anpheon

"We of the present generation are too impatient to wait for anything. Within thirty years of Michelson's failure to detect the expected motion of the earth with respect to the ether we have wiped out the slate, made a postulate that by no means whatever can the thing be done, and constructed a non Newtonian mechanics to fit the postulate. The success which has been attained is a marvelous tribute to our intellectual activity and our ingenuity, but I am not so sure with respect to our judgement."

- Max Born, "Einstein's Relativity" - 1962

Science progresses linearly. The outcome of each step is pre-conditioned by the result of the previous step, and each step in turn conditions the outcome of the next step. As science progresses, it accumulates vasts amounts of knowledge in a step by step fashion. It acquires a 'linear history'-a 'time-line'. Science cannot see what lies ahead on this 'time-line'. It cannot know the facts that will eventually be discovered which could, in principal, alter the context of the reception and understanding of the new facts that it is attempting to understand in the present. As we shall see, this 'temporal-scope' is a crucial limitation inherent in the linear accumulation-process of science. It is a constant and continual source of error. A "Scientific Revolution" [1] , as will be shown in this introduction, is a reaction to correct these intrinsic errors.

Depending on the type of the revolution taking place, as a response to specific definable criteria, the direction that science moves during one of these 'revolutions' can be either towards its ultimate goal of understanding or it can be a temporary movement in a direction away from that goal. If it is the latter, then it becomes a compounded error, an erroneous reaction to an erroneous assumption. This compounded error is due, once again, to the limited 'temporal scope' of the progression of science. Science looks for immediate answers, but sometimes the important clues to those answers are not immediately available.

To better understand this evolutionary, accumulative process we can view science as an attempt to build a rational and functional puzzle from a relatively small percentage of the total number of pieces critical to a comprehensive theoretical construction. It is the monumental task of science to take this incomplete yet vast puzzle-piece collection and form a coherent and accurate picture of observed reality. To do this, science takes the raw pieces of observational evidence (our puzzle pieces), and then produces rigid quantitative models of those seperate pieces and creatively integrates them into an interpretive, qualitative framework. This interpretive framework is what gives human meaning to the collection of raw facts and the disconnected quantitative models. It is the integrated form of our collective 'understanding' of Nature, and sometimes, unfortunately, when this framework consists of a retreat from causative interpretation, our 'understanding' temporarily takes the form of confusion.

Interpretation is a creative product of the imagination of mankind as such it is inherently arbitrary. It could, in principal, take many varied forms, as seen in the fantastical interpretations populating the vast historical continuum of scientific, philosophical and mythological history such as: the cosmogonies and mythologies of the ancient world; the four elements-fire, earth, water and air; Ptolemy's Earth-centric model of the solar system; the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics; Many Worlds Theory; The Big Bang Theory; String Theory etc..

At every step of the way, science tends to assume that the interpretive-framework of the puzzle, is fairly complete and accurate, because if it isn't, then science has failed at its job. A tremendous cultural pressure is therefore placed upon science to give an authoritative 'stamp' of finality to its constantly evolving theories. This 'stamp' superficially solidifies science by shifting the cultural focus to the popularly selected theories while damping cultural interest in the competing alternatives, thus it plays a key role in determining what is considered 'acceptable science' to the scientific peer-review community.

The 'solidified' puzzle evolves continuously for long stretches of time as each new-found piece is simply incorporated into the puzzle framework in the easiest way possible so as not to disturb the functional order of the established construction. If the current framework is insufficient for the correct integration, or if a specific piece is still missing which is crucial for making sense of and integrating the newly discovered pieces, then the integration of the new pieces into the puzzle framework will necessarily contain a crucial error. Decades, or even centuries later, when the crucial 'missing' piece is finally discovered, it must then be integrated into an already established and stabilized structure which necessarily contains the original critical error due to the non-optimal order in which the pieces were initially integrated into the puzzle framework. The puzzle-picture at any point in time is therefore largely an accident of history: a result of the 'random', linear, step-by-step accumulation of puzzle-pieces (facts) and of the idiosyncrasies of the solutions (interpretations) for the integration of those pieces as they are discovered along the way.

