Tuesday, 25 October 2011

'Shot in the Dark' Star Explosion Stuns Astronomers

"The present state of science and technological knowledge permits the building of machines that can rise beyond the limits of the atmosphere of the Earth."
~ Hermann Oberth, foreword to By Rocket into Planetary Space~

"Pengelana Antar Bintang"

Added and Edited By:

Arip Nurahman

Department of Physics, Faculty of sciences and Mathematics
Indonesia University of Education


Follower Open Course Ware at MIT-Harvard University, M.A. USA

The robotic Palomar 60 inch telescope imaged the afterglow of GRB 070125 on January 26, 2007. The robotic Palomar 60-inch telescope imaged the afterglow of GRB 070125 on January 26, 2007. Right: An image taken of the same field on February 16 with the 10-meter Keck I telescope reveals no trace of an afterglow, or a host galaxy. The white cross in this zoom-in view marks the GRB’s location. The two nearest galaxies, and their distances, are marked with arrows. Credit: B. Cenko, et al. and the W. M. Keck Observatory.

When a shot is fired, one expects to see a person with a gun. In the same way, whenever a giant star explodes, astronomers expect to see a galaxy of stars surrounding the site of the blast. This comes right out of basic astronomy, since almost all stars in our universe belong to galaxies.

But a stellar explosion seen last January has shocked astronomers because when they looked for the star’s parent galaxy, they saw nothing at all. The explosion took place in the middle of nowhere, far away from any detectable galaxy. The astronomers saw no hint of a galaxy even though they looked for one with the world’s largest telescope: the giant Keck I telescope in Hawaii.

"Here we have this very bright burst, yet it's surrounded by darkness on all sides," says Brad Cenko, an astronomer at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena, Calif. Cenko is the leader of the team that made this discovery. The team includes astronomers from both Caltech and Penn State University.

The explosion belongs to a class of events know as gamma-ray bursts, or GRBs for short. GRBs are triggered when a very heavy star can no longer produce energy. The core of the star implodes to form a black hole — a region of space where gravity is so strong that nothing, not even light, can escape. The black hole spins very fast, producing intense magnetic fields. As inrushing gas from the star spirals toward the black hole, the magnetic fields fling some of the material away from the black hole in two powerful jets. These jets produce the GRB.

Several spacecraft detected the explosion on January 25, 2007. Observations by NASA's Swift satellite pinpointed the explosion, named GRB 070125 for its detection date, to a region of sky in the constellation Gemini. It was one of the brightest bursts of the year, and the Caltech/Penn State team moved quickly to observe the burst’s location with large telescopes on the ground.

Using the team's robotic 60-inch telescope at Palomar Observatory in Calif., the astronomers discovered that the burst had a bright afterglow that was fading fast. They observed the afterglow in detail with two of the world's largest telescopes, the Gemini North telescope and the Keck I telescope, both near the summit of Hawaii's Mauna Kea.

This Hubble Space Telescope image shows the Tadpole Galaxy, also known as UGC 10214. A recent galaxy collision produced the long tail in the Tadpole Galaxy. If GRB 070125 exploded in a similar tail, only Hubble could detect the tail.

What came next was a total surprise. Contrary to experience with more than a hundred previous GRBs, The Gemini and Keck observations saw no trace of a galaxy at the burst’s location. "A Keck image could have revealed a very small, faint galaxy at that distance," says team member Derek Fox of Penn State.

So why didn’t the team see a galaxy? One possibility is that the star formed in the outskirts of two galaxies that are colliding. Hubble Space Telescope images of colliding galaxies show that many of them have long star tails that are produced by the gravity of the two galaxies. These tails are very faint, and would not show up in Keck images at the burst’s measured distance from Earth. If this idea is correct, it should be possible to detect the tail by taking a long exposure with Hubble. "That's definitely our next stop," says Cenko.

"Many Swift discoveries have left astronomers scratching their heads in befuddlement," adds Swift lead scientist Neil Gehrels of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "But this discovery of a long GRB with no host galaxy is one of the most perplexing of all."


