s only part of it. It’s true I think they will have to take helical propagation into consideration. And also that the symmetry breaking event actually transformed the traveling waves into standing waves. But there’s a whole lot more to it than that. And one of the things you have to do is get into equilibrium considerations. You see, again without going into it here, all the energy in the universe, and that means all the matter as well, can be thought of as possessing a property which, from the very beginning of the big bang, has caused it to constantly search for ever more stable states of equilibrium. It is this property which drives all forms of energy and matter to behave the way they do. Actually, when you get right down to it, it’s this property, plus one other property of energy, plus the idea that E waves propagate helically, which are responsible for the universe we see today. And once you assign these three initial conditions to the energy which existed at the beginning of the big bang, and then add in the symmetry-breaking event, then I’m pretty sure the evolution of our entire universe, which is really an enormous energy conversion process anyway, will become completely understandable.”

“Where does entropy fit into all this? I thought that all the energy and matter in the universe is driven to behave the way it does because it’s trying to increase its entropy.”

“A common misconception. Actually, it turns out that equilibrium and entropy are closely related concepts. Equilibrium is generally defined as a state of energy or matter which, once achieved, results in no more further work, action, or change taking place. The more stable a state of equilibrium, then, the more work would be required to cause it to undergo change. Entropy, that is, the original definition of it, refers to energy’s unavailability, or reluctance you might say, to do work.”

“To tell you the truth, I’ve never really understood entropy that well.”

“I know. I felt the same way for years. By itself the concept of entropy seems a bit obtuse. And so does the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of the universe’s energy, as it moves from state to state, is constantly increasing. Also, if this is true, since the universe is composed entirely of energy, this means the entropy of the universe is always increasing as well. But if you instead assume that the universe’s energy--and therefore the universe itself--is constantly moving toward ever more stable states of equilibrium, then you can see that more and more stable states of equilibrium translates into states of ever increasing entropy. The more stable the state of equilibrium, the greater the reluctance to undergo further change. The greater the reluctance to undergo further change, the greater the increase in entropy.”

“Yeah, but which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Does increasing equilibrium cause increasing entropy, or the other way around?”

“Good question. And if you’re looking only at the inanimate energy and matter of the universe, traveling waves, standing wave particles, individual atoms and molecules, and even stars and planets and so forth, which of course comprise most of the energy in the universe, then it might seem at first difficult to tell which is the cause and which is the consequence. However, the main distinction shows up readily in the development of living cells. The physicist Ilya Prigogine proved that the entropy of living cells decreases as they form, which automatically excludes the second law of thermodynamics as the driving force behind the growth of living cells. At least as the second law now stands. Thus, since living cells are themselves composed of energy and are part of the universe, we can no longer use the second law, which states that the entropy of the universe is not only always, but everywhere increasing, as the driving force, or what I like to call, the conscience, or at least part of the conscience, of the entire universe. But if you introduce equilibrium considerations in place of entropy considerations, then everything works great. In other words, I can make the argument, and I think it’s a pretty good one, that all the energy and matter in the universe is constantly searching for ever more stable states of equilibrium--even the energy that goes into living cells--and that it’s this search for equilibrium which is driving the evolution of the entire universe. Including the existence, and further evolution, of life here on earth. The bottom line here, then, is that the search for increasing equilibrium is the cause, you might say, of the universe’s evolution, whereas increasing entropy is only one of the consequences. Like I said, though, to develop the rationale for all this would require giving you the long tour, which I sense from the look on your face you probably don’t want to get into.”

“Maybe we don’t have time for the long tour, as you put it. But, tell me, this idea about everything being in equilibrium. Does it have anything to do with Newton’s third law of motion? I mean, Newton’s third law says that all matter is in a state of either kinetic or static equilibrium, right? At least that’s the way I was taught. Does what you’re thinking about explain the third law? I’m asking this because, to tell you the truth, like the second law of thermodynamics, I’ve never really understood Newton’s third law either. His first two laws don’t say anything about equilibrium at all. But the third one does. To me it doesn’t seem to belong with the other two. Maybe what you’re talking about will explain it.”

