Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Could the theory of everything be a number?

  1. Mar 3, 2009 #1
    Greetings to everyone,

    I wish to exude much hope and optimism for the coming years for all of us. The reason I am here is because I saw an old e-mail in my spam folder from phys org, and the thought occurred to me that I need to share with you all my potential discovery that could have huge ramifications for our understanding of math, science, and where we are headed in this crazy mixed up world.

    Basically I believe I've discovered that the theory of everything could be a number. Just as there is a number that denotes the idea of nothing, which is the number zero, the wonderful thought occurred to me one day that there might also be a number who's meaning is just the opposite of that - a number whose meaning is everything. This all power-ful number would be exactly like zero except the exact opposite.

    The problem is, I discovered that this number does actually exist! It is the number that is said to be undefined. Yes, I am talking about the number 1/0. Now I know a lot of people have come along who think they've found the definition of 1/0, and they will not be mentioned, but please just hear me out because you will see that this is different.

    If 0 is the same thing as 0/1, 0/2, and 0/3, etc. etc. then it would make sense also that 1/0 would be the same thing as 2/0, 3,0, etc. etc. It would seem from this analysis that 1/0 is actually just the reciprocal of 0. In other words, 1/0 is the exact opposite of 0. Do you see how this makes a whole lot of sense?

    Now imagine this, that the reason I put this post under the calculus forum is because we can evaluate the number 1/0 using limits, and if we do so we arrive at some very interesting results indeed. I learned this in high school in my Calculus class. If we take 1 and divide it by a smaller and smaller number approaching zero, we see that the result goes to infinity. But the answer is not as straightforward as that, because zero can be approached from both the negative side of the number line as well as the positive. This I know very well and it means that the actual result would appear to be both positive infinity and negative infinity. How could this have happened?

    It is very simple when you think about it. Since 0 is a number that has no value, it is neither positive nor negative. Conversely, since 1/0 is the opposite of zero, this means it represents an absolute value, a value that paradoxically is both positive and negative. So when we evaluate 1/0 using limits, we actually arrive at the conclusion that this number functions as the exact opposite of 0. This seems to support the hypothesis that there is a number that is the opposite of 0.

    Now let's talk about this philosophically to get a better understanding. If we take something, one thing, what happens if we say "this one thing is now divided by 0." We are essentially saying that that one thing is not divided at all. What this means is that it is whole, complete, undivided. That is the concept of everything, the idea of one complete undivided whole. So looked at this way, 1/0 represents unity, nondivision, or indivisbility. This represents the highest virtue, the idea of cohesion and solidarity.

    Also think about it this way, if 1/0 means that which is not divided, then that is also the definition of the unified field is it not? Instead of calling it the unified field, we could call it the undivided field and it would mean the same thing, the same thing as if we said "it is divided by zero, or in other words, divided by nothing at all."

    So please correct me if I'm wrong because I can't believe I actually may have figured this out. But if 1/0 is defined, it gives us the mathematical definition of the idea of everything. The idea of everything would also be the same idea as the unified field, and thus the unified field theory would be just another word for the theory of everything.

    Now I know there are other arguments for why 1/0 should not be defined, but are those arguments logical? Are we ignoring what the face of mathematics is showing us by insisting that 1/0 must be undefined? Instead, if we look at the truth, we may see that there is a logical definition for 1/0. Mathematically speaking it is just the opposite of zero, and therefore it must give us the definition of the opposite of nothing.

    Now what I really want to do here is get a dialogue going, so before I tell you all the implications of defining this number, I want to see what you all think. Am I right? Could the Theory of Everything be a number? Is the answer so simple that we have overlooked it for all this time?

    sincerely,
    Lee Field
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2009
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 3, 2009 #2
    ...

    And I get flak for *my* silly theories.
     
  4. Mar 3, 2009 #3
    csprof,

    Yours is not the first reply I was looking for, however my feelings are not hurt. Would you care to elaborate or are you just making a joke? I would appreciate it if your argument was more constructive or actually mentioned anything that could form the grounds for a constructive debate. If so, please post that constructive argument here or forever hold your peace. None of us want to waste our time so please be constructive ok? Otherwise I will have to kick your ***. No, but seriously, I forgive your immaturity. Now can we be serious please?
     
