Were the rules of motion in our 3D universe predetermined?

It is important that you view the contents of this blog in relationship to my new blog entitled: “The fundamental universe revisited“. This new blog is designed to be the master science referential blog for all my science blog postings in my website.

Are phenomena relating to reality predetermined?

I cannot answer these questions. However, there now seems to be mounting evidence that the rules of motion within our 3D universe have been predetermined. I will now explain why this could be the case

For purposes of scientific research and understanding in science, over time guidelines were formed be scientists in order to embrace entanglement within their then existing scientific theories. What has recently happened is that a sophisticated experiment in Holland has definitively demonstrated that the phenomena of entanglement is real and that Einstein’s views about entanglement had been wrong all along. Mathematics had proven the existence of entanglement since the first half of the 20th century, but it had not been confirmed via a physical experiment. This means that since the Dutch experiment the scientific guidelines cited above have been compelled to change.

This now means that entanglement is in fact a metaphysical scientific phenomenon and from here on in it must be scientifically considered as such. This also implies that the rules relating to cosmic movement within the universe were probably determined at the point of the Big Bang [I suggest before the Big Bang].

I will quote extracts from a Quanta magazine article that seems to confirm my words above.


“…Either we close the loophole more and more, and we’re more confident in quantum theory, or we see something that could point toward new physics…” [This means new science modelling that formally embraces entanglement.]

“…But given the choice between quantum entanglement and superdeterminism, most scientists favour entanglement — and with it, freedom. “If the correlations are indeed set [at the Big Bang], everything is preordained,” Larsson said. “I find it a boring worldview. I cannot believe this would be true…” [I believe that the words in this second quote are suggesting that the rules of movement within the 3D universe were set at the time of the Big Bang and that cosmic movement was “preordained”. It is my opinion that the rules of nature as we know them today were also probably determined at that time as well. [This is consistent within my primordial awareness matrix modeling.]

The Dutch experiment can be assessed here


The Quanta journal article relating to the cosmic movement within the universe may be seen here


Are there eight numbers that rule the universe?

Are there also eight tiny numbers that secretly rule not only the universe but also our lives as well?

I believe that this may be the case. In April 2011 a blog was posted by Jacopo della Quercia that was entitled “Eight numbers that rule the universe” I made a hard copy of the paper. I note that the original Jacopo posting is no longer online. I share his ideas with you in the pdf file I have created on his behalf below.

Eight numbers that rule the universe.pdf

Unravelling a difficult physics paradox is not an easy task

A colleague helped me to better understand the Tolman paradox

Around four years ago I read a physics paper written by Moses Fayngold entitled “A possible resolution of the Tolman Paradox as a Quantum Superposition”. Both the topic as well as the depth of ideas Fayngold employed to assemble his paper fascinated me. Naturally enough I could only understand snippets to what the author was talking about. I passed the document along to my colleague and friend Peter to help me better understand it. I now share this interesting information with my readers. I am also paying tribute to Peter for the enormous effort he rendered in responding to my question. Thank you Peter!

The Fayngold essay is attached to this blog in the pdf file below.

On 7/Jan/2013 I sent an email to Peter. This was his response:

Hi Peter,

As a layperson I find this article interesting. Obviously I understand mere snippets of it but I have zeroed on to the closing sentence that “… QM could be nature’s device against violations of relativistic causality” May I ask has this guy got a point?


Hi John,

Thanks. This is very interesting and it is actually a new paper (1104 means 2011 04, ie April 2011).  But his argument is in relationship to the claims of Special Relativity. For the benefit of both of us I will try to explain.

Prior to Special Relativity, people assumed that light waves traveled through a medium (eg ether, or Cahill’s dynamical 3-space) at a fixed speed ‘c’. That implied that if you were moving through the medium at say speed v, then the speed of light waves relative to yourself would be c + v if you were headed into the waves, or c-v if you were headed away and being overtaken by the waves.

This in turn implied that people could determine the speed of the earth through the “ether” by measuring the speed of light in different directions. If they got a maximum speed say of c+v in one direction, and a minimum of c-v in the opposite direction, then the earth would have a speed of v relative to the ether.

