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

The Unified Field

  1. Sep 12, 2003 #1
    When y(x,t) is the transverse displacement of a vibrating string, y(x,t) can be determined by the wave equation

    [@^2y/@t^2] = v^2[ @^2 y/@x^2] , where @ denotes the partial derivative symbol.

    Standing waves can be set up in an 1-dimensional string, analogous to that in a violin string. The form of the standing wave becomes y(x,t) = psi(x) sin (wt)

    Two sinusoidal travelling waves with the same amplitude and wavelength moving in opposite directions on a string, become resonating "standing waves":

    y(x,t) = y1(x,t) + y2(x,t) = Asin(kx - wt) + Asin(kx + wt) = [2Asin(kx)]*cos(wt).

    As the entropy continues to increase in the universe, and if the universe is a closed system, the entropy may be considered to be the result of a "damping force". This damping force may also be one possible solution to the dark matter enigma.

    Solve the Schwarzschild solution for the entire universe, since the universe can be postulated to be a closed system with nothing outside itself. The condition of "nothingness" leads one to ask "What are the properties of nothingness?" Of course there are no measurable properties, but nothingness in itself must be a type of massless solid. A condition that has no distance - metric scales. In other words, there is no outside to the universe, no measurable border between something and nothing.

    Nothing then becomes analogous to a perfectly symmetrical pressure force on the surface of existence.

    -(F)^2 ---->|U|<---- +(F)^2

    Simple harmonic oscillation given by the equation (F)^2 = -(K*X)^2

    What is K ? What is X ?

    U stands for universe. So it becomes reasonable to assume that the entire universe is analogous to that which is inside the event horizon of a black hole. The cosmos becomes a quantum superposition of states, collapsing under the crushing force of "nothingness".

    Analytically continue the Schwarzschild solution to the imaginary values of the time variable. The Schwarzschild solution becomes periodic in the imaginary time direction.

    All waves would then be standing waves in the closed universe. A Schrodinger wave equation in one dimension is of the form:

    d^2 psi/dx^2 + (2m/hbar^2) [E - U(x)] psi(x)

    U(x) is the potential energy and E is the total energy.

    psi(x) is the wave function for a state in which the energy E is constant in time. Such states are called stationary states. Certain definite vibration frequencies are allowed multiples of fundamental wavelengths

    lambda = h/p

    |psi(x)|^2 dx, is the probability of finding a particle(universe) in a certain state between the region x and x+dx

    psi^2 = psi psi* . When psi is complex, psi* is the complex conjugate of psi. psi^2 (x) is the probability density.

    An equation for the damped oscillator in one dimension:

    X = A[exp[-(b/2m)t]]*cos[wt + theta]

    Why not describe Einstein's equation as a rule that tells the geometry of space how to evolve as function of time? Lorentzian manifolds M, diffeomorphic to R x S, where the manifold S represents space, and t, an element of R, represents time. So spacetime is sliced into instants of time as an arbitrary choice, or possibly boundary limits, imposed by Planck's constant.

    F: M---> R x S

    Spacetime becomes quantized or "sliced up" but that could be what nature really does. According to relativity, an objects position and momentum can only be defined with respect to a frame of reference, i.e. another object. Yet the universe as a whole has no frame of reference outside of itself, so how can its momentum be defined? It can only be defined with reference to itself. Worldlines fill up spacetime and the criss crossing of world lines mark events beyond the need for coordinate systems or coordinates. Points in spacetime are given the name "events" so there is a coordinate independence.

    The geometric view of physics means that the laws of physics are the same in every Lorentz reference system. Local Lorentz invariance. But since the universe has no exterior reference frame, and it must refer to itself, its world line intersects with itself. This quantized-evolution of spacetime dictated by GR and QM, means that the world line of the past intersects with the world lines of the present, for the universe. A geometric stacking of space like slices, parameterized by t, The universe is a function of itself. Spacetime becomes compressed. As the time evolution proceeds in the thermodynamic direction of t, the space like sheets continually increase in density. The information storage of space time.

    (->(->(->(U)<-)<-)<-)

    This increasing refractive spacetime density must be background independent. The increasing density functions are, in a sense, equivalent to the non-Euclidean geometry of Riemann and Einstein.

