In 1965, soon after the cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered, I attended a lecture given at UC Berkeley by astronomer/cosmologist Fred Hoyle where he discussed the implications of this observation. Not being familiar with cosmological theories, I don’t remember much about the lecture, except that this radiation seemed to be a problem for the Steady State Theory of the Universe, that Hoyle supported. The Big Bang Theory of the Universe seemed to benefit.

In 1969, I read the book “The Universe” by Isaac Asimov. His easy to read and understand style got me hooked. Adding to a passion for science fiction and mystery novels, I started reading science books written for the general reader. Books on astronomy, cosmology, and physics were of particular interest. One book was “The Riddle of Gravitation” by Peter Bergman. After reading the book, the riddle remained unsolved and the identity of the gravitational force still remained a mystery.

Then in 1970, I came across a curious comic book titled “The New Gravity”. The author, Kent Robertson, presented it as “an hypothesis on the ultimate meaning of the 4th Dimension and General Relativity”. This was my introduction to an expansion of matter theory, as an explanation of the phenomena of gravity and time. As Robertson saw it, all matter and space in the entire universe uniformly expanded at an accelerating rate. In this view objects don’t fall, the earth expands upward to meet them.

I found this new concept intriguing. Gravity as a “push” rather than a “pull”, was a description that seemed to make some sense. Einstein’s thought experiment came to mind, where a rising elevator, or an accelerating spaceship, is equivalent to the force of gravity. This fundamental change of direction of a universal force opened up new avenues of thought. However there remained, after considerable reflection, at least two major problems that needed to be addressed.

• First, was the concept of uniform expansion of all objects and space, i.e., all objects in the universe, and the space between them physically doubled in the same time. How could the planet earth and a white dwarf star, which are about the same volume, but with an enormous disparity in mass, double in size during a similar interval of time? This would imply that density plays no part in gravitational force, which is contrary to experience.
• Second, was the problem of orbits. No matter how I tried, it just did not make sense that expansion alone could explain orbital motion. Expansion is a contact force. How does the expanding surface of say the Earth “reach out” and influence a satellite? Something more was needed. The search and discovery of that something more when combined with additional serendipitous concepts are the basis for this work.

In the 1970’s, two books that provided key information were “The Neutrino, Ghost Particle of the Atom” by Isaac Asimov and “The Neutron Story” by Donald J. Hughes. The first book presented the mystery of beta decay, or “the case of the missing mass energy”. The second book, allowed a closer look at neutron properties as clues in the effort to solve this mystery. Other works were “Music of the Spheres” by Guy Murchie & “Cosmic View: The Universe in Forty Jumps” by Kees Boeke.

Four of the five key hypotheses, spinrise, quantum wholes, little bangs, and the recycling universe were conceived during the early to mid 1970’s. Simple Object Topology, originally called Object Geometry, was developed in the mid 1970’s.

In 1982-83, during an extended stay in India, I made the first attempt to put these concepts together in some organized manner. A potential format of this work was developed then — however to take concepts, outlines and pages of notes, ideas and sketches and turn it into a coherent meaningful document is another story. This was the time of typewriters, before word processors and computer aided design. I soon became a self employed architect with a young family, and there never seemed to be enough time. The work was placed in the background. There was occasional effort and some progress, like starting the neu mass table in 1991, but the work was mostly ignored for years at a time.

In September, 2007, I made a commitment to finish the work, and started with the Glossary. The fifth key hypothesis, neucleon clusters was conceived in 2008 after the full implications of the model became apparent. In 2012, the charge radii values were added to the neu mass table. The 3D modeling of nuclide architecture was done in 2014, after the computing software required became more user friendly.

Since 2007, I have read several books by leading physicists regarding recent discoveries or advances in their discipline. I was searching for new facts that would support or falsify Neu Theory. Two of these books are, “The Trouble with Physics” by Lee Smolin, and “A Different Universe” by Robert B. Laughlin.

