Welcome to the Theory of Everything forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
| | |
| | White Belt
Status: Offline Posts: 6
Thanks Given: 0
Thanked 0x in 0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2006 Rep Power: 0 | On The Development of a Theory of The Universe -
05-24-2006, 01:02 AM
They who know of no purer sources of truth, who have traced up its stream no higher, stand, and wisely stand, by the Bible and the Constitution, and drink at it there with reverence and humility; but they who behold where it comes trickling into this lake...
Last edited by Robert : 08-05-2006 at 01:16 AM.
Reason: Removed the [size] references
| |
|  | | | | Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunify  Life can be pondered not as a force but as a riddle,
I'm off to work on my millenium problem, or sleep either one. | And, what's wrong with life as force? May the force be with you...
regards, | | | | |  Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie And, what's wrong with life as force? May the force be with you...
regards, |
{P~NP} That is what's wrong with it as a force. P>NP, such that NP is approaches infinity, whereas P is always infinite. | | | | | | Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunify {P~NP} That is what's wrong with it as a force. P>NP, such that NP is approaches infinity, whereas P is always infinite. | If you mean P=NP, this is still unresolved complexity math. There's a million dollar prize for its solution. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex...asses_P_and_NP
regards, | | | | | | Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
Joseph, I finally got the new version of my paper onto my site which is referenced at a new thread “Keep it Simple.” My web master must have been in hibernation. What follows are my best shots at responding to the questions contained in your original post. These answers are formulated using the concepts put forward at www.theincrementaluniverse.com. I must say that I was surprised that your questions did not include a request for an explanation of one of the most mysterious of the physical phenomena – quantum entanglement. This phenomenon is absolutely necessary in order to permit The Incremental Universe to function. Your questions are in red. -What about energy in the form of electromagnetic waves? -What is it and where does it come from? -How does it propagate through space? -Why does it travel at the speed of light? EM consists of alternating pulses of polarized increments. The increments forming the waves and/or the photons spin/flow vectors tend to be polarized in varying intensities so that they uniformly vary from the parallel to the average vector of the increments through space and the direction of travel of the Awave.@ The propulsion of the wave through space is provided by the same mechanism that propels a single unassociated increment - through the momentum of the orbital velocities of the paired bundles. As the wave is composed of increments it travels at their velocity which is con their Ahelical path@ but averages to c on their average straight line vector. -What caused the Big Bang? This is a toughie. There is a very interesting thread, “Universal Evolution,” posted on this site in which a lot of people go through a lot of educated speculation as to this very question. We too could speculate all day and still not come up with the correct answer. Just for fun let’s create a few scenarios and lightly analyze them. Remember that these answers are derived from the principles of The Incremental Universe. (1) If it was an explosion, what type of explosion was it? The presently most popular scenario seems to satisfy the large majority of our respected scientific community but it does still have a few problems, not the least of which are the horizon, boundary, and smoothness problems which we will talk a little bit about later. This scenario needs no further analysis as it is being analyzed to death on almost a daily basis. (2) In the initial edition of my paper I was in the mode that a huge gathering of increments became unstable causing a massive breakdown of the pb=s orbits and releasing sixty eight quadjillion pb=s to fly off carrying all of their kinetic energy with them. I have somewhat cooled on that possibility primarily because any gathering of bare increments would be subject to polarization and no evidence of this is now present, or at least, it is not discernable. (3) Was it a ABig Crunch@ which brought all of matter particles together so as to mutually destroy the then existing increments? I can’t believe that any semblance of smoothness would result from this scenario. Plus, this is contraindicated by the increasing rate of universal expansion. (4)Was it an ultra-massive black hole that grew too large to prevent its own destruction?This conjecture or scenario is almost identical to that of number 1 and it also resembles number 2. However, neither this one nor numbers 1, 2, or 3 serves to explain the still increasing ZPE. (5) Perhaps another scheme would be equally logical. What if an impetus was exerted in previously infinite and empty space that caused the creation of something out of nothing? And what if this creation occurred within a relatively small (but not infinitely small) volume with the charge bundles emanating from a virtually perfect sphere? This impetus could have created exactly equal and opposite bundles of charge (our ub=s) and together with our unknown force (the uk force or field) could have endowed these bundles with a sufficient velocity to create mutual orbits and our increments. But is it logical to presume that the charge bundles are still being issued from this small area? I think not. (6) And now, the final conjecture and the one that I like the best. Space is infinite. Charge bundles have eternally and to this day still are being uniformly created out of nothing into two equal and opposite somethings. The uk force endows them with sufficient velocity so that, once paired up, they can establish the orbits forming the increment. The uk force is also the driving force involved in universal expansion. It seems that this scenario would satisfy the horizon and boundary problems, explain the increasing ZPE and the expansion of the visible universe. The small anomalies in uniformity of the microwave background radiation could be the results of the presence and motion of matter as these charge bundle pairs are being created. The temperature of space is not the result of cooling down from the big bang but the result of the mutual annihilation of unlike increments of like spin My thinking on this subject had not progressed to the point to adequately cover this subject in my original paper. And, of course, each and every one of the above conjectures would leave many unanswered questions: How and why did the galaxies and galaxy clusters form? Why are the galaxies predominantly in a spiral shape? I suppose further speculation could produce other scenarios. Remember that I am trying to answer your questions from the viewpoint of the Incremental Universe. I will call a halt at this point and hope that others will join us to speculate further. Maybe we could actually agree on an answer. -What about the horizon problem?
This problem is perceived in that all portions of the observable universe appears to be virtually identical in appearance and characteristics but the extremes of the observable volume have not had sufficient time to communicate with one another to coordinate the appearance or characteristics. At present this is tentatively answered through the presumption of the inflationary period. I don=t feel that scenario 2 or 4 would solve this problem in that the gathering of increments would, in all probability, carry with it the requirement that some degree of polarization exist within the gathering and result in an expanding universe somewhat like the streams of energy that we see streaming away from the sites of supernovas. It doesn’t seem likely that scenario 2 would produce even a semblance of the smoothness that is presently observed. -What about the boundary problem? This term is new to me. Is it similar or identical to the horizon problem? I went to Wikipedia and the explanations ranged from separation of oil and water to mathematical exercises and to some transverse aspects to EM waves. Well, your spiral configuration of EM waves offers a perfect explanation of the existence of these aspects of EM, if indeed it is a problem or the problem. -What about the smoothness problem? Scenario 5 above seems the most likely to provide an answer to this problem. -Where do the four forces come from? a) Magnetic, electric, and electromagnetic field forces are covered in excruciating detail in The Incremental Universe. (See Part C) b) Gravity is a result of distortion of the velocity of the increments by the presence of matter. (See Part A, Item 6) c) The Strong Force is the binding energy between those portions of unlike charge bundles of the increments in contact with one another (the gluons) in the various configurations forming the hadrons. (See part A, Item 5) d) The weak force is the disruptive character of contacts between free increments and the increments forming matter.(see Part D, Item 12) I can=t blame you for not mentioning the fifth force - the unknown (uk) force. (See part A, Item 2) -What about matter? Part A, Item 5 is the best I can do at the present time. I would hope that I can eventually flesh out this concept a wee bit. -How did particles of matter first form in the universe? Again, Part A, Item 5 is my best shot. -Where did these particles get their surface charge? What is it? The presence and distribution of charge in matter is self evident in the paper and, of course, the charge itself is provided by an unbalanced presence of identically charged increments.
-Where did they get their inertia/mass? What is it? After initially reading the entire paper refer specifically to Part A, Item 7 and Part D Item 3 -What is the meaning of E = mc? Of course the formula means what it says. For my interpretation see Part D, Item 5. -Can the mechanics of the quantum particle be explained, including wave particle duality, the electron cloud, etc? Of course my paper did not address quantum mechanics directly or in any detail at all but I feel that one can, from the impact of the paper, deduce how and why the concept does conform to its basic requirements. Wave/particle duality is lightly covered in Part D, Item 3. -What about time? What is it and where does it come from? See lengthy discussion in Part B, Item 3. -What about space? What is and where does it come from? This question is another toughie. The Incremental Universe presumes that space itself is an infinite void which, at least within the observable universe, is saturated with our charge bundles and increments and that these provide all of the observed characteristics of and in empty space. If anyone else can improve on this presumption, be my guest! -Can the mechanics of relativity be explained? -Special relativity? -General relativity? -Gravity? I feel that the basic results of Special Relativity are adequately explained. Although general relativity was not specifically addressed I feel that that the concept as a whole establishes a basis that can easily encompass these conditions. Gravity is specifically and, I believe, adequately covered. -What about chaos? Can it be explained? Chaos is a very very complicated subject and, on the face of it, I find it difficult to imagine how its properties can contribute to the conception of a TOE. Basically it demonstrates how it could be possible that a very small perturbation (the flitting of a butterfly=s wing in Peoria) could effect or determine the occurrence of a major occurrence (the strength or location of a typhoon somewhere in Asia). And, of course, a relative minor event in any one part of the universe could precipitate an answering event in a remote location. Gravity and electromagnetic energy travel unimpeded from one spot to another. This is not to mention what I have called the uk force. Who knows the full extent of this influence? But to actually explain chaos is beyond my ken. -What about entropy? -What is it and where does it come from? -What does it always increase except in the formation of living cells? Entropy, of course, is the transformation of any system from a high energy state to a lower energy state. The mundane is obvious; the cooling of a hot iron, the transfer of potential energy to kinetic energy and the disbursal of the kinetic energy into movement of the molecules of the atmosphere or the deforming of the wood of the fence when the baseball strikes it, etc, etc. If you consider the free field of increments described in the paper they form the perfect carrier of energy from one location to another. It transfers the heat from the hot iron to the surrounding atmosphere for instance. And the baseball, in its flight, has formed its own point of stasis in the free field but is pulled downward by gravity to disburse its energy into the fence. Why a living cell actually experiences an increase in concentration of energy as it grows and/or splits into two cells is a function of an extremely complex gathering of increments and the atoms and molecules that they eventually form and their interactions are beyond the scope of my knowledge or ability to form an explanation for. -What drove energy and the big bang to its present state? Boy! You do know how to ask complex questions! It goes without saying that The Incremental Universe envisions the answer to this revolves around the attractions and repulsions between the charge bundles, the characteristics of their orbits, their mutual polarizations of spin/flow vectors, and the bonding between unlike charge bundles resulting in complicated relationships eventually forming material particles. And, of course, refer to our previous discussion of “The Big Bang.” -What are the mechanics of life? How did life come to exist here on Earth? I am not even going to touch that question. Your summary is far reaching. I truly hope that at least some of these questions are solved during my lifetime. Even though they are all interesting questions I feel that the mechanics of a TOE may clarify many of them but that they are not germane to its actual development. I would, and I am sure that you would, welcome any input that could improve upon (or even disprove) any of the above. I do hope that you will join in an effort to improve the concepts of The Incremental Universe. Sincerely, Bill Britton (WillieB) | | |
By
Andrew
on
03-27-2007, 08:31 PM
| | Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
I'm trying to submit quiet a long answer to Joseph | | | | | | Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
Lloyd #5:
Hello Lloyd, what you ask for is called the "keys to the beast." I can give you the Keys to the beast.
In a medium that can mutate with time:
Our body is such a medium. Essentially a regenerative chemical computer. If you reject the idea of divine intervention then it is a “spontaneous regenerative chemical computer” a species is “specific data”. Character is data.
Our body is not the only time mutable medium. A computer is also a time mutable medium.
The keys to the beast:
The probability priority loop. This is a continuous loop that calculates various probabilities and uses this information to set a priority of actions. Explained in terms of faith and fear.
Faith = calculation of probability positive.
Fear = calculation of probability negative.
Situation = object of interest is in the direct path of program that is running at present. = (Sit +)
Situation = object of interest is not in the direct path of the program that is operating at present. = (Sit - )
The calculation of faith is also a cumulative feed back system where the past results effect the present setting of the priority of actions.
IF:
Faith and Sit + = no action is needed. No need to attain what you already have.
Faith and Sit - = an action of attainment will occur if sufficient cumulative Faith.
Fear and Sit + = an action of avoidance.
Fear and Sit - = no action is needed. No need to avoid what is not in your path.
Please understand that this is a very simple explanation. But by its implications it can demonstrate the possibility of inanimate matter to become perpetually animate. This very same was sent to indicate inherent problems with the Space Mixing Theory. I was told,” I did not think of that.”, However that concept remains in the public eye as it was and my ideas still remain somewhat obscure, however less so.
I still generate not but silence.
John | | | | | | Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
Hello Joseph:
This is exactly the kind of work that will ultimately remove the obstacles to a complete understanding of our existence medium, universe, or multiverse. Below are some links to sites that are related to the work that you do.
I pray that you be blessed in your endeavors.
John
The Helical Spring theory of the Magnetic Field 3 Electromagnetic http://www.wbabin.net/science/tombe18.pdf (double helix pattern)
Spin and Helicity Related to EM and Gravitation
(c) Robert Neil Boyd http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/spin-helicity.htm | | | | | | Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
Quote:
Originally Posted by pagan3142
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle or just Uncertainty principle states that one cannot measure values (with arbitrary precision) of certain quantities, which are pairs of observables of a single elementary particle. These pairs include the position and momentum. It is often confused with the observer effect.
In science, the observer effect refers to changes that the act of observing has on the phenomenon being observed. For example: observing an electron will change its path because the observing light or radiation contains enough energy to disturb it. In quantum mechanics, if the outcome of an event has not been observed, it exists in a state of superposition, which is being in all possible states at once. The most famous example is the thought experiment Schrödinger's cat, in which the cat is neither alive nor dead until observed — until that time, the cat is both alive and dead (technically half-alive and half-dead in probability terms). | Well let's start with Heisenberg and then go on to Copenhagen (the observer effect). Both are features of wave-particle duality and relatively(!) easily resolved.
Heisenberg says that you can't measure the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time; the more accurate the one, the less accurate the other. This relates to the duality of matter which moves as a wave which collapses to form the particle only (and only) when it interacts with another waveform such that they exceed a critical probability. When the waveforms do collapse we have two particles which interact (as illustrated in Feynman diagrams) following which they are reabsorbed and continue their (new) paths as waveforms. As the motion only relates to the waveform, you can measure the velocity/momentum but not the position. As the position relates only to the particle (after the waveform has collapsed) you can measure this accurately but not the velocity/momentum.
'Copenhagen' is the principle that an observer is necessary for the collapse of the wave function - otherwise the outcome is undecided and hence my interest in the subject. This begs a very simple point - it is not the observer that causes the collapse of the waveform - it is the observation and only the observation, regardless of whether anyone is there to witness the result. The act of creating an observation requires a detector and this needs a reaction between (at least) two particles which is what causes the collapse of the waveform. Thus the collapse of the waveform is just the same as any other particle interaction in nature, the only difference being that it was done for the purpose of obsevation/experiment. [I've just discovered (thanks to Drifter) that this is called the "objective collapse theory".]
The dual slit experiment involves the same principles. These issues are now discussed in more detail, with illustration, in my own TOE - The Dance of Shiva
Felix | |
Last edited by Felix Schrodinger : 03-31-2008 at 04:15 AM.
| | | | Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
Hi Joseph
Such a thought provoking paper that I didn't know where to start - hence my jumping into the issue on W/P Duality before addressing your fundamentals. After setting out the stall (through the extensive list of questions) your basic premise concerns the propagation of waveforms and I have no problem with what you have proposed - it seems to make complete sense to me. I can't, however, see how this forms a basis for the TOE - it neatly describes a certain part of the action but nowhere near the whole. For instance - if we have this form of helical wave propagation - in what is it propagating?
Returning to your opening text: "Albert Einstein spent much of his later life searching for a different way to think about the universe. A theory which would, with a single field equation, represent the universe as a seamless, orderly, and constantly expanding field of energy, such that all the various forms of energy in the universe, including electromagnetic waves and matter, could be visualized, understood, and also, at the same time, mathematically modeled as different densities, compounds, or other states of energy constantly interacting with each other and the energy field itself, all according to the dictates of the forces deriving from that energy field."
It has always seemed to me that a single equation is never going to be sufficient for the TOE nor a single law. Even Newton used several laws just to describe motion. What is missing is the paradigm or underlying model which explains how things work in an understandable way. Many physicists are preoccupied with the maths these days and have little time for the underlying principles - hence the popularity of string theory in current research. When we understand where we are going wrong we will be half way to putting it right.
Back to your introduction: "Unable to find such a law, Einstein came to believe it was because we were somehow, in some way, not thinking about the universe properly. Regarding this he wrote “we cannot hope to solve important problems with the same thinking we used to create them”. In other words, once it was determined that the universe began with the big bang, it seems reasonable to conclude that we should be able to go back to the beginning of the big bang and propose a scenario whereby the “big three”—the energy, electromagnetic waves, and matter of which the universe is entirely composed, would begin to naturally interact in such a way that the universe would begin the process of evolution resulting in the state we find it in today. But so far no luck. Thus Einstein's belief that we needed a fundamentally new and different view of the universe."
There are two issues here. The first concerns whether we need a 'new and different view' or should we revisit some of the old ones. The concept of an aether was discarded after the acceptance of special relativity though the proof of general relativity did indeed suggest that there was something there which formed a medium through which matter and energy moved. This is now referred to by many names including 'the fabric of spacetime'. How do you envisage your helical waveforms moving through this medium?
The second issue concerns the 'big bang' which has become accepted as gospel. The BB depends principally on three pillars for its acceptance: - the cosmic background radiation
- the apparent expansion of the universe
- the general herd instinct based on Hawking's view that it must be correct
The first of these could be due to a number of alternative explanations and the second makes a gross assumption - that light from distant parts does not alter in its travel across the universe. Only the third one is a trully valid reason for supporting the BB - you can't get a job in mainline research if you are not a believer!
Anyway, keep up the good work and thanks for a most stimulating discussion even if it is somewhat diluted by others off-line arguments. | | | | | | Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
Advaita Vedanta states that we are neither the observed nor the observer.
Our true essence is "That" what is the observing or the seeing it Self and not the scene or the seer. [which are a trinity synthesized by Life which pervades them all]
If what we call real is what we can see, hear, taste, touch and smell, real is nothing more than electrical signals or vibrations interpeted by the brain.
If the microcosm is indeed the reflection of the macrocosm we need only to look inside our 'self' for the creative principle leading the the theory of the omni/universe, or all things.
Therefore it is truthfully said, "I Am That I am". [That Be-ing, The Creative Energy or Force of manifestation/exist-tense.]
Quote:
Originally Posted by pagan3142  The Heisenberg uncertainty principle or just Uncertainty principle states that one cannot measure values (with arbitrary precision) of certain quantities, which are pairs of observables of a single elementary particle. These pairs include the position and momentum. It is often confused with the observer effect. In science, the observer effect refers to changes that the act of observing has on the phenomenon being observed. For example: observing an electron will change its path because the observing light or radiation contains enough energy to disturb it. In quantum mechanics, if the outcome of an event has not been observed, it exists in a state of superposition, which is being in all possible states at once. The most famous example is the thought experiment Schrödinger's cat, in which the cat is neither alive nor dead until observed — until that time, the cat is both alive and dead (technically half-alive and half-dead in probability terms).
Well let's start with Heisenberg and then go on to Copenhagen (the observer effect). Both are features of wave-particle duality and relatively(!) easily resolved.
Heisenberg says that you can't measure the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time; the more accurate the one, the less accurate the other. This relates to the duality of matter which moves as a wave which collapses to form the particle only (and only) when it interacts with another waveform such that they exceed a critical probability. When the waveforms do collapse we have two particles which interact (as illustrated in Feynman diagrams) following which they are reabsorbed and continue their (new) paths as waveforms. As the motion only relates to the waveform, you can measure the velocity/momentum but not the position. As the position relates only to the particle (after the waveform has collapsed) you can measure this accurately but not the velocity/momentum.
'Copenhagen' is the principle that an observer is necessary for the collapse of the wave function - otherwise the outcome is undecided and hence my interest in the subject. This begs a very simple point - it is not the observer that causes the collapse of the waveform - it is the observation and only the observation, regardless of whether anyone is there to witness the result. The act of creating an observation requires a detector and this needs a reaction between (at least) two particles which is what causes the collapse of the waveform. Thus the collapse of the waveform is just the same as any other particle interaction in nature, the only difference being that it was done for the purpose of obsevation/experiment. [I've just discovered (thanks to Drifter) that this is called the "objective collapse theory".]
The dual slit experiment involves the same principles. | | | |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Article: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | | | | Article Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new articles You may not post comments You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8 Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com | |
