Theory of Accelerated Expansion of Space-Time

by Jim Gerrish, 11/9/01

Let us begin at the point no one wants to examine further, and for good reason. Einstein determines the equivalency of acceleration and gravity. Hubble introduces the idea of the expanding universe, but it applies only to distant galaxies that can be shown to be receding from us in space-time at an accelerated speed as yet to be determined (Hubble's constant). Married to this is the concept that space-time itself is expanding. Then Guth introduces the idea of inflation of everything, but it only lasts 10-30 seconds while the early universe expands from a singularity to about one meter in diameter.


There is reluctance among scientists to speculate on theories that are unprovable. My theory at first glance is "one of those." I maintain that everything in the universe is expanding, or inflating, or unfolding (pick your favorite term) as Space-Time expands. I include everything at the sub-atomic level, as well as the distant galaxies, except with the galaxies, the effect is noticeable and may be measurable. But if everything at the sub-atomic level, including the space-time between sub-atomic particles, is also expanding… how would we ever measure it? Any measurement device would also be expanding at the same rate.

My solution to the problem involves Einstein’s observation that time slows down relative to particles approaching the speed of light (the constant C). In the famous “twins” thought experiment, one twin travels at near-light speed to the closest star system and back to discover that while only 20 years (or so) have passed for him, his twin has aged 80 years on earth. If my theory that space-time has expanded objects at the sub-atomic level in that same time-frame, the traveling twin would also discover that he was actually much smaller in size (volume) relative to his earth-bound twin. This experiment will never be realized in my lifetime, so I came up with an alternative that may demonstrate the same thing.


A particle accelerator gets particles traveling at near-light speeds. If my theory is correct, the traveling particles should be smaller relative to similar non-traveling particles. The difficulty here is in measuring the volume of the particles in question. A similar phenomenon should also be noticed as photons slow down while traveling through glass or water. They should expand at a faster rate and thus be larger in size relative to photons that have not been slowed down.

There are many advantages to be gained by incorporating this theory into our current understanding of physics and cosmology, if, of course, it can be proved to be true.

The next step would be to measure the rate of this accelerated expansion. I postulate that the rate of accelerated expansion of matter will explain gravity very nicely. This would also explain those elusive gravity waves and gravitons. They don’t exist. We would, however, have to look for a new reason for the attraction of mass, and I believe electro-magnetic attraction to be the best candidate, once the concept of gravity is merged with accelerated expansion.

Expansion of space-time explains why time unfolds in one direction and one cannot go “back in time” without expending tremendous amounts of energy to contract space-time. But don’t we do just that when we trigger a nuclear bomb? We use a great deal of energy to “shrink” plutonium to a critical mass- almost as if we were trying to shove it backwards in time and make it the same volume it was a short time ago. The result is the release of a much greater amount of energy. What would it take to actually send the mass back in time and what would happen if one should actually succeed? That is the speculation behind my novel Time Bomb. The reason for the novel, by the way, is to get people thinking about the theory and its many implications. Einstein was a patent clerk, but had enough influence to get his theories published in physics journals of his day. I don’t. Worse than a patent clerk, I am a technical assistant at a relatively unknown community college. So rather than try to publish this theory in a physics journal, I have chosen to self-publish in the novel and on this free Web site.

However, there is also the implication that this is exactly what happens beyond the event horizon of a black hole. At the event horizon, space-time expansion comes to a halt, and further into the black hole, it begins to contract to a singularity. Once at the singularity, it would expand again, “some-when” else, but not likely within our universe and certainly not within our “time.”

While waiting for someone to actually perform the experiments and measurements that will prove or disprove this theory, I enjoy speculating on other little mysteries of modern days physics that are suddenly explained by including them within an accelerated expanding universe.
I also find that by introducing a "vibration" into the expansion of space-time, waves and quanta aren't such strangers. It now makes sense to me that a photon of light travels in what seems to be a wave, as it surfs the vibration of expanding space-time traveling at the same speed as the expansion of space-time. Because if space-time is expanding at the rate of C, that answers the question of why nothing can exceed C. Nothing can "go faster" than time itself. I might mention that the rate of space-time expansion is not necessarily the same rate of the expansion of the matter left in its "wake," but only that one causes the other.

