Hidden In Plain Sight 2: The equation of the universe

I enjoyed Andrew Thomas' first book, "Hidden in Plain Sight", rather a lot, if only because it was a refreshing change from the sometimes dogmatic mainstream. In recent decades it does feel that Physics has become somewhat mired in problems. String theory seems to have swallowed whole careers with little in the way of tangible result. Thus far at least, "dark energy" & "dark matter" are really just alternative terms for "unknown, unexplained & not yet actually detected". These mysterious invisible explanations for things we don't understand may yet go the way of "phlogiston" and "the ether".Anyway, having enjoyed his first book, I decided to buy his second and I think I enjoyed it even more. Could the theory that Andrew Thomas puts forward actually be right? Who knows, but in my opinion he puts forward a rather interesting argument. When I first read it, I found his conclusion rather jaw-dropping. At least it was a satisfying conclusion, like the revelation at the end of a good murder mystery. Certainly thought-provoking. I need to read it again. The axiom about "if it's too good to be true..." is rarely wrong, and this theory almost seems too good to be true.While I was reading, I found myself thinking about a concept from Chaos Theory that he doesn't mention - attractors in dynamical systems. Is the Schwarzschild radius real? Well, yes. Could it be a rather important attractor? Perhaps. Can it really explain so much about some many of the current mysteries in physics, with just a tiny tweak to Relativity? Well, maybe. Or maybe not. But for 99p on a Kindle, it's certainly worth a read so you can try to decide for yourself!I have to note that the Kindle edition at least has poor editing and proof-reading in places, (possibly because he can't afford an editor at these prices) but it didn't affect my enjoyment.All in all, an enjoyable, stimulating & thought-provoking read.

Well written and easy to follow most of the time. Found the book interesting as it starts from basic and fundamental beginnings leading up to the authors ideas of the universe.Only the jumping back to pick up the thread of earlier workings was a bit off, although at times a refresher was needed to get back on the track.Will read again but take notes this time.

The 'Equation of the Universe' is the relation between mass-energy (mc squared) and gravitational-energy, where they are postulated to be equal and opposite, resulting in a value of exactly zero. It was known to Einstein, so isn't exactly new. Using Relativity, quantum theory, a few Universal constants and the fact that Nature always minimises the energy of any given system, the Author derives the 'Equation' simply and straightforwardly (basic level algebra) and uses it as a hypothesis to demonstrate that the Universe has many of the characteristics of an expanding black-hole i.e an object with sufficient mass to prevent anything escaping from it, no matter how fast it is travelling. I find this concept of the Universe immensely satisfying, corresponding as it does with my beliefs over many years- it seemed glaringly obvious! I always liked the analogy of the galaxies as 'spots' on the surface of an expanding balloon, the distances between the spots continually increasing, but I couldn't work out how the thickness of the rubber would fit in. Now I see it as the material within the event-horizon- dare I say the 'dark-matter'- circulating as a band at the far reaches of space. There is no time element in the Andrew Thomas Hypothesis, so the Universe may be coasting gently towards stability without the need for a big-bang, rapid inflation, gravitons, dark matter particles, strings, multi-universes etc. and it's age completely unknown! R.I.P Fred Hoyle...Well, what do you want for a Quid...?!I note, wryly, that other Reviewers appear to have a similar respect for professional physicists as they show to politicians...

