This thread is a summus of ideas generated thus far by the TOE threads. I envision more work on this, but post the paper that describes work done to date, with references to our earlier discussions.
Ivan
By Ivan A. on Sunday, September 15, 2002 - 03:04 am:
A new interpretation of the known physics and cosmology. ©
By Ivan D. Alexander
THIS IS WORK IN PROGRESS, NOT FINAL THEORY!
Abstract: This paper endeavors to show that there is a more streamlined way to understand the astrophysics of how cosmic electromagnetic energy interacts with a (postulated) supergravity that is the primordial stuff of our universe, which results in an atom. This new theory of the atom is based on rewriting Einstein's famous formula for energy and mass, using Planck's constant, whereby gravity as we know it becomes a residual force. To solve the necessary lambda wavelength of E=mc^2, the equation was rewritten as h/cl + g = m = 1; which in its solution indicates gravity is a constant only within the parameters of a constant energy source, such as our sun or any star, but is likely a variable-constant away from such an energy source. This theory also explains the why of "black holes" at galactic spirals, and offers an alternative explanation for light redshift over great cosmic distances, and may give us a better understanding of so-called "dark matter". Atomus Summus also offers a new way to understand the planets and gas giants in our solar system.
E=mc^2. This is the basic premise on which this new interpretation of the atom is based, which leads into a new Theory of Everything (TOE) combining the four known forces of Strong Force, Electromagnetic Force, Weak Force, and Gravity.
Gravity versus Photon Energy. It has been the Holy Grail of physics to find a reconciliation of these four forces, which to date has not happened. I will propose that these forces can be understood as relations of each other in a new way. To do this, we need to rewrite Einstein's famous formula as an expression of light and Planck's constant, so that it looks like this: h/cl + g = 1 = m (where h is Planck's constant, c is speed of light in a vacuum, l is electromagnetic wavelength lambda, g is gravitational constant, and m is a unit of mass). This reformulation of E=mc^2 was derived from applying the universal inverse principle of 0 x infinity = 1, (see: http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/answers/infinity.html#2 ), where zero is either the absence of mass or totality of mass, at a zero point, and infinity is either the absence of energy or totality of energy, multiplied to equal one. In fact, in reality, this may not be achievable, so that inverse proportions of these values would serve instead, which translate into 1/c^2 x E = m, where E is then reset as pc=hc/l (p is momentum), to give us the equation above of h/cl + g = m. This algorithm was derived at the Forum of Humancafe.com, which I will reference at intervals below.
The above algorithm incorporates a new way of seeing Gravity, not as a component force of Einstein's equation of mass and energy, but as a residual force. Though the work had begun earlier, the reasoning for this was posted as a summary on the HumanCafe.com Forum on May 22, 2002, "TOE/Theory of Everything-2" http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?1/59.html :
Below is a schematic of how this rewritten formula of mass and energy, with a residual value of G, gravity, was derived:
ALGORITHMS:(Note: w=l)
Using the basic (0 x infinity) = 1 , model for TOE, let us apply known quantities to this general formula, and let us further assume that "m" is equivalent to "1", and that the photon "fo" is set as a function of the speed of light, at "1/c2". The infiniton "I" is still unknown.
This would translate (0 x infinity) = 1 into the basic model [ fo x I = m ].
Now, if we take photon energy to be set here at the "zero", and thus "1/c2" [or the inverse of the speed of light squared], and the "infinity" value set at "E", to represent the infiniton, which is as yet undefined, then we can easily see that this coincides with the famous E=mc2. Or, to put it differently: 1/c2 x E = m, which is how we structured the algorithm above.
Now, the "E" value is what needs to be determined to satisfy this equation, not as only an equation of "electromagnetic energy", which E=mc2 describes, but also as an equation that incorporates the gravity energies of G, the universal gravity constant, and of the still unknown "infiniton" strong force. So this is where it stands thus far, to convert what is essentially a formula of energy-only into a formula that incorporates the Strong Force of nuclear gravity as the infiniton, or "I".
However, to satisfy the condition stated above that gravity, the G constant, is a left over product of the (fo x I = m) interaction, then I would subtract it from the result of m. Therefore, I would restate the basic formula above as follows:
1/c2 x E = m-g
where "-g" takes the place of "G" since it is not a primary force but merely "left over" from the interaction within the atom (which is shown as negative because it is what is "missing" from the atom). Now, we could be further illustrated by showing that "E" within the equation is replaced with "mc2", so that we have [1/c2 x mc2 = m (-g)], which then (by bringing 1/c2 over to m) breaks down to mc2=mc2, which is =E.
So we are thus left with the formula: 1/c2 x I = m-g, for now... and we are looking for a value of "E" which expresses and approximates the Strong Force of "I".