New Thoughts: (12/10/01)
According to my latest musings, the universe has many holes in it, like swiss cheese, which (to me) explains why the amount of matter never adds up (because some is always leaking out through the holes). The leaks are inside the event horizon of black holes, of which we now know there is at least one super massive black hole in the center of every galaxy and it seems the hole is actually responsible for the formation of the galaxy. My theory is that the leaks siphon off matter and energy from our universe to places I call "elsewhen" which is some other space-time but not our own.
Currently I'm working on reconciling the theory with the processes of star formation to its super-nova and then to the dwarf/black hole stage, and it seems to explain things fairly well. I have a sort of garbage-bag analogy that helps me imagine how the universe expands while individual masses contract. When you pull a full garbage bag out of the can, the bag suddenly expands, allowing the contents to settle inwards. My theory of the expansion of space-time says that it is not a smooth expansion, but "vibrates" as it expands, which could cause an event similar to the garbage bag expansion causing a star to go super-nova at the point where the mass is close to going "backwards against space-time" (which I figure will release an enormous amount of energy). It's not a great analogy, but it's the best I have for now.

We see the super-nova as a big outward expansion, but it must also squeeze down towards the center of the dense matter that forms the center of the star, pushing it against the constant expansion of space-time.
If the mass succeeds in going "backwards against space-time" the result is a black hole, otherwise it becomes a dwarf or neutron star. Inside the event horizon of the black hole, time has come to a halt, therefore space-time no longer expands there. Deeper into the center of the black hole, there is a reversal of the flow of space-time into "elsewhen."
On the other side of "elsewhen" is a new universe, smaller than our own, but it's all relative. While the speed of light may be different there, corresponding to the speed of the expansion of space-time in the new universe, all the other properties of physics should be proportionally intact. This is not a "parallel universe" which I have thrown out the window as a pleasant fantasy that does not survive the sharp edge of Occham's Razor, but a brand new opening or hole or leak into "elsewhen."

(1/12/02)
I have been pondering recently about the various aging effects of matter and conclude that the theory of accelerating expanding matter (a result of the accelerated expansion of space-time) explains things nicely in many areas, accounting for radioactive decay and mutation of matter as well as for the "dust unto dust" of living things.

It was strange to find a tie-in between the goings on of the physical universe and the cycle of life/death with which we are most intimately involved, but of course all living matter has been evolving with this expansion for (probably) billions of years and has learned to adapt to it by "starting over from scratch" after a period of time has gone by- a period of time different relative to different species.

New Thoughts (4/15/02)
I think now that the key to my whole concept is just in accepting that Time is a true 4th dimension of space and the only one that we can sense "moving." In space, you can move in x,y, and z directions, but in time, you can only move into the future. There is no past... only our memories and material records left behind as time presses onward. You can almost say there is no "Present" because by the time you think about it, it has moved on into a future "present." So all that counts with time is the future. I am convinced that time = C, but we have no way to verify this currently... just that it makes sense as a reason why nothing can go faster than C. Once you accept that time is moving rapidly into the future, it follows that the other dimensions of space/time must be moving also, in directions x,y, and z all at once... in other words, expanding outward. This expansion could easily account for the strong nuclear force... where the energy to power it comes from is the rapid expansion of space-time. The expansion of space/time could also account for the attraction of masses if this is so. And if, as the evidence seems to suggest, the expansion is accelerating, the combination of attraction of mass with accelerated expansion explains gravity in a different way than is currently accepted in physics.

All of these big ideas are a result of thinking about the accelerated expansion of space/time at a sub-atomic level, and the theory succeeds or fails on the result of a simple time-dilation experiment with particles, presuming that it can be carried out with any accuracy. If a particle "at rest" relative to the earth is always "larger" than a particle traveling at a speed close to C relative to the earth, then the theory is proved and it's all happening as I've described. If not, then flush another crackpot theory down the toilet.