“Well, again, yes and no. As you say, the way it’s been taught to us in school the third law really doesn’t belong with the other two. But that’s only because Newton’s original meaning of the three laws of motion was evidently lost early on. You see, I don’t think Newton was thinking about equilibrium at all when he proposed the three laws of motion. He was attempting to introduce some new ideas about inertia, and mass, and momentum--which he called motion, by the way--and how mechanical forces cause changes in the motion of objects. It’s these changes in motion--or momentum--which he clearly defines as actions. He did all this so he could basically spring on us his new ideas about the gravitational force. At least that’s the way I see it.

The first law says that because of an object’s mass, and the inertia which arises from this mass, it will remain in whatever state of --or momentum--it’s in until it is acted upon by an external unbalanced force.

The second law states quite clearly, if you keep in mind Newton’s very specific definitions of inertia, mass, motion, and action, that the magnitude of an action--which he defined as a change in motion or momentum--is equal to the magnitude of the unbalanced force acting on the object, and the direction of the action is in the direction of the force.

The third law, then, goes on to state just as clearly, or so it seems to me, that actions, or, remember, changes in momentum, must be equal and opposite. Here he was introducing the idea of the conservation of momentum in a closed system, which, again, was absolutely essential to his explanation of the force of gravity he was also about to propose.

You see, he had evidently recognized that all mechanical forces acting on objects do not directly cause changes in their velocities, as was commonly thought, and to some degree still is, but in their momentums. Applying this thinking to the movement of the earth, moon, and sun, and the rest of the solar system, he was able to rationalize that if there is a mutually attractive force acting on the members of the solar system, then, like other forces, it must also cause equal and opposite changes in momentum directly, and changes in velocity indirectly. As a matter of fact, the tale of the apple falling on his head, whether true or not, illustrates very well the idea that, because of the mutually attractive gravitational force acting on both the apple and the earth, as the apple fell to earth, the earth had to be at the same time falling toward the apple. Although, of course, much more slowly. Obviously, because it’s so massive, no one before Newton had ever noticed, or even thought about, the entire earth moving up and down at all, for any reason. Let alone that such a movement could be caused by a small object like an apple simply because the apple was at the same time falling downward toward the earth. But Newton did. And he was able to figure out that while the rates at which the apple and the earth were accelerating toward each other were not the same, the actions, or changes in the motions of the apple and the earth were the same, and that they were equal and opposite. This allowed Newton to then say that his gravitational force, which he then went on introduce, was indeed a legitimate force since it also caused changes in momentum in a closed system which were equal and opposite.

To put all this in a nutshell, then, I don’t think the current interpretation of the third law is at all what Newton had in mind. However, that the scientific community has misinterpreted the third law as having something to do with equilibrium is neither entirely wrong, nor just a coincidence. For, if I’m right, since the entire universe is composed of energy, and all the various forms of this energy are constantly seeking ever more stable states of equilibrium, then all the laws in the universe which have something to say about these changes, like Newton’s laws of motion, must have something to do with equilibrium. That’s why, absent our understanding of the true nature of Newton’s first two laws, and Newton’s original definition of an action, which also got lost somewhere in the translation, it’s only natural that scientists might conclude the third law was only about static and dynamic equilibrium. Because, in a way it is.”

“But Newton’s laws of motion, and his law of gravity, have always been taught this way. Are you saying we’ve screwed up what Newton tried to tell us practically from day one?”

“Royally.”

“But, how can that be? They work so well.”

“They do only as long as we are willing to assume, as was Newton, the existence of inertia and mass and gravity. But if you want to know where these came from, and the mechanics of how they work; and if you want to understand the connection between quantum and Newtonian mechanics, and a lot of other things as well, then Newtonian mechanics as we’ve been taught them can’t cut it. And the first step to figuring out all these things is to get right what Newton was trying to tell us about momentum. Which, again, he called motion. Tell me. Did you ever read Newton’s Principia?”

“No, I never did.”

“Well, you really should. I haven’t read all of it myself, but maybe you should read at least the beginning of it, especially where he defines very carefully all the terms he uses. That way you don’t have to believe me if you don’t want to. You can get it straight from Newton himself.

“All right, I will. But I don’t see how Newton’s laws, whether they’re about momentum or not, have anything to do with quantum mechanics. As you well know, nobody’s ever made that connection.”

“Good point. If you’d like me to, I’ll go ahead and explain the connection. At least, as best I know how at the present time. But you’ll have to accept my explanation of Newton’s laws for now. OK?”

“No problem.”