Even within a limited, specialized domain such as Physics, the puzzle is so vast in its scope and complex in its inter-dependencies that rarely can any single scientist successfully disassemble a large number of the intricately integrated pieces, and reconstruct them into the proper hierarchical order required to fix the linearly accumulated errors. As a result, the error-prone accumulative process generally continues unchallenged until the structure encounters a puzzle-piece whose integration with the current framework is fundamentally impossible. The puzzle then becomes culturally 'unsolidified' and unstabilized as the majority of the scientists finally realize that the puzzle framework contains a crucial error. At this point an intensive investigation is initiated in order to fix the instability at all costs. A "Scientific Revolution" has begun. The end result of this 'revolutionary' process is an emergent product of at least three discernable factors:

History Revisited

Let’s take a look at an important, more modern example of scientific history
in light of our new focus on the linear accumulation of scientific errors.

It is commonly 'understood' that the Michelson and Morley (M&M) interferometry experiment in 1887 proved once and for all, the non-existence of an 'all-pervading' and 'luminiferous' substance called the 'ether'. This article is not an attempt to discredit or even to challenge the physical results of these important and revolutionary experiments. Such challenges have already been taken up by Dayton Miller, et al. The following is taken from "Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift
Experiments: A Fresh Look" by James DeMeo, Ph.D. see http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

The results were certainly not the "null results" upon which Einstein had built his Theory of Relativity and which "collapses like a house of cards" without it, but they were definitely not what the scientists were expecting either, as will be shown below. The following is from Caroline Thompson's "Forgotten History" at http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/History/forgotten.htm

Objections to the Michelson-Morley experiments aside, the immediate goal of this article is to understand just what, the results really claim to have proven or disproven. It is therefore important to take into account the theoretical context within which the "null results" of the M&M experiments were so shocking and paradigm-shattering in their implications.

What was the theoretical context of the Michelson-Morley experiment? More to the point, what was the 'ether' that Michelson, Morley and many others had "failed" to detect?

The 'ether' at that point in time was conceived of as an isometric solid. This crucial premise of the solid ether, was the core conceptual groundwork of the entire structure of knowledge about electromagnetic fields and waves. It was also the context and motivation behind the M&M experiment. The premise of the solid ether follows directly, as we shall soon demonstrate, from the historical error-prone process of the linear accumulation of scientific data and is thus a demonstration, in historical fact, of the process outlined above.

In an address titled "Ether and the Theory of Relativity" delivered on May 5th, 1920 at the University of Leyden, Einstein said,

In the early 1800's the existence of the phenomenon of polarized light was quite well established. In 1816-1817, as a result of investigations by Fresnel and others on the interference of polarized light, an interpretation of this phenomenon was given by Thomas Young in which it was concluded that light waves are transverse (shear waves) and not, as had been previously thought, longitudinal (pressure waves). In 1865, Maxwell formulated his electric and magnetic field equations from his technique of analogy where he likened magnetic lines of force to incompressible fluid flow. The waves in his electromagnetic field theory, however, are transverse-as postulated by Young. In 1887 Lord Kelvin had demonstrated that a vortex saturated region of a fluid is capable of sustaining transverse waves, and even though there was scientific support from Kelvin and others for a fluid ether, it was still the common 'understanding' at this critical point in history [this "common understanding" is the crucial error!!], that transverse waves could not travel through a body of liquid or gas. These types of waves were generally thought to be exclusive to propagating through solids or at best, on the surfaces of fluids such as water. Therefore, the common reasoning went, the ether cannot be a fluid because the observed transverse waves of polarized light would not be able to pass through it. The ether must therefore (somehow) be a solid.

It was assumed that this solid ether must have the shear modulus of elasticity no less than that of solid steel to account for the observed properties of the electromagnetic waves. It was also necessarily assumed that objects, such as an atom, a molecule, the human body, a laboratory, or the earth-somehow moved through this solid steel-like ether and that the ether passed through solid objects as if neither were solid at all, as if they were not really even there. like ghosts walking through walls. Light, however, was understood as being a disturbance propagating within the solid ether. The ether was thus said to be 'luminiferous'.

Since the earth and the laboratory of the M&M experiment were thought to be moving independently of, and freely through, the solid ghost-like luminiferous ether and since light was thought to be a disturbance of-and thus moving with respect to-this absolute etheric frame of reference, then the motion of the earth relative to the ether should be detectable as an "ether wind" altering the relative speed of light-waves depending on their direction of travel with respect to the moving system of measurement. The M&M experiment attempted to detect just such a relative motion of the Earth through the ether using the interference of lightwaves.

The M&M experiment produced a "null result", meaning that it failed to detect any relative motion whatsoever, thus proving conclusively that the theoretical context of the M&M experiment was false-there simply was no solid, etheric frame of reference as postulated by classical science. This new and entirely unexpected null-result puzzle-piece simply did not fit the current framework of the puzzle. The task was now up to the scientists at that time to reconstruct a new theoretical context in which the null results of the M&M experiment made sense. The revolution had begun!

Einstein took up this challenge and formulated an answer with the experimental data available at that historical moment (this data-set was critically limited as we will soon show). The answer he came up with was to throw out the concept of the ether altogether and to assume that the speed of light was absolute with respect to ALL frames of reference whether in motion or not, thus mathematically satisfying the null result while simultaneously dissatisfying the human attempt to understand the nature of reality, especially the electromagnetic waves permeating all space. Much later, however, Einstein explained that the concept of the ether was absolutely essential for an understanding of what his abstract notion of "curved-space" physically represented. He suggested in "Ether and the Theory of Relativity" that the M&M experiments proved not that the ether did not exist, but merely that the ether was somehow (confusedly) dynamic. He stated that it was not "immobile" yet paradoxically he also claimed that it was not mobile either.

By this time in history, a time of extreme scientific, political and social turmoil, Einstein's theory "brought a vision of the Universe as a whole, a vision that appeared as a solace to a tormented society", says Eric J. Lerner in "The Big Bang Never Happened". It was too late now for Einstein's "mature reflection" to find a favorable reception and to undo his original and "revolutionary!" denial of the ether. Only Einstein's vague and confused notion of its oxymoronic "not-immobile yet not-mobile", dynamics, could take root as it was applied to the abstraction of "curved space". By the time of this "mature reflection" the physics community and the scientific and popular culture in general had largely abandoned the concept of the ether altogether, even though a material medium was (and still is) essential and fundamental to an understanding of the waves and fields ubiquitous to all regions of matter and space, "for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time ... nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense", said Einstein.

The Hidden Error

A few questions from our outlined premises are in order. What errors can we find hidden in the linear accumulation of scientific-data demonstrated in this historical episode? Can we demonstrate a "non-optimal sequence" of the accumulation and integration of facts which has given rise to an error at the foundation of the "Revolution of Modern Physics"? More precisely, can we find a crucial piece of the puzzle that Einstein and others were missing in order to properly integrate the new-found puzzle-piece of the M&M null-result into the puzzle framework of that pivotal moment in time? Or perhaps we could probe even further back and finally ask, what was the historical error which neccesitated the faulty theoretical context in the first place in which the M&M experiment was conducted?

To answer these questions, we must get a wider and more comprehensive scope of the time-line of scientific discovery in order to incorporate the newly discovered pieces (and perhaps some missing critical ones?) into the full puzzle framework.

Remember that Einstein said in his "Ether and the Theory of Relativity" speech that a fluid body could not transmit transverse waves?

This tacit assumption of erroneous "fact" was the main reason behind the acceptance of the counter-intuitive hypothesis that the ether must be a solid with the elastic properties of steel, through which all objects somehow moved with zero friction (note that "zero friction" is another property of a superfluid). Imagine if it had been known in the 1800's that fluids could transmit transverse waves. If the scientists at the time would have still concluded initially (for some reason) that the ether was a solid, then when M&M null-result showed this reasoning to be false, would the scientists have taken the easier road instead (much easier, conceptually, than abandoning the medium of the light-waves and electromagnetic-fields themselves) and simply reformulated the ether as an inhomogenous fluid moving with the earth instead of an isotropic, solid-steel-ghost-like, absolute frame of reference moving through and relative to the earth?

It is hard to know exactly what would have happened in our little what-if story had the collection of facts happened in an ideal sequence, but there would have been nothing to stop the simple and straight-forward conclusion of the fluid ether from being reached. In such a scenario, the ether would not have been abandoned which would have satisfied the null-result of the M&M experiments and left intact the conceptual underpinnings of the theory of electromagnetism and light. Physics would not have needed to abandon causality and adopt mathematical abstractions such as randomness and probability in its place as the "medium" of the wave-nature of all matter and space. Of course we can't know the details of the Physics that we would now have, had the course of events happened in the optimal sequence, but it is readily apparent that the difference could have been great indeed.

It should be clear now, how the sequence of the discovery of facts can drastically influence the flow of scientific 'progress'. And that perhaps this non-optimal, linear sequence has actually generated an historical scientific error against which the "Revolution" known as "Modern Physics" was merely an erroneous reaction. It should be clear that this error was due in part to the lack of a critical piece of information demonstrating the propagation of transverse waves through a fluid, thus enabling the fluid model of the ether to model the transverse waves of polarized light. Of course we can't change history itself, but we can surely overcome the inevitable errors of its linear flow! In retrospect, with a more complete collection of the critical pieces of the puzzle now in hand, the answer to the classical dilemma culminating in the Michelson and Morley experiment, is quite simple. If hind-sight is 20/20 then let us use this neglected heightening of historical scientific vision and declare right now a revision of the errors of history...

The Evidence

It is becoming more and more apparent that even in the darkness of the abandonment of causal understanding, the "Standard Model of Physics" appears to be steadily groping its way unconsciously toward the fluid-dynamic nature of fundamental physical reality-the dynamic "ether" vaguely and confusedly intuited by Albert Einstein. Despite coming from a faulty conceptual paradigm which it must eventually abandon altogether, Physics is slowly and blindly modeling its path, by experiment and equation, toward the alternate fluid-dynamic route that it did not have the initial framework to sufficiently formulate or accept at the crucial historical bifurcation point of the Michelson and Morley experiment. Physics is undergoing a slow oscillation back towards the distant beginnings of the ungrasped thread of understanding that it had lost sight of with the revolution of "Modern Physics"-the un-grasped concept of the fluid ether as the physical medium of the wave nature of all matter and "space". As Sorce Theory will demonstrate, however, the actual "thread of error" goes much deeper than the simple error exposed in Part I of this introduction and briefly mentioned above. This thread "permeates all the branches of the existing tree of knowledge". [4] It goes right down to the ancient Greek foundations of science-to the very coalescence of the fundamental framework of the standard paradigm of physical reductionism itself-straight to the core kinetic-atomic foundation and the never-ending 'quest for the fundamental particle of matter'-the a-tom existing and acting in the always-hypothetical 'void'. [5] This thread of error manifests itself as a wide-spread and self-limiting set of incorrect and artificial categories and concepts that render the most qualitatively simple of subjects, not only impossible to truly understand, but also extremely difficult to discuss and theorize about. Take for instance this quote from G.E. Volovik in "The Universe in a Helium Droplet" [6] .

In the entire first paragraph, we can see the recent trend of the Standard Model of Physics toward the conception of the 'quantum vacuum' as a 'zero-energy superfluid' or 'quantum liquid'. Apart from the erroneous conceptual structure of the Standard Model and the superficial, oxymoronic denial of the material substance that the 'quantum liquid' is composed of-the substance which the fluid equations actually quantify-despite all of these very important considerations, this basic quantitative conception of the fundamental level of physical reality as a 'quantum liquid' or 'superfluid', is not really so far off from the basic foundational conception of the fluid-dynamic continuum of matter proposed in Sorce Theory. The simple conceptual differences that do exist, however, at this foundational level, are CRUCIAL to a coherent understanding of Nature.

Further down in the second paragraph the meaning of the explanation gets obscured and highly distorted by the esoteric theoretical 'baggage', the erroneous and artificial categories and knowledge partitions inherent in the Standard Model. The entry point to the crucial error is exposed in the last two sentences of the quoted passage, ".the behavior of this liquid is determined by the quantum mechanical zero-point motion of atoms" [my emphasis]. So as the liquid cools down, according to the kinetic-atomic theory of heat, the atoms or molecules will slow down their billiard-ball like collisions until, at the point of absolute zero, they will cease motion altogether. This is what is meant by the phrase "zero-point motion" and it is called the "zero-momentum ground state". The next sentence goes on to say "Due to the large amplitude of this motion the liquid does not solidify even at zero temperature" [my emphasis!]. It should be obvious, at this point that a "large amplitude" of "zero-point motion" is an absurdity! How can the lack of oscillatory motion possess a large amplitude? How can the physicists routinely get away with such nonsense? Of course you physicists know the simple answer to that apparently naieve question-it is through an appeal to quantum uncertainty of course!

Heisenbergs' Uncertainty Principal states that as the knowledge of the momentum of a quantum-scale object gets more and more precise, the knowledge of its position, gets less and less precise. It is a directly inverse mathematical relation. So as the momentum of each individual atom decreases, the amplitude of our uncertainty (whatever this physically means) of its actual position steadily increases! In effect, our knowledge of the positions of the atoms gets fuzzier and fuzzier simply because we know that they are slowing down! Despite the obvious (discarded) "common-sense" recognition that the amplitude of the state of knowledge (?!) of the motion of the individual atoms should have nothing to do with the actual functioning of the quantum level (or any level) of reality, and despite the fact that we haven't even measured the motions of any of the individual atoms and thus we don't really know that their individual motions have actually slowed down or ceased at all, except perhaps through recourse to our interpretive theoretical kinetic-atomic model of heat which states that liquids at that temperature should freeze solid and not become a superfluid-despite all these rather important theoretical problems the fact is that the Uncertainty Principle tells us absolutely nothing of the PHYSICAL mechanisms which should explain how the lack of liquid-defining inter-atomic collisions, does not instantly render the super-cooled liquid Helium, into a frozen solid crystal-a Helium popsicle. After-all, a decrease in inter-atomic collisions is the defining property of a solid, according to the kinetic-atomic theory and this is why the discovery of superfluid helium-4, back in 1937 was a complete and total surprise to the experimentalists and is still considered "counter-intuitive" based on the kinetic-atomic model of heat and its relation to the states of matter. There are constant suprises in the field of condensed matter physics because the Standard Model cannot fully account for the appearance and properties of superfluidity even with recourse to the codified uncertainties and mathematical probabilities of quantum mechanics.

What does Heisenbergs' Uncertainty Principal really have to do with the understanding of superfluidity? As Sorce Theory demonstrates, the Uncertainty Relations are a consequence of the standard lack of understanding of what an atom really is, what it is made of and what those 'constituents' are made of as well. [7] This ignorance begins at the core level of physical reality which lies beneath the probabilities and uncertainties of quantum mechanics and permeates into the very nature of our understanding of the 'fundamental' forces, energy, the quantum, thermo-dynamics, the states of matter, and much else. That is why an appeal to uncertainty must be made by the Standard Model in order to reconcile the surprise appearance of superfluidity with the absence of fluid-defining "kinetic-atomic motion". The scientists really are uncertain as to what physicaly causes the fluid phenomena at the quantum level and this uncertainty propagates its way pervasively into the 'understanding' of macroscale phenomena.

Fluidity in the Fundamental Equations

Despite all of the various manifestations of the deep qualitative, interpretive, errors of Modern Physics, the equations which have been custom fit to model the results of our experimental contact with physical reality, actually tell a quite different story. The equations directly model the fundamental level as a frictionless fluid yet the Standard Model consistently denies that this fluid physically exists. The claim is that fundamental reality consists merely of probabilistic wave-equations defining the likely positions of its fundamental, extensionless "point-particles" which paradoxically exhibit a "wave-nature". To admit that the fluid nature of the quantum level physically exists would be anathema to the dogma of the denial of the ether initiated by the patron saint of Physics himself, Albert Einstein, who, unknown to most people, later said that the ether must exist and it must be dynamic-in Einsteins peculiar, confused and ill-informed sort of "dynamics".

Collisionless Dynamics

The modern mathematical conception of the 'quantum vacuum' as a 'zero-energy superfluid', is virtually identical to the 'quantum liquid', superfluid 3He-A. What accounts for this extreme similarity? What is the modern mathematical relationship between a 'quantum liquid', and the 'quantum vacuum'? Furthermore, what is the relationship between a quantum liquid, a classical liquid and heat? Why is it that a reduction of heat is sufficient to convert a molecular liquid into a 'quantum liquid'? And finally, why on earth doesn't it freeze solid in the absence of kinetic-atomic motion?

If the 'quantum vacuum' is defined as a "zero-energy superfluid" and e=mc²says that the mass of an atom is a measure of its energy then it appears that the crucial difference between the superfluid 'quantum vacuum' and the superfluid 3He-A seems to be simply the presence of the energy-containing He atoms. The 'quantum vacuum' itself is already possessing of the superfluidity exhibited and slightly modified by the presence of energy-containing atoms. With the reduction of kinetic-atomic collisions known as heat, the inertia-containing He atoms no longer play a significant role in defining the 'classical' properties of the liquid. The atoms are essentially "just going along for the ride", embedded in the frictionless dynamics of the "zero-energy superfluid quantum vacuum", whose critical properties and emergent mechanisms are still unknown to the physicists.

This 'counter-intuitive' type of fluid-dynamics goes by the title "Collisionless Dynamics" as it is devoid of the classical kinetic-atomic collisions which are still the only method which the Standard Model employs for understanding fluid motion. This is why quantum phenomena in such a superfluid, manifest what is called "counter-intuitive behavior" at the macro-scale. The Standard Model has no conception of how a liquid can exist in the absense of kinetic atomic motion. Yet there it is-the manifestation of the fluid-dynamic nature of the 'quantum vacuum' right before the eyes of the physicists. It is the resonating and reflecting structure of the He atoms that simply enables us to actually see the frictionless, fluid nature of the 'quantum vacuum' in action.

What role does heat play in the transition from a superfluid to a molecular fluid? When the He atoms are agitated by the presence of properly resonating heat waves, the atoms begin to vibrate and to collide with each other, imparting a transfer of momentum as defined by the kinetic atomic theory. This inertial transfer of momentum is the very source of friction itself. The mass-containing atoms leave the "zero-momentum ground state" as they acquire velocity. This new inertial collision-based dynamics begins to interfere with the collisionless-dynamics and fluid flow of the frictionless quantum liquid in which the atoms were previously quietly embedded as a 'superfluid'. Now the classical fluid-dynamic equations begin to take over in modelling the transition between the frictionless superfluid and the frictional classical fluid.

There are two sets of equations that are used in modeling such a system. One equation is classical based on the ideal inertial transfer of momentum from atom to atom, and the other equation is defined by the frictionless fluid-dynamic wave nature exhibited in quantum mechanics and the quantum equations. To model the change in state, one simply transitions between these two equations as the effects of one type of dynamic are damped or reinforced by the changing environmental conditions which give rise to the other type of dynamic.

Superfluidity and the Ether

As noted previously, there are many similarities between the superfluids seen in the laboratory and the modern conception of the 'quantum vacuum'. Consider this quote from further on in Volovik's "The Universe in a Helium Droplet.

Again the crucial distinction between superfluidity and the 'quantum vacuum' appears to be the symmetry-breaking effects caused by the presence of energy-containing atoms.

For much more empirical detail on the Fluid Nature of Space, see the following article:

[1] See "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn, University of Chicago Press, 1962

[2] "Ether and the Theory of Relativity" by Albert Einstein, an address delivered on May 5th, 1920, University of Leyden

[3] Note that by taking away the "immobility" of any substance one is actually granting a "mobility" which is a required quality of any mechanism-producing substance. Thus taking away its immobility does not take away "its last mechanical quality" but actually gives it back! This shows a glimpse of the ill-conceived a-causal conception that Einstein had cooked up.

[4] From the Preface to "The Orb".

[5] There is a basic tenet of logic that says that you can never prove a negative. The absolute 'void' is always hypothetical because you can not prove the non-existence of some type of matter that you are inable to detect which might be filling the 'void'. There are deeper metaphysical reasons for rejecting the concept of the 'void', however. To put it simply, the 'void' and the 'a-tom' cannot exist, because the concepts are not complex enough to contain the property of causality, i.e. 'spatio-temporal' structure. See also Spinoza's logical proofs (The Ethics) for the existence of an infinite and continuous substance and the self-negation of the concept of the 'void'.

[6] The Universe in a Helium Droplet (The International Series of Monographs on Physics, 117) by Grigory E. Volovik, Oxford University Press; (June 2003)

[7] This error is centered on the notion of the electron as a 'point-particle' with a fuzzy (indeterminate) mathematical boundary, instead of viewing it as a real, physical gradient with a real, physical shape and size. Of course this erroneous assumption was a result of the ancient Greek reductonist paradigm of Democritus' a-tom and void and the resultant search for the 'fundamental particles of Nature', which don't appear to be fundamental at all as they contain an internal and external structure known quantitatively as a 'probabilistic wave-nature'.

[8] "The Big Bang Never Happened", by Eric J. Lerner, Vintage Books, 1991.

[9] Krisch, Alan D., "Collisions between Spinning Protons," Scientific American, vol. 257, n. 2 (Aug. 1987), pp. 42-50. This experiment demonstrates a violation of the basic assumption of QCD that quarks act independently within a proton.

[10] This hints at the tight correspondence between Plasma Physics, Plasma Cosmology and Sorce Theory. This fascinating correspondence will be explored in a later work, see www.anpheon.org for details and availability. See www.electric-cosmos.org for an introduction to Plasma Cosmology.