For more info on TOE see: http://www.unifiedtoe.com/index.html
Using ordinary language, we have taken the idea of an infinitesimal 'zero' interacting with an 'infinite' force to equal a unity of 'one'. This was first expressed as (zero x infinity = 1), which was then substituted with a value for the photon, as 1/c2, or one divided by the speed of light squared, and some value for what I called the 'infiniton' which is a very large 'strong force', which if expressed within the E=mc2 equation with m=1, yields 1/c2 x 1 x c2 = 1, which is a truism. We then further substituted c2 with some 'unknown' value and added the weak force of gravity, with gravity being the left over byproduct of this interaction, to complete the 'little TOE', so that bringing over the g, it now looks like this: 1/c2 x E(?) + g = m.
If we set m = 1, as per our original definition of mass equal to a unity, then the equation becomes:
1/c2 x E(?) + g = m = 1, where it now stands.
So in ordinary language, we are interacting the photon, as represented by 1/c2, and the infiniton, as still undefined, to equal mass.
Now, if we substitute the value of E(?) with the high energy of mass and momentum, we get:
pc = [E^2-m2c4]1/2, where 'p' is the electron's momentum. (See math at: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/debrog2.html#c2 ). This breaks down into pc ~ E, which at a velocity as a fraction of c becomes: v/c = pc/E, which as v=> c, pc => E. However, momentum 'p' can also be expressed as: p = E/c = h/w , (see referenced URL above), where 'w' is wavelength (I don't have the 'lambda' key), and 'h' is Planck's constant, which further becomes: E = c x h/w , or finally: E = ch/w.
So now we have a possible value for E(?) above. I'm not totally happy with this because it does not seem to fit into the mental image I have of the infiniton, but let's take it to the next step to see where it goes. So if we substitute the E value in 1/c2 x E(?) + g = m above, the we get: [1/c2 x ch/w] + g = m. This is then further simplified by multiplying out 'c' into: h/cw + g = m.
LIGHT PHOTON WAVELENGTH FOR TOE
I have worked out the math for the TOE as I had posited in the above posts, and have computed what is the wavelength of the photons to satisfy the algorithm derived from E=mc2, as being approximately 2.2087 x 10^-42 m. !!!!. By using Planck's constant "h" of 6.626 x 10^-34, and using "C" as 3 x 10^8 m/s, I come up with the photon wavelength [to satisfy the TOE formula of (h/cw) + g = 1 = m] as "w" is 2.2087 x 10^-42 m.
This is an extremely small wavelength, if you consider that visible light has a wavelength of approximately 6 x 10^-7 m, and microwaves are about 3 x 10^-2 m, and FM radio is about 3 m (or 10 feet long), then you can appreciate how small the energy wavelength must be to satisfy the algorithm (as it works out restating Einstein's famous formula with the philosophical concept of zero x infinity = One). But this is the "magic" photonic light wavelength, for our solar system, that neutralizes the extremely powerful gravity force within the atom, which is far greater than the so called Strong force. (It may be that this deep force works out to be approximately x10^39(+or-) times mass as measured on Earth, but I don't know yet.) I suspect we would find this same deep gravity in a black hole star, if such exists. Deep space would not be quite this heavy, however, for it receives a great deal of diffused light from all the solar and galaxy sources spread through the cosmos.
BLACK HOLE STAR ALGORITHM:
This is an addendum to the above post figuring the wavelength necessary to satisfy E=mc^2 in our solar system.
In having rewritten this famous formula as E/c^2=m, we then substituted the E with pc=hc/w, which yields the formula now expressed as (1/c^2 ) x (hc/w) = m, (where w is wavelength and h is Planck's constant, m is mass, c is light speed ), which further reduces to h/cw=m. We than added in the remainder g as the gravitation difference from this force, which is expressed as 10^-39, to complete the atom's unit of 1=m. So the complete algorithm now looks like this: h/cw + g = m =1. This is the basic algorithm of this TOE as derived from E=mc^2.
Now, we then take the following values to compute the algorithm:
h=6.626x10^-34
c=3x10^8 m/s
w=2.2087x10^-42 m, which is also (1x10^50 Hz), an extremely high number!
g=10^-39
m=1
So the resulting values as per the algorithm above become:
[(6.626x10^-34)/(3x10^8)x(2.2087x10^-42)] + (10^-39) = 1, which further computes to be: [(6.626x10^-34)/(6.6261x10^-34)] + (10^-39) = 1.
These are the normal values of the TOE algorithm for mass and gravity in the vicinity of our solar system, where gravity is a very weak force. But look at what happens if you redshift light to the max, by stretching it out the light wavelength from its extreme frequency to be nearly equal to the distance light travels in one second, i.e., w=0.333x10^8 m. Then you get:
(3x10^8 m/s)@(.0333x10^8 m) = ~1; (however, what this represents really is = 1 (w), since the wave and the distance are equal); so that now the denominator of (h/cw) becomes approximately (~) equal to 1, so that TOE looks like this: h/~1 + g = m=1.