Smolin expressed the view that in the last thirty years there has been very little progress in our basic understanding of the Laws of Nature. There is an unfinished revolution that needs to reconcile and unify our understanding of fundamental phenomena.

Laughlin maintains two views that are relevant to this work. The first is the end of “reductionism” – the belief that things will necessarily be clarified when they are divided into smaller and smaller pieces. The second is the concept of “emergence” – which is complex organization coming from simple rules.

Neu Theory is a speculative scientific hypothesis, an example of natural philosophy based on well documented facts of experience that are available from multiple sources. The questions have been here for a long time. What answers we have found have not always been consistent or complete. Nature does not give up its secrets easily. I do not claim that any of the concepts presented, and the conclusions drawn from them, conform to current beliefs of the scientific community. In fact, the foundation concepts of Neu Theory, the ten postulates, are radically different.

I have enjoyed learning and thinking about these ideas and have tried to express them in a simple coherent manner that will make sense to an inquiring mind with some science background, no mathematical skills except basic arithmetic, and the ability to visualize simple shapes. Every attempt has been made to accurately describe phenomena as documented by scientific observations and experiments. However, there will no doubt be mistakes and errors, and they are all mine.

• The first two criteria “complete” and “connected” I think have been mostly met.
• The next two criteria “correct” and “works” I believe can be experimently verified.
• The last two criteria “simple” and “satisfying” are more subjective, but the potential is there.

The last fifty years have provided ample time to reflect upon the initial concepts. Developing them into a model has provided a lifetime of learning and pleasure. The ideas seem just as valid now as they did then, if not more so. Right or wrong, the questions, what are the elementary building blocks of nature, and what are the fundamental forces that govern their interaction, have been answered as part of one unified model.

However, there remains a feeling of only partial completion. So far Neu Theory has been a solitary effort. While all major parts of the whole have been addressed to some extent, there is still much more work that needs to be done, and I can only do so much by myself. Here are a few items:

• All assumed physical values need to be updated and calculations need to be rechecked.
• The work could be made shorter by pruning and eliminating duplication of content.
• Some drawings and diagrams shown were made decades ago and need to be redone.
• New drawings and diagrams that could make the ideas clearer need to be added.
• Short little bang transformation, and neucleon synthesis animation could provide clarity to elementary behavior.
• 3D computer modeling the nuclear architecture of the larger neucleon cluster numbers needs to proceed. Neucleon cell walls and seams, along with the charge shields, need to be shown. Why are some cluster numbers missing? This now requires far more computing power and ability than I have.
• There is always more.

So where do we go from here? Does Neu Theory have a future, or will it be relegated to the dustbin of history, which is already filled with descriptions of nature that initially sounded good but were just plain wrong? The question that first needs to be answered is, are any of the ideas presented here actually true? Does Neu Theory provide an accurate view of nature, i.e., that the nucleus is a collection of neutral matter cells held together by a discrete electric “straight jacket” thereby eliminating the need for a strong nuclear force; or that the heart of all galaxies, the super-massive “black holes”, are not mysterious singularities, just ordinary cosmic structures, that are cores of giant “electric batteries” playing an essential part in nature’s matter/energy cycle. Is this science fact or science fantasy? Is it trash or treasure?

If there is truth here it will become apparent to others. Perhaps not in my lifetime, as this world view where there are no neutrinos, quarks, or the strong force will be hard for current science to swallow. The concept of a strong nuclear force has been with us for a long time (since Hideki Yukawa’s “meson” over 86 years ago), and everybody in the science community accepts its existence.

However, If and only if there is truth, then eventually at some time in human history these simple concepts may become as commonplace as the things they describe. It will be up to like minded others to help carry Neu Theory forward, as there is a lot of work required to integrate these ideas into the foundation of everyday science.

If you like what you see, please share it with others.

Kiran Mehra
California, USA