[TinyTree]

This is my theory of everything. I am seeking reviewers (read, people who can provide thoughtful questions to help me improve my manuscript). Please write me if you are interested in seeing first drafts of my manuscript, especially those versed in statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics. The "book" (it may be more like a novella) is tentatively titled "The probability of the universe"

Without further adieu, here it is in a nutshell:

There exists a probability to the universe which is distinct from the measure of entropy. This does not contradict entropy, it is orthogonal to it, and helps us to understand both the microscopic and macroscopic evolution of the universe.

Formally, we can ask:

What is the probability that the wave function of the universe (as a quantum phenomena) exists in the state that we observe around us?

Let me elucidate a bit more so you can comprehend it.

A typical thermodynamic system probability measure asks: what is the probability we observe a specific macroscopic state which corresponds to many microstates? To answer this, one considers all equivalent microstates, and asks what the probability is that the system exists in a state which corresponds to the macroscopic observable.

However, instead we are asking What is the probability that the system has evolved to a specific microstate?

We do not ask what the chances are that we have entered a microstate which is "equivalent" to many other microstates from a macroscopic view. We ask what are the chances we have entered a particular microstate.

The easiest way to understand this is: consider a deterministic system evolving through time. A bunch of balls in a container bouncing around all move deterministically, and all start in the corner in an "ordered" state. As these balls move around the system, they move in a determined way- towards a higher probability state according to statistical mechanics. However, we observe that from a microstate probability viewpoint- every later time slice was guaranteed to exist with 100% probability, and the probability of every later state is 1.0.

Both classical statistical mechanics and quantum statistical mechanics observe the changes of entropy without regards to the probability of moving through specific microstates.

Also, subtly different is that thermodynamics does not consider time as an essential element of measuring probability. That is, one does not ask- what is the probability of this system at time t- whereas we must consider the evolution of the system at a particular time t to have any apprehension of the probability of the microstate- which I am referring to as "the probability of the state vector of the system"

I am going to explore this concept in more depth- specifically tying it in with among other things- the evolution of the space time continuum with respect to gravity wells (which is already established in the literature but has never been referenced with respect to the probability of the evolution of the system) and further to other phenomena we observe in the universe around us.

Please write and let me know if you are interested in being a reviewer.

[mkirkpatrick]

Hello TinyTree,welcome to the toe,
I would be interested in seeing your conclusions and reading what you have to
say.Gravity wells they are very interesting,what exactly are they! could they
be a portal to another dimension?a sort of vortex linking one dimension to another.Wave functions and quantum phenomena?Not sure about this,I look forward to your further postings,best of luck.





kind regards michael.

[dleviwing]

TinyTree;
Welcome to TOEquest.
Before you can implement such an analogy, it may be best to have a fundamental paradigm of reality that you will use to interpret the terms of your hypotheses.
Do you plan on using the current "Standard Models" (QM and Relativity) or do you intend on creating a new conceptual paradigm?

[TinyTree]

Before you can implement such an analogy, it may be best to have a fundamental paradigm of reality that you will use to interpret the terms of your hypotheses.

Sounds like a good plan.

Do you plan on using the current "Standard Models" (QM and Relativity) or do you intend on creating a new conceptual paradigm?

I plan on using the standard model. Relativity only really plays a part in the evolution of star formation, since it is deterministic it "falls out" (that is, it plays no future role in affecting the probability of the evolution of the system).

However, I would like to point out that the notion of the probability of the evolution of the system is not particularly constrained to the standard model. That is to say- the notion that there is a probability to the state vector of a changing system is only contigent on the idea that there are some sort of mathematical laws governing its behavior (which are tractable to analysis). However, there is no point in speculating about those laws (of which the Standard Model may be a subset) except to note that if they are tractable they are encompassed.

[becomingagodo]

good use of entropy but if your doing your theory within the
big bang you have to explain why it so low.
another thing how will your theory do with intelligence i.e. schodinger cat
problem. i have thought of the fact that a density matrix can lead to intelligence.
but statistically all though you could find the probabillity but
that would not explain why it will materlised. as it stand this sound alot like sum over history. however if you could explain these;
.low entropy
.how probabillty can become real e.g. collaspe of wave function
.explain how and why the universe is like this
.what happen when spacetime breaks down e.g. bigbang, blackhole

p.s. you mension evolution of a system so you are using schodiger equation. if heinsberg equation is correct e.g. time does not evole then how would this theory handle this e.g. how will you use relisitic quantum theory
because as it stand schodinger equation can not lead to this as pointed
out by Dirac.

[TinyTree]

good use of entropy but if your doing your theory within the
big bang you have to explain why it so low.

I am not sure how to interpret this. Why is the entropy of the big bang during initial conditions so low? If you are asking why the mass it all collected into one place during the early universe formation, or in a "highly ordered" state my theory might say in response "Given the initial conditions of the system (which I can not explain, only observe) the mass all started out jammed together. Therefore, I can't explain this. This theory does not attempt to be the last, end theory of the universe, and can not address issues outside of its scope. This particular question would be outside of its scope.

another thing how will your theory do with intelligence i.e. schodinger cat
problem. i have thought of the fact that a density matrix can lead to intelligence.

This is a good question which should be addressed, and although I would say demands an explanation.

.low entropy

Initial conditions are what they are. Note also that the notion of entropy is really tied to "usable energy" which is primarily a human concept. This might be akin to asking- why when all the balls were on the center of the table were they on the center of the table? Because the initial conditions dictated that they be there. I feel like I could give a better answer than this.

.how probabillty can become real e.g. collaspe of wave function

Nice question. I hope to address this when I have some time.

.explain how and why the universe is like this

This will be the body of my manuscript and is difficult to produce in a few sentences. But if forced to, I might suggest "low probability structures project themselves through the future"

.what happen when spacetime breaks down e.g. bigbang, blackhole

Blackholes suck in all form and information, eliminating the probability waveform essentially. Good question that needs some more discussion.

p.s. you mension evolution of a system so you are using schodiger equation. if heinsberg equation is correct e.g. time does not evole then how would this theory handle this e.g. how will you use relisitic quantum theory because as it stand schodinger equation can not lead to this as pointed

You ask some hard hitting questions, some of which I feel I will be able to address within the context of the theory, and some not. I appreciate your asking them. Now all I need is a few hours a night and I might be able to get you some better responses!

[dleviwing]

TinyTree;
To make your posts denote quoted phrases, highlight the text in your message box and then click on the icon that looks like a balloon text on the toolbar.
This should make your posting easier.

[becomingagodo]

solution to big bang

TinyTree

when looking at the scheme of this message it became apparent.



first off take the probability of nothing using abstract set

0=100%

0=0%

okay so here the argument nothing has to exist because if you ask for the probabillity and get 100% it will be correct.however if you get 0% then their a paradox because it will be nothing anyway.

0={ }
so you got the mathematical abstract set.
from this you can explain the big bang because you can use
uncertainty principle e.g. time energy this will lead to infinity because you will know the time so energy will be infinite.
also you could use complex number and that the proballity of something is 100% however in complex number zero is not allowed and then use schodinger or heinsberg wave equation.
using this argument can allow you to explain the universe or what was before the universe. also most theories break down at the big bang unlike this and that it does not rely on pre-existence.
p.s. TinyTree if you like this tell me and try to anwser my question also i am trying to use this to explain low entropy by using wave picture that matter would mirror a simple wave i.e. it would have a wave structure of nothing in the first moment of exsistance so will have low entropy e.g. nothing equals 0 entropy. also i will probabarly post in a week when i have a better picture. and i ask you to adopt the top picture of nothing. also i will combined this with quatum mechanics using projection of nothing to explain EPR effect.

[TinyTree]

p.s. TinyTree if you like this tell me and try to anwser my question also i am trying to use this to explain low entropy by using wave picture that matter would mirror a simple wave i.e.

Hey interesting ideas. One thing I will point out is that even if I do not understand it, you should not discount it too heavily. I have a particular framework of comprehension, and it is difficult for me to leap outside of it, although I do try.

One thing I need to adress more formally I think:

Entropy is not equal to the probability of the state vector.

There is no relationship between these two things besides the fact they both measure the probability of the system as a whole. It is like measuring the length of something, and the height of something. They are both lengths (I stole this idea from my manuscript.. the first chapter is still under construction but once I am done I am looking for some people to read it and help question it)

If you ask me why it is so tall, and I am telling you how wide it is, then we are talking about totally different things. You can get mad at me because you are talking about how short it is at the start and I keep telling you about how wide it was. We are merely talking about different things.

However that doesn't mean I am not interested in discussing the entropy of the universe, but it means my theory is orthogonal to it. The entropy of a system is the probability it exists within a certain configuration, macroscopically observed, with respect to the number of total possible configurations that could exist for the system.

I am talking about the probability of the state vector- IE- the chance that this particular configuration exists with respect to all other configurations. This sounds the same at first but is a very different paradigm of understanding. The reason being is that entropy considers many different configurations to be equivalent. That does not make entropy wrong- but it classifies its notion of probability in a particular way- a different way.