However, if the value of cw is 1, and the numerator h remains Planck's constant, then for the equation to remain equal to one, which is the atomic unit, this means the g constant would have to increase to a level of [1 - (10^-39)], which means, for all practical purposes, it comes in value very close to being 1. (And that is significant also because it so happens that the so called Strong force = 1.)
So if the photon energy is stretched out to being such as a light wave multiplied by its velocity equals 1, in essence a flat wave, then the resulting gravity, which is the remainder force, grows to be almost equal to 1. So, if g=10^-39 in our solar system, out where the light wave is stretched out to where it is equal to 1w/s, then the gravity reaches a maximum value of nearly 1, which is (1x10^39) times greater than the gravity we experience in our solar system. (This is the result of (10^-39)x(10^39)=1.)
Think what this means! If light is stretched out to where in essence it no longer has a wavelength, since it cycles as fast as it travels to be equal to itself, then it ceases to exist, and there is maximum gravity, according to this TOE algorithm. This, I declare, is the gravity to be found inside a Black Hole star. (It is also coincidence that the present convention in physics has the atomic Strong force equal to 1.)
So now we have another clue: Light inside a Black Hole star has no frequency.
In theory, if it were possible to see light coming from the other side of a Black Hole, it would disappear when it reached it, for its wavelength would be negated into nothingness so that it ceases to be light. However, there is no known way of doing this, since one would expect that the "gravitational lens" around the galaxy's Black Hole would bend most of it around so that it would escape from falling in. Though there will be light lost inside the Black Hole, we will not be able to see it.
Therefore, this is the second clue to test TOE's algorithm as here posited, that light disappears when its frequency is stretched to a value of 1. The first is that gravity intensifies when out in deep space away from a star or galaxy system. I should note here that the gravity intensity effect of being away from a star system will be smaller, whereas being away from a galaxy system the effect will be greater, since the galaxy's photonic energy would still dominate in between the star systems which are part of it. I would also guess that outside the galaxy, this gravity intensity would still be moderated by the photonic energy released by the billions of galaxies in the cosmos, so even there the gravitational strength will never reach Black Hole proportions. The question remaining then is why Black Holes? How do they come into being? What is it about them that flattens out the light wave to being neutralized of its ability to form mass?
It would seem obvious that at light wavelengths greater than 2.2087x10^-42, but less than 1, the gravity would be greater than what we experience on Earth, but less than what is total Gravity in the Black Hole star. By the same reasoning, light wavelength shorter than experienced in our solar system, i.e., of greater frequency, would also mean the Gravity force would be commensurately less. But how do you achieve this?
The last question: Is our sun capable of producing photonic light only at the starting range of 10x^-42 ? Are there stars that produce either greater or lesser light waves? So here is a third possible clue: Are there stars which produce light waves starting at wavelengths different from those of our sun?
However, since we cannot measure energy waves below those of gamma rays, which are about (3x10^-10) , we are left in the dark. But it can also mean this universe is one hell of a mathematician!
Theoretical Propulsion based on new TOE:
If we could theorize that light and gravity are interactive, supposing this is actually so, then why could this interactive force not be used for propulsion? The unknowns are still many. For example, at what light wave frequency does the atom's deep gravity respond? Why do atoms become agitated when exposed to light energy? Is the existing atom already in such equilibrium that there is no way to influence it further, or not? But if so, at what point does this equilibrium shift? Can this possible shift in the atom's equilibrium be used as a force, one that moves the atom? Why is an electron given off when a photon is absorbed by the atom, and reabsorbed when the photon is released? These are the questions going through my mind. So many 'whys'!
According to this TOE, I see the atom as a manifestation of forces that interact, which in turn activates forces that energize it. There is probably no such thing as an atom at rest, even at zero Kelvin. There is always an energy/activity relationship within the atom, and subsequently molecules, and then matter. Given enough energy, the atoms separate, or sublimate, or even break apart as in a nuclear reaction. So there is much within the atom that is highly energetic, for if not, then it reverts back to being what it was before its creation, a miniature black hole. This is how my mind sees it. The questions that keep coming up, again assuming this is some approximation of what actually happens in the atom, is then: What part does light energy frequency play in this activity?
I suspect that the universe has created all the atoms it needs. What I mean by this is that the potential for filling up those little miniature black holes has already taken place. Why would the universe have a myriad zillion gazillion black holes that then filled with light to become atoms? Don't know. But they are here, all filled in nicely with light to make them into units of mass, atoms. So then, all that exists does, and new matter is not created, to our knowledge. But of the matter that exists, all is in motion. This is important, that motion exists either because matter is ejected from solar sources, or due to the pull of gravity, or because it is bumped by more matter. This last, that matter is bumped, is how we use propulsion today. All our mechanisms are due to force applied either mechanically or electromagnetically to cause motion. As the propeller spins, it bumps against the atoms of water or air. A billiard ball moves when the energy from another billiard ball strikes it, and thus exchanges its force into the one that is struck, so that it now moves. Inside a rocket motor, the molecules ejected under the force of the explosion pushes on the walls of the engine. But the motion inside an electric motor is already different, for it is due to the electromagnetic field activation's movement from one pole to its opposite pole, so that motion results. Magnets create motion without bumping. Also, when I rub a plastic wand, it creates motion by satisfying the electromagnetic/static force when a piece of paper is lifted. So we already have means of creating motion using forces other than being bumped, but what happens that causes this other kind of motion?
