[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by Graybeard

Dear Rascal ....

Is matter continuous or discontinuous?
_______________________________________
The first indicator that matter is dis-continuous:

Evangelista Torricelli (1608 - 1647), a disciple of Galileos. Was delegated the problem, by Galileo, as to why suction pumps can only raise water 10 meters. Torricelli suspected that the vacuum created by the pumps was not a force but rather the outside air pressure was pushing the water up. Ergo, says Torricelli, Mercury is 13.5 times more dense than water, therefor the air pressure should only be able to raise it 750 mm. He filled a 1 meter tube to the brim with mercury, inverted it in a bowl of Mercury and withdrew the cork. The Mercury fell and paused at a height of 750mm above the bowl. The remaining 250mm was filled with NOTHING.

We now have a vacuum ! How can a vacuum exist if matter is continuous?

_______________________________________
The second indicator that matter is dis-continuous:

Robert Boyle (1627 - 1691), influenced by Torricelli's work took a 5 metre 'J' shaped tube with the short end sealed, and filled the long end with Mercury. As he continued to add Mercury the Air trapped in the short end continually grew smaller and smaller. By measuring the height of the Mercury Boyle found that the volume of the trapped gas varied inversely with the pressure applied.

Boyle came to the belief that matter consisted of tiny 'corpuscles'.

Gases can be compressed, perhaps liquids and solids can as well. How can this be if matter is continuous

_______________________________________
The third indicator that matter is dis-continuous:

Antoine Lavoisier (1743 - 1794) accidently discovers that by mixing two parts Hydrogen and one part Oxygen he got something that appeared as 'pure as distilled water'.

At this point France was going through a ballooning phase and there was a demand for Hydrogen. Ergo, says Lavoisier, I can make it from water. Lavoisier percolated water through a gun barrel filled with hot iron rings. He made a very strange discovery. The water ALWAYS yielded Oxygen and Hydrogen in a ratio of eight to one. What was happening here.

What neat mechanism was at work here. Lavoisier didn't have much time to speculate before the French Revolution sent him to the guillotine in 1794. Before he departed he speculated that "some simple indivisible particles are at work in chemistry and we don't know much about them"

_______________________________________
The fourth indicator that matter is dis-continuous:

John Dalton (1766 - 1844) investigating Lavosier's work noted that the properties of gases can BEST be described by postulating atoms. Dalton realised that to make Carbon Monoxide (CO) one always needed 12 pounds of carbon and 16 pounds of oxygen, or 12 kilograms of carbon and 16 kilograms of oxygen. Whatever units he used the ratio was always 12:16.

Not a particularly strong argument for atoms. However if you make hydrogen-carbon compounds and hydrogen oxygen compounds the ratio is always 1 to 12 to 16. What other conclusion are you left with?

Bingo says Dalton, " I declare that the atom is the basic unit of the chemical element"

"....... led to the conclusion which seems universally adopted, that all bodies of sensible magnitude, whether liquid or solid, are constituted of a vast number of extremely small particles, or atoms of matter, bound together by a force of attraction, which is more or less powerful according to circumstances .... Chemistry goes no further than to organise the separation of particles, one from another, and their reunion. No new creation or destruction of matter is within the reach of chemical agency. We might as well attempt to introduce a new planet into the solar system, or to annihilate one already in existence.....

_________________________________________________

Dear Rascal ... according to any periodic table of the elements, hydrogen, oxygen and carbon the basis of all life on our planet measure in the ratios that Dalton discovered.

According to the proofs i have supplied, only one conclusion can be drawn. Matter consists of discrete properties.

How can this 'discrete' proof of the structure of matter - in which I have used no quantum descriptions whatsoever - be resolved with your theory of 'Gravity is the fourth Dimension' and its underlying foundation that all matter is continuous?


cool bananas ... greg

PS: Rascal you may as well take me on at 'space invaders' or 'shoot the asteriod' where I have just de-throned Michael . See the little colour icons under my Avatar, yesterday they were under Michaels, when he rashly stated that consciousness held the key ... ROTFLMAO

______________________________

Dear Greg:

The premise that there are indivisibly descrete atomic - and subatomic - units is not the contention here. Experimental evidence since Democritus has witheld that contention.

The issue is that the descrete atomic units have no discontinuous boundaries separating them from the surrounding space ("When two 'particles' get too close, they move off". - Bertrand Russell, The ABC of Relativity).

The so called 'discrete particles' are found to be charges of electricity (electromagnetism) that occupy space and disallow the simultaneous occupation of their space by any other 'particle'. That is, the so called atomic and subatomic particles have no discontinuous boundaries. Two billiard balls in collision, for example, do not actually come into contact. 'Contact' requires surface to surface interaction... And, until further notice, there are no surfaces. The 'charge' becomes increasingly more dense as you approach it's center (I also propose that microcosmic infinity is just as inaccessible as macrocosmic infinity).

Best regards,
- RP

[N0B0DY]

The infinitesimal density increases to infinity, and decreases through the scales from the microcosm to the macrocosm. That's fantastic, RP.

Can I ask your thoughts on bosons occupying the same space?

Good postings on the expansion and strong force, guys. Although I have a problem with spacetime expanding into spacetime, and with the strong force increasing in strength without an opposing repelling force outside the nucleus to explain its cause.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

The infinitesimal density increases to infinity, and decreases through the scales from the microcosm to the macrocosm. That's fantastic, RP.

Can I ask your thoughts on bosons occupying the same space?

Good postings on the expansion and strong force, guys. Although I have a problem with spacetime expanding into spacetime, and with the strong force increasing in strength without an opposing repelling force outside the nucleus to explain its cause.

_________________________________________

Wikepedia:

The Higgs boson is a hypothetical massive scalar elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model of particle physics. It is the only Standard Model particle not yet observed, but plays a key role in explaining the origins of the mass of other elementary particles, in particular the difference between the massless photon and the relatively heavy W and Z bosons. Elementary particle masses, and the differences between electromagnetism (caused by the photon) and the weak force (caused by the W and Z bosons), are critical to many aspects of the structure of microscopic (and hence macroscopic) matter; thus, if it exists, the Higgs boson has an enormous effect on the world around us.
As of 2007, no experiment has directly detected the existence of the Higgs boson...
_____________________________

Dear Nobody:
With regard to the boson's simultaneous occupation of the space of another bosun, given its hypothetical status, it can probly do most anything it pleases...
_________________________________

The strong (nuclear bonding, 'resinal') forces appear to exist in the smaller, 'earlier' stages of the omnidirectionally accelerating 4-D space-time continuum, they become weaker (gravitational) forces as they fall off in distance in accordance with the inverse square law.

Opposite vectors have a way of accompanying one another - Newton's unidentified gravitational force of attraction and Einstein's unidentified repelling force.
(For every action there is a reaction, equal and opposite?)

Thank you for your complementary/complimentary post, Nobody.

Best regards,
- RP

[N0B0DY]

No problem at all, RP. With regards to the strong force interchanging with the inverse law of gravity, it runs along the same lines as my own thinking. The reason for the alleged discrepancy is, imo, due to the charges falling into the nucleus from the ground state which counters or repels the quarks confined within it.

For the bosons, though, I was referring more to integer spins with respect to the pauli exclusion principle. Thought you might have a few words to say about whether bosons come into direct contact, or something to that effect, or if they obey the principle like fermions in some way according to your theory.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

No problem at all, RP. With regards to the strong force interchanging with the inverse law of gravity, it runs along the same lines as my own thinking. The reason for the alleged discrepancy is, imo, due to the charges falling into the nucleus from the ground state which counters or repels the quarks confined within it.

For the bosons, though, I was referring more to integer spins with respect to the pauli exclusion principle. Thought you might have a few words to say about whether bosons come into direct contact, or something to that effect, or if they obey the principle like fermions in some way according to your theory.

_________________________

Dear Nobody:

Still doing my homework on those notes.
In the interim, Greg may have something to say about this.

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by MJA

Is it not the test of truth called experience that alone advances the tools we build ,as well as nature itself. Does not nature advance via experience alone? Is not experience evolution? Does any other part of nature besides man use uncertain numerical equations to evolve, or are we it. Is that the problem??? Is that the uncertainty??? Is that the humor of it all???

And what about the certainty of weight or m to computate F? I ask you because I believe you an expert on the science of physics. I am not. Perhaps if someone, anyone, could show me the certainty of measure or science, then through that experience I might evolve into a more truthful being. And with your help in truth, know TOE.

Dear MJA ... of course what you say is true. Mankinds innate understanding, what I call sapience, led him to intuitively build things thru trial and error. F=ma is the basis of all civil engineering. Until you understand F=ma you may build a Colosseum, or even the Pyramids but you cannot construct Skyscrapers to a practical degree, that is, where they are commonplace and everywhere, rather than monuments.

The story of the ant and the chariot was more about the fact that the ant, from his point of view, from his world view, thought he was the cause , or the centre of all events. He did not comprehend a 'Chariot', the dust Plain, nor the Charioteer, nor the horse. These things, the cause of the excitement, were all around him, but undiscovered by him, so he concluded that he was the cause ... 'what a dust do I raise'.

MJA ... I am certainly no physics expert. Truly! I am only self taught and you would do well to check other sources before relying on anything I say. I always check myself against other sources, and am quite often wrong.

Another word for experience (your quote) is experiment. If Science believes or proposes anything and holds it to be true then it is only after it has been experimentally proved. Science follows many theories that have not been proved, but it does so cautiously, checking each against the other, approaching from many fronts.

As to the certainity of Mass, or Matter, well ... I don't really think we have a FULL understanding of that yet. This is not the same as saying we have no understanding, or an incorrect understanding.

There are no guarantees in life. As Don Juan says in "The teachings of Don Juan" by Carlos Casteneda, (a work of fiction) " There are as many paths as there are hearts of men, you must pick the path with the most heart and follow it to the end". For me, I have chosen Science, as I believe it will provide, ultimately, the final answer.

cool bananas .... yours was a good and pertinent post, a timely reminder of how little we know ... greg

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff

Dear Greg:

The premise that there are indivisibly descrete atomic - and subatomic - units is not the contention here.

The issue is that the descrete atomic units have no discontinuous boundaries separating them from the surrounding space

The so called 'discrete particles' are found to be charges of electricity (electromagnetism) that occupy space and disallow the simultaneous occupation of their space by any other 'particle'. That is, the so called atomic and subatomic particles have no discontinuous boundaries........

.......(I also propose that microcosmic infinity is just as inaccessible as macrocosmic infinity).

Where the bloody hell are Lloyd or Dave when you need them ?? I am running out of ammo and beset on all sides

Rascal ... My understanding is that particles are point like ... no dimension ... !!

The problem with our thread is that we are freely travelling between Classical Mathamatics and Quantum Mechanics. We are adopting either side when its suits our purpose. But there is an unbridged gulf between the two. Like Horatio on the bridge we must declare which side we intend to defend, and the river Tiber runs between ... it is not possible to debate from both. Not for me anyway. Both sides freely admit that neither side has a complete answer, each side is a master in its own realm.

I believe that a fuller understanding of QM will triumph.

1.. Electromagnetism is not the only property of particles.

2.. The Higgs particle is not the only undiscovered particle. The Graviton is also undiscovered, but as this is a messenger particle perhaps you disallow it.

3.. I accept your point that particles have no discontinuous boundaries with the following provisio. There are 'perimeters' to their interactions. They are not linear or exponential in their interactions, though they maybe either side of the perimeter. Perimeters mark a change in the property. Each property of a particle has its own perimeter and is separate from the other properties. Otherwise we would have unified the forces. This maybe a load of horseshit but its how I conceive it in my electromagnetic brain patterns.

These perimeters are the 'surface' of a particle, though I do not mean a material surface!

Everything we humans sense ... See, Touch, Taste, Smell or Hear ... is electromagnetic in its properties. Our entire body surface is made up of photo-electric cells. Our skin detects electro-magnetic waves in the infra-red range and responds with sunburn if they are too strong, our eyes are specialist voltmeters that detect specific frequencies, so is our mouth and our nose and our ears. These are the things we experience because we initially evolved to absorb sunrays as our only source of food or energy. there was no other resource available on this hard rocky planet. Since then of course we have all adapted to eat each other. We have no choice, the pattern was set and we can't go back and re-evolve. If we had not evolved this way, we would still be slime absorbing sunrays for our nutrient

This does not mean that matter is electro-magnetic in nature, it just means we started our scientific investigation from a particular biased point of view. A 'particle' of matter is neither hard nor soft, neither large nor small, neither heavy nor light, it cannot be broken, nor can it be made, it is not visible nor is it invisible ..... these are all the properties of gravity and the electromagnetic force .... but matter is more than that it is the 'STUFF' that creates this shadow show of waves and particles.

As we climbed higher up the evolutionary tree it became increasingly obvious that gravity and electromagnetism were not the only things at work in this Universe, not even the major players !!

Since Democritius, more and more inescapable and conclusive evidence has pointed to other forces at work. Do you accept this much?

Do you accept the the Weak and Strong forces exist and that your description of an expanding gravitational 4th dimension cannot account for how these forces behave?

As an example, they do not include Spacetime, something which critically underpins your theory.

cool bananas ... greg

(ya wanna try space invaders yet .... ?? )

PS: I am saving 'Microcosmic Infinity' for later. Think about it.

[RascalPuff]

Rascal ... My understanding is that particles are point like ... no dimension ... !!

The problem with our thread is that we are freely travelling between Classical Mathamatics and Quantum Mechanics. We are adopting either side when its suits our purpose. But there is an unbridged gulf between the two. Like Horatio on the bridge we must declare which side we intend to defend, and the river Tiber runs between ... it is not possible to debate from both. Not for me anyway. Both sides freely admit that neither side has a complete answer, each side is a master in its own realm.

I believe that a fuller understanding of QM will triumph.

1.. Electromagnetism is not the only property of particles.

2.. The Higgs particle is not the only undiscovered particle. The Graviton is also undiscovered, but as this is a messenger particle perhaps you disallow it.

3.. I accept your point that particles have no discontinuous boundaries with the following provisio. There are 'perimeters' to their interactions. They are not linear or exponential in their interactions, though they maybe either side of the perimeter. Perimeters mark a change in the property. Each property of a particle has its own perimeter and is separate from the other properties. Otherwise we would have unified the forces. This maybe a load of horseshit but its how I conceive it in my electromagnetic brain patterns.

These perimeters are the 'surface' of a particle, though I do not mean a material surface!

Everything we humans sense ... See, Touch, Taste, Smell or Hear ... is electromagnetic in its properties. Our entire body surface is made up of photo-electric cells. Our skin detects electro-magnetic waves in the infra-red range and responds with sunburn if they are too strong, our eyes are specialist voltmeters that detect specific frequencies, so is our mouth and our nose and our ears. These are the things we experience because we initially evolved to absorb sunrays as our only source of food or energy. there was no other resource available on this hard rocky planet. Since then of course we have all adapted to eat each other. We have no choice, the pattern was set and we can't go back and re-evolve. If we had not evolved this way, we would still be slime absorbing sunrays for our nutrient

This does not mean that matter is electro-magnetic in nature, it just means we started our scientific investigation from a particular biased point of view. A 'particle' of matter is neither hard nor soft, neither large nor small, neither heavy nor light, it cannot be broken, nor can it be made, it is not visible nor is it invisible ..... these are all the properties of gravity and the electromagnetic force .... but matter is more than that it is the 'STUFF' that creates this shadow show of waves and particles.

As we climbed higher up the evolutionary tree it became increasingly obvious that gravity and electromagnetism were not the only things at work in this Universe, not even the major players !!

Since Democritius, more and more inescapable and conclusive evidence has pointed to other forces at work. Do you accept this much?

Do you accept the the Weak and Strong forces exist and that your description of an expanding gravitational 4th dimension cannot account for how these forces behave?

As an example, they do not include Spacetime, something which critically underpins your theory.

cool bananas ... greg

(ya wanna try space invaders yet .... ?? )

PS: I am saving 'Microcosmic Infinity' for later. Think about it.
_______________________________________________

Classical mechanical physics and quantum mechanics don't seem to make a case of 'either or'. Although there are unresolved problems in both categories, for the most part, they reciprocate each other.

Depending on the translation and the situation at issue and to which they are applied, it seems that both considerations find an explanatory place - they are not always mutually exclusive.
________________________

'Point mass' is the infinity bound microcosmic center of concentric wave parameters (when traced to the center of concentricity)... It's what's behaving like a 'hard particle'. It's where the strong forces abide. Conversely, the weak forces are what the strong forces become when they expand out of the micro into the macro, ad infinitum.

Physical space is in a constant state of omnidirectionally accelerating expansion - that's space-time.

It is not evident to me how my model of omnidirectionally expanding matter (constituting the identity of space-time) is gainsayed by the existence of weak and strong forces.

In saving microcosmic infinity for later, and while imperatively telling me to think about it, I will not exclude Rutherford's protons from my ruminations.

(Guy walked into a drug store and asked the pharmacist for some sodium acetyl salicitate. Pharmacist says, 'Oh. you mean asprin'. Guy says, 'I can never think of that word'. )

(Incidentally, the hodge podge of hypothetical particles that have emerged in 'particle physics' today are worthy of consideration. But in my ignorance of that cross-eyed maze I keep seeing flavored gravitons suspended from superstrings balanced on the back of a cosmic turtle, standing on an endless ensemble of cryptically inventoried reptiles sliding up and down a sunbeam. All of this is to say that physics today is in a state of utter confusion <Carl Sandage>).

"If I knew where it all began and ended, I'd put everything else in the middle". - Anon

Your lighheartedness - and gravity - do not go unappreciated here, Greg.


A reminder of your recently expressed volcanic studies (refer, 'the unbridged gulf'):
The 4 quadrants of a (360o) exponential spiral are emitting a 5th quadrant - that's quantum mechanics, and it's - waveicle (not 'particle') discontinuity is a product of continuous wave concentricity.

Best regards,
- RP

[RascalPuff]

Rascal ... My understanding is that particles are point like ... no dimension ... !!

The problem with our thread is that we are freely travelling between Classical Mathamatics and Quantum Mechanics. We are adopting either side when its suits our purpose. But there is an unbridged gulf between the two. Like Horatio on the bridge we must declare which side we intend to defend, and the river Tiber runs between ... it is not possible to debate from both. Not for me anyway. Both sides freely admit that neither side has a complete answer, each side is a master in its own realm.

I believe that a fuller understanding of QM will triumph.

1.. Electromagnetism is not the only property of particles.

2.. The Higgs particle is not the only undiscovered particle. The Graviton is also undiscovered, but as this is a messenger particle perhaps you disallow it.

3.. I accept your point that particles have no discontinuous boundaries with the following provisio. There are 'perimeters' to their interactions. They are not linear or exponential in their interactions, though they maybe either side of the perimeter. Perimeters mark a change in the property. Each property of a particle has its own perimeter and is separate from the other properties. Otherwise we would have unified the forces. This maybe a load of horseshit but its how I conceive it in my electromagnetic brain patterns.

These perimeters are the 'surface' of a particle, though I do not mean a material surface!

Everything we humans sense ... See, Touch, Taste, Smell or Hear ... is electromagnetic in its properties. Our entire body surface is made up of photo-electric cells. Our skin detects electro-magnetic waves in the infra-red range and responds with sunburn if they are too strong, our eyes are specialist voltmeters that detect specific frequencies, so is our mouth and our nose and our ears. These are the things we experience because we initially evolved to absorb sunrays as our only source of food or energy. there was no other resource available on this hard rocky planet. Since then of course we have all adapted to eat each other. We have no choice, the pattern was set and we can't go back and re-evolve. If we had not evolved this way, we would still be slime absorbing sunrays for our nutrient

This does not mean that matter is electro-magnetic in nature, it just means we started our scientific investigation from a particular biased point of view. A 'particle' of matter is neither hard nor soft, neither large nor small, neither heavy nor light, it cannot be broken, nor can it be made, it is not visible nor is it invisible ..... these are all the properties of gravity and the electromagnetic force .... but matter is more than that it is the 'STUFF' that creates this shadow show of waves and particles.

As we climbed higher up the evolutionary tree it became increasingly obvious that gravity and electromagnetism were not the only things at work in this Universe, not even the major players !!

Since Democritius, more and more inescapable and conclusive evidence has pointed to other forces at work. Do you accept this much?

Do you accept the the Weak and Strong forces exist and that your description of an expanding gravitational 4th dimension cannot account for how these forces behave?

As an example, they do not include Spacetime, something which critically underpins your theory.

cool bananas ... greg

(ya wanna try space invaders yet .... ?? )

PS: I am saving 'Microcosmic Infinity' for later. Think about it.
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________

Classical mechanical physics and quantum mechanics don't seem to make a case of 'either or'. Although there are unresolved problems in both categories, for the most part, they reciprocate each other.

Depending on the translation and the situation at issue and to which they are applied, it seems that both considerations find an explanatory place - they are not always mutually exclusive.
________________________

'Point mass' is the infinity bound microcosmic center of concentric wave parameters (when traced to the center of concentricity)... It's what's behaving like a 'hard particle'. It's where the strong forces abide. Conversely, the weak forces are what the strong forces become when they expand out of the micro into the macro, ad infinitum.

Physical space is in a constant state of omnidirectionally accelerating expansion - that's space-time.

It is not evident to me how my model of omnidirectionally expanding matter (constituting the identity of space-time) is gainsayed by the existence of weak and strong forces.

In saving microcosmic infinity for later, and while imperatively telling me to think about it, I will not exclude Rutherford's protons from my ruminations.

(Guy walked into a drug store and asked the pharmacist for some sodium acetyl salicitate. Pharmacist says, 'Oh. you mean asprin'. Guy says, 'I can never think of that word'. )

(Incidentally, the hodge podge of hypothetical particles that have emerged in 'particle physics' today are worthy of consideration. But in my ignorance of that cross-eyed maze I keep seeing flavored gravitons suspended from superstrings balanced on the back of a cosmic turtle, standing on an endless ensemble of cryptically inventoried reptiles sliding up and down a sunbeam. All of this is to say that physics today is in a state of utter confusion <Carl Sandage>).

"If I knew where it all began and ended, I'd put everything else in the middle". - Anon

Your lighheartedness - and gravity - do not go unappreciated here, Greg.


A reminder of your recently expressed volcanic studies (refer, 'the unbridged gulf'):
The 4 quadrants of a (360o) exponential spiral are emitting a 5th quadrant - that's quantum mechanics, and it's - waveicle (not 'particle') discontinuity is a product of continuous wave concentricity.

Best regards,
- RP

[Graybeard]

Dear Rascal .... enjoyed your post ... its quite possible that if you and I were to meet in pub somewhere, someplace, we would likely discover, after a few beers, that we have a similar outlook towards our Universe.

I think that our only difference left unresolved, as we staggered homeward bound to our respective trouble-and-strifes would be the initial cause for which no one has an answer.

I have a ready-reckoner, a sort of reminder, on my laptop that charts the storyline of the Universe from conception to death. its over 20,000 words long, none of it is mine, plagiarised unashamedly from multiple sources and continually dog-eared and updated.

The contents page alone is too large for a post. However I think our differences can be pin pointed in the first few paragraphs.

It starts of with the word, Cosmogony .... a very diffuse word. If you look it up in the Wiki you will get this

Cosmogony, or cosmogeny, is any theory concerning the coming into existence or origin of the universe, or an origin belief about how reality came to be.

if you look it up in the Catholic Encyclopedia you will get this

By this term is understood an account of how the universe (cosmos) came into being (gonia — gegona = I have become). It differs from cosmology, or the science of the universe, in this: that the latter aims at understanding the actual composition and governing laws of the universe as it now exists; while the former answers the question as to how it first came to be. The Christian Faith accounts for the origin of the universe by creation ex nihilo of the matter out of which the universe arose, and the preservatio, or maintenance, of Providence according to which it developed into what it now is.

There are also two different Assyro-Babylonian cosmogonies, an Egyptian, an Iranian, an Indian, a Phoenician, a Greek, a Norse and an Americian. In Australia the original people call it the Dream Time.

My own cosmogony follows the more likely version of Science. Unfortunately Science has quite a few versions itself. The Hartle-Hawking initial state, String landscape, Brane inflation, String gas cosmology, and the Ekpyrotic universe.

I tend to grow cross-eyed as I read through these. But basically Cosmogony covers the period from ZERO to 10 to the minus 32 seconds. In that period occurred, in the following order

First: The Planck Epoch , lasting from Zero to 10-43 seconds.
During which quantum effects of gravity were significant. At this period approximately 13.7 billion years ago the force of gravity was as strong as the other fundamental forces, which hints on the possibility that all the forces were unified.

Inconceivably hot and dense, the state of the universe during the Planck epoch was unstable or transitory, tending to evolve and giving rise to the familiar manifestations of the fundamental forces through a process known as symmetry breaking.

When quantum mechanics is combined with gravity, it turns out that it is meaningless to speak of time intervals shorter than the Planck time or distances shorter than one Planck length, the distance light travels in one Planck time—about 1.616 × 10-35 meters

Rascal .... already we can see that Classical Mathamatics had no part, nor existence, here. but to be fair I also paste the following paragraph from the Planck epoch. Lloyd, I believe would concur with the first part.

Three of the four forces have been successfully integrated in a common framework, but gravity remains problematic.If quantum effects are ignored, the universe starts from a singularity with an infinite density. This conclusion could change when quantum gravity is taken into account. String theory and Loop quantum gravity are leading candidates for a theory of unification.

What proof is there for the Planck Epoch?

Experiments exploring this time. Experimental data casting light on this cosmological epoch has been scant or non-existent until now, but recent results from the WMAP probe have allowed scientists to test hypotheses about the universe's first trillionth of a second (although the cosmic microwave background radiation observed by WMAP originated when the universe was already several hundred thousand years old). Although this interval is still orders of magnitude longer than the Planck time, other experiments currently coming online including the IceCube neutrino detector and the Planck Surveyor probe, promise to push back our 'cosmic clock' further to reveal quite a bit more about the very first moments of our universe's history, hopefully giving us some insight into the Planck epoch itself.

Of course, data from particle accelerators provides meaningful insight into the early universe, as well. Experiments with the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider have allowed physicists to determine that the Quark-gluon plasma (an early phase of matter) behaved more like a liquid than a gas, and the Large Hadron Collider soon to come online at CERN will allow us to probe still earlier phases of matter, but no accelerator (current or planned) will allow us to probe the Planck scale directly. However; the more we understand about how matter forms, the more precisely we will be able to interpret what we learn from astrophysical data, and from other sources.

After the Planck Epoch came the:

The Grand Unification Epoch . Between 10-43 seconds and 10-35 seconds after the Big Bang

At this point several key events took place. The strong force separated from the other fundamental forces. The temperature fell below the threshold at which X and Y bosons could be created, and the remaining X and Y bosons decayed. It is possible that some part of this decay process violated the conservation of baryon number and gave rise to a small excess of matter over antimatter (see baryogenesis). This phase transition is also thought to have triggered the process of cosmic inflation that dominated the development of the universe during the followng inflationary epoch.

Then

The Inflationary Epoch . Between 10-35 seconds and 10-32 seconds after the Big Bang

In physical cosmology the inflationary epoch was the period in the evolution of the early universe when, according to inflation theory, the universe underwent an extremely rapid exponential expansion. This rapid expansion increased the linear dimensions of the early universe by a factor of at least 10 to the 26 (and possibly a much larger factor), and so increased its volume by a factor of at least 10 to the 78.

The expansion is thought to have been triggered by the phase transition that marked the end of the preceding grand unification epoch at approximately 10-35 seconds after the Big Bang. One of the theoretical products of this phase transition was a scalar field called the inflaton field. As this field settled into its lowest energy state throughout the universe, it generated a repulsive force that led to a rapid expansion of the fabric of space-time. This expansion explains various properties of the current universe that are difficult to account for without such an inflationary epoch.

Also during this epoch we had: Reheating, Baryogensis, the Dirac equations, the Sarkhov conditions, all deeply complex and involving much mathamatics

Baryon number B violation.
C-symmetry and CP-symmetry violation.
Interactions out of thermal equilibrium.

It does not do to speculate in this area unless we are experts who understand the full implications of the Maths and Physics involved.

The main point of note here is that Classical Maths is not yet in existence, Space and Time, or Spacetime is in the process of creation. There is much evidence to suggest that the above epochs existed as described.

The Electromagnetic Force does not yet have an identity. Gravity does not yet have an identity, alto Quantum Gravity does. This is why I find it difficult to accept your version of a particle being a continuous field of electromagnetic energy, getting stronger as you approach the centre.

Quantum mechanics appears, on the evidence held, to underly all of creation. Still to come after the above events are

The Electroweak Epoch in which supersymmetry breaking occurred
The Quark Epoch
The Hadron Epoch
The Lepton Epoch
The Photon Epoch
Nucleosynthesis BBN

And if you need any proof for the reality of the Big Bang, then

Big Bang Nucleosynthesis predicts a primordial abundance of about 25% helium-4 by mass, irrespective of the initial conditions of the universe. As long as the universe was hot enough for protons and neutrons to easily transform into each other, their ratio, determined solely by their relative masses, was about 1 neutron to 7 protons (allowing for some decay of neutrons into protons). Once it was cool enough, the neutrons quickly bound with an equal number of protons to form helium-4. Helium-4 is very stable and neither decays nor combines easily to form heavier nuclei. So out of every 16 nucleons (2 neutrons and 14 protons), 4 of these (25%) combined into one helium-4 nucleus. One analogy is to think of helium-4 as ash, and the amount of ash that one forms when one completely burns a piece of wood is insensitive to how one burns it.

The helium-4 abundance is important because there is far more helium-4 in the universe than can be explained by stellar nucleosynthesis. In addition, it provides an important test for the Big Bang theory. If the observed helium abundance is much different from 25%, then this would pose a serious challenge to the theory. This would particularly be the case if the early helium-4 abundance was much smaller than 25% because it is hard to destroy helium-4. For a few years during the mid-1990s, observations suggested that this might be the case, causing astrophysicists to talk about a Big Bang nucleosynthetic crisis, but further observations were consistent with the Big Bang theory.


Deuterium: Deuterium is in some ways the opposite of helium-4 in that while helium-4 is very stable and very difficult to destroy, deuterium is only marginally stable and easy to destroy. Because helium-4 is very stable, there is a strong tendency on the part of two deuterium nuclei to combine to form helium-4. The only reason BBN does not convert all of the deuterium in the universe to helium-4 is that the expansion of the universe cooled the universe and cut this conversion short before it could be completed. One consequence of this is that unlike helium-4, the amount of deuterium is very sensitive to initial conditions. The denser the universe is, the more deuterium gets converted to helium-4 before time runs out, and the less deuterium remains.

There are no known post-Big Bang processes which would produce significant amounts of deuterium. Hence observations about deuterium abundance suggest that the universe is not infinitely old, which is in accordance with the Big Bang theory.

The Universe is now only 300 seconds old and .... MATTER .. has not yet formed. If your theory of 'Gravity is the fourth Dimension' is correct, it can only be correct back to this point.

But the theory of Quantum Mechanics goes back ALL the way.

There is much in your theory to admire, you have convinced me, at the very least, that Einsteins principle of equivalence that gravity and acceleration are one and the same is correct. Also that the universe is expanding, perhaps we differ slightly on technalities here.

I hope that I have given you some pause to reconsider QM in a different light.

Cool bananas ... Greg

PS: If this post is overlong ... well .. thats your penance for all the reading you have given me ... LOL

PPS: If Lloyd was here he would have much to contribute around this post.

(there is always space invaders to settle it outright ... ROTFLMAO)