    Russell E. Rierson
    analog57@yahoo.com
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 12, 2003 #2
    hello again timewind. nice to hear you've formulated some new things. i hope someone who knows more than me about physics takes notice.

    phoenix
     
  4. Sep 12, 2003 #3
    "Why not describe Einstein's equation as a rule that tells the geometry of space how to evolve as function of time? Lorentzian manifolds M, diffeomorphic to R x S, where the manifold S represents space, and t, an element of R, represents time. So spacetime is sliced into instants of time as an arbitrary choice, or possibly boundary limits, imposed by Planck's constant. "

    here goes nothing.

    suppose the state of the universe is actually given by an iterated function system. you iterate the system using discrete, probably arbitrary "instants", time intervals and the results give the state of matter and the four forces. now what if you want tinier time intervals than the ones you start out with? then you can try to FRACTIONALLY iterate the system. the question is whether the IFS is embeddable in a continuous flow, which would lead one to believe time is continuous, or if it is only embeddable in an either rational or only into tiny intervals.

    on a tangentially related question, isn't, say, 15 seconds basically an instant when compared to 15 billion years?

    cheers,
    phoenix
     
  5. Sep 12, 2003 #4

    Eh

    User Avatar

    Yikes.
     
  6. Sep 12, 2003 #5
    by asking the "right" questions, we've become aware of pandora's box.

    reality is pandora's box.

    yikes, indeed.

    it's a fractal. but not just any fractal. an infinitely large fractal. where to begin, where to go, where to look, how close to look, how much detail is sufficient, how simple is the overall picture...

    cheers,
    phoenix
     
  7. Sep 14, 2003 #6
    So the goal must be to derive a nonlinear Schrodinger equation that gives local the invariances that we currently observe! A global nonlinear, locally invariant system ...?

    http://lsec.cc.ac.cn/~ttang/MMref/references/budd99.pdf




    http://www.aip.org/mgr/png/2003/185.htm


    http://www.fm/7-sphere/supp/supp29.htm


    Does a nonlinear universe, give us the "strange loop" of Godelian self-reference? The clear cut distinction between the active transformer and the passive transformed is no more? No longer is the state vector the passive victim. It fights back. Is this fusion between the operator and the state vector what completes the self-referential feedback control circuit, which becomes the mechanism of free will?



    http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/stapp.html








    I find the transactional interpretation in accordance with a nonlinear universe!



    http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw48.html




     
  8. Sep 22, 2003 #7
    Welcome to the PFs, Russel! :smile:

    I will have to read your entire post later (I have to get off-line soon), but I do have one disagreement as of now: You attempt to calculate the wave-function of "nothingness", when such a thing cannot even really exist. I know that theories are created as to the production of the Universe from nothing, but that needn't imply an actual "nothingness", merely the fact that no state is thouroughly determinable at any given time. Thus, I understand that we can calculate the wave-function of a seemingly "nothing" state, but to postulate that this state exists "outside the Universe" is logically fallacious, since there isn't anything "outside the Universe" ("Universe" means "everything") even if it's a closed system.
     
  9. Sep 22, 2003 #8
    I guess I wasn't completely clear in my previous post, so let me clarify: My problem with your idea - as much as I read of it anyway - is that is postulates the Universe as a closed system, with a state of nothingness outside of it. Logic dictates that "outside of the Universe" is a non-sequitor, and really has no meaning. So, while we can postulate that the Universe came from nothing, that doesn't mean that there is that same indeterminacy "outside of the Universe" it just means that the Universe, as a state of indeterminacy, has always existed (and has always not existed, for that is what Quantum Mechanics dictates (a thing both exists and doesn't exist)).
     
  10. Sep 25, 2003 #9
    Stephen Hawking's excellent book, "Universe in a Nutshell", explains holography as a phenomenon of interference of wave patterns. Light from a laser is split into two separate beams, one bounces off the object and gets reflected onto a photo-sensitized plate. The other beam is reflected into a lens and collides with the reflected light of the object. When a laser is shone through the developed plate, a fully three dimensional image of the original object is created.

    According to conventional theories, the surface area of the horizon surrounding a black hole, measures its entropy, where entropy is defined as a measure of the number of internal states that the black hole can be in without looking different to an outside observer, who can only measure mass, rotation and charge. This leads to another theory which states that the maximum entropy of any closed region of space can never exceed one quarter of the area of the circumscribing surface, with the entropy being the measure of the total information contained by the system. So the theorists came to realize that the information associated with all phenomena in the three dimensional world, can be stored on its two dimensional boundary, like a holographic image.

    Since entropy can also be defined as the number of states within a region of space, and the entropy of the universe must always increase, the next logical step is to realize that the spacetime density, i.e. the information encoded within a circumscribed region of space, must be increasing in the thermodynamic direction of time.

    Spacetime = Memory storage?

    A universal computation?


    We can define "nothingness" as a condition of zero space and zero time.

    A massless solid.

    So spacetime emerges from a condition of nothingness and the so called nill state of existence is equivalent to a force. A compression force that gives all physical law.

    --->|U|<---
     
  11. Sep 27, 2003 #10
    *Very* interesting Russel. While I understand where the other gentalman is comming from, I haven't heard a better definition of what "exists" outside the universe yet, since it's definition by default MUST have very different properties than the "nothing" that exists within the universe. I see nothing wrong with postulating via inference the properties of a condition we know nothing about (the meaningless when taken on it's own) by looking at a condition we do know something about, when that condition must necassarily have corrolating properties... i.e., it's no longer meaningless when viewed through the inference of the meaningfull since they are related.

    That's my attempt at putting it in it's most basic terms, anyway. Time and new neural connections will tell.

    Brian Harred
     
  12. Sep 27, 2003 #11
    Absolute truth can exist within certain limited contexts, as we define it. But if absolute truth is defined as "the whole truth", then forget it. The total sum of human knowledge is just one small droplet in an infinite sea of TRUTH.

    http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%F6del's_incompleteness_theorem

    quote:
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    In mathematical logic , Gödel's incompleteness theorems are two celebrated theorems proven by Kurt Gödel . Somewhat simplified, the first theorem states that:
    in any consistent formal system of mathematics sufficiently strong to allow one to do basic arithmetic , one can construct a statement about natural numbers that can be neither proven nor disproven within that system.

    [...]

    Gödel's second incompleteness theorem, which is proved by formalizing part of the proof of the first within the system itself, states that any sufficiently strong consistent system cannot prove its own consistency.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Actually, spacetime does not really need to be "sliced up" in that it can proceed in discrete steps, yet, still be continuous.

    [density 1]--->[density 2]--->[density 3]---> ... --->[density n]


    [<-[->[<-[-><-]->]<-]->]
    Intersecting wavefronts = increasing density of spacelike slices

    As the wavefronts intersect, it becomes a mathematical computation:

    2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, ...2^n


    h represents Planck's constant

    G is Newton's universal gravitational constant.

    c is the speed of light in vacuum.

    S = distance scale

    T = time scale.

    p is momentum

    Planck length = sqrt[hG/c^3] = constant ratio

    Planck time = sqrt[hG/c^5] = constant ratio

    [Planck length]/[Planck time] = c = [S/T]_n = [S/T]_n+k

    Discrete quanta = hf

    Continuous wavelength = h/p

    Since we are continuing to discover how symmetry is violated in the universe, it should be possible to devise an experiment to determine how the spacetime expansion vs. matter contraction symmetry, is violated. Then it should be possible to prove, or disprove Eddington's idea.

    A quote from the book "The Expanding Universe" by Sir Arthur Eddington:

    quote:
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    All change is relative. The universe is expanding relatively to our common standards; our common standards are shrinking relatively to the size of the universe. The theory of the "expanding universe" might also be called the theory of the "shrinking atom" .

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2003
  13. Sep 28, 2003 #12
    Name: Pyrite
    cause of death: massive neural explosion caused by contemplating Russel's unified field theory . It is estimated that the explosion took out three city blocks.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2003
  14. Oct 5, 2003 #13
    The theory of General Relativity breaks down below the Planck scales. As Stephen Hawking explains, this means the the universe has a quantum mechanical origin.


    Perhaps there is no escaping the fact that language[mathematics] corresponds to the perceptual universe, in that language describes discrete "things", and things themselves are representable by identity operators. Even if the theory [universe] is not completely constructed due to Godellian incompleteness, it must have an identity, such, that it may be represented as ...a variable?

    A = identity

    Truth = A V ~A

    Whatever the mathematical structure that corresponds to physical existence is, it must be governed by invariance principles. The general contains the specific. Bivalent logics. Sure, fuzzy logic concepts also correspond to what we percieve, but those fuzzy logics can be represented as symmetry invariances, just as Aristotle's law can be

    An invariance explains a symmetry.


    Periodicity is also a symmetry. Rotate into the complex plane and we have real numbers on the horizonal axis and imaginary numbers on the
    vertical axis. So a periodic function could exist with periodicity
    along both the imaginary AND the real axis. Such functions would have
    amazing symmetries. Functions that remain unchanged, when the complex
    variable "z" is changed.

    f(z)---->f(az+b/cz+d)

    Where the elements a,b,c,d, are arranged as a matrix, forming an
    algebraic group. An infinite number of possible variations that
    commute with each other as the function f, is invariant under group
    transformations. These functions are known as "automorphic forms".

    Topologically speaking, the wormhole transformations must be
    invariant with regards to time travel. In other words, by traveling
    backwards in time, we "complete" the future, and no paradoxes are
    created.

    So when spacetime tears and the wormhole is created, it must obey
    certain transformative rules, which probably appear to be
    discontinuities from a "3-D" perspective, but really, these
    transformations are continuous!

    So the number of holes[genus] on the surface of space, determine
    whether there exist an infinite, or finite, number of solutions to
    the universal equations?

    Multiverse, or one Universe?

    Strong Anthropic Principle or Weak Anthropic Principle?


    For the universe as a whole, the boundary conditions must be specified with regards to the field configurations via, summing over the path integral, utilizing a Euclidean action. But by summing over compact metrics, Hartle and Hawking give us the "No Boundary Proposal", such, that the boundary condition for the universe is, that it has no boundary.


    To artificially slice up space and time [e.g. canonical quantization] seems un-natural.

    Actually, spacetime does not really need to be "sliced up" in that it can proceed in discrete steps, yet, still be continuous. The slices must be in Planck units.

    E = hf

    [density 1]--->[density 2]--->[density 3]---> ... --->[density n]


    [<-[->[<-[-><-]->]<-]->]

    Intersecting wavefronts = increasing density of spacelike slices, but the slices are a transformation that is continuous.

    As the wavefronts intersect, it becomes a mathematical computation:

    2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, ...2^n

    The information density of space increases. This is a relation and its inverse.

    For example, unity is a constant, representable by:

    [1 = c ] = [1/2 + 1/2] = [1/4 + 3/4] = [1/5 + 4/5] = [1/6 + 5/6]

    The left fraction represents [energy/momentum] and the right fraction represents compressed [space/time] density, where space means "distance interval" , a relative measurement.

    [E/p]<--->[S/T]

    [1/R]<--->[R]

    The physics for a circle of radius R, is the same for a circle of radius 1/R


    E/p = S/T = c


    [Space/time] and [energy/momentum] are two different forms of the same invariant quantity [c].

    [E/p]_n = [E/p]_n+1 = [S/T]_n = [S/T]_n+1
     
  15. Oct 6, 2003 #14
    My regrets concerning "tragedy" which have happened with you. It happened because you tried to process all volume of the information with which so generously filled this topic. You did not consider, that the unique thing which has no limit (real infinity) it is the information. All attempts to understand and describe infinity of space which is an illusion, can end with such result only.
     
  16. Oct 11, 2003 #15
    First, let me apologize for some paragraphs that are ...repeats, of past posts ;)

    According to the book "Gravitation", chapter 15, geometry of spacetime gives instructions to matter telling matter to follow the straightest path, which is a geodesic. Matter in turn, tells spacetime geometry how to curve in such a way, as to gaurantee the conservation of momentum and energy. The Einstein tensor[geometric feature-description] is also conserved in this relationship between matter and the spacetime geometry. Eli Cartan's "boundary of a boundary equals zero."

    Einstein's equation basically says

    Einstein Tensor [G] = Stress-Energy Tensor [T]

    [spacetime geometry] determines [matter-energy's path] = geodesic.

    [Matter-energy] determines [spacetime geometry] = non-Euclidean geometry.

    .
    Conservation of momentum energy is explained as an automatic consequence of the zero boundary of a boundary. Where conservation of energy-momentum means no creation or destruction of energy momentum in a 4D region of spacetime [4D cube] The integral of "creation events" i.e. the integral of
    d*T for energy momentum, over the 4D region is required to be zero, and gives the conservation of momentum energy. The mathematical machinery for identically meeting the conservation laws is the boundary of a boundary equals zero.

    [spacetime tells mass]<=====[<<geodesic path for particle<<]=====>[mass tells spacetime]


    An object following a geodesic has no unbalanced forces acting on it. Its energy-momentum is a constant. In order for the object to deviate from the geodesic, it must be accelerated. Energy must be expended, for exampl,e its rocket boosters could fire, or an outside force like a meteor impact .


    Mass "m" is a form of condensed space-time.

    Yes, the mass-energy equivalence is given by the equation

    E = m*c^2

    Really, the equation is:

    E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4

    For a photon, the rest mass is zero, the equation reduces to:

    E^2 = p^2 c^2

    Since p is the momentum of a photon of light, the equation becomes:

    E/p = c

    Light is also a wave with a frequency (f) of oscillation and its energy is also given by the equation:

    E = h*f = p*c

    wavelength, Lambda = c/f

    E/f = h = p*Lamda

    Waves are ripples in a basic medium. Einstein explains that the ether is unecessary as a medium, so the ripples are vibrations of spacetime itself. Mass-energy is a form of condensed space-time.

    As the ripples intersect with each other, it becomes a domino effect with the ripples coninually increasing in density. Very similar to taking a penny and doubling it as an iterative sequence.

    2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, ... 2^n

    Since the ripples are increasing in density they are "compressed" . As spacetime becomes compressed, matter is re-configured as a balancing effect, so the force of gravity and accelerations are perceived as they presently are.


    [<->[<->[<-><->]<->]<->]

    The increasing spacetime density must be background independent.


    Actually, spacetime does not really need to be "sliced up" in that it can proceed in discrete steps, yet, still be continuous.

    [density 1]--->[density 2]--->[density 3]---> ... --->[density n]

    h represents Planck's constant

    G is Newton's universal gravitational constant.

    c is the speed of light in vacuum.

    S = distance scale

    T = time scale.

    p is momentum

    Planck length = sqrt[hG/c^3] = constant ratio

    Planck time = sqrt[hG/c^5] = constant ratio

    [Planck length]/[Planck time] = c = [S/T]_n = [S/T]_n+k

    Discrete quanta = hf

    Continuous wavelength = h/p

    Since we are continuing to discover how symmetry is violated in the universe, it should be possible to devise an experiment to determine how the spacetime expansion vs. matter contraction symmetry, is violated. Then it should be possible to prove, or disprove Eddington's idea.

    A quote from the book "The Expanding Universe" by Sir Arthur Eddington:




    Quantum mechanics leads us to the realization that all matter-energy can be explained in terms of "waves". In a confined region(i.e. a closed universe or a black hole) the waves exists as STANDING WAVES In a closed system, the entropy never decreases.

    The analogy with black holes is an interesting one but if there is nothing outside the universe, then it cannot be radiating energy outside itself as black holes are explained to be. So the amount of information i.e. "quantum states" in the universe is increasing. We see it as entropy, but to an information processor with huge computational capabilities, it is compressible information.

    Quantum field theory calculations where imaginary time is periodic, with period 1/T are equivalent to statistical mechanics calculations where the temperature is T. The periodic waveforms that are opposed yet "in phase" would be at standing wave resonance, giving the action.

    Periodicity is a symmetry. Rotate into the complex plane and we have
    real numbers on the horizonal axis and imaginary numbers on the
    vertical axis. So a periodic function could exist with periodicity
    along both the imaginary AND the real axis. Such functions would have
    amazing symmetries. Functions that remain unchanged, when the complex
    variable "z" is changed.

    f(z)---->f(az+b/cz+d)

    Where the elements a,b,c,d, are arranged as a matrix, forming an
    algebraic group. An infinite number of possible variations that
    commute with each other as the function f, is invariant under group
    transformations. These functions are known as "automorphic forms".

    Topologically speaking, the wormhole transformations must be
    invariant with regards to time travel. In other words, by traveling
    backwards in time, we "complete" the future, and no paradoxes are
    created.

    So when spacetime tears and a wormhole is created, it must obey
    certain transformative rules, which probably appear to be
    discontinuities from a "3-D" perspective, but really, these
    transformations are continuous!

    So the number of holes[genus] on the surface of space, determine
    whether there exist an infinite, or finite, number of solutions to
    the universal equations?

    Multiverse, or one Universe?

    Strong Anthropic Principle or Weak Anthropic Principle?

    The information density of space increases. This is a relation and its inverse.

    For example, unity is a constant, representable by:

    [1 = c ] = [1/2 + 1/2] = [1/4 + 3/4] = [1/5 + 4/5] = [1/6 + 5/6]

    The left fraction represents [energy/momentum] and the right fraction represents compressed [space/time] density, where space means "distance interval" , a relative measurement.

    [E/p]<--->[S/T]

    [1/R]<--->[R]

    The physics for a circle of radius R, is the same for a circle of radius 1/R

    E/p = S/T = c

    [Space/time] and [energy/momentum] are two different forms of the same invariant quantity [c].

    [E/p]_n = [E/p]_n+1 = [S/T]_n = [S/T]_n+1

    Yes, c+c = c

    [c + c]/[1 + c^2/c^2] = c

    So E/p + S/t = 2c/2 = c

    S/T = E/p = S/T + E/p = c

    We live in a nonlinear universe. Einstein's equations don't lie

    c+c = c

    aleph_0 + aleph_0 = aleph_0

    0 + 0 = 0

    Gravity exists because the information density of space-time is increasing. This creates a "pressure force" where processed space, compresses mass-energy, and mass-energy reacts by compressing space. The process is "time", which becomes dilated due to the increased information density of massive objects.

    mass energy = information

    space = self similar relation

    time = process = change

    So space compresses matter-energy and matter-energy gives an equal and opposite reaction.

    Space-time tells matter how to move and matter tells space-time how to curve.

    [mass tells spacetime ]<===[<<free fall<<]===>[ space-time tells mass]





    Lyapunov stability requires that a state remain bounded for all time, for all initial conditions - not just for some specific initial condition. If there is even one initial condition that causes one of the states to approach infinity with time, then the system is Lyapunov unstable.

    For a system, e.g. , x(t) = [system = x1(t), x2(t), ...(xn(t) ],
    if we choose (for example) x1(0) = 1 and x2(0) = 2. In this case x1(t) = 1+2t and x2(t) = 2. In other words, x1(t) approaches infinity with time, which proves that the system is Lyapunov unstable.

    It is clear that there is a type of chaotic dynamics for the solar system and good ol' linear stability does not correspond to what actually is happening.

    [output] is not [a linear function of input]

    Likewise, the linear dodecahedron model for the universe probably will not work in the long run. I suspect the world is something more akin to the Penrose five fold symmetry.



    Definition:

    if X(t,x0) is a solution to d/dt (x) = V(x)

    We say X(t,x0) is Liapunov Stable if given any epsilon > 0, we may find delta (epsilon ) > 0 such that if we have

    |x0 - x0' | < delta ( epsilon)

    THEN

    | X(t,x0) - x(t,x0')| < epsilon
    for all t > 0 and for all x0'



    The epsilon-delta definition of a limit:
    For every number epsilon > 0 there exists a number delta > 0 such that
    |f(x) - b| < epsilon when 0 < |x - a| < delta

    timelike < 0

    lightlike = 0

    spacelike > 0

    If the hamiltonian, H, is a constant value along the trajectories, d/dt(H) = 0

    Bounded for all time?
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2003
  17. Oct 27, 2003 #16
    In the spatially volumetric geometry --i.e. 3 or more dimensions-- of Universe we have the following;

    1) the finite and quantisizable physical --i.e. fermions and spin 1 bosons-- Universe in
    whatever phase/form of eteranal transitions

    2) the finite and non-quantisizeable quasi-physical --ergo faster than speed-of-radiation-- gravity buffer-zone between the physical and...

    3) ...the infinite nothingess outside of physical and quasi-physical Universe.

    These 3 componets geometrically equate to the inside of polyhedron, the outside of the polyhedron and the liittle bit of polyhedron the seperates the iniside from outside.

    Physical Universes eternal existence is due to eternal principles involving causal geometric interrelationships of a finite integral system consisting of complementary 60 degree stability of structure and 90 degree latitudal tolerance of all precessional motion.

    Concurrent with these aformentioned aspects there exists individual spin/rotation, expanison-contraction, orbit and torque/spiral.

    Subsequent resultants of the aformentioned are charge, (???).

    Mass is the subsequent resultant of interfereing vectors of gravity accompanied by retarded speeds.

    Gravity "IS" ergo we are a subsequent resultant of gravity i.e. we are the physical soul of gravity, metaphysically attracted to the electro-magneetic --specifically light-- relationship to quasi-physical gravity.

    Rybo
     
  18. Nov 2, 2003 #17
    Perspective of Reality

    http://realitythesis.homestead.com/EExistence.html

    What is the meaning of point of obseration of reality?

    Is our universe a reality or is it only a limitation from a human perspective?

    Are the smallest particles that science observes a wave, a solid particle or sometimes energy and sometimes reverting back to matter?

    How is that sub-atomic particles have been found to have intelligence of their own? When these particles are fired one at a time through a slit to a lumincest screen, they appear as a bit of light. When another slit is placed several feet down on the front screen, these fired subatomic particles sometimes appear to choose (on their own) to travel down to the new slit and appear on the luminscent screen.

    Is there a unvierse with a border and what is on the other side of that border? Could it be that there is in reality only an invisible dimension? Could it be that there is no universe, particles or anything other than a singularity (timelessness) in which there is a flow of 'freewill.' Could we be nothing more or less than than continuous flow with a particular characteristic in which we perceive ourselves to be within a real universe with solid particles, mathematical quantum physics or anything that we percieve as emotion, pain, love, existence itself?

    Take a look at my site for a potential answer to the above.
    [al] [al]
     
  19. Nov 6, 2003 #18
    The cosmos becomes a quantum superposition of states, collapsing under the crushing force of "nothingness".

    Does this mean you too believe the solution lies in a vacuum theory? and why collapsing? isn't this contrary to observed behaviour of universe?


    Yet the universe as a whole has no frame of reference outside of itself,

    Are you saying that in all infinity there is only our own tiny universe? If so why? Surely it is mathematically correct to say that the portion of infinity occupied by one universe is less the the portion of the universe occupied by one photon.


    You attempt to calculate the wave-function of "nothingness", when such a thing cannot even really exist

    "nothingness" has force and force must have a force carrier, this is why space has a minimum energy level (not a zero energy level). It is your concept of "nothingness" that is wrong.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 6, 2003
  20. Nov 6, 2003 #19
    Does this mean you too believe the solution lies in a vacuum theory? and why collapsing? isn't this contrary to observed behaviour of universe?

    Not at all. I believe that the solution lies in an undefined dimension not pereceptable to human cognitive abilities. What can we humans observe from our perspective?

    All things perceived are seemingly based on our human senses and defined by many physicists and cosmologists theories. Science simply states that quantum mechanics, the boundaries of the universe, energy, gravity, time and all things observed are 'unknown.' There are almost as many theories as there are physicists.

    Are you saying that in all infinity there is only our own tiny universe? If so why? Surely it is mathematically correct to say that the portion of infinity occupied by one universe is less the the portion of the universe occupied by one photon.

    I am saying that there is in reality an infinity or singularity (~) within this dimension with no universe, no matter, no energy, no space and no time. Only our observation point of reference and that 'we' are simply a following unknown substance called 'freewill.' When you speak of mathematically correct measurements I believe that we are observing nothing more than our intellect and senses perceive but does not exist. Ergo, all is an illusion of reality.

    "nothingness" has force and force must have a force carrier, this is why space has a minimum energy level (not a zero energy level). It is your concept of "nothingness" that is wrong.

    Why do you say that "nothingness" must have a force or carrier? If in reality there is no space or energy or matter but simply a point of perspective then minimum or maximum measurements are meaningless. Even based on current theories, this observable universe of ours is 99.9999999% empty space with the remainder being nano particles which sometimes become energy and sometimes revert back to particles. All of this compounded by the fact that some of these 'particles' appear animate and possess intelect. How do you measure or explain this quandry? How do you explain energy, mass, space, time 1,000,000,000,000 (100) of a second before the 'BIG BANG?' Was there a 'BIG BANG' or was there always a timeless unmeasurable dimension?

    In my humble opinion I believe that existence is neither measurable nor understandable due to the limitations of our neurons perceptions. Why must humanity feel that measurements of observations and substance are valid? Are we still fixated in the 'flat earth reality'?
     
  21. Nov 8, 2003 #20
    Not at all. I believe that the solution lies in an undefined dimension not pereceptable to human cognitive abilities

    Sorry, but in order to debate something it must be definable. I cannot debate with someone who can always hide behind the curtain of a non-provable dimension. That does not mean you are wrong, but simply that you leave no room for a reply.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: The Unified Field
  1. Unified field theory (Replies: 5)

  2. Unified field theory (Replies: 10)

Loading...