"Banyak umat manusia yang menyangsikan akan perjalanan antar bintang-bintang, namun saya adalah salah satu orang yang yakin dengan sepenuh hati bahwa penjelajahan umat manusia ke negri antar bintang itu akan segera terwujud dalam beberapa abad mendatang" 

2. http://hubblesite.org/
3. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/home/index.html

Saturday, 22 October 2011

Bacaan Lebih Lanjut Mengenai Teori Adi Dawai

Popular books and articles


Tuesday, 18 October 2011

The Science Behind The 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics

"Nothing will stop us. The road to the stars is steep and dangerous. But we're not afraid . . . Space flights can't be stopped. This isn't the work of one man or even a group of men. It is a historical process which mankind is carrying out in accordance with the natural laws of human development."

— Yuri Gagarin, regards the first death in space (Vladimir Komarov), 1967.

Delve deeper into the enigma of dark energy. These sections will give you an even closer look at the importance of dark energy, theories about its existence, and the techniques and historical background that led into its discovery.

1.What Is Dark Energy? Does it give us answers — or just reveal more questions?     

2.Fate of the Universe Will dark energy eventually tear the universe's atoms apart?  

3. Type Ia Supernovae How exploding stars help measure the cosmos

4. Out of Space, Back in Time How can we see what happened in the early universe?

5. Did Einstein Predict Dark Energy? He called it his "biggest blunder." But was it?

6.  Related Links Find more topical dark energy information  

7. Credits Special thanks to these contributors  


The Nobel Prize in Physics 2011

Saul Perlmutter, Brian P. Schmidt, Adam G. Riess

The Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 was divided, one half awarded to Saul Perlmutter, the other half jointly to Brian P. Schmidt and Adam G. Riess "for the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe through observations of distant supernovae".


Saul Perlmutter
Brian P. Schmidt

Written in the stars

(Photo by: Whisnu Trie Seno Ajie, Indonesia University of Education,
Former President at Cakrawala Asto Club)

"Some say the world will end in fire, some say in ice..." 
~Robert Frost, Fire and Ice, 1920~

What will be the final destiny of the Universe? 

Probably it will end in ice, if we are to believe this year's Nobel Laureates in Physics. They have studied several dozen exploding stars, called supernovae, and discovered that the Universe is expanding at an ever-accelerating rate. The discovery came as a complete surprise even to the Laureates themselves.

In 1998, cosmology was shaken at its foundations as two research teams presented their findings. Headed by Saul Perlmutter, one of the teams had set to work in 1988. Brian Schmidt headed another team, launched at the end of 1994, where Adam Riess was to play a crucial role.

The research teams raced to map the Universe by locating the most distant supernovae. More sophisticated telescopes on the ground and in space, as well as more powerful computers and new digital imaging sensors (CCD, Nobel Prize in Physics in 2009), opened the possibility in the 1990s to add more pieces to the cosmological puzzle.

The teams used a particular kind of supernova, called type Ia supernova. It is an explosion of an old compact star that is as heavy as the Sun but as small as the Earth. A single such supernova can emit as much light as a whole galaxy. All in all, the two research teams found over 50 distant supernovae whose light was weaker than expected - this was a sign that the expansion of the Universe was accelerating. The potential pitfalls had been numerous, and the scientists found reassurance in the fact that both groups had reached the same astonishing conclusion.

For almost a century, the Universe has been known to be expanding as a consequence of the Big Bang about 14 billion years ago. However, the discovery that this expansion is accelerating is astounding. If the expansion will continue to speed up the Universe will end in ice.

The acceleration is thought to be driven by dark energy, but what that dark energy is remains an enigma - perhaps the greatest in physics today. What is known is that dark energy constitutes about three quarters of the Universe. Therefore the findings of the 2011 Nobel Laureates in Physics have helped to unveil a Universe that to a large extent is unknown to science. And everything is possible again.