Some corrections to the above (4/17/02)
------- Unclear statement with ellipses ------ " This expansion could easily account for the strong nuclear force...where the energy to power it comes from is the rapid expansion of space-time."
-----Clarified statements without ellipses------------- This expansion could easily account for the strong nuclear force. The energy to power the strong nuclear force comes from the rapid expansion of space-time.
I have a weakness for the ellipsis in my popular writing, but I should never resort to using it in my scientific writing.

Now that I see what I wrote, I realize that it is still unclear to someone who doesn't have access to my thoughts, so I'd better write some more about it.

What I take for granted is that movement of any sort is energy. Because space/time expansion involves movement in the 4th dimension, energy is involved.
Let's imagine three quarks, bound together by what we call the strong nuclear force, creating a proton. Expansion of space/time is causing them to slip apart, which in turn transfers energy to them to increase the strong nuclear force which binds them together.

An analogy using electro-magnetism might be: A magnet passes by a wire, creating an electric current to flow within the wire.

Coil the wire around a nail to make it an electro-magnet. Now when you move the magnet by the wire, it creates an electric current which now induces magnetism in the coil that becomes focused in the iron nail, which in turn becomes attracted more strongly to the original magnet. If the original magnet stops moving, the attraction to it is less, but as long as it moves, it creates an increased attraction in the electro-magnet.
In the same way, space/time expansion of quarks provides the energy to induce the strong nuclear force between them.

Here is a further explanation of quarks from the University of Oregon's Web Page:
"The colors red, green, and blue are ascribed to quarks, and their opposites, minus-red, minus-green, and minus-blue, to antiquarks. According to quantum chromodynamics, all combinations of quarks must contain equal mixtures of these imaginary colors so that they will cancel out one another, with the resulting particle having no net color. A baryon, for example, always consists of a combination of one red, one green, and one blue quark.

"The property of color in strong interactions plays a role analogous to an electric charge in electromagnetic interactions.
"Color involves the exchange of massless particles called gluons among quarks. Just as photons carry electromagnetic force, gluons transmit the forces that bind quarks together. Quarks change their color as they emit and absorb gluons, and the exchange of gluons maintains proper quark color distribution." (Source:

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/quarks.html )

So something must be inducing this exchange of gluons between quarks, and that something, I propose, is the "flow" of time as space/time expands. I imagine it something like this: The expansion of the three quarks in a proton is not simultaneous. First one expands, then the others closest to it expand, or two expand and the one remaining expands. Expands where? Into the future with time and in x,y,and z directions with space. This expansion sends out the gluons (I have no idea which goes where) to the other quarks in the Trinity (there, I managed to work in a divine reference). It is this exchange of gluons that we call the strong nuclear force and which keeps quarks together.

Therefore, if space/time expansion were to come to a halt, such as in the event horizon of a black hole, or in a photon traveling at the speed of C, the strong nuclear force might be "turned off." I haven't yet figured out what this means and what I should look for to test this theory.

One idea that comes from re-reading my above new thoughts is that the exchange of gluons would stop, but whether this would cause quarks to become free to make up new and more dense arrangements, or cause them to scatter, I don't know. It doesn't seem to cause a scattering in the case of a black hole, which would argue for new and more dense arrangements of quarks within a black hole.

Latest musings: 5/20/01
Let us begin by assuming that E =MC^2. Let us give Mass a value of 1. Then mathematically, for all practical purposes, in the case where M = 1, E = C^2.

Let us take that same case, where M = 1 and solve for M. M = E divided by C^2. If we assume C to be the speed of light, this makes no sense... but if we consider that C is also the speed of TIME, it begins to make a glimmer of sense. The speed of light is irrelevant to the amount of energy contained in mass, but the speed of TIME is very relevant. It is this expansive motion of time, proceeding from the past into the future that puts energy into everything. All energy comes from this expansion of time. Go back and insert space/time into everything I've said about time, because the two are inseparable. The tiniest bit of matter, whose mass has a value of 1, is expanding with space/time at the rate of C. If it were to change form from matter to energy, the energy would be the expansion rate of space/time multiplied by itself.