Gravity induced motion is, according to this TOE, due to the pull by one gravitational field on another. If gravity is the unsatisfied portion of deep gravity within the atom, it wants to combine with the unsatisfied deep gravity of another atom. Hence, when light energy interacts with the deep force within the atom, it does not satisfy it completely, and something is left over, which becomes the gravity we observe. However, what if there was a way to satisfy this gravity deficit with more light? Can we alter how atoms attract gravitationally by either adding more light energy, or subtracting it somehow? Would a kind of light energy shield make the atoms 'heavier', whereas an overabundance of light energy make them 'lighter'? And if so, then would this not of necessity create an alteration to the normal motion we presently observe? For example, if I apply this light energy from a given direction, as opposed to any other direction, would it not result in motion? This is what is so enticing about this idea, that we can duplicate motion internally, within the atom, rather than bumping against it. I suspect we already do this, though we do not think of it this way, when we use electric motors, or magnets, or as evidenced by the pull of static electricity.
So we may be already using the principle of affecting the atom from within, when we use electromagnetic forces. It is already evident as motion when mass is drawn gravitationally, though we have not found any way to control this. But now may exist a theoretical possibility of affecting mass internally, in the same way gravity affects it, by manipulating the energy the atom absorbs. Think of the molecular activity within a common household microwave oven. Of course, we only use this to heat food, but the energy that excites the atoms, that which heats them up, is a light energy form, though in the microwave range and not visible to the eye. It is this kind of energy I suspect affects the atom from within, that which is of the very short wave range, though we also know long waves, such as infrared, also affect the atoms. So what should we be looking for?
I think we need to better understand how the various wavelengths of energy affect atoms. This is research that is ongoing, especially as it applies to laser light. But it is not focussed on atomic motion, rather on the photon itself. If we were to focus on how these photons interact within the atom, I think we may come one step closer to being able to duplicate a gravitational variant. And if we do this, then we are on our way to a new form of propulsion, not by bumping into things, but by moving them from within their atomic structure. And that would be a giant leap forward for science, as well as for how human beings travel in the future.
GRAVITY VARIANCE TEST
I think I figured out a way to test if there is an increase of gravity outside the solar system. It came to me intuitively, but when I did the math, it worked. If gravity for the same equal mass increases, then the spin velocity increases with it. I did this by using the formula for rotational spin and force:
F (centripetal) = mv^2/r (see: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf )
then I also reworked this equation for v, rotational velocity:
v = (Fr/m)^1/2 , which is square root of Fr/m.
If I took an example, say m = 1, r = 5, v = 10, then my result is F = 20.
Now, if I kept mass the same, radius the same, but increased Force, for example:
F1 = 1 = 20
F2 = 1.1 = 22
F3 = 1.2 = 24 etc.
The results I get from figuring out spin velocity are, as per above:
v1 = 10
v2 = 10.49
v3 = 10.95 etc.
What does this mean? It means that if Gravity is not constant, except as described within a star system, but that by leaving the star system it begins to increase, meaning F increases, so that there is increased centripetal force on the body, then spin increases with it. The space probes being very small and not massive, this effect will be minute, but even an increase of one millimeter per day would bear this out.
Therefore, here we have a very simple test for whether or not gravity is constant outside the solar system. If our deep space probes begin to spin more as they go past Pluto, then here is our answer, that gravity is increasing. Something worth watching for, I would think.
WHY THERE ARE BLACK HOLES:
When you think of all the events taking place at the center of a spiral galaxy, given the algorithm above, the Black Hole center is almost a given.
A list of the events at the galaxy center: First, you have the axis of spin, which in itself has no centrifugal or centripetal force, so it is neutral. Second, you have all the residual gravity from all the stars in the arms of the spiral converging on the center axis, so there they are bunched up from all directions of the spiral wheel, like spokes converging on the center. Third, you have the gyroscopic event, where the energy of the spinning galaxy is transferred as torque up the axis, so there is precession force there. Fourth, and this is the most interesting one, you have all that light energy converging on this one spot at the center, so that all the electromagnetic waves of all frequencies, from all the billions of stars, converge on the axis of the galaxy.
Now, this last is important, because it will employ the TOE as presented above, as the cause for the near infinite gravity there.