Such an experiment was done by Michelson and Morley in 1887, however it gave a value for v of only about 8 km/s. Now since the earth was known to have an orbital speed around the sun of about 30 km/s, its speed through the ether would have to be at least as fast as that, so something appeared to be wrong.

In response to this, a theory was developed that motion through the ether caused matter to contract along its direction of motion and caused its internal physical processes to slow down, in such a way as to cause laboratory instruments to always measure the speed of light as being equal c, even if in reality it differed from c. This became known as Lorentzian Relativity Theory and it implied that it might be completely impossible to experimentally detect motion of matter relative to ether.

However, Cahill argues that if laboratory instruments get distorted by motion through ether, then to get the true value of v, one needs to multiply the experimentally determined value of 8 km/s by a scale factor, which then gives a value of about 400 km/s, which accounts for the orbital velocity of the earth plus the velocity of the sun as it orbits our galaxy etc. See:

The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute Motion


However, if one assumes, as most physicists came to do, that motion of matter relative ether can not be experimentally detected, then it should be possible to make the same predictions as Lorentzian Relativity, using simpler equations that don’t include terms related to velocity through ether.

That is, it should be possible to develop a mathematically simpler alternative to Lorentzian Relativity that would work just as well for practical purposes.

This was achieved by Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity, which became popular because of its greater simplicity.

However, by leaving out the ether, Special Relativity allows paradoxes to arise such as Tolman’s paradox, which I will try to illustrate in a simple way.

Suppose we have observers A and B each with physically identical clocks.

And suppose A is at rest in ether and that B brushes past A and then away from A at a speed through the ether that causes B’s clock to run at half speed.

Then according to Lorentzian Relativity, A can say that the motion of B through the ether causes B’s clock to run at half speed relative to A’s clock and B can agree that this is so.

However, for the same situation Special Relativity asserts that A can say that the motion of B relative to A causes B’s clock to run at half speed relative to A’s clock but that since there is no ether, B has an equal right to say that the motion of A relative to B causes A’s clock to run at half speed relative to B’s clock.

At first sight this appears a ridiculous contradiction, but in practice, it is not possible for A and B to compare the times shown by their clocks without sending signals to each other and it turns out that if the signals do not exceed the speed of light, inconsistencies do not arise when comparisons are made. So because we currently have no way to send signals faster than light,  A and B are each entitled to claim that his own clock is running normally and that it is the clock of the other that is slow and there is no practical way to prove that either is wrong.

But, suppose it was possible for each observer to remotely stop the clock of the other using a signal of infinite speed?

Eg suppose at the instant that B brushes past A, A and B zero their clocks, and then after two seconds A stopped B’s clock and then in response B stopped A’s clock. What would be the result?

Lorentzian Relativity theory predicts that when A stops B’s clock, B’s clock will only be showing a time of one second because it runs at half  the rate of A’s clock. And when B stops A’s clock in response to that, A’s clock will  be showing a time of two seconds, because from B’s point of view, A’s clock runs at twice the speed of B’s clock.  This is also what A would expect, because it would take zero time for a signals of infinite speed to travel from A to B and back to A again. So A would expect his clock to stop as soon as he stops B’s clock.

So Lorentzian Relativity predicts a logically consistent result.

In contrast…

Special relativity theory predicts that when A stops B’s clock, B’s clock will only be showing a time of one second because it runs at half  the rate of A’s clock. But when B stops A’s clock in response to that, A’s clock will only be showing a time of half of a second because from B’s point of view, A’s clock runs at half the speed of B’s clock.

But if A’s clock stops when it is showing only half a second, it could never get to two seconds to allow A to send the signal to stop B’s clock !

So in this example, Special Relativity results in paradox if we consider signals that travel at infinite speed. (The paradox can also arise if the signal speed is less than infinite but greater than the speed of light, but that is more difficult to reason about).

For people who prefer Special Relativity, the usual way to avoid this paradox is to assume that it is impossible for anything to travel faster than light, because if anything could do so, it could be used to send signals between observers such as A and B. That rules out tachyons so far as such people are concerned.

