An Idea

[Felix Schrodinger]

If you dont mind Felix, can you please send me a link which describes the concept of a clockwork Universe?

Hi Dippy

I can't believe that you didn't see this coming!!

http://www.toequest.com/forum/toe-th...nce-shiva.html

regards
Felix

[dipayankar]

Felix and Prof, thanks a lot for your sites...

Hi Dipayankar;

Felix may have something additional to offer, but this is from our friends at wikipedia:

The Clockwork Universe Theory is a theory, established by Isaac Newton, as to the origins of the universe.
A "clockwork universe" can be thought of as being a clock wound up by God and ticking along, as a perfect machine, with its gears governed by the laws of physics.
What sets this theory apart from others is the idea that God's only contribution to the universe was to set everything in motion, and from there the laws of science took hold and have governed every sequence of events since that time. This idea was very popular during the Enlightenment, when scientists realized that Newton's laws of motion, including the law of universal gravitation, could explain the behavior of the solar system.
A notable exclusion from this theory though is free will, since all things have already been set in motion and are just parts of a predictable machine. Newton feared that this notion of "everything is predetermined" would lead to atheism.
This theory was undermined by the second law of thermodynamics ( the total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value) and quantum physics with its unpredictable random behavior.

[Farsight]

Pat:

Yes, I see common ground here. Your triplet of linked circles looks fairly close to a trefoil knot. Your eight internal dynamic dimensions are akin to degrees of freedom. (Think of a 3-dimensional cube denoted by x y and z. It can extend in the x direction, or the y direction, or the z direction. Or in the xy direction, the xz direction, or the yz direction. Or in the xyz direction. Or in no direction, because you're free to pause. That's eight degrees of freedom). The electron is a ripple in space yes, but it's tied in a "knot". And it's an extended entity rather than point particle. There's no solid nugget detected down to 10^-18 metres but that's like looking for a cannonball in the middle of a whirlpool. Charge is part of what it is. Electrons and proton numbers match because to make a twist you have to make an untwist at the same time, and the proton/antiproton/electron/positron universe is unstable so it settles into an electron/proton situation. Photons however are ripples in space rather than ghost particles, see pair production.

[Profpat]

Hi Farsight;

Thank you for your review and comments.

I agree that photons are more than just ghost particles. I believe they are created, however, from the conversion of mass to energy. I agree they are a 2 dimensional transverse wave as science and your theory describes them to be. I do think however they reflect the massive particle, and are therefore more of an energy wave than a true particle.

While you may be correct that the photon is the fundamental substance I still like the concept of a 1 dimensional Planck length string fitting that bill.

I do like your own theory very much however, and do see some agreement between the two.

Yours is well thought out and researched, mine is of course more simplified.

I'm still in the process of reading yours and will comment in more detail at your thread.

Very best,

Pat

[Farsight]

Thanks again Pat. Yes, the photon is an energy wave, but then so are "true" particles. They're solitons where the wave is trapped in a looping path, hence wave/particle duality. See the sections on mass and particles where I describe the symmetry between momentum and inertia and talk about pair production and annihilation. You can make an electron and a positron out of a 1022KeV photon, and then combine them to get back to photons. I describe the electron and the positron as photon configurations, and the same applies to protons and neutrons. The neutron by the way is similar to the trefoil proton but with additional twist and turn which makes for nuclear binding via the residual strong force.

[Profpat]

You are correct Farsight all particles do exhibit wave/particle duality. Even my proton/neutron description can be collapsed into a 2 dimensional wave.

It does seem that some " particles " exhibit more of a 3 dimensionality ( protons/neutrons ) while other " particles display more of a 2 dimensionality ( photons/electrons ) and indeed science does make a distiction between hadrons and leptons.

Best,

Pat

[Felix Schrodinger]

Yes, I see common ground here.

Hi Farsight and Pat

Are you discussing something that the rest of us cannot see? Can we have a link please then we can join in?

regards
Felix

[Profpat]

Hi Farsight and Pat

Are you discussing something that the rest of us cannot see? Can we have a link please then we can join in?

regards
Felix

I'm sorry Felix. The link is at Farsight's T.O.E thread under the theory of Everything catagories.

http://www.relativityplus.info/

This is his theory which while a bit long is very good. I'm sure you'll find it interesting. He has even offered an updated book free to members who are interested.

Best,

Pat

[Fredrick]

I am still thinking as to whether I do have a mind as a separate entity or is it a projection of my brain, some neurons that combine in a certain way to give the illusion of the mind.

We do have consciousness that for sure, but is it unique to humans? Can a microorganism have consciousness? Since they do not have brains, would they have a mind?

Would a ToE (they way I see it ie unification of the grand with the quantum) actually require a mind and spirituality? Can gravity be affected by mind?

A quick reply to this, Dipayan, is found when considering that everything in our universe is made out of mass and energy and that the two are linked.

If you replace the word energy with the word mind it becomes possible to see that the mind is already part of the matter. The object of mind would then cease to be an object by itself but a natural component, a natural state, of matter/energy. I used this example before, the word family is something we all consider real, but it isn't real as a separate independent thing; it is based on the parts.

Gravity can according to me indeed be affected by mind on the conditions that you have a lot of it. And that all of those minds also need to be truly focused on a commonly accepted state, not only be in harmony about that, but retain that harmony all the way up to the momentum at which change of gravity is possible. Will that happen? Most likely not, because if gravity is a condition of mind (or energy/mass) it has already achieved the condition of today, so it is not just creating a condition, but changing a condition; and as we all know changing conditions is pretty tough.

[Profpat]

Hmmmm!!! I'm I really thinking or I'm I just thinking that I'm thinking????