  5. Mar 3, 2009 #4
    I will say that I think it's good that you are thinking ideas like this. Maybe the world would be a more interesting place if people invested more time and effort into theories such as yours.

    On the other hand, I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to prove with this theory. Let's assume that everything you've said is true. Let's say that it all makes mathematical, and logical, sense - which is arguable, but let's assume it.

    How does knowing that "1/0" is the answer to the riddle of life really *answer* anything? What closure does this give us? It's almost as if I asked you how to save my life, and you said "blue". It's frustrating because the information is not actionable. It holds no meaning, has no application, and gives no further insight into any other problem.

    1/0 is generally avoided since its meaning isn't very well-defined.

    x / y = z <=> y * z = x. So 1 / 0 = x <=> 0 * x = 1. Using the "naive" definition of multiplication, you put "x" things in a bag "0" times, and then count how many things you have... and get 1. But you didn't put anything in the bag...

    Anyway, I think your time would be better spent on other pursuits... starting out with something a little less ambitious than a theory of everything. Believe it or not, high-school mathematics and intuition aren't all they're cracked up to be... if nothing else, some other work would make theories such as these more credible.

    Could you just tell me why anybody would care about this "discovery"? In what sense is it interesting?
     
  6. Mar 3, 2009 #5
    Or maybe their can only be one hitchhikers guide to the galaxy.

    By the way the answer is 42 not 1/0
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answer...fe.2C_the_Universe.2C_and_Everything_.2842.29

    I must confess though I didn't see the movie or read the book.
     
  7. Mar 4, 2009 #6
    Ahh, thank you so much csprof! Now you have impressed me! Now let us begin talking about the important ramifications of this theory, which I promised to do if anyone agreed with me. Since you say we can assume that the theory makes mathematical sense, I will now tell you exactly what is so cool about this theory. Basically, it's everything.

    But before I get ahead of myself, I want to adress the other argument you put forward for why 1/0 should be undefined, as this is one of those arguments that I believe is not logical. First we have to realize that 1/0 is sound mathematically, then we can discuss what it actually means.

    I will quote the following from you and confirm that I know exactly what you are saying and I agree with you %100 that this proof is mathematically correct

    " x / y = z <=> y * z = x. So 1 / 0 = x <=> 0 * x = 1 "

    Now let me point out what I said earlier, that 1/0 is the same as 2/0, 3/0, etc. etc. Just as 0/1 is the same as 0/2, 0/3, etc. etc. So in this case the last statement in your quote above should correctly read 0*x=1, 2, 3, etc. etc. But remember that x is 1/0, so what the proof which you wrote above is really saying is that 1/0*0=any number. It could even be a negative number because 1/0 is also the same as -1/0, -2/0, -3/0 etc. etc.

    So what does the proof mean that 1/0*0=any number. Well, quite simply it means that 1/0*0=0/0, and as you know, 0/0 is indeterminate, or equal to any number.

    So you see, it is mathematically sound to say that 1/0*0=1. In other words, any number times zero is zero but obviously now there is an exception to the rule, when it comes to 1/0. For if you were to multiply 1/0 by 0 either the zeros would cancel eachother and you would be left with 1 or if you just multiply the numerators and the denominators you would end up with 0/0 which is said to also be equal to 1. So you see, it is mathematically sound if you define the number 1/0 as exactly what it is, a mathematical definition that is the opposite of 0.

    So all I am saying is that there is a very simple definition to this number and it is the answer to the theory of everything. That in itself should be enough to get you excited! That means I have just told you the theory of everything. Haha, don't you feel enlightened now?

    But of course, using this theory I've discovered a lot more than just that. Let's take the irony of the situation for example.

