About 20 minutes have passed. Introductions have been made all around, and, with the lunch debris cleared away and the trays stowed in their upright positions, the lady is reading a novel, and her husband is thinking he might close his eyes and do some relaxation exercises when the young man begins to speak.

“If you don’t mind, I’ve got a couple of questions I’d like to ask you. I’ve been thinking of what you were saying about the helix. How it might allow us to understand how electromagnetic radiation travels. It reminded me of an article I once read about those two biologists, Watson and Crick, who couldn’t figure out how the two strands of DNA could be connected the way they are until they twisted them into a double helix. Do you think this is maybe the same sort of deal with electromagnetic radiation? And could it be that maybe this idea of the helix is a lot more important to our understanding of the universe than we think?”

“Good question. And yes, I think you’re right. That is, of course, if E waves do indeed propagate helically, which we don’t know yet is true or not. But if true, helical E waves and helical DNA is probably not a coincidence at all. Certainly, it’s a real stretch to go from the most fundamental form of energy, electromagnetic waves, to DNA, which has got to be one of the more complex forms of energy in the universe. But they’re both forms or compounds of energy, and if we end up incorporating helical wave theory into quantum mechanics in something like the way we’ve just talked about, well, since the behavior of all matter is based upon the principles of quantum mechanics, then it’s probably not such a stretch after all.

“That’s what I was thinking. And another thing. I also remember reading somewhere about how mathematical models seem to indicate there might be another dimension of time sort of wrapped up inside the quantum. And that physicists can’t really explain how such a thing could actually happen. Now if I heard you right, you were saying that every particle is a time generator. Or something like that. Could there be some connection between what their mathematical models seem to indicate and what you’re saying?”

“Absolutely! You see, the single dimension of time we know about, which I’ll call Newtonian time, only clocks the movement of particles through Newtonian space. But, if you think about it, it’s the movement of these particles, and of the atoms composed of them, which is responsible for all the changes that take place in all the matter in the universe. So everywhere you look in the realm of Newtonian mechanics you find these particles. Now, as I see it, since all particles are actually standing waves spinning at the same speed of light, they are all tiny clocks. Larger particles may take longer to complete a spin cycle, but because of the constant speed of light, they are all synchronized. And since everything in the universe is composed of these little clocks, then all the matter in the universe is going to act in lock-step, so to speak.

In other words, our universe is a process within which constant change is going on everywhere. And at the most fundamental level, changes occur, and physical processes proceed, precisely because all the individual particles involved, whether they’re in atoms or molecules or whatever, are caused to undergo some type of change of state. Usually this means simply rearranging themselves and their atoms, and so forth. Therefore, because of all these tiny quantum clocks, which, again, are in all matter, the Newtonian universe behaves in such a measured, and measurable, way. It only remains for us, then, to find some way to measure this passage of time for our own purposes. And we do this by using structures composed of these particles, structures which constantly repeat a single signature state of existence, but at a rate we can conveniently measure and record. Thus we use the earth, which spins once a day on its own axis, for a clock. Or the earth orbiting the sun once a year for a clock. Or, for shorter periods of time, a pendulum-type clock, or an atomic clock which, well, you get the idea. But, getting back to what we were saying, in a particle the rate of propagation of the internally spinning electromagnetic wave, which, again, occurs at the constant speed of light, has to be clocked by a separate dimension of time. And it is that dimension of time, I think, some theoretical physicists are talking about.”

“If particles do indeed work the way you’re saying, I don’t see why two dimensions of time are required at all. If particles are standing waves as you suggest, then the ticking of these tiny quantum clocks, as you call them, and therefore the time they keep, is actually a function of the speed of light at which a particle’s standing wave spins. A complete spin cycle, then, which you’re saying is a measure of Newtonian time, is simply a unit length of the particle’s internal spin time. And since they’re all, as you say, spinning at the same speed of light, we still have only one dimension of time. But two ways to measure it. Either by the speed of light itself, or by the time it takes for the energy wave to complete a spin cycle spinning at the speed of light.”

“You could say that as long as there is no overall movement of the particle--let’s here call it an electron--in Newtonian space. For in that situation both ways will keep the same time. But think of what happens when the electron is moving. Here, let me draw what I mean. (He takes the piece of paper and draws a circle with a horizontal line through it, designating the two points where the line intersects the circle as A and B.)

Fig. 3

“This means that, as you suggested, the duration of the particle’s spin is a good, baseline indicator of the passage of time because only the speed of light, which is a constant, is determining the length of a spin cycle.

OK, then. But now let’s say the particle is moving horizontally from left to right, or in the general direction of from A towards B. Now in this case the wave energy is going to take a little longer to get to B, because B is moving away from the wave front that just left A. Remember, as Einstein said, nothing can move any faster than the speed of light. So we can’t add the overall speed of the particle to the speed of the light wave as it propagates from A to B. Thus, since the energy propagating from A to B takes a little longer to get to B, because B is moving in the same direction as the wave is propagating, then the total time it takes the standing wave to propagate through a complete spin cycle, from A to B and back to A again, will increase. And the Newtonian quantum clock, which ticks, so to speak, whenever a spin cycle is completed, slows down. Right?”

“Wait a minute. You’ve forgotten about the rest of the spin cycle. When the wave energy propagates from B back to A. This is going to take less time since A is moving toward B. Won’t this decrease in time cancel out the increase in time it takes the energy to get from A to B?”

“No. Not completely. If the overall movement of the particle is much less than the speed of light, which is the case in Newtonian mechanics, then there’s not much of an increase in the time it takes the wave energy to get to B. Because B hasn’t moved very far. Or, going back in the other direction, there’s not much of a decrease in time for the wave to get from B back to A. So, for all intents and purposes, the length of the spin cycle doesn’t change. However, let’s say the particle is moving really fast from left to right. So fast that it takes the wave energy, say, five times longer to get from A to B. In that situation it’s only going to take the energy as it propagates from B back to A only about one fifth of the time it would take for it to get back to A if the particle were standing still. As you can see, these changes in the two times aren’t equal. Decreasing the original spin time from B back to A by 80% is not nearly as large a change as increasing the spin time from A to B by 500%. And the faster the particle moves, the greater the disparity. And the greater the disparity, the slower the quantum clock ticks.”

“Oh, yeah, I get it! The faster the particle moves, then, the slower time passes for the particle. Say! Did we just explain special relativity here?”

“At least, the most well-known case of how time slows for moving objects.”

“You know, it’s like what we were talking about with E waves. I’m amazed at what Einstein and Hawking and other physicists have been able to do as far as mathematically modeling parts of the universe without actually understanding what’s going on. Even more than that, they seem to be able to come up with models of parts of the universe we never even knew existed. I remember going to a lecture once about mathematics and the guy explained how powerful a language mathematics is. How other languages like English and Spanish use letters as symbols to model the fundamental sounds of the language, whereas the language of mathematics uses symbols to model entire fundamental scientific ideas. That’s why, even though you can describe scientific principles and processes and so forth with other languages, you first have to string their symbols into words, and then their words into complete scientific thoughts. Which can take quite a bit of doing. Whereas with mathematics you simply combine maybe a relatively few symbols and you can mathematically model an extraordinarily complex scientific idea like E waves or relativity.”

“You’re right, but there’s a lot more to it than that.”

“Oh, sure. I know. You have to really know what you’re doing. And you have to have a great imagination too. I still don’t understand how Einstein knew to make the speed of light a constant so that relativity would come out the way it did. I mean, we still don’t know why it is a constant. Only that it works.”

“Again you’re right. But, like I said, there’s more to it than even that.”

“What do you mean?”

“Well, do you remember earlier when I talked about energy’s search for equilibrium being part of the conscience of the universe?”

“Yeah. And I was going to ask you about that. What did you mean?”

“Well, without getting into it too much here, we define the human conscience as those ethical and moral ideas which together determine the way we think and act. At least, when we have free choice. Now as far as energy is concerned I’m not talking exactly about that kind of a conscience. Certainly not one that complicated. But think for a minute, what causes all the different kinds of inanimate energy and matter in the universe to behave the way they do?”

“Well, I suppose the forces acting on them.”

“That’s not exactly what I meant, although, yes, unbalanced forces have to be present before things can happen. But what I’m talking about is, given that some force is acting on some energy or matter, what causes that particular type or compound of energy or matter to react or respond to the force the way it does?”

“Ahh, I see what you mean. Well, I suppose it’s the properties of the energy or matter which determine how it behaves or responds to the forces acting on it. Right?”

“Exactly. So what I’m saying is, from a purely physical universe point of view, you could say that each form or state or type of energy or matter in the universe has a set of properties which act as sort of a mechanical conscience for that particular type of energy. OK? Because they do determine its behavior. Now, having said that, I want to take this idea of a mechanical conscience one step farther. I’m just going to state right here, without taking the time to justify it, that at the very beginning of the universe, by that I mean at the beginning of the big bang, all the energy in the universe was of a single state or type, and that this energy possessed a single set of properties, one of which, as I stated earlier, causes energy to constantly seek the most stable state of equilibrium available to it. Further, I’m going to propose that just as all the states or types of energy which have ever come into existence since that time derive from that initial state of energy, so do all their different properties derive from that initial set of properties. In other words, while all these different properties of energy and matter we see around us do indeed cause the new types of energy and matter to behave in all sorts of different ways, it’s only because the new properties are just different expressions of those initial properties. Are you with me so far?”

“I think so.”

“OK. Moving along, then, I’m going to further state that this being the case, then everything in the universe, since it’s made up of nothing but energy, has this fundamental conscience of the universe built into it. It’s just that this conscience shows up later on in different ways. Am I still making good sense to you?”

“Sure. But the thought comes to mind that if what you’re saying is true, since we’re made of energy and are part of the universe, wouldn’t that conscience be inside us as well? Does this have something to do with that absolute, great-conscience-in-the-sky that philosophers have been looking for?”

“Absolutely. They just don’t know it yet. But we really don’t have time to get into that here.

So, then, getting back to this idea of a universal conscience, I want to make the point that all the energy in the universe has this conscience built into it, and it comes from those original properties that energy had at the beginning of the big bang. And, having said that, plus what I said earlier about initial conditions, I want to point out that physicists have been, for the past 150 years or so, very close to figuring out what this universal conscience is. By that I mean they’ve been sort of trying to force the first and second laws of thermodynamics into being this fundamental, universal conscience. But there are two problems with this they’ve got to get straightened out first, and then they’ll be on the right track.

First of all, like I said earlier, they’re going to have to replace the idea of entropy increase with equilibrium increase as the driving force of the universe. I’m calling this one the second property since it matches up with the second law of thermodynamics.

The first property, then, which the first law of thermodynamics already does a fairly good job of stating, is energy’s quantity. In other words, I see no reason at all why we can’t just assume that quantity is itself a property of energy. After all, a true property of energy would be one that’s always conserved, and so is energy’s quantity. As a matter of fact, that’s precisely what the first law of thermodynamics says. So, until someone comes along with a better idea, will you buy that the first law doesn’t actually cause the quantity of energy in the universe to remain constant. It’s just a statement about one of the fundamental properties of energy?”

“I suppose so. At least for now. But what about increasing equilibrium, which I assume is caused by the second property? Nothing’s conserved there. So what conserved property is going to cause energy to constantly seek out more stable states of equilibrium?”

“Well, I may be sounding like a broken record here, but, again, to answer this question completely we’d have to get into the really big picture of the universe. So let me just say, without going into any justification for it right now that the property of energy which causes it to always naturally select, if you will, for ever more stable states of equilibrium is its elasticity.”