What happens to waves when they meet? Do they not either cancel out or amplify? I suggest that the electromagnetic waves coming in from all directions of the galaxy spiral arms converge at the axis, so there they either amplify each other, or negate each other. So you have the phenomenon where some waves are taking on huge amplitudes, which likely are thrown out into space along the axis, while others waves flatten out completely. The waves that get thrown out should show up as some form of axial energy perpendicular to the spiral arms of the galaxy. But the waves that flatten out become responsible for a gravitational increase which, to hold together such a large spinning mass, increases to those infinite like proportions of a super Strong force. So, thus, the galaxy is a self contained, electromagnetic and gravitational system, that holds together in perpetuity as the forces that would implode it are counterbalanced by the forces that would tear it apart. And this is why there are black hole stars at the center of spiral galaxies.
It would take a super computer to demonstrate all these forces at work, but I do think it is doable, and it will show up. In TOE as presented, the photon energy wavelengths being flattened, as per h/wc + g = m, then create maximum gravity at the center: the Black Hole from which no light can escape, because there it is totally neutralized and gravity intensified to the max.
By Ivan A. on Friday, September 13, 2002 - 11:26 pm:
"BLACK HOLE" KITCHEN EXPERIMENT:
Looking up at our Milky Way galaxy inspired me to try a kitchen experiment in physics to simulate wave energy from around a galaxy. The goal was to see what happens to energy waves coming together from a circumference into the center, same as would happen to light energy coming from around the galactic spiral into its center.
I filled a round black bowl with water and applied against the rim a vibrating device to stimulate waves in the water. (I chose black so as to more easily see the waves against the dark background.) As expected, the rim was teeming with energy waves, which uniformly radiated in perfect concentric circles towards the center of the bowl. There, to my pleasant surprise, the waves came together into a nipple that stood out, as I expected in my mind's eye. This demonstrated how the waves bunched up at the center, coming uniformly from all directions of the perimeter, so that they canceled out to rise above the surface in amplitude. Surprisingly, there were not waves returning from the center, so that all were absorbed there.
Taking these results into the cosmos, it would seem that the radiating energy from all the stars of a galaxy, radiating inward towards the galactic center, and outwards towards the rim where they dissipate into space, would cause a bunching up of wave energy at the center, where they cancel out. This would therefore express itself either as flattened out waves, or waves of greater amplitude. Based on the gravity effect of photon energy waves when they are stretched out, or flattened, the result should be an increase in gravity at the center of the galaxy. (See post above, TOE-3: By Ivan A. on Saturday, August 17, 2002 - 07:47 pm: WHY THERE ARE BLACK HOLES; also Aug. 15, Black Hole Algorithm.) The high amplitude waves would represent a deflected energy that would be perpendicular to the galactic spiral, but ineffectual on the circumference of the galactic wheel. What then results is that the light energy waves at the galactic center are neutralized and thus cease to function as the energy wavelength needed to simulate mass. With this failure to simulate mass, the galactic center reverts back to the primordial force of gravity in its most intense form, thus resulting in what is theorized as being a Black Hole.
[Please note the "Gravity Variance Test" equation (posted above, 8/25/02) for centripetal force, F = mv^2/r, may be used to calculate a galactic black hole’s gravitational force (F), if it could be estimated as to total galactic mass (m), and radius (r), and spiral velocity (v).]
The kitchen experiment yields the desired results to bear this theory out, but to be truly pure, it would need to be performed in a totally spherical bowl, which I did not have, so that all the waves generated come into the center from all areas of the circumference. I settled for the experiment as performed because I figured the water surface simulated the flattened spiral of a galaxy, such as the Milky Way in which we live.
GRAVITY BUBBLES?
I've been reading "Theories of Everything" (John D. Barrow) with limited enthusiasm, since it is a rehash of all written prior to it (1991) and hinges on BBT, which makes it immediately a candidate for the "Reject!" bin. However, while plodding through it, my mind did have some interesting diversions into what may be happening far out in space. Here is what it looks like...
Imagine that all of space is made up of a positively charged gravity which is superdense, super heavy, like the kind you find in neutron stars or black holes. Now imagine that within this infinite sea of superdensepositivegravity are islands of energy, stars and galaxies, that radiate electromagnetic waves (which are both plus and minus by definition), and that these waves modify the affected space around them to some point of mutual cancellation (where it becomes deep space again), and that inside these light islands the superdensegravity is modified into a much lighter version of itself, which is negatively charged. Now imagine that these islands of light gravity within the dense gravity of space move about (not BBT and redshift defined expanding universe, which is bull), so that they are more or less evenly spaced away from each other though clumped in areas as well. In effect, it is a near random distribution of light islands of gravity within a sea of dense gravity. Because the light islands have a negative charge, they tend to repel each other, so this appears almost to be a push gravity. However, it is not push gravity, unless one considers that light gravity bubbles within a dense gravity medium of space might have these bubbles repel each other; but this is bubble gravity with a charge. So this would be why galaxies and stars do not collide on a regular basis, though they can, especially if their black hole centers attract each other enough to do so, as they pass each other within the superdenseplusgravity medium.
HARMONY OF ATOMS AND PARTICLES.