    Is it not ironic that this number is equal to both positive and negative infinity? Now, these two are opposites, but yet this number is telling us they are actually the same. You know what else is ironic that deals with opposites which we are trying to bring together? Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Is it just a coincidence? Perhaps this number explains how opposites are actually connected together?

    Also let us think of the definition of time itself. Time is constant change. But isn't it ironic, that it is constantly changing? Is it just a coincidence? Isn't that sort of like a combination of opposites? Isn't that just about as stupid as specifically going out of our way to define a number as "undefined?"

    Or what about the notion of contradiction? Contradiction is always a contradiction. Therefore, in a strange sense, contradiction is consistent. Again we see that opposites are tied together and inherently inseperable, for one extreme defines the other and in some ways they are both one thing.

    I'm not asking you to totally change your way of thinking, I'm just asking you to open your mind to the greatest possibilities. If there is a number that is a harmonious combination of opposites, then to me what it means is that anything is possible. What this means is that many of the limitations which are built into our understanding of physics may not be correct. It might be actually true that everything is possible. Well, I don't want to say that. What I would rather say is that everything is the sum total of all possibility. That is what the number 1/0 means. It means the sum total of all possibility - i.e. everything!

    I won't lie to you, I figured the basis of this theory out in highschool calculus, but certain problems caused me to abandon it or just not care. But now I've come back to it after rediscovering my initial theory from a different direction, one in which I was pondering what could have caused the big bang.

    Consider the big rip, which is the opposite of the big bang. A very smart professor from Darthmouth put forth the theory that the universe will continue to expand faster and faster until it rips. The main problem he had is that he couldn't figure out what would happen after space/time ripped. Well I have figured it out thanks to the definition of 1/0. 1/0 shows us that the arrow of time will reverse after the big rip, at least in theory.

    That is because if we define the number 1/0 the number line then turns into a number circle, with 0 representing the zeroth hour or the big bang, and with 1/0 representing the final hour, or the big rip. The arrow of time reverses at the point of 1/0. This completely completes our view of cosmology, but you don't have to thank me for it.

    Now here is the really cool part that is going to have you so excited. Remember how you said some other work could make this theory more credible? Well guess what, thanks to the grace of my tenacity I have already designed an experiment to test this theory. The results are that I have created a machine that is capable of reversing the laws of thermodynamics. I know that's a big claim but I would not tell you if it were not true. When I said that everything is the sum total of all possibility I really meant it. So would you believe me if I told you that 1/0 gave me the design for a machine that has already rewritten the laws of physics? If you believe me, I will tell you what it is. You see, it's not a silly theory and I can prove it to you, as if the face of mathematics is not proof enough. Then you will really see why this theory is so damn important.

    So do you believe I am telling you the truth? If you take this seriously you could be the first one to help move this theory forward and allow me to show the world exactly what I have discovered. The world could benefit greatly. I am placing a lot of faith in you to do this csprof. I'm proud of you for being mature and responsible about all this. I know it sounds crazy, but you don't know the half of it yet ;) It only gets cooler so just reply and say "I'm interested" if you want to know more. You know what they say, a little knowledge is dangerous so drink deep or taste not the pyrean spring.

    Sincerely,
    Lee
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2009
  8. Mar 4, 2009 #7
    Again another bad joke. What I am talking about is dead serious my friend. So if you want to be part of the discovery, then take part, and I am serious when I say otherwise get the hell out because we don't need your kind around here if you're going to act like that. That's the kind of stuff that got us all into this mess to begin with of non-appreciation and damnit if I'm not going to be the one to get us out. So start acting your age compatriot and don't make fun of my/the theory of everything because it is my life's work and it's about to change everything so you better listen up! Haa haha, I love it when I get livid.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2009
  9. Mar 4, 2009 #8

    Gib Z

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Define "opposite". When dealing with the numbers, you seem to be using it to mean the "multiplicative inverse", but when dealing with concepts, you take the more conventional definition, in a similar way to the "opposite" of tall is short. This choice of opposite to be the multiplicative inverse is very arbitrary don't you think? I mean, I could well argue the "opposite" of 0 is 0, its additive inverse, just as the "opposite" of 5 is negative 5.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------

    Actually, I'm not going to bother argue or even try to be too civil with you. There are so many things wrong with this it would take far too much of my time. This is most likely the same reason other people here haven't bothered to post against it either. Please, take this advice, and devote your "life's work" to something else for the moment. Perhaps when you have learned a bit more, then you can tell the physicists and the mathematicians how to do their jobs, eh?

    Im just asking for it aren't I...
     
  10. Mar 4, 2009 #9
    Gib Z,

    Yes, you are really asking for it but don't worry, you haven't pissed me off that badly. You have only incited me to try harder. So listen to what I am saying please and I will explain everything just like science has been wanting to know.

    First of all, I don't like how you say "there are so many things wrong with this I'm not even going to list them." Why don't you try using that line in a real debate and see if it provides any valid argument? Basically what you are saying is you have no attack against which I can defend my thesis. Therefore everything I've said still stands as true.

    Next you say something very rude to the effect of "why don't you get a real education?" Well let me just tell you this, I do have a real education. In fact I scored in the top ninety nine percent for math on my ACT exam. I'm not saying that to brag, but I bet you can't beat it.

    Now let me tell you why it is high time that I told the mathematicians and physicists, not how to "do their job" as you say, but to show the world what the theory of everything really is. Because I have already designed an experiment which proves the theory of everything is correct and I have performed this experiment. But you don't know about that because obviously you are the one who doesn't know everything yet. So don't profess that you are the expert if you don't know the theory of everything. Instead try listening to what I have to say.

    What I am saying is that I do know the theory of everything, and that 1/0 is the reciprocal of 0. Yes that means that 1/0 is the opposite of zero, but 1/0 itself is also composed of opposites. Hopefully that answers your question.

    Here's an example so that maybe you can get a better handle on this. Passion is a word whose definition, just like 1/0, is composed of opposites. For passion can mean both great disdane and hatred, but it can also mean love and joy. So you see, passion is a word whose definition is composed of opposites. Think of it as the absolute value of emotion. But passion itself also has an opposite, which is apathy, or no emotion. So to use your example, height is a word that can mean two things, either it can mean something is tall or something is short. It can be looked at in two ways. But it also has an opposite, which would be no height at all. Hopefully that answers your question.

    In closing, I hope I can teach you the theory of everything or that you may actually be able to point out why it is wrong. But you know what they say, you can lead a horse to water, and something about pearls and swine.

    regards, Lee Field
     
  11. Mar 4, 2009 #10
    csprof,

    I see that you have not replied to what I said yet. That is ok, I feel like I kind of put you on the spot and maybe you felt pressured. Or maybe you just haven't come back to this thread yet. In any case, I hope you come back.

    regards,
    Lee Field
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2009
  12. Mar 4, 2009 #11
    Well, I'll tell you what. I don't like a lot of the math you do - I think it could use a lot of refinement. I think you should try to phrase your argument in more convincing terms... try to inject more rigor into it. Saying that "1/0 * 0 = 1 or 0/0" isn't going to convince anyone here, or anyone anywhere.

    There are many, many, many more convincing ways for talking about zeros and infinities than basic algebra. You should look in to set theory, analysis, and topology. You should phrase your arguments in terms of theorems and proofs, limits and limiting sequences, and the like. Until you can understand your theory in these more rigorous ways, you wouldn't even be able to write the correct theory of everything well enough to get it printed in a journal. You'd be doing mankind a disservice.

    As far as the idea goes, I think that you are absolutely right. Yours is a way of thinking that goes back to the beginning of our Western heritage and possibly much further back.

    There aren't many of us left, but perhaps you would enjoy learning about Presocratic philosophy. They all deal with "theories of everything". In particular, I think you'll find Anaximander particularly interesting, as he deals with the nature of things as being pairs of opposites.

    It's all very interesting stuff... you can probably find out more about it online or in a library. I heartily recommend reading up on the Presocratics, as I think this will help you mature your theory from a philosophic point of view. For the mathematics... well, that will also require careful study, and I think others here are better qualified than me to recommend such studies.

    I'm afraid theoretical computer science, per se, doesn't really address the sorts of things you're talking about... or else I'd be happy to offer more advice.
     
  13. Mar 4, 2009 #12
    Damnit, I just wrote a long reply to you csprof but somehow I got logged out when I hit post and the message got deleted. Stupid computers! Anyway, here's the gist of what I said.

    1/0*0=0/0=1=2=3=4=5

    how is this not a rigorous equation?

    Secondly, with regards to set theory, it seems natural that 1/0 represents the set of all sets. With regards to Russell's paradox, I have solved it. Everything contains itself. In other words, the set of all sets does contain itself, for it contains everything. And whether the set of all sets that do not contain themselves contains itself is irrelevant because everything contains itself. The set of all sets that do not contain themselves must therefore be the empty set, 0. In reality there are only two sets, the complete set 1/0, which contains itself, for it contains everything. Then there is the empty set, which may or may not contain itself, for it contains nothing, 0. The empty set does not exist.

    With regards to the incompleteness theorem, the theorem itself must be incomplete according to itself, or inconsistent. According to Godel's theorem everything must either be incomplete or inconsistent. Therefore if we were to have a complete theory, a theory of everything, it would have to be inconsistent. This is actually true, it has a contradiction in it, where positive infinity becomes equal to negative infinity. But the point I am trying to bring home is that it is a consistent contradiction. It is based on how we look at it. There is truth in irony and you can quote me on that.

    Then there is computer programming. It is based on a binary language of 1 and 0. I am saying nothing different is true for reality. But how can we decide if 1 is positive or negative? The binary code that reality is written in is actually the code of 0 and it's reciprocal, 1/0.

    With regards to history, thank you for the examples you provided. Also there is the yin yang from China which shows the combination of opposites. If the Chinese got it then what is stopping us from using mathematics for the same principle? Then there is also Nicolas of Cusa, who spoke of the "coincidence of opposites." Yes, it seems history is on the side of the theory of everything, and I predict it is only a matter of time before we accept the truth once again, that everything is based on a juxtaposition of opposites, and that 1/0 is defined as the reciprocal of 0.

    Cheers,
    Lee
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2009
  14. Mar 5, 2009 #13

    Gib Z

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Actually, What I was saying was that I have far too many lines of attack against your argument it would be tedious to list them all. I did in fact, give a single argument though. And also, you wrongly take the state of not being disproved to be the same to being proven, which they are not. Which brings me to the next point - Certain it is well known that the scientific method requires any acceptable theory to explain all current observations, and make testable predictions. You go against all current knowledge by saying 1=2=3=4... etc, and you make no testable predictions. For example, a true theory of everything would encompass a complete explanation of the inner workings of a black hole. All your "theory" has managed to do it say everyone else but you is wrong.

    Ahh and indeed, that level of education surely entitles you to assume your superiority over the mathematicians and physicists, with their no good degrees, PhD's and years of research of experience, doesn't it! Not even just them, but your superiority over the greatest minds from all of human history. Truly, the likes of Issac Newton, Albert Einstein, or Archimedes can not even be scaled against you and your elementary mathematical knowledge, because with only that elementary mathematics, you've managed to explain "everything"! Remarkable!

    If you aren't saying it to brag, that what are you saying it for? I'll choose not to comment on your "bet".
    Ahh, showing the world how the universe works truly isn't what the physicists looking for the theory of everything are trying to do, is it? I am "the one who doesn't know everything yet".
    .

    No. It completely does not. I wonder if you even understood my question. If you were the one who knows "everything", you should have known that didn't answer my question.

    Once again, no it doesn't. There is no rigor or mathematical logic in that at all. Passion, in fact, does not mean any of those things. And Height can not "mean" tall or short. "Tall" and "Short" qualitatively measure height. You really should have known that though.

    I can easily point out why it is wrong. By the definition of the division operation, in order for any meaningful, consistent results, division by zero can not be defined. You don't see to care about that, and go on to say 1=2=3... Next time you go driving, please do so safely, and drive at triple the speed limits. Because, well, 1=3 doesn't it. Damn that's enlightening !
     
  15. Mar 5, 2009 #14

    CRGreathouse

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I'm not convinced that everything is well-defined here.

    It looks like you are taking the extended real numbers (the real numbers, together with +infinity and -infinity, and the natural operations on them) and adjoining a new element. Let's call the element [tex]\Omega.[/tex]

    Now every operation (+, -, *, /, ^) on two extended reals has at most one answer (exactly one when 0 is not involved), but that's no longer the case with [tex]\Omega,[/tex] so we need to define operations as ordered quadruples:

    (1, '+', 1, 2)

    to denote that 1 + 1 = 2, etc. Your basic definition is

    (r, '/', 0, [tex]\Omega[/tex])

    for r any real number other than 0:
    (1, '/', 0, [tex]\Omega[/tex])
    (-7, '/', 0, [tex]\Omega[/tex])
    (pi, '/', 0, [tex]\Omega[/tex])
    . . .

    Note that the second blank must be filled with exactly *one* number from [tex]\mathbb{R}\union\{+\infty,-\infty,\Omega\}.[/tex]

    So help us fill in the other definitions: [tex]\Omega*+\infty[/tex], [tex]\Omega^{\-infty}[/tex], etc. Make it so we can unambiguously decide what results, if any, an operation has.

    Further, you are using the = symbol differently than mathematicians do. I assume you mean you have an equivalence class which you denote by "=", so that needs to be defined as well. Once you do all of this (specifying any set of ordered quadruples with the first, third, and fourth elements from your number system and the second in {'=', '+', '-', '*', '/', '^'}) in any way you like, we should be able to tell you which properties of the extended real numbers you retain and which properties you keep.

    For example, I suspect that your system lacks order ("<" cannot be sensibly defined, in a particular sense).
     
  16. Mar 5, 2009 #15
    No, 0*x = 0, therefore the rest of your theory is wanting.

    0/1 is undefined just like sqrt(-1) is undefined until you learn more about mathematics like learning about imaginary numbers, for example. I respect your attempt at abstract thinking, but think that you need to do a little more research before claiming new theories that answer everything. Have a read up about L' Hopital's rule for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Hôpital's_rule

    I would also propose that the opposite of nothing (0) is everything (infinity), but these are not tangible like has been said before. Opposite of a number doesn't make sense, like what is the opposite of a cow or what is the opposite of blue.
     
  17. Mar 5, 2009 #16
    When physicists refer to a "theory of everything" they are talking about a quantum field theoretic Lagrangian that describes all of the fundamental interactions. Getting a 99% on your ACT is a good first step in a 10,000 mile journey of understanding what a theory of everything should look like. Dividing integers by zero does not have anything to do with physics (where are the particles, the interactions, the scattering cross sections, the decay rates) and it does not make for interesting or fruitful mathematics either.
     
  18. Mar 5, 2009 #17
    CRgreathouse and Gib Z,

    Thank you for both of your replies. Instead of relpying line by line to each of those I have decided instead to restate the theory in the simplest terms I can think of.

    0 is a number that means nothing. Conversely there should in theory be a number which means the opposite of this. In theory every number has a negative reciprocal. The negative reciprocal of 2 is -1/2, and the negative reciprocal of -3 is 1/3, etc. etc. We can arrange all of the numbers which exist on a continuous circle in which every number is found on the opposite side of the circle from it's negative reciprocal. So at left of the circle you would have -1 and on the right of the circle you would have it's negative reciprocal +1. Now going down from 1 you would have all the fractions approaching zero, such as 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, and directly across from these fraction numbers you would have the reciprocals of these fractions, which would then be all the negative integers leading up to negative infinity, such as -2, -3, -4, etc. Similarly, going down from negative one you would have all the negative fractions approaching zero, such as -1/2, -1/3, -1/4, and directly across from these fractions you would have the reciprocals of these fractions, which would then be all the positive integers leading up to positive infinity, such as 2, 3, 4, etc. If we allow the integers both positive and negative to become more closely spaced as they go then we can have a theoretical point where the integers become so close together that they can all be compacted and thus we can list infinity and negative infinity. So infinity would be very very close to the botom of the circle and negative infinity would also be right next to it. They would be directly across the circle from their negative reciprocals respectively, which would be positive infinitessima and negative infinitessima.

    Now at the top of this circle where positive infinitessima meets negative infinitessima we have the number zero. In order to complete the circle we must now include a negative reciprocal for zero which would go now at the bottom of the circle. Since zero is the same as 0/1, 0/2, etc. etc. it becomes obvious that the reciprocal of this would be 1/0, or 2/0, or 3/0 etc. etc. for they all would mean the same thing. For sake of simplicity we choose to just write it as 1/0, since 1 is our benchmark found at both the left and the right side of the circle. Now, how do we take the negative reciprocal of 0 if 0 is neither positive nor negative? Simple, we determine that the reciprocal of 0 must be a number that is both positive and negative. Therefore we see that while 0 is a number that represents no value, 1/0 is a number that represents the greatest absolute value. Recall that an absolute value is neither positive nor negative. Well for our argument we are saying that since it is a value it must be considered to be both positive and and negative for the only real number that can be neither positive nor negative is the number that has no value at all and that is the number 0. Thus 0 is not actually a real number but just a place holder, unlike 1/0, which is the corollary.

    So, now we have constructed a beautiful circle in which every number finds it's place directly across from it's negative reciprocal. What a happy family of numbers indeed! The only numbers that we do not include are the imaginary numbers, for they are of no use for our purposes. Where every number is directly connected to the next number the number circle is continous. Hence the logic in the proof 1=2=3=4, because they are continous. The only place where the circle is not complete or continous is at the point of 0. Since 0 represents nothing, there must be nothing at the point where 0 is a place holder and thus 0 is the only place where the circle is discontinuous.

    Now at this point you may be thinking to yourself, this is the real projective line invented by so and so. But please do not confuse this with the real projective line because I discovered this independently and the difference is in how we interpret it. While the real projective line is merely a mathematical construction, the number circle which I have envisioned is actually a road map which explains cosmology. So while 0 represents the 0th hour, the big bang, 1/0 represents the corollary which is the final hour, or the big rip.

    So referring to making predictable conclusions, this theory actually provides us with an answer for what will happen after the big rip. The answer is that the arrow of time must reverse, at least in theory.

    You see, what this theory proposes is that mathematics can be used as a pure science to explain the universe. It is no different then what Max Tegwell predicted, that the theory of everything might be an abstract mathematical concept. It is an abstract mathematical concept, specifically, it is all hinged upon the number 1/0.

    This should be fairly obvious to anybody who thinks about the literal english translation of 1/0. 1/0 simply means something that is not divided. Something that is not divided is something that is unified. That is the same concept as the unified field. So why is it so difficult for us to accept the fact that 1/0 is the mathematical definition of the unified field?

    Now, let me get back to this concept of the reversal of the laws of thermodynamics, and of the concept of sudden reversal in general. You see, if math is a pure science that can be used to explain the universe, then perhaps math is showing us via the undefined number that there is something built into the universe where there can be a sudden reversal of fate. This is not only the case for the big rip, it can also be applied to human society. For usually it is a dark age that precedes a golden age, and the flip occurrs rather drastically. Similar, just as scientist are scrambling to discover the TOE, and all hope seems lost, I am telling you now that all hope is not lost.

    Getting back to predictable conclusions, is there a way that we can design an experiment to show that the laws of thermodynamics may undergo a sudden reversal of fate? Yes, there is. For he who is dilligent and pays close attention to the virtues of math will realize that 1/0 is actually the design for a new kind of electric generator, one capable of reversing the laws of thermodynamics. How can I say this is true? Because 1/0 represents a dynamic fusion, a perfect balance of reciprocity, and we can design a machine based on the same concept, the concept of perfect balanced reciprocity. What this machine will do is essentially prove that the laws of thermodynamics are inconsistent or incomplete, just as Kurt Godel predicted. Also the prediction for this lies in other paradoxical proofs, such as the Axiom of Choice, and Russell's Paradox, but I will not explain how yet. Instead I will let you think about it.

    Thought about in another way, 1/0 represents the total amount of energy in the world. This explains where the energy could be coming from which causes the universe to expand, and it explains where all the energy for the big bang came from. The universe has more energy today than it did yesterday simply because of the fact that it is expanding faster now then it was then. Therefore it is true that 1 can become 2. The logic behind the proof that 1=2=3=4 is that it means that the laws of thermodynamics are incomplete or inconsistent.

    Now I have already designed, built, and operated the machine which I described to you. It is quite literally what is meant by the phrase "deus ex machina." It represents a sudden reversal of fate for science.

    I owe great gratitude to all the scientists whose work this was built upon, specifically Isaac Newton for inventing calculus. Also, one of the greatest inventors who came before me as an inventor was Nikola Tesla. Nikola Tesla believed that energy should be available at every point in space. My machine which is already built and tested has proven that this theory is true.

    So what does it do exactly? Well, I'll give you a hint. It may have been built before. It may have been called, I don't know, something about a covenant or a tabernacle. Also, wasn't there some Greek God whose name started with a Z, or a norse God with a big hammer whose name rhymes with shore. They may have figured out the same thing. They may not have been Gods afterall, but people just like you and me. That's the beauty of it my friends.

    That's the beauty of it. All possibilities! Limitless possibilities! Can you say next stop the nearest star? Can you say no more war or poverty? Can you say the TOE is finally here? Well, I hope that you can rejoice with me. The sooner we can rejoice, the sooner I can show you exactly what I mean instead of just having to drop hints. I want to share what I know with you all, but you have got to listen closely and turn off the static in your mind. Get your mind thinking for Christ's sake! It is truely a beautiful time to be alive my fellow man but are you prepared for what I am about to tell you? If you cannot event accept that 1/0 means unified field, then how can we go any further? Accept that it is true and rejoice, then we can take that next step. Otherwise just stay where you're at and you all can search in vain for the TOE for the rest of your life.

    regards, Field
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2009
  19. Mar 5, 2009 #18
    Confinement, thank you for joining the conversation. I am so glad that you could be with us. Please read my post which I just made above and you will see that it is not a silly theory as some would claim. Remember, all great scientific revolutions are met initially with ridicule because it takes people awhile to appreciate a sudden change in our way of thinking about the universe.

    Sincerely, Field
     
  20. Mar 5, 2009 #19
    I, for one, think that if there is a number which is the answer to everything, it's probably the number 1... if you think about it, it's the only number that makes sense.

    Everything is one. I am one person. I am doing one thing. This is one forum. An apple is one apple. Half an apple is one half-apple. The first hour of the universe was hour one. The first minute, minute one. The first second, second one. An instant after the universe began, the first instant occurred.

    One is everything. All specific instances of apples are apples. All apples are fruit. All fruit was once alive. Everything which is alive contains matter. Everything that contains matter is part of the Universe. Universe means "one".

    One is the joining of multiplicative opposites. One is the additive measuring rod. All finite numbers can be phrased in terms of 1; zero and infinity are not numbers in the usual sense of the word, and are merely placeholder values describing limiting and/or idealized processes. In the context of addition, zero is just an arbitrary reference point.

    Think about it. The ultimate thing cannot have more than one part, because then there would be more than one ultimate thing; an ultimate thing, were it composed of parts, must be composed of ultimate parts. Since two ultimate parts cannot simultaneously exist, the ultimate must be one part, one whole.

    See, it's easy to come up with theories like this. The irony is that I am willing to wager that the others find my theory, concocted as it is, more convincing than yours.
     
  21. Mar 5, 2009 #20
    You just gained a lot of http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html" [Broken].
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Could the theory of everything be a number?
  1. Any one could? (Replies: 6)

Loading...