Read more about this year's prize
Information for the Public
Pdf 4,9 MB
Scientific Background
Pdf 1 MB
In order to read the text you need Acrobat Reader.
Links and Further Reading

1. Saul Perlmutter, U.S. citizen. Born 1959 in Champaign-Urbana, IL, USA. Ph.D. 1986 from University of California, Berkeley, USA. Head of the Supernova Cosmology Project, Professor of Astrophysics, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.

2. Brian P. Schmidt, U.S. and Australian citizen. Born 1967 in Missoula, MT, USA. Ph.D. 1993 from Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA. Head of the High-z Supernova Search Team, Distinguished Professor, Australian National University, Weston Creek, Australia.

3. Adam G. Riess, U.S. citizen. Born 1969 in Washington, DC, USA. Ph.D. 1996 from Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA. Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Johns Hopkins University and Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Prize amount: SEK 10 million, with one half to Saul Perlmutter and the other half to be shared equally between Brian Schmidt and Adam Riess.

Contact persons: Erik Huss, Press Officer, Phone +46 8 673 95 44, mobile +46 70 673 96 50, erik.huss@kva.se
Annika Moberg, Editor, Phone +46 8 673 95 22, Mobile +46 70 673 96 90, annika.moberg@kva.se

"Aku sadar bahwa ada keindahan lain yang memukau di Alam Semesta ini selain dari 'Cinta' "


1. http://hubblesite.org/
2. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/#

Monday, 17 October 2011

Einstein the Realist

"Realita dan Bukan Realita adalah perspektif pikiran manusia itu sendiri, ini adalah semata-mata apa yang ditangkap oleh indrawi manusia belaka, karena yang ada akhirnya akan tiada"

By: Prof. David Deutsch, Ph. D.
(University of Oxford)
The Author is:

Visiting Professor of Physics and a founder member of the Centre for Quantum Computation at The Clarendon Laboratory, University of Oxford, and author of The Fabric of Reality and The Beginning of Infinity.


“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”

~Albert Einstein~

OXFORD – It was recently discovered that the universe’s expansion is accelerating, not slowing, as was previously thought. Light from distant exploding stars revealed that an unknown force (dubbed “dark energy”) more than outweighs gravity on cosmological scales.

Unexpected by researchers, such a force had nevertheless been predicted in 1915 by a modification that Albert Einstein proposed to his own theory of gravity, the general theory of relativity. But he later dropped the modification, known as the “cosmological term,” calling it the “biggest blunder” of his life.

So the headlines proclaim: “Einstein was right after all,” as though scientists should be compared as one would clairvoyants: Who is distinguished from the common herd by knowing the unknowable – such as the outcome of experiments that have yet to be conceived, let alone conducted? Who, with hindsight, has prophesied correctly?

But science is not a competition between scientists; it is a contest of ideas – namely, explanations of what is out there in reality, how it behaves, and why. These explanations are initially tested not by experiment but by criteria of reason, logic, applicability, and uniqueness at solving the mysteries of nature that they address. Predictions are used to test only the tiny minority of explanations that survive these criteria.

The story of why Einstein proposed the cosmological term, why he dropped it, and why cosmologists today have reintroduced it illustrates this process. Einstein sought to avoid the implication of unmodified general relativity that the universe cannot be static – that it can expand (slowing down, against its own gravity), collapse, or be instantaneously at rest, but that it cannot hang unsupported.

This particular prediction cannot be tested (no observation could establish that the universe is at rest, even if it were), but it is impossible to change the equations of general relativity arbitrarily. They are tightly constrained by the explanatory substance of Einstein’s theory, which holds that gravity is due to the curvature of spacetime, that light has the same speed for all observers, and so on.

But Einstein realized that it is possible to add one particular term – the cosmological term – and adjust its magnitude to predict a static universe, without spoiling any other explanation. All other predictions based on the previous theory of gravity – that of Isaac Newton – that were testable at the time were good approximations to those of unmodified general relativity, with that single exception: Newton’s space was an unmoving background against which objects move. There was no evidence yet, contradicting Newton’s view – no mystery of expansion to explain. Moreover, anything beyond that traditional conception of space required a considerable conceptual leap, while the cosmological term made no measurable difference to other predictions. So Einstein added it.