Further explanation regarding the use of the caret (^):
Sorry about that. There is no way to type a superscript character in an e-mail or on a web-page, so the standard way of showing squared, cubed, etc. is either with an E2 or E3, or my preference (because I'm using E in the equation to stand for energy) by using the caret ^2 or ^3. The caret seems nicer to me because it's trying to push the 2 up into place where it belongs. 

I'm assuming a mass of 1 unit to put the equation in its simplest form. If M = 1, then
E=MC^2 (read E equals M times C squared)
E=1C^2 and since 1 times anything is that number, we can conclude that if M = 1, then:
E=C^2
Now I solve for M.
M=E/C^2 (read M = E divided by C squared)
1=1 Because if M = 1, as we've shown, then E is equal to C squared and a number divided by itself is equal to 1.
So in English, we end up with 1 unit of mass being equal to... what? I know it's not chicken feathers, so for want of a better term, I'll invent the "space-time-energy unit" or "steu" for short.

5/22/02
By M = 1, I simply mean to assume the tinest possible bit of matter that still has mass (perhaps a quark) and assign it the value of 1. However, I am now beginning to realize that it is just possible that there is no such thing as matter. It may be that matter IS energy and that energy IS matter. What we call matter may be just an illusion and that energy is masquerading in that form for reasons known only to God. However, having just bumped my head on the edge of a table, it FEELS real enough and so for all practical purposes I will continue with my assumptions that I can make assumptions about matter.

The important thing is to realize that C has nothing to do with the speed of light. The speed of light just helps us to measure C, but is not causal. What the speed of light shows us is the movement or flow of time, and therefore of space-time. This accelerated expansion of space-time IS real and is the reason light is limited to the speed at which we measure it. The expansion takes place from every point within the universe. I have a physicist friend ( http://geocities.com/donaldwrobertson/index.html ) who wants to quantize time and who has come up with an elegant theory of just how this happens, but so far I can't accept it without lots of modifications and he offers absolutely no proof or experimental evidence.
We know from the simplest physics experiments about the energy released by motion. Heat energy from friction, electricity from a moving magnet, magnetism from electricity, light from heat, and so on. So this tremendously fast movement of the entire universe as it expands into the future at a constantly accelerated speed has got to be releasing energy in ways that are detectable in the NOW. One of those, I maintain, is the strong nuclear force.
I ought to be able to come up with a time dilation experiment that will give some evidence of this, but so far no luck. Maybe if I hit my head on the table a few more times...

5/266/02
When I said that C had nothing to do with the speed of light, I meant only relative to Einstein's use of it in his equation. Light still travels at a speed we can refer to as C. In fact, we were able to measure C only by measuring the speed of light.

But what does the speed of light have to do with the conversion of matter to energy? Nothing.

What does the speed of my car on the highway have to do with the conversion of gasoline to energy in the engine? Nothing. It's a similar analogy.

So C doesn't represent the speed of light in Einstein's equation. It just happens that the speed of light happens to be equal to the same number Einstein is using. What makes Einstein's equation WORK is that C also represents the speed of TIME.

The matter in a nuclear bomb is not traveling at the speed of light. It IS, however, traveling at the speed of TIME as it moves along the 4th dimension from past to future, along with you and me and everything else in the universe. It is this MOVEMENT in TIME that creates the enormous energy contained in matter (according to my theory). Matter is also expanding in the x,y,z directions, but not necessarily at the same speed as the movement in the "t" direction of TIME (again, this is all according to my theory).

I believe a new form of calculus may be required to describe all this simultaneous movement combined with subatomic accelerated expansion, and I'm afraid I'm not up to the job. To give you an idea of the complexity of the issues:

If space-time is expanding, then distances are expanding. A mile is not the same distance as it was just a second ago, but longer. The speed of light is still going at 186,000 miles per second, but every second those miles keep expanding and if we see light still traveling at the same speed, that means that the speed of light is increasing proportionally. How can it then be a constant? Well, it's still a constant because it travels at the speed of TIME, which although undergoing its own accelerated expansion, manages to keep us all expanding at the same rate... unless, of course, we are slowing down time by traveling in the x,y,z dimensions at a speed close to C.

You see what I mean by complex? It will keep mathematicians gainfully employed for years if it turns out that I'm right.
New stuff: 8/26/02
IF space/time universal expansion at the rate of C is established, then Planck’s Constant is no longer truly a constant, but sort of a variable constant. Or perhaps it could be called a constant relative to this universe. It must always be expanding, along with everything else, and yet still remain the smallest “packet” of energy. But then, the same must be true with C, the speed of light constant at the other end of the scale; the fastest speed possible (under certain conditions) within the universe. C itself would no longer be truly a constant, but a variable constant, always expanding. In regular math, this is not acceptable, but computers make use of variable constants all the time. Thus, to a computer program, c = c + 1 makes perfect sense. It is used to increment a variable by a single unit over time (determined by the need of the program). It is used so often, that a computer shorthand was designed to indicate the same thing: c++. This eventually was responsible for naming a computer language after the process. Using the computer process to describe what happens to Planck’s Constant, we might use the equation: h = h * C. In English, that would translate to Planck’s Constant is equal to Planck’s Constant times the speed of light.
The speed of light, or C, would then be shown as C = C * C, or C = C2. If true, this gives a reason for squaring C in the equation E=MC2. Going back to our equation for Planck’s Constant, we would take that into account by making the equation h = hC2.
Other thoughts:
This explains why absolute zero is unattainable. It may also explain quantum energy and as stated before, gives more meaning to the souce of the strong nuclear force.
A good analogy is Brownian movement, but at subatomic levels close to absolute zero.

New stuff: 8/26/02
IF space/time universal expansion at the rate of C is established, then Planck’s Constant is no longer truly a constant, but sort of a variable constant. Or perhaps it could be called a constant relative to this universe. It must always be expanding, along with everything else, and yet still remain the smallest “packet” of energy. But then, the same must be true with C, the speed of light constant at the other end of the scale; the fastest speed possible (under certain conditions) within the universe. C itself would no longer be truly a constant, but a variable constant, always expanding. In regular math, this is not acceptable, but computers make use of variable constants all the time. Thus, to a computer program, c = c + 1 makes perfect sense. It is used to increment a variable by a single unit over time (determined by the need of the program). It is used so often, that a computer shorthand was designed to indicate the same thing: c++. This eventually was responsible for naming a computer language after the process. Using the computer process to describe what happens to Planck’s Constant, we might use the equation: h = h * C. In English, that would translate to Planck’s Constant is equal to Planck’s Constant times the speed of light.
The speed of light, or C, would then be shown as C = C * C, or C = C2. If true, this gives a reason for squaring C in the equation E=MC2. Going back to our equation for Planck’s Constant, we would take that into account by making the equation h = hC2.
Other thoughts:
This explains why absolute zero is unattainable. It may also explain quantum energy and as stated before, gives more meaning to the souce of the strong nuclear force.
A good analogy is Brownian movement, but at subatomic levels close to absolute zero.

8/27/02
Applying the above reasoning (C = C2) to Einstein’s equation, I now see what is missing… the acceleration. To make his equation complete it needs to be “adjusted.”
The complete equation should read:
E=MC2a
Where “a” is the acceleration rate of space/time itself. Adding the “a” gets rid of the idea of C being “the speed of light” once and for all. It can only be there if C is recognized as the “speed of space/time expansion.”

8/27/02
I am beginning to formalize the above notes into a book I call "The Other End of Time." You can read it as it unfolds HERE.

11/15/02
Time dilation dilemmas
I have been confused over the slowing of time at the event horizon of a Black Hole and at the speed of light. I conclude they are not the same. Example: two cars parked side by side. Both are “stopped” relative to one another. Now observe both cars speeding along the highway at 60 MPH parallel to one another. But relative to one another, they are still “stopped.” One passenger could even open up the window and pass a jar of Grey Poupon over to his neighbor in the other car, and the only difference between the first situation and the second would be a strong wind trying to blow away the mustard between the two cars.
In the center of a Black Hole, in a singularity, all dimensions of space/time are squeezed to zero. If x = 0, y = 0 and z = 0, then time, too, equals zero. Time has truly stopped in the center of a Black Hole, if it arrives at a singularity. Space/time no longer expands there.
At the speed of light, the situation is different. Space/time is NOT squeezed to zero. We merely have a photon traveling along at the same speed as the expansion of space/time and so relative to the photon, time seems to be standing still, but it is not. Unlike my pair of cars analogy, a better picture is a lone car racing down a treadmill highway. If the car moves at the right speed relative to the moving treadmill, it will appear to be standing still. If it slows down, the treadmill will take it along with it. If the car speeds up, it will fall off the end of the treadmill in the other direction, so to remain in existence, it cannot do that. It can either go slower than the treadmill and try to keep up, or it can go at the speed of the treadmill, but never faster.
Now for the dilemma. Time slows down or even stops at the Event Horizon of a Black Hole. Well,based on my earlier reasoning, Time would not stop at the event horizon, but only further down in the center of the Black Hole, assuming that the center exists as a singularity, where all dimensions of space/time are zero. The reason for all this squeezing of space/time is the extreme amount of mass attraction of a Black Hole.
But let’s not go that far. Let’s look at three bodies of differing masses- Jupiter, Earth, and the Moon. Jupiter is most massive, relative to the other two bodies, and the moon is the least massive. Do we conclude that space/time expands more slowly on Jupiter than on the earth or the moon? Does time “run slower” on Jupiter than on the moon? Yes, but the difference is insignificant. In order for the difference to be truly noticeable, it takes a mass equivalent of a neutron star or a black hole.
Let’s get smaller still. I have three balls the size of a ping-pong ball. In fact, one of them IS a ping pong ball. One is made of pure gold. The other is made of rubber. The ping pong ball is least massive. The gold is the most massive. Does the ping pong ball move through time faster than the gold ball? No. All three are affected by the mass of the earth on which they rest. Whatever the space/time expansion of the earth is, will apply to all three masses on it.


Let’s move the three balls into the depths of space between the galaxies and as far away from all gravitational influences as possible. NOW time “runs slower” on the gold ball than on the ping pong ball. Will there ever come a time when an observer (on a distant space vehicle making observations by telescope so as to avoid influencing the attraction between the masses) will notice that one of the balls no longer exists in “this time” relative to the observer and the three balls? Will the ping pong ball “speed up” in space time, or will the gold ball be “left behind” in a time going slower than the time relative to the observer. Have we ever noticed anything of this sort going on in deep space? Maybe. And now I need to examine what we really know about dark matter and dark energy.

11/21/02
Regarding the question of the disappearing balls in the above dilemma, it doesn't happen. That's because the time of the balls is the same as the time of the observer. That makes ME, and whoever else is doing observations, very important. No matter how fast or how slow space/time is expanding relative to the various masses in the Universe (including our three balls floating in the vacuum of deep space), the observations of them are done at MY time (the observer). At some point, all three are in "my time" frame of reference, and they will always be that way TO ME. I will never see them speed up or slow down in space/time expansion. I will have to measure this time difference some other way than by direct observation. That is the reason no one has explored this line of thinking before and why I have such a tough battle ahead of me if I am going to convince other physicists to even consider the theory.

That still leaves the mysterious comings and goings of dark energy and dark matter and a whole range of short lived particles that just pop into existance and out of it again. What is the connection and how can it be explained in terms of an expanding universe?

On to Page 2 of this Theory - Thoughts for 2003

Back to the Beginning of Space/Time Theory

The Novels