However, the paper you referenced suggests another way to avoid the paradox. The argument seems to be like this.

Suppose we assume that two versions of A (and his clock) can exist in a state of superposition, eg A1 and A2. Then when the clock of A1 shows two seconds, A1 sends a an infinitely fast signal to stop B’s clock. B then sends an infinitely fast signal to stop A’s clock which owing to the claims of Special Relativity arrives when A’s clock shows half a second. This would result in a paradox if it stopped the clock of A1, but thanks to the existence of A2, this signal can stop the clock of A2 rather than the clock of A1.

However, the situation of having two versions of A in superposition cannot continue for ever. At some point, one or other of the states must end up as the one that is observed to be real. If A1 is manifested, then A sent a signal to stop B’s clock, but did not receive a signal back to stop his clock, so that signal was in effect lost in quantum noise. If A2 is manifested, then A received a signal from B to stop his clock, but did not send a signal to stop B’s clock so the signal that stopped B’s clock was in effect spontaneously generated by quantum noise.

So this method of avoiding the paradox allows signals (eg using tachyons) that are faster than light, but does not allow such signals to be used for reliable communication.

On the other hand, as illustrated above, Lorentzian Relativity does not result in paradoxes when we consider signals (eg using tachyons) that move faster then light so adopting Lorentzian Relativity instead of Special Relativity provides a simpler way to avoid the paradox.


tachyons and superposition pdf

A light hearted way of understanding the theory of relativity

This is a dated comic strip [probably from sometime before the 1960’s] that I feel  does a good job in explaining the effects of relativity

Readers should note that the cartoon was produced before the discovery of the lighting effects that occur near to the speed of light.


“When Albert Einstein advanced his special theory of relativity in 1905, he turned upside down everything that common sense and science had established about time. He said that time is not absolute, but is a relative quantity that could show one value to one observer while seeming different to a second viewer. The whole thing seemed preposterous.”




It is against this background that I recommend that you read the attached pdf file.

relativity express.pdf

What is Unity theory?

In physics Unity theory is commonly referred as a Grand Uniting Theory of everything [G.U.T.]

I present you with the following quote that I feel responsibly answers this question. You will note where I have both underlined and emboldened certain parts of the text for your benefit.


“It seems that it is not possible to solve the mystery of Nature by dissecting the puzzle into even smaller pieces or by taking an even closer look at the picture.

Instead, if we are able to realize the logic in the whole puzzle, then we can try to derive well-known and well-formulated pieces of the puzzle from that whole picture. If we are able to compose a whole picture, which is logically self-consistent to be true and which contains and generates independent pieces of the puzzle, that whole picture should be the physics theory of everything.

First, we need a basic description of this wholeness that will lead us to a complete theory. In fact, there is a hypothesis, which develops the special and general theory of relativity and the theory of quantum mechanics. The philosophical basis of our hypothesis is as ancient as its opposite, atoms of Democritus, which treats Nature as a coincidence of scattered existing building blocks.

Geometric Generalization suggests a mathematical formulation of a major philosophical movement, which is probably first suggested by Heraclitus. This philosophy recognizes physical reality as a complete unity. According to this philosophy, physical reality is an ongoing process of constant movement and change, which is a consequence of balancing opposites.”

Quoted from:


Readers will note that in paragraph three it states “we need a basic description of this wholeness that will lead us to a complete theory”. I believe that we can assume from these words that non-local [metaphysical] phenomena must be included within this definition as well. I suggest that the contents of my blogs “A seven point guide to the day to day workings of reality” and “The dualistic nature of reality” are suitable candidates to be considered for insertion as well.

Also see:


Quantum Experiment Shows How Time ‘Emerges’ from Entanglement

Time is an emergent phenomenon that is a side effect of quantum entanglement, say physicists. And they seem to have the first experimental results to prove it

The foregoing words were principally copied and pasted from the url link cited below.

I believe that time outside our 3D universe is Lorentz absolute time. I further believe that Lorentz absolute time can also be seen as implicit time [as per my concept of a matrix of primordial awareness.] The concept of time within our 3D universe is obviously Einstein’s relativity clock time.