A cosmological theory is proposed to account not only for the accelerating expansion of the universe but also for its flatness, without calling upon either primordial inflation or dark energy. Quite an undertaking, which would leave a few Nobel laureates with somewhat hollow awards, if it worked.Drawing upon mainstream cosmology, the thesis examines some reasons why light emitted from a source may fail to reach an observer: insufficient time; intervening space expanding faster than light can travel; gravity at source so strong as to impose superluminal escape velocity. The first two define the limits of our observable universe at various times; the third concerns black holes.The author then notes a curious coincidence between the current extent of our locally observable universe (calculated as speed of light divided by Hubble parameter) and its notional Schwarzschild radius based upon the included mass.It is truly surprising that the two radii should be similar (to within an order of magnitude) but perhaps too much can be made of this. The author’s proposition is that we therefore effectively exist within a black hole and must expect to observe negative gravitational effects (the implications for anyone residing just over the horizon are not examined). This is a bold proposal, as also is the notion that the universe will settle down at about its current size or average density on account of its overall zero energy content.Negative gravity, as against any primordial cosmic inflationary phase, is also taken to explain the flatness of the universe’s geometry. Little is made of the tiny temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, for which Alan Guth’s inflation theory also provides an explanation. And the recently-claimed observation of evidence for gravitational waves in the CMB will (if confirmed) provide further support for a short-lived inflationary expansion. Guth must be very relieved.I took less from this book than from the standard primer “An introduction to Modern Cosmology” by Andrew Liddle which provides a seriously convincing account of what is known and currently explicable in a perhaps ultimately incomprehensible universe. The concept of the zero energy universe has also already been expounded in the thoroughly cogent and readable narrative “A universe from nothing” by Lawrence Krauss.

Very good series!

I am not going to do a long review and for this Dr Thomas is responsible. If not, my stupidity is.All I want to know is: how good a physicist is he? Is his work peer reviewed? Once that's known, I feel more confident in boosting or condemning his books. At this stage, I am very boosting inclined but am a tad nervous to do so. This is due to the fact that I am not a properly trained physicist.No matter what optimised search words I used to try and establish the answer to those two crucial questions, the same non-committal websites came up.Not to belabour the point, but due to paucity in my physics, I am not in a position to judge his work authoritatively.However, with the little physics I do have, aided with many books I've read by renowned authors like Brian Greene, Victor Stenger, Michio Kaku, Stephen Hawking, Paul Davis, Stephen Weinberg, Alan Guth... to list but a very few on the subject, Dr Thomas sounds legit. Even his formulas makes sense to lay me.Considering those credentials, I find for Dr Thomas.There is another characteristic his writing displays, which I much admire.Having been a lecturer myself, I know how difficult it is to explain the essence of a complex matter, simply, interestingly, concisely, lucidly and easily comprehensible.This Thomas does brilliantly. He does it so damn well, it makes me, despite being a great fan of Occham, suspicious. IT IS TOO EASY, TOO OBVIOUS.Could Thomas' hypotheses be correct? Why the thundering silence from academia while Thomas' work has been available since 2013?Nevertheless, in my limited opinion, Dr Thomas poses highly likely hypotheses while the facts he uses, supported by properly established theories, makes for lucid reading. He efficiently explains concepts which previously, I had difficulty to understand.Thank you, Dr Thomas. If your speculations/ hypotheses are one day peer reviewed and debunked, I shall still be grateful for having red your books. You explain things so well, that I find myself all attremble to read the next one: on a subject I most heartily disliked at university. For the first time physics and specifically quantum mechanis now make a lot more sense. You have managed to ameliorate the self doubt, which used to feed an inferiority complex at how stupid I am. More importantly, I suspect that I'm by a very large margin, not alone in this.If it means anything, of the many hundreds -- I don't know exactly how many -- Kindle books I've read, the Hidden In Plain Sight are the first ones I've gone to the trouble to have rated and reviewed.

Again, like with the first book, I am really impressed. On the first one he showed why quantum effects happen, and this time he gives an alternative gravitational theory!! By reading these new concepts we have to take care not to believe that it is the real truth, but just an alternative point of view. But the way he explains cosmology, quantum theory and relativity is really impressive, easy to understand.Again, like with the first book, I am really impressed. On the first one he showed why quantum effects happen, and this time he gives an alternative gravitational theory!! By reading these new concepts we have to take care not to believe that it is the real truth, but just an alternative point of view. But the way he explains cosmology, quantum theory and relativity is really impressive, easy to understand.

Excellent!

Same problems of using an historical Nomenclature instead of starting all over again from the only fundamental, Time, which is all about Relative fields connected in one reality. Particle Physics for Dummies.