Below is the link to an excellent paper by Ray Tomes, titled "Harmonic Theory: Atoms and Particles", dated 1 Dec. 1994:
http://homepages.kcbbs.gen.nz/rtomes/rt109.htm
In the article, which shows the harmonic relations between particles mass, as well as particles and nucleus mass, Mr. Tomes writes:
"To see this from a harmonics perspective, it is necessary to not see a nucleus as made of baryons, but to see it as a frequency which is so many times a baryon. It is also some number of times a variety of other particles, including an electron. These relationships are important, and if it were not for the existence of charge, I would say that some nuclei are as fundamental as a proton. I am trying to have people see that all these things are oscillations, and that a small number of sub-atomic particles are NOT the building blocks of the universe."
He then goes on to say: "The relationship electron x 68 = 34.76 Mev x 27 = proton indicates the possible existence of a particle mass 34.76 Mev. No such particle has ever been detected to my knowledge."
I would add my idea to this, that there may be some harmonic ratio between photonic light energy wavelength/frequencies and the particle mass/atomic mass relationships, which bring the two fields of inquiry together. The goal of this inquiry is to find the relationships that cause light to modify mass and gravity.
In the TOE as presented above, all cosmic reality is a super dense heavy Gravity, such as approximates the Strong Force within the nucleus, or the supergravity within a Black Hole, which is the "medium" within which photonic energy of all frequencies act as "modifiers" to this medium so that the atomic mass values, and thus gravity values, are stabilized within star and galactic systems, though not so in deep space where gravity would be expected to be of greater density. This is based on the TOE algorithm: h/cw + g = m = 1 (h=Planck's constant, c=light speed, w=light wavelength, g=gravitational constant, m=mass), and may explain the illusive "dark matter" plaguing astrophysics. (The missing mass of dark matter would be the higher density gravity of deep space, if such is proven.) From this theory we can surmise that the initial light wavelength for our star, the Sun, is 2.2087 x 10^-42 m, and thus from this results the relatively "light" gravity inside our solar system, which is g=10^-39. This may not be true for other stars, so that their relative gravity constants may be different, depending upon what light frequencies they generate. If so, g may have different values for different star systems, or galaxies. This would also explain the very "heavy" gravity around neutron stars, those which have cooled to where the energy generated by them is of longer wavelength than those of more active stars, and thus not as able to modify the Gravity medium. This explains their more dense gravity. It also explains why there is total Gravity within Black Holes, since there light frequencies are totally flattened out and have no modifying effect on atomic mass. This is where the TOE stands at present. What is sought after is "how" these light wavelength frequencies affect the internal composition/electromagnetic interactions within the atom, which is the topic of our next search. Harmonic theory may play a part in this search, in particular as it interrelates to electromagnetism and the 1/137 relationship of electron to proton, or 1/alpha.
Any thoughts on these harmonic relationships within the atom mass may lead us to where we need to go.
ELECTRON "HARMONICS" FOR HYDROGEN ©
by Ivan Alexander
Gentlemen, I think I got it. I did the calculations for relative electromagnetic energy wavelengths "w" (I don't have a lambda key) for the quantum shells of a Hydrogen atom. The ratios, derived from dividing the wavelength of the higher shell by the shell immediately below it, approximate Pythagorean harmonics, in reverse order, so that the largest number is for when the electron jumps from shell 5 to 4, which approximates the harmonic ratio of 2, "do"; (for lower shells, 3, 2, 1, the ratio results exceed 2); and the lowest approximates 1.33, "4/3", which is "fa" as it jumps from 12 to 11. I did not find it coming all the way down to 1, though it tends that way. Below are the calculations as derived from "Hydrogen energies and spectrum" on the Hyperphysics page: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hyde.html#c4 , which has a calculator built in.
Music harmonics as derived by Pythagoras, as shown by Ray Tomes in his paper "Harmonics, Music, Pythagoras and the Universe": http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~ray.tomes/alex.htm :
do= 1
re= 9/8 = 1.125
mi= 5/4 = 1.25
fa= 4/3 = 1.333
so= 3/2 = 1.5
la= 5/3 = 1.666
ti= 15/8 = 1.875
do= 2
Electron shells, "n", in declining order (n2-n1), and their lambda wavelengths "w" in nanometers "nm", all for atomic number "1":
n2-n1 = (12-11) = 69034 nm (i.e., 6.9034 x 10^-5 m), or 4.35 x 10^13 Hz.
* = (11-10) = 52506 (5.2506 x 10^-5 m)
* = 10-9 = 38848 (3.8848 x 10^-5 m)
* = 9-8 = 27788
* = 8-7 = 19051
* = 7-6 = 12365 (1.2365 x 10^-5 m)
* = 6-5 = 7456 (7.456 x 10^-6 m) Note the waves are getting smaller.
* = 5-4 = 4050 (4.050 x 10^-6 m)
* = 4-3 = 1875
* = 3-2 = 656 (6.56 x 10^-7 m) The energy waves get smaller still, as we approach nucleus.
* = 2-1 = 122 (1.22 x 10^-7 m) Very high frequency here, 2.459 x 10^15 Hz!!
(I suspect that if we were to calculate the 1-0 shell's energy, it would be much higher still.)
Okay, so now we know what the transition "lambda wavelengths" are for each electron jump to a lower shell. Now, if you divide each of these wavelengths by the lower shell's, successively, you will get ratios which look like this:
(3-2)/(2-1) = 5.38 (i.e., 656 divided by 122)
(4-3)/3-2) = 2.86
(5-4)/(4/3) = 2.16 vs 2 (Pythagoras)
(6-5)/(5-4) = 1.84 vs 1.875
(7-6)/(6-5) = 1.66 vs 1.666
(8-7)/(7-6) = 1.54 vs 1.5
(9-8)/(8-7) = 1.46 vs. 1.5
(10-9)/(9-8) = 1.40 vs ?? (i.e., 7/5 on fifth's scale)
(11-10)/(10-9)= 1.35 vs. 1.333
(12-11)/(11-10)= 1.31 vs 1.333
Of course, the same applies for the quantum energy ratios, expressed as "eV", for the above shells, since they are relative to the energy wavelengths.
So here above are some ratios, as highlighted, that closely match the harmonic musical scale, though not a perfect fit. It could be that either the numbers calculated as wavelengths have some margin of error in them, or that the harmonic scale is too pure for reality. Remember the ancient Greeks loved the perfection of forms and ideas, and so some of their ratios, alas, may not be so perfect after all, at least not in this reality. However, there is obviously some sort of relationship between quantum energy and harmonics. If you were to continue this exercise for progressively higher electron shells, you would find that the ratios tend towards the number "1", which is "do" all over again.
So what does this mean? Is the universe, or God, a musician? Does God sing, and we spring into being? Interesting, but this above now dove tails nicely into the other algorithm of our TOE, as an expression of light energy, in all of its frequencies, thus is an interactive force within the atom. So this means that (h/cw) + g = m, plays out inside the atom in such a way that the electron shells follow some pattern of harmonic relationships. This means that the value of mass, "m", is relative to the energy received, though for it to be equal to "1", it needs a much smaller wavelength than expressed above, with a much higher frequency, which we calculated as 10^50 Hz, or as approximately: w = 2.2087x10^-42 m.
I owe a debt to the excellent work done by Ray Tomes in figuring out the above, since my inspiration to look for these ratios came from his paper titled "Harmonic Theory: Atoms and Particles" at: http://homepages.kcbbs.gen.nz/rtomes/rt109.htm as well as the at the Hyperphysics Group, page titled "Quantum Harmonic Oscillator: Wavefunctions" at: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/hosc5.html , for these pages, and their related links, gave me an insight of what to look for. I think I found it, since there is a harmonic relationship between electron shells in the atom.
No doubt I am not the first to discover these relationships, but to date I have not found them written anywhere else.
Questions remain, as to what the other values represent in terms of harmonics. Regrettably, I could not calculate n2-n1 as 1-0, since the system did not allow for it. But I am sure the number as a ratio of (2-1)/(1-0) would be extremely large, since the wavelength would be of much higher energy, and thus of an extremely small magnitude in nanometers. The other question would be if this same type of ratio applies to more complex atoms within the elements periodic table? Also, would these ratios hold if we were in a more energetic star, or one that is less energetic, i.e., a blue dwarf as opposed to a neutron star? Lastly, I wonder if the scale ratio of 1.40 has musical qualities? For that matter, would it be the same for 2.86 and 5.38, that they too are harmonic notes? But that is not the issue, for what interests me here is that the universe has a built in harmonic scale in how it allocates the energy within the atom.
Now what remains is to put all this together into a comprehensive Theory of Everything, or a final TOE, keeping in mind that Gravity is both a medium within which photonic light operates to create mass, as it interacts with the super dense gravity within a potential atom, and that Gravity is also a residual force from this interaction, for which evidence we need to find. That is where we are now.
137, as a 1/2 product of hydrogen atom harmonics?
This is a curiosity, that if you multiply natural harmonics of hydrogen electron shells (i.e., 1.33, 1.4, 1.5, 1.66, 1.84, 2.1 ), and then multiply the result, which is approximately 17.9, by the harmonic ratios of the second and first electron shells of the hydrogen atom, which are approx. 2.86 and 5.38, you get the result of 275, which if halved, becomes 137.5.
You may recognize the number 137 as being part of the dimensionless constant of electromagnetic force coupling, which is 1/137. This is a number which appears naturally in the equations for many electromagnetic phenomenon, where "E photon" times "photon wave lambda" = hc = 137.
See: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/couple.html
"This coupling constant is also called the 'fine structure constant' since it shows up in the description of the fine structure of atomic spectra." -- Hyperphysics.
But why is the product of the harmonic ratios "double" the constant? Don't know... but it is intriguing.
WHY THE MATH WORKS: for (h/cw) + g = mass =1.
Not using the numeric values, but rewriting it in terms of units of measure only, it looks like this:
(Please note that " * " is "multiplied by")
h (in units)= m^2*kg*s^-2 ...Planck's constant
c = m*s ...light speed, as meters per second
w = m s ...lambda wavelength, as meters (also per light distance in one second)
m = kg ...mass, as kilograms
g = ? (I'll leave this one out for now)
So you get, as per equation above:
[(m^2*kg*s^-2)/(m*s)*(m*s)] + g = kg
Multiplying and cancelling out we get:
[m^2*kg*s^-2]/m^2*s^2] + g = kg
then further:
[kg(m^2)/s^2]/(m^2*s^2) +g = kg
Now, m^2 cancel out, leaving:
(kg/s^2/s^2) + g = kg
Now, s^2 cancel out, leaving:
kg (+g) = kg
So this is how the units used cancel out and become equal to mass as kg.
I have not spent as much time as I wish on your paper yet, having only just returned from England and being a bit jet lagged. However you are reinventing Prince Louis De Broglie’s work ( http://www.davis-inc.com/physics/ and many others) relating mass to equivalent wavelength. You do however have to get the values in compatible units, and indeed you have. And yes the wavelength of a large mass is indeed very short, and the associated frequency very high.
Your wavelength (in meters) w=h/p where h is in Joule seconds and p is Kg m / s (mass times velocity of light), hence for a 1 kilogram mass the wavelength is close to 2e-42 m, as you find. This is why bricks don’t manifest visible interference patterns – they would be too small to see :-).
The equivalent frequency is about 1.5e50 Hz, again as you find, with no surprises. This is outside the range of convenient observation.
There are no surprises in your correct calculations, except perhaps that the numbers are in regimes not common in everyday experience. Physics is sometime like that. The real usefulness of these concepts, although they are also exactly correct for classical masses (of the order of worldly experience) is for particles in the atomic range and below, where the numbers get reasonable. For example the electron with a rest mass of 9.1e-28 g can be accelerated through a few hundred or thousand volts to make an electron microscope, because its wavelength becomes shorter than that of light, and hence gives higher resolution.
With respect to your alleged finding of ‘coincidences’ between quantum mechanics and music, invoking Pythagorean (he was a numerologist!) philosophies, is no more than the curiously beautiful properties of the sequence of real numbers, in which the definition of reality in our Universe is firmly rooted. Everything follows from the sequence of numbers, which itself is created by imagining the existence of any entity (ONE) and adding another (ONE+ONE=TWO) and so on to infinity (Hilbert, Cantor and transfinite numbers notwithstanding).
Hope this is helpful or at least interesting. --Anthony.
(My friend Nelson, a chemist, later added to the TOE:)
"The difficulty in achieving a TOE isn't mathematical, it's conceptual.
Chemistry wasn't understood with the concept of an atom--we still didn't
know what made atoms different. Only when we had the structure of atoms
(electrons, protons and neutrons) could we understand chemistry.
The same thing happened with all electromagnetic phenomena when Maxwell
figured out the interrelationships between the electric and magnetic fields.
Two fields, four equations--the electromagnetic TOE.
Particle physics got TOEed with quarks. 4 quarks, 3 leptons, 3 neutrinos and
we've got all the particles.
So a successful TOE must by necessity be fundamental. What's fundamental to
the basic particles, electrodynamics, and gravity? That's the question.
As far as physical constants go they serve two purposes: to define a
relationship in terms of dimensional units (length, time, mass etc.) and
provide a numerical amount--a measure. The numerical amount will change
depending on the units of measure used. There are units of measure such that
all the physical constants are reduced to 1. These are called the Planck
units--they bring all the physical constants to unity. So C, h, G and so on
are all 1 when using Planck units.
> [1/c2 x (p2c2 + (mc2)2)1/2 + (cm3/g/s2)] = m
If you want a fundamental mass unit (fundamental to gravity, quantum
mechanics, electrodynamics and everything else to which mass can be applied)
you can derive it thusly:
m=(hc/G)^1/2 It's the Planck mass unit. To see more:
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?plkm
Is there a single structure underlying all physical phenomena? Many think
so, thus the search goes on. The one thing that hasn't been examined in any
meaningful way is space itself. Is there a structure to space? Many think
so. That'd make for an easy TOE."
Nelson
zink@newmex.com
Hi Claude,
Very interesting comments on EM wave theory and the four forces.
RE "There is something dreadfully errant in present understanding of wave theory. Maybe with further programming Omegatron Dynamics can produce the answer I am looking for."
I look forward to seeing more of Omegatron Dynamics. Thinking "outside the box", I would propose the following: Atoms formed where gravity/space vacuum/ether had (and still have) positive charge. