“According to you, then, using helical wave propagation and equilibrium considerations, plus the idea that our universe exists within a larger reality with its own space and time, we ought to be able to account for everything in the universe, right?”

“That’s mostly right. But remember, we still haven’t accounted for the existence of gravity. Like I said, I’m still working on that.”

“Well, yeah, but if the universe is composed entirely of electromagnetic waves in the form of either traveling waves or standing waves, then using your initial conditions, everything in the universe, even gravity, should be explainable in terms of E waves. Right?”

“If there are only these initial conditions, and they’ve been correctly identified, then yes, you’re right. But there may be another initial condition lurking out there which is responsible for the existence of gravity in our universe. However, like you just said, I’m also starting to think that we don’t need anything else. That once physicists and other scientists start investigating the fields around standing waves, they’re going to find out that these still-to-be-determined fields might very well be very faint but extend over great distances. Further, they might find that, just as two electrons traveling side-by-side in the same direction are attracted by their motion-induced electromagnetic fields, so might the same two particles, side-by-side but motionless, be similarly attracted by the interaction of their standing-wave fields. Again, if this attraction is very weak, but somehow extends over great distances, then they’ll be able to explain the gravitational force.”

“But there’s the matter of time slowing down in a gravitational field.”

“Yes, but when E fields interact, reflected impedance considerations might somehow distort or otherwise impede the normally smooth and spherical spin of the particles, causing the particle spin rate to decrease by just a tiny fraction. Just as in the case of special relativity, then, we’d have a slowing of Newtonian time for all the particles involved. And the more particles involved, in other words the greater the concentration of mass, the greater the mutual attraction and the slowing of time.”

“And with Newtonian time slowing, like you said, Newtonian space must stretch or expand to keep the speed of light a constant.”

“That’s about it. But, like I say, I really don’t have things figured out yet. Just like you’re doing now, before I can go much farther here, I’m going to have to go back and review all of Maxwell’s equations and so forth. And I have to tell you, once I get all this stuff we’ve been talking about right now written down, it’ll be a while before I’m going to want to go on to do that. Besides, there’s a lot of other people better equipped, mentally and otherwise, to do what needs to be done here.”

“You know, I’ve got some friends at CU who I’ll bet would be interested in this. Would you mind if I told them about it?”

“Not at all! As a matter of fact, the people who really need to think about this stuff are the students who’re just now learning how to mathematically model the universe. Their minds are still open to whatever ideas might help them to understand the physical universe. I’ve been working on this idea about the importance of equilibrium considerations off and on now for close to 30 years. But I mostly just stumbled around not making much sense of it all until finally, just a couple of years ago, I realized that it’s the property of elasticity which is responsible for energy’s constant search for equilibrium. That from the beginning of the big bang all the energy in the universe has been trying to do nothing else but return to equilibrium by the quickest and easiest way. About the same time the idea of helical wave propagation came to me as well. But the point I want to make here is that learning to think of the universe as being only part of a larger reality, and that it owes its existence to, and can therefore only be completely explained in terms of that larger reality, is not an easy thing to do. And in particular for those of us who were raised to think of the universe as being all there is to reality. So, yes, by all means talk to anyone you want to about this stuff. But especially to the younger ones.”

“You have to understand, though, I’m not sure anyone’s going to believe what you’ve been saying here. Not at first, anyway. To tell you the truth, I know I’m having a hard time with it.”

“Well then, let me make another point here. I’m not trying to lecture, or preach to you about all this. It’s certainly true that, because of all the time and effort I’ve put into this that I myself believe, for the most part anyway, that what we’ve been talking about here is indeed the truth, and the right way to think about the universe, and so forth. But in the long run it’s not important what I think or believe is the truth. If you think about it, what we’re really after is the wisdom to always do the right thing. To always act in our own best interest. Now I know people always say that the ultimate goal of science is to understand the universe. But that’s not the end of it. What the human race is really after is wisdom. So the real value of knowledge and understanding of the universe lies mainly in the fact that these truths will lead us to the wisdom we need. But we have to make sure the knowledge and understanding we end up with is the actual truth, which dictionaries define as an accurate description of the way things are. And that absolutely accurate description has to be left to trained scientists and metaphysicists. Then the moral philosophers can take over and finally give us the wisdom we need. All I’m saying is, when they find the truth about the universe, what I’m talking about here in the most general of terms is most likely what they’ll find. And if by knowing what we’ve talked about here today will maybe do some of them some good, maybe start some of them off in the right direction, well, that’s great.”

“I hope you’re right. And I’ll keep that in mind. Speaking of which, looking at your list here, what about the horizon problem? Can you explain that?”

“Actually, I think it’s more accurate to ask if the theory can answer the question, not I. But yes, it does. The horizon problem arises because physicists have found the universe to display large-scale homogeneity. Since the universe is expanding at essentially the speed of light, they haven’t been able to conceive of how the universe could constantly adjust and readjust itself to maintain its homogeneity if the regulating process responsible for this homogeneity can’t travel back and forth in the universe any faster than the horizons are expanding.

However, with the world view I’m proposing, the large-scale homogeneity is not a function of some regulating process, but of the initial conditions of the big bang. Namely that the universe’s energy, once released, explodes outward symmetrically--and homogeneously--in all directions precisely because it is naturally selecting the fastest and easiest way back to completely stable equilibrium.

To put it another way, with this world view there is no horizon problem to begin with since the universe is bound to be homogeneous.”

“Then what about the boundary problem?”

“There physicists have never been able to figure out whether the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, or whether it is slowing down, possibly because of gravity. Their calculations actually tell them it’s expanding at a fairly constant rate exactly in between the other two, which they can’t understand because such a case requires that the universe be in a constant state of unstable equilibrium. Something which does not seem possible.

Again, however, with this world view, the energy of the universe, because of the initial conditions, is defined as being in a constant state of unstable equilibrium as it constantly seeks to return to its initial state of completely stable equilibrium. In which case, like the horizon problem, the only boundary problem would be if the universe’s energy wasn’t in a state of unstable equilibrium.

As for the smoothness problem, I can’t provide a solution for that one yet. I’ve already said the helical waves might have interfered with each other early on to tear up the E waves into bits and pieces. Or, and this is probably more along the line of what the physicist Higgs was talking about, maybe when the universe’s energy was originally being compressed, some other energy tried to fill in the empty space that would have been left in the parent reality. So when the universe’s energy was released, it may well have slammed right into the other energy. But right now I’m willing to leave that one completely to the theorists.”

“Since you mentioned it, do you think this world view will also solve the mystery of the Higgs boson? I was recently reading where a high-powered team of physicists at the Fermi Lab has been trying to separate the mass of a particle, which as I understand it was brought to the particle from the high energy field by the Higgs boson, from the rest of the particle using a particle accelerator. But they can’t seem to find this boson.”

“Remember, Newton and others before him had observed that physical force needed to be applied to an object to speed it up and slow it down and so forth. They attributed this reluctance by an object to change its velocity, which they called inertia, to a property of matter they called mass. But no one’s ever figured out where this property comes from. I’m proposing it comes from the fact that matter is, at its most fundamental level, made of standing wave particles. Now if you’ll also remember, these standing wave particles, by their very nature, are in effect born with the property of mass, which is more in line with what Newton was thinking. So we don’t have to add something to it, like this Higgs boson, to give it mass. And that’s why, quite frankly, I don’t think they ever will find a Higgs boson.”

“If that’s true, those people at the Fermi Lab are going to be really disappointed.”

“And they’re not going to be too thrilled with the first person to tell them so, either. So you can do that if you want to as well. But, actually, it’s not exactly that there’s no Higgs energy at all. It’s there all right. And because of it a particle does indeed take on the property of mass. It’s just that, as I see it anyway, this energy is just not quite in the form they think it is. I mean it’s not a boson.”

“What is it, then?”

If we go back to this world view once again, which, remember, requires that energy must always be seeking the most stable state of equilibrium available to it because....?”

“Because it’s just trying to get back to its original state of completely stable equilibrium.”

“You got it! Anyway, if energy in the form of traveling waves is a more stable state of equilibrium than a standing wave, it stands to reason that because some work had to be done on some of the originally expanding E waves to tear them up and form them into standing waves, one could argue that the only thing keeping standing wave particles from naturally falling once again back into traveling waves is the continued presence of this energy. Now I’m guessing, and right now this really is a pure guess, that the charge on a particle might be this energy. It’s this charge, then, that I’m thinking might be the Higgs energy they’re looking for. In other words, in this interpretation, which is consistent with what we’ve been saying so far about particles, the Higgs energy, or charge on the particle, while it doesn’t actually contain the particle’s mass, does cause the particle to possess the property of mass because the particle remains a standing wave as long as this charge is present.”

“So Higgs was on to something after all.”

“Yes indeed. Of course, since I know nothing of the mathematical models Higgs and others have been using in this area, I can’t really say. However, if what we’ve just talked about is true, and again employing equilibrium considerations, then the magnitude of the charge, which represents the work done to roll the quantum of traveling wave into a standing wave particle, represents what one might say is the potential difference between the standing wave and its more stable traveling wave. Further, the polarity of the charge may represent some sort of direction of the standing wave from the more stable state of equilibrium as a traveling wave.

Now I know this is a reach, even for me, but, again, if what I’ve just said is essentially true, then that could explain why unlike charges attract and like charges repel. Like charges are no good to each other in their constant search for equilibrium because they’re, you might say, on the same side of equilibrium. As a matter of fact, they’re counterproductive. So they repel each other. Unlike charges, on the other hand, attract because, in their respective particles’ constant search for equilibrium, they’re at exactly opposite, but identical distances from equilibrium. Thus, should two such particles of identical mass, like an electron and a positron, come close to each other, their mechanical consciences, so to speak, would cause them to seek each other out, and their charges would cancel, thereby allowing the standing waves to naturally fall back into a more stable state of equilibrium as a traveling wave.”

“Which event physicists have seen happen with electrons and positrons but so far can’t explain.”

“Yes, but, you need to remember, I’m just still just theorizing here. It’s true this explanation fits nicely with what I’ve been saying so far, and also with what physicists have been finding about particle mechanics, but the real work still needs to be done before the truth here will be known. But, as long as we’re on the subject, this would also explain why particles of opposite charge, but unequal masses, like and electron and a proton, would still be attracted to each other, but imperfectly. So they form an atom. Which is one step closer to equilibrium. ”

“Well, I’ve got one more question for you.”

“Shoot.”

“All of this so far has been really interesting. But all of these things you’ve talked about so far, energy equilibrium, and relativity, and quantum mechanics, and Newtonian mechanics, and so forth only lead up to what to me, and to most others as well, are the most important questions of all. How did we human beings come to exist here on earth? And is there a reason for us? And, if so, what is it? Now I know Charles Darwin proposed his principle of natural selection as the means by which the first single cells formed into multi-celled organisms and then into us. But, kind of like the way I felt about Newton’s third law until you straightened me out on it, I don’t think Darwin’s explanation really tells the whole story. By that I mean Darwin had to first assume the existence of living cells before he could even apply his theory. So what caused living cells to come into existence here on earth in the first place? How did we get from inanimate atoms and molecules to those first living cells. Can you, or, rather, does your theory explain this part of the universe’s evolutionary process?”

“Actually, by using equilibrium considerations to explain how the first living cells came to exist here on earth, and how they then evolved into multi-celled organisms, and, finally, into us, we really get a chance to see the power of this theory and how it almost effortlessly cuts across the intellectual barriers that have been separating the various scientific disciplines.

Before I do this, however, I need to point out that, just as in the case of quantum mechanics, because I’m also almost totally ignorant of the science of biology, and especially microbiology, I can only describe how evolution takes place here on a large scale, purely qualitative level. But I think I can still give you plenty to think about.”