Then, in 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding, consistently (within the observational accuracy of the day) with unmodified general relativity. So Einstein dropped the cosmological term. His doing so had nothing to do with Hubble being less blunder-prone; nor was Einstein deferring to Hubble’s superior prophetic abilities. It was just that the problem that the term was intended to solve no longer existed.

The new observations did not refute the existence of a cosmological term. They merely made it a bad explanation. Then, in 1998, came those new observations of a universe whose expansion is accelerating. As a result, the cosmological term that has been “reinstated” to account for the new observations is not quite the one that Einstein proposed and retracted. It is larger, for it now has to explain not just why the universe isn’t collapsing, but why its expansion is accelerating.

Einstein’s remark about having “blundered” is as misleading as the idea that he is “right after all.” The cosmological term is not something that should never have been proposed. Its introduction represented progress in understanding reality – as did its abandonment in light of Hubble’s discovery and its reinstatement in revised form to account for the new observations.

Likewise, the mid-twentieth century “Bohr-Einstein debate” about quantum theory is often misinterpreted as a personal clash between wizards. So counter-intuitive are quantum theory’s predictions that, under the leadership of one of its pioneers, Neils Bohr, a myth grew that there is no underlying reality that explains them. Particles get from A to B without passing through the intervening space, where they have insufficient energy to exist; they briefly “borrow” the energy, because we are “uncertain” about what their energy is. Information gets from A to B without anything passing in between – what Einstein called “spooky action at a distance.” And so on.

What these paradoxical interpretations have in common is that they abandon realism, the doctrine that a physical world, existing in reality, accounts for all of our experience. Anti-realism remains popular and appears in various guises in textbooks and popular accounts of quantum theory. But Einstein insisted that physical phenomena have explanations in terms of what he called “elements of reality.”

Fortunately, a minority of physicists, myself included, likewise side unequivocally with realism, by adopting Hugh Everett’s multiple-universes interpretation of quantum theory. According to this view, no particles exist where they have insufficient energy to be; it is simply that in some universes they have more energy than average, and in others, less. All alleged “paradoxes” of quantum theory are similarly resolved.

So, while most accounts say that Bohr won the debate, my view is that Einstein, as usual, was seeking an explanation of reality, while his rivals were advocating nonsense. Everett’s interpretation doesn’t make Einstein a demigod. But it does make him right.

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2011.

Tuesday, 11 October 2011

Astrophysics Library


"Pengembangan IPTEKS Keluarangkasaan akan membuka jalan-jalan terhadap dunia-dunia baru bagi peradaban umat manusia"


Advances in Spacecraft Technologies

Edited by: Jason Hall

ISBN 978-953-307-551-8, Hard cover, 596 pages
Publisher: InTech
Publication date: February 2011
Subject: Aerospace Engineering

The development and launch of the first artificial satellite Sputnik more than five decades ago propelled both the scientific and engineering communities to new heights as they worked together to develop novel solutions to the challenges of spacecraft system design. This symbiotic relationship has brought significant technological advances that have enabled the design of systems that can withstand the rigors of space while providing valuable space-based services. With its 26 chapters divided into three sections, this book brings together critical contributions from renowned international researchers to provide an outstanding survey of recent advances in spacecraft technologies. The first section includes nine chapters that focus on innovative hardware technologies while the next section is comprised of seven chapters that center on cutting-edge state estimation techniques. The final section contains eleven chapters that present a series of novel control methods for spacecraft orbit and attitude control.

Friday, 7 October 2011

Para Peraih Nobel dari California Institue of Technology II

"Enthusiasm is followed by disappointment and even depression, and then by renewed enthusiasm."
*Murray Gell-Mann*


George W. Beadle was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1958 for his “one gene-one enzyme” theory of gene action. His early experiments with Drosophila revealed that even such an apparently simple characteristic as eye color was the result of a long series of genetically determined chemical reactions.

