Tetrahedraverse

[jgbrawley]

Greetings, all.

I hesitate, "theories of everything" being high Crackpot Index generators, but what the hey...
After a long time thinking on it, I've finally committed it mostly to video, hence:

http://www.youtube.com/user/tverse

("Origin Sequence" should be viewed first, then segments 1, 2, 3, etc. in order, then various 'addenda')

....and my website, with more, and text stuff:

http://tetrahedraverse.com

Looking forward to comments &c., although I don't guarantee checking in here frequently.

sincerely, John Brawley

[austintorn@aol.com]

We see that Nothing is found nowhere as an absolute stable state because it is a perfectly unstable situation, as simple states are, and nothing is the simplest state of all, thus the resultant balance of electrons and positrons emitted with opposite charge and matter states summing to zero (via charge). In neutral photons, positive and negative lobes are still there, living in peace.

Nothing cannot be maintained as such. Scientists emptied a large metal cylinder of everything and yet the "sum-things" still appeared.

There is literally nothing to make anything of, and so that must be the answer.

Thus we see balance everywhere, and that is the key. With balance, all is neither frozen nor totally wildly reactive.

We knew the answer had to be simple, for complexity becomes of it and after it.

So much for ultimate complexities being First, such as God, for they couldn't be more elemental than their parts.

TOE is solved.

[jgbrawley]

Thank you for your comment. My 'origin sequence' uses Nothing ("no thing") only once, at the very beginning, and it is not what you imagine; it is not a "state". A "state" would be a thing, hence not Nothing. As we are now, here in the "now," this Nothing no longer applies even as an idea; there is not "nothing" anywhere in our universe today. If one "gets" what I mean by 'Nothing' (not a 'what', of course), then the rest of the 'origin sequence' will make sense, but without that experience of the ineffable, my 'origin sequence' looks like gibberish.
(*smile*)
--John Brawley

[austintorn@aol.com]

True, for a total lack of anything did not and could not happen, obviously, for there is something, yet, these "sum-things" nullify all of existence in the overview, which is according to there being no other source for things other than no-thing. It's not intuitive, but there is no other answer, as the notion of somethings forever has great problems, one of which is that an eternal thing cannot be already made and specifically defined without ever having been so in the first place that never would have been. Something is here because nothing can't cut it, and if if could have then there never would have been anything. Nothing is the lack of anything, which is still a possible state. Nevertheless, existence can only be a partial nonexistence. Thus, zero-sum physics, as noted.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Yet worry you that this Uiverse is the last,
That the likes of us will become the past,
Space wondering whither whence we went
After the last of us her life has spent?

The Eternal Saki has thus formed
Trillions of baubles like ours, and will form,
Forevermore—the comings and passings
Of which it ever emits to immerse
In those universal bubbles blown and burst.

So, fear not that a debit close your
Account and mine, knowing the like no more;
The Eternal Cycle from its pot has pour’d
Zillions of bubbles like ours, and will pour.

When You and I behind the cloak are past,
But the long while the next universe shall last,
Which of one’s approach and departure it grasps
As might the sea’s self heed a pebble-cast.

[jgbrawley]

I must demur where you again suggest that 'Nothing is a lack of anything' and therefore a kind of state. If it's a state, it's not nothing, and if it "is" a lack of anything, it's also not Nothing. ("Is" is a word that cannot be applied to Nothing.)
But that aside, I agree somethings-forever is not a viable stance.
However, consider the meaning of 'forever' in the light of Einstein's statements on gravity: scientists say the universe is about "fifteen billion years old", but they are using our today's seconds-lengths in that pronouncement. (You sit before a metronome; those are 'our' seconds.) But if we ran the Big Bang backwards there would be a time when the universe was half its size (less, and less, etc.) yet had all the mass it now has, and its gravitational field would have been denser thus the seconds at that stage would have been 'longer' than our seconds today. (And, 'way far back, near the supposed Singularity, a second may have been billions of years long.) So, if we had to adjust our seconds, in which "fifteen billion years" is stated, such that back there some of the seconds would have been themselves billions of years long, it turns out, in the limit, that there's no actual difference between "fifteen billion years" and "eternity".
(*smile*)
As for Tetrahedraverse, this applies in the sense that the Singularity (Tverse's first piont) also may be used, and the age of the universe is *both* "eternal" and "fifteen billion years", and the problem of there having been 'somethings' forever is obviated.
--JB
(Nice poetry, by the way, if a bit contrived... (*smile*))

[austintorn@aol.com]

I’d agree that the lack of anything and everything (nothing) is probably not exactly what we think it is, or at least that it cannot remain as such. that there has to be something. Otherwise, this ‘nothing’ case would have persisted forever.

I’m presuming that the cosmos at large, in which universes spring up, has no real source other than a perfect balance of positive and negative, since we see as much in our own space via the fluctuation of virtual particle pairs in and out of existence. Always in pairs, yes, and of certain limiting instances of specifically defined quarks and electrons (and their antiparticles), and photons (which are their own antiparticle), and so this leaves us with that they couldn’t have been around forever, as then there would have been no time for the definition of them. Only ‘nothing’ can explain their source and their balance to zero. We may not like it, but there are no other sources for things but no things.

This has been happening forever, so, in that way, we could still say that nothing cannot be. It’s just that the stuff was not always the same the same exact stuff.

We are left with two and only two stable matter particles, the electron(-) and the proton(+), and of course their antiparticles, along with the neutral photon. This is again a very curious balance.

If one waits long enough, through some part of eternity, then some low probability event will occur and a universe could be born. In rapid inflation, the virtual particles in the pairs would be driven apart before they could cancel back in and so a flood of rather enduring material would be produced.

Your time thing was good. Will have to think about it.

At any rate, there could have never been a creation point of the eternal basis of all, whether the basis be of nothing or of stuff forever (no other choices). Now we just have to find a candidate for the causeless “prime moving” which is also eternal and infinite and doesn’t require anything before it. Only nothing seems to fit that bill. We still may not like it, but what else is there? Plus, you know, the evidence of the zero balance is everywhere, even as the negative potential energy of gravity as seen by some to cancel out the positive kinetic energy of stuff.

Because the annihilation of matter with antimatter still produces something—photons, this is only a partial nullification of all existence in the overview, but it is the opposite polarity of charge that completes the utter nullification. In practice, though, nonexistence cannot be, even for an instant.

And there are no boundaries possible, anywhere. The All is so vast in its magnitude of infinite largeness because its infinite (infinitesimal) smallness is so tiny. Each end is zero, the large by its dispersion and the small by its compression. We can only exist in the finite in-between.

This is why eternity, infinity, nothing, and everything must all be included in the package, going together so well and so necessarily.

We’ll get on to the tetrahedron part someday, don’t worry, or someone will.

[jgbrawley]

I’d agree that the lack of anything and everything (nothing) is probably not exactly what we think it is, or at least that it cannot remain as such. that there has to be something. Otherwise, this ‘nothing’ case would have persisted forever.

No. I feel you're still not 'getting' this NoThing. It's not possible for 'it' to 'exist' *at all*, hence it could not "persist" at all. This is a self-cancelling concept; one needs 'get it' only in order to decide (without further doubt) that "something" must absolutely exist. (It resolves the old philosophical conundrum of "why should 'something' exist rather than 'nothing'?")

I’m presuming that the cosmos at large, in which universes spring up, has no real source other than a perfect balance of positive and negative, since we see as much in our own space via the fluctuation of virtual particle pairs in and out of existence.

Well, obviously, I disagree, Tetrahedraverse claiming to be the source, although as noted in my Einstein/gravity/time reply above, "when" this source expanded is a moot point. (*grin*)

Only ‘nothing’ can explain their source and their balance to zero. We may not like it, but there are no other sources for things but no things.

In a limited sense I agree with that. There is no source for something but nothing (NoThing).

We are left with two and only two stable matter particles, the electron(-) and the proton(+), and of course their antiparticles, along with the neutral photon. This is again a very curious balance.

Well, there's some question about the supposed stability of the electron, if considered as a geometric/topological object (it "tunnels", which I think is a destruction of it in one place and a recreation of it in another), but I agree the proton is the (only?) stable matter particle. Stability of the antiproton is less certain (there ain't none that aren't made, these days).

If one waits long enough, through some part of eternity, then some low probability event will occur and a universe could be born. In rapid inflation, the virtual particles in the pairs would be driven apart before they could cancel back in and so a flood of rather enduring material would be produced.

I find that to be rather more fuzzy than I prefer, and it makes little sense to Tetrahedraverse....

Your time thing was good. Will have to think about it.

Thank you very much. It surprised a theoretical physicist whom I haven't talked to in years ("you place _motion_ prior to _time_?!"), and he went rather more quiet (in his objections to Tverse) after that.

At any rate, there could have never been a creation point of the eternal basis of all, whether the basis be of nothing or of stuff forever (no other choices).

Obviously I demur, with the caveat that I would apply the above-mentioned Einstein/gravity/time thing to any 'reachings' into the remote past. I do think Tetrahedraverse is that "eternal basis of all".

Now we just have to find a candidate for the causeless “prime moving” which is also eternal and infinite and doesn’t require anything before it. Only nothing seems to fit that bill. We still may not like it, but what else is there?

Yes. I have mine, so unless someone else has a better, I guess I'll keep pushing on it until I can't push any more.... (*grin*)

And there are no boundaries possible, anywhere. The All is so vast in its magnitude of infinite largeness because its infinite (infinitesimal) smallness is so tiny. Each end is zero, the large by its dispersion and the small by its compression. We can only exist in the finite in-between.

These are fine sentiments, but obviously (again) I can't agree that there are no boundaries possible. My 'origin sequence', which I have attacked all the ways I can think of without it suffering a hole, dictates there is a boundary to the universe, and that boundary is spherical. There is no "outside" to it, though; it's a one-sided (its inside) boundary.

This is why eternity, infinity, nothing, and everything must all be included in the package, going together so well and so necessarily.

Well said, and heartily felt, yet, if my thingie someday suggests otherwise (not sayin' it does), I'd have to take its word for it.

We’ll get on to the tetrahedron part someday, don’t worry, or someone will.

OK, fine with me; I don't think I'm going to die this week.... (*g*)

---John Brawley
[p.s. This editor is more complex than any online I've used; so bear with me while I learn how to get things to do what they're supposed to....]

[austintorn@aol.com]

Guess I'll have to actually read about this tetrahedron stuff soon, but am really enjoying the summer time for now.

Meanwhile,

Does our universe disperse away, as expansion indicates? Then what? The end of everything forever? Or do new bubbles form?

Since spacetime is 4D, would we then be in a finite 4D hypervolume, with 3D space as its infinite "surface", so to speak?

How come the speed of light is exactly what it is? Some kind of dimensional ratio?

Does every possible event happen out there somewhere, some time, even over and over again?

(These should keep you busy for a while)

[austintorn@aol.com]

OK, I read a little. How’s this?

The point:

Points are physical, not abstractions. They have no properties except of position relative to other points. (The simplest things are the most important things.) A point is shapeless, a consequence of infinite smallness (just as the universe of infinite largeness has no boundary).

The superposition of any number of points at the same position is indistinguishable from a single point. All a point has is its position relative to other points (a relation necessarily dimensional); it has no intrinsic properties. Space is composed of points since a point is composed of points. The only states of reality are existence, which must be finite, and nonexistence, which must be infinite (a nothing is so). Nonexistence is by definition composed of itself regardless of the distribution.

The number of points at any given position in space is the same as the number of positions in space itself. All points are copies of the same singularity—the same cosmic point. Points are still 3D, even though of an infinitely small size. Space is continuous because a point is continuous.

The cosmic size scale has points at one end and infinite volume at the other. In a way, the large is the same as the small, for there are only two directions away from finiteness: infinite largeness and infinite smallness, each leading to nothing, one by dispersion to zero and the other by compactness to zero, although the cosmos truly has neither a floor nor a ceiling. At any rate, we are perched in between in our finiteness.

Zero and infinity cause many of the same problems in algebra, but are kind of two different viewpoints of the same thing. Particle physicists are ever trying to reconcile the macro and the micro.


Big Bang:

The concept of space-time rushing outward in a rapid initial expansion called the big bang, has a few problems: expanding into what exactly? A region already present by definition?