I believe that the article in the pdf file below represents the point that the authors are attempting to make about that there may be two different types of time [that is depending on the location of the observer]. It is for this reason that I feel my concept of two different times [absolute and clock time] makes sense. I believe that both times exist in a concurrent relationship with each other as is illustrated in my blog Two dimensional big picture reality.

Quantum Experiment Shows How Time ‘Emerges’ from Entanglement.pdf

Interesting historical trivia

A few interesting facts from history:

Why do men’s clothes have buttons on the right while women’s clothes have buttons on the left?

When buttons were invented, they were very expensive and worn primarily by the rich. Since most people are right-handed, it is easier to push buttons on the right through holes on the left. Because wealthy women were dressed by maids, dressmakers put the buttons on the maid’s right! And that’s where women’s buttons have remained since.

Why are zero scores in tennis called ‘love’?

In France , where tennis became popular, the round zero on the scoreboard looked like an egg and was called ‘l’oeuf,’ which is French for ‘the egg.’ When tennis was introduced in the US , Americans (mis)pronounced it ‘love.’

Why do X’s at the end of a letter signify kisses?

In the Middle Ages, when many people were unable to read or write, documents were often signed using an X. Kissing the X represented an oath to fulfil obligations specified in the document. The X and the kiss eventually became synonymous.

Why is shifting responsibility to someone else called ‘passing the buck’?

A: In card games, it was once customary to pass an item, called a buck, from player to player to indicate whose turn it was to deal. If a player did not wish to assume the responsibility of dealing, he would ‘pass the buck’ to the next player.

Why do people clink their glasses before drinking a toast?

In early religious times people were indoctrinated to believe that the Devil lurked everywhere. So in order to frighten him away, and any other evil spirits as well, glasses were clinked together to frighten the Devil and Demons away.

Why do we “Drink a Toast” to someone we wish to honour?

As above, In early religious times when the Devil was thought to lurk in drinks, a small piece of dry bread, like today’s toast, was dipped into the drink to soak up the Devil and other evil spirits so it would not be passed to the person being honoured.  Toasting cups as they were known were multi handled in order to be passed from one person to another and finally the Honoured One for each to sip from. In due course people drank from their own cup or glass.

Why are people in the public eye said to be ‘in the limelight’?

Invented in 1825, limelight was used in lighthouses and theatres by burning a cylinder of lime which produced a brilliant light. In the theatre, a performer ‘in the limelight’ was the centre of attention.

Why is someone who is feeling great ‘on cloud nine’?

Types of clouds are numbered according to the altitudes they attain, with nine being the highest cloud. If someone is said to be on cloud nine, that person is floating well above worldly cares.

In golf, where did the term ‘Caddie’ come from?

When Mary Queen of Scots went to France as a young girl, Louis, King of France, learned that she loved the Scots game ‘golf.’ He had the first course outside of Scotland built for her enjoyment. To make sure she was properly chaperoned (and guarded) while she played, Louis hired cadets from a military school to accompany her. Mary liked this a lot and when returned to Scotland (not a very good idea in the long run), she took the practice with her. In French, the word cadet is pronounced ‘ca-day’ and the Scots changed it into ‘caddie.’

Why are many coin collection jar
banks shaped like pigs?

Long ago, dishes and cookware in Europe were made of a dense orange clay called ‘pygg’. When people saved coins in jars made of this clay, the jars became known as ‘pygg banks.’ When an English potter misunderstood the word, he made a container that resembled a pig. And it caught on.

Have you ever heard of a locality in the U.S.A. called Bohemian Grove?

It seems that there may be such a place and it is possible that some of the most important decisions made in the world are made at this little known locality

If you are interested in the fabled Bohemian Grove you will probably find these two url links of interest. The second item seems to be dated:

1] Washington Post Article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/bohemian-grove-where-the-rich-and-powerful-go-to-misbehave/2011/06/15/AGPV1sVH_blog.html?utm_term=.b51aca36c97c

2] A website titled “The secrets of Bohemian Grove