Later experiments with the bread mold Neurospora enabled him to conclude that each gene determined the structure of a particular enzyme, which in turn controlled a single chemical reaction. 

A pioneer in the field of biochemical genetics, the series of discoveries he made between 1941 and 1953 closed out the era of classical genetics à la Morgan and ushered in the molecular age.

Beadle came to Caltech in 1931, after earning his PhD in corn genetics from Cornell University and having been awarded a National Research Council Fellowship to do postdoctoral work in Thomas Hunt Morgan’s Division of Biology. 

He spent several subsequent years on other genetic research in collaboration with scientists at the Institut de Biologie Physico-Chimique in Paris, at Harvard, and at Stanford. In 1946, he became professor and chairman of the biology division at Caltech, where he remaineduntil 1960, when he was named chancellor of the University of Chicago.

After retiring from that position, he directed the American Medical Association’s Institute for Biomedical Research from 1968 to 1970. He also returned to experimental biology, working on a problem close to his heart: the origin of maize. 

Donald Glaser was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1960 for his invention of the bubble chamber. This instrument became widely used in physics research because it allowed scientists to observe the behavior of subatomic particles and to measure their paths precisely. 

In 1946, after completing his undergraduate work at the Case Institute of Technology in Cleveland, Glaser came to Caltech to pursue graduate study with Carl Anderson. He received his PhD in physics from the Institute in 1949. 

He then joined the physics faculty at the University of Michigan, where he taught and pursued research that led to the development of the bubble chamber. In 1959, Glaser left Michigan to teach at the University of California, Berkeley. He was named professor of physics and molecular biology in 1964. 

Rudolf Mössbauer was a cowinner (with Robert Hofstadter) of the 1961 Nobel Prize in Physics for his discovery of the Mössbauer effect. He was 32 years old when he received the prize, one of the youngest scientists ever to be so honored. 

The effect that bears his name involves the production of gamma rays of a single, precise energy from the nuclei of atoms embedded in crystals. It is a yardstick that makes it possible to measure with an unprecedented sensitivity the effects of gravity, electricity, and magnetism on photons and atomic nuclei. 

Mössbauer first observed the effect in 1957, while still a graduate student at the Technical Academy of Munich. He received his PhD in 1958, and came to Caltech as a research fellow in 1960. He was named professor of physics in 1961. 

Mössbauer returned to Munich a few years later to join the physics faculty at the Technical Academy. He was a visiting professor of physics at Caltech in 1964. 

Charles Townes was a corecipient (with the Soviet physicists Prokhorov and Basov) of the 1964 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work in the then-new field of quantum electronics, and particularly for his role in the invention of the maser and the laser.

Townes came to Caltech as a graduate student in 1937, and received his PhD in 1939. Later that year he became a member of the technical staff at Bell Labs, where he stayed until 1948. 

He then joined the faculty at Columbia University, and began the work that in 1953 produced the maser (microwave amplification by stimulated emission of radiation). From 1959 to 1961 he headed the Institute for Defense Analyses in Washington, D.C. He then served as provost and professor of physics at MIT for six years. 

 In 1967, he went to the University of California, Berkeley, where his pioneering program in radio and infrared astronomy led to the discovery of ammonia and water molecules in the interstellar medium. He was named emeritus in 1986.

Richard Feynman shared the Nobel Prize in Physics (with Julian Schwinger and Tomonaga Shin’ichiro) in 1965 for his formulation of a comprehensive theory of quantum electrodynamics—how electrically charged particles interact with photons and with each other. 

His version of this theory, and its accompanying “Feynman diagrams”—intuitive, pictorial representations of interactions among elementary particles—revolutionized the way scientists think about these processes in many fields of physics.

After receiving his PhD from Princeton University in 1942, Feynman worked on the atomic bomb project, both at Princeton and at Los Alamos, New Mexico. 

At the end of the war, he joined the physics faculty at Cornell University, where he taught and continued his quantum electrodynamics research. In 1950, he became professor of theoretical physics at Caltech, where he remained for the rest of his career.

While at the Institute, he pursued a number of projects, including devising a quantum mechanical explanation of superfluidity, and developing (with Murray Gell-Mann) a theory of the weak force.

In 1968 he proposed a theory of “partons”—hypothetical hard particles inside the nucleus of the atom—that contributed to the understanding of quarks.

In 1986, Feynman became known to an even larger audience through his participation—and his famous ice-water experiment—on the Presidential Commission investigating the explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger.


Murray Gell-Mann was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1969 for his efforts to develop a unifying scheme of classification for subatomic particles and their interactions.

Gell-Mann received his doctorate in physics from MIT in 1951, at the age of 21. In 1952 he joined the Institute for Nuclear Studies at the University of Chicago, where his research yielded the first definition of the quantum property of “strangeness.” 

The concept of strangeness helped explain certain particle decay patterns that had long mystified scientists. Gell-Mann came to Caltech in 1955. Six years later, he first proposed his “Eightfold Way,” a scheme for classifying protons and neutrons into families.

This work led him to theorize further that the behavior of known particles might be explained in terms of the even more fundamental building blocks he dubbed “quarks” (the word is borrowed from James Joyce’s Finnegans Wake). Gell-Mann was appointed Robert Andrews Millikan Professor of Theoretical Physics in 1967.

He now lives in Santa Fe, New Mexico, where he is associated with the Santa Fe Institute, an interdisciplinary think-tank he cofounded in 1984.


California Institute of Technology


Nobel Prize

Monday, 3 October 2011

Question About Gravitation Part IV

"Ilmu Pengetahuan dan Imajinasi akan terus mewarnai tonggak sejarah umat manusia"

Edited and Added By:

Arip Nurahman

Department of Physics 
Faculty of Sciences and MathematicsIndonesia University of Education 

 Follower Open Course Ware at MIT-Harvard University, M.A., U.S.A.

Hidup itu laksana naik sepeda.

Untuk mempertahankan keseimbangan,

kamu harus tetap bergerak 

~Albert Einstein~

Q: Where does Einstein's famous E = mc2 equation come from, why does this simple equation apply to the atom bomb, and how is it that matter converts into pure energy?

A: This equation has been largely misunderstood and misrepresented. It is often shown in complex mathematical derivations and is said to literally describe matter mysteriously converting into energy in an atom-bomb explosion -- a process that is completely unexplained even today. But, in actuality, this equation is extremely easy to derive in only a few lines of simple math, and does not truly describe a process as mysterious as a transformation of "matter into energy".

For starters, consider that the classic kinetic energy equation, K.E. = ½mv2, is almost identical to Einstein's equation. In fact, it only differs by the factor-of-two term. That is, if we write the kinetic energy of an object traveling at light speed, the classic kinetic energy equation would be E = ½mc2. This is precisely Einstein's equation, only divided by two. So, why are these two equations so similar, and what does this really tell us about the nature of light, energy, and the atomic bomb? Here's a further hint in a simple four-line derivation that can easily be arrived at for Einstein's equation, based on well-known equations for the momentum of light:
p = E/c        — momentum of light, p, equals its energy content divided by its speed
p = mc         — momentum of light, stated in terms of its classical momentum, mass x speed
E/c = mc      — equating the two momentum terms in the two lines above
E = mc2       — rearranging the above line gives Einstein’s famous equation

Q: Science says protons are positively charged and tightly clustered in the nucleus, but like-charges would strongly repel in such close proximity. Why doesn’t the nucleus fly apart?

A: This mystery has no true answer in today's science. Scientists used to scratch their heads over this issue decades ago until they simply decided the answer must be that some type of mysterious attracting force must appear for some unexplained reason between protons when they are very close, counteracting their mutual repulsion. This mysterious new attracting force is called the Strong Nuclear Force, and is now taught as one of the four fundamental forces of nature in today’s science.

Yet, this is clearly just bad science a closer look shows many serious flaws with this entire picture. First, consider the endless repelling electric charge force that tirelessly pushes the positively charged protons apart.

Where is the power source behind this endless repulsion, and how can it be that this mysterious power source is never drained or even diminished in the slightest? Benjamin Franklin invented this Electric Charge Theory to explain why charged objects repel or cling to each other, but his theory overlooked the fact that this concept violates our most basic laws of physics. Objects or particles should not be able toendlessly attract or repel each other, and without even a power source in sight.

This is the first problem with positively charged protons in the nucleus, and also with the concept of negatively charged electrons held in orbit about the nucleus by an endless unknown power source.Secondly, this clearly flawed concept in our science legacy was merely glossed over and patched with yet another scientifically unexplained force the Strong Nuclear Force.

Now we have two scientifically unexplained forces behind the stability of the atom (the Electromagnetic Forcebetween charged particles and the Strong Nuclear Force), both acting endlessly and with no known power source.

Q: So does this mean our entire atomic theory is wrong  both the old "solar system" atomic model and today’s quantum-mechanical one?

A: Yes, of course it does. Scientifically impossible theories that violate our common sense and our fundamental laws of physics are the hallmark of bad science and do not belong in our scientific beliefs. There is nothing wrong with creating useful working models to help us to think about our world while we continue searching, but our legacy of working models has been mistaken for true knowledge and understanding.

Many of today’s scientists now take Newton’s working model of gravity literally, as if there were truly an endless gravitational force emanating from the atom. Others literally believe in Einstein's even more mysterious gravitational model of the atom somehow warping a 4-dimensional realm around it.

We are also taught to literally accept models of the inner atom in which endless, completely unexplained electromagnetic and strong nuclear forces are at work, now said to act according to bizarre quantum-mechanical" laws.

Further, magnetic materials such as iron are said to have atoms that possess inherent magnetism  magnetic energy that operates endlessly and with no known power source, giving us permanent magnets.

Taken together, the atom is said to expend endless internal strong nuclear force energy, endless internal electromagneticenergy,  endless external electromagnetic energy (in the bonds between atoms), endless external gravitational energy and endless externalmagnetic energy all with no known power source driving these varied forces. This state of affairs is merely accepted as proper science today.

Q: A major feature of the anticipated Theory Of Everything is that it finally shows where our natural constants originate vs. just measuring them today. Does The Final Theory do this?

A: Yes indeed! At the end of Chapter 3 the new gravity theory is compared with Newton’s at the most fundamental level -- the simplest atom in nature: the Hydrogen atom. The theoretical gravitational force of this single atom according to Newton is calculated, with all values filled in except Newton’s gravitational constant, G . Then this is mathematically equated with the gravity of this atom using the new equation of gravity according to the new theory, leaving only Newton’s gravitational constant as an unknown. Solving the equation gives precisely the known measured value for Newton’s gravitational constant -- including even the correct units.

Q: If this is truly the final theory, shouldn’t it say something about time as well?

A: Yes it should, and it does. The concept of time in today's science is more science-fiction than science. Our scientific beliefs about time, based on Einstein’s Special Relativity Theory, state that time varies with relative speed, meaning that the laws of chemistry and physics would have to vary between all moons and planets, which all differ in relative speed. A growing number of scientists even believe time travel is possible via some sort of cosmic-sized, wormhole-based time machines powered by unfathomable amounts of "negative energy". All manner of fanciful beliefs surround the concept of time in today’s science.

But time is actually very easily understood, with none of the bizarre features of today’s science. For example, although we commonly think oftime as driving events in our world, it is purely energy that drives everything. Take the batteries out of a clock and it stops, regardless of any notion of time.

But what is energy and how does it relate to time? According to our laws of physics energy can change form but can never be destroyed, which means it always remains active and available without ever tiring. But what drives the tireless availability and endless activity of energy? Today’s understanding of energy differs little from stories of magic a mysterious, ethereal, active entity that we have learned to control via various devices.

We really know little more about the true nature of energy when we stop to think about it. But, all forms of energy are easily understood in clear physical terms from the new perspective in The Final Theory, giving a powerful new understanding of the concepts of both energy and time that hold such mystery for us today.

Q: Lots of good points but if even our most basic science is so full of holes why do scientists simply ignore this and forge ahead inventing more bizarre new theories to add to the fray?

A: What else can they do? No doubt they would gladly fix all these glaring problems if they had the proper understanding, but they don’t. They are our science authority today and so are unwilling to admit that all they really know is what they've been told  a centuries-old legacy of scientifically impossible beliefs from a much simpler time (electrons and galaxies have been known for barely a century). Since our scientists still lack a true understanding of our universe they have little choice but to staunchly defend the science legacy they have inherited, continuing to work within this flawed framework. These working models have served us well during the past few centuries of our scientific infancy, but we are now sophisticated enough that we cannot pretend they literally describe our world anymore.

Q: So, what can be done about this situation?

A: Read The Final Theory and spread the word! Until now it has been pointless to challenge the accepted science paradigm (although some have tried) since no one had arrived at the understanding that truly explains our world. The Final Theory finally gives this knowledge and understanding to the public, which, as history has shown time and time again, is where all revolutions must begin. Don’t wait for today’s science authorities to admit how little they truly know and embrace a theory that shows everything they profess is wrong it may be a very long wait! Read The Final Theory, reclaim your birthright to truly understand your universe in your lifetime, and be part of the coming scientific revolution!

Q: If The Final Theory is the revolutionary Theory Of Everything, why isn't it headline news? Why haven't I heard of it? Why isn't it in stores?

A: You have heard of it this is your notification. The book is newly published, promotion is just starting and you are one of the first to discover it. As such, it hasn't become headline news yet. Everything needs a beginning, even the Theory Of Everything. Unfortunately, many misguided attempts at this theory have already been made. This shows that many people know something is wrong with our science so much so that they are trying desperately to fix it  themselves but many of these enthusiasts have ultimately done more harm than good by forcefully pushing their pet theories in the face of clear flaws. 

For better or worse, The Final Theory has arrived in the midst of this rather tarnished environment, making it difficult for the scientific community or the press to give it due consideration. The Final Theory isn't in bookstores at the moment because it is published by a Print-On-Demand publisher, which only prints and ships copies as they are ordered. 
P.O.D publishers do not print thousands of copies up front and distribute them to bookstores. Although P.O.D. is fast becoming a popular publication method, and the quality and appearance of the books are identical to those on the shelves, most book reviewers and columnists are not accustomed to this method and will not consider P.O.D. titles for review.
Due to these realities, The Final Theory won't appear widely in the media, the scientific press, or the corner bookstore for the moment. It is up to individual seekers to order it and read it for themselves. As such, this FAQ was created to give as much information as possible to potential readers, considering that it is not possible to flip through the book before purchasing.

Q: If this really is the Theory Of Everything and the answers are so simple, why not just state what this new theory says here? 

A: Although the answers are indeed solid and simple, very rational and commonsense, and completely developed in the book, they do still represent a completely different perspective on all of our science and experience; you will never view even falling objects the same way again after reading this book! 

Such a radical new perspective on our universe requires a proper context and solid foundation. Otherwise many questions come to mind  if that is so, then what about this? And how does it explain that? Etc.

Rest assured that all questions are fully addressed and all points clearly explained in the book, but justice couldn't be done to this new theory in any less than the 400+ pages it contains  there would be too many doubts and questions otherwise. The theory itself is not complicated, but it must be solidly applied to every aspect of our science and our personal experience, from Newtonian gravity to quantum mechanics and everything in between. This FAQ clearly shows many major flaws in our current science  many of which are not even currently recognized today and goes as far as possible and reasonable to show that the author knows what he is talking about and that The Final Theory has the answers. The rest is up to you! 

The End 


1. http://www.thefinaltheory.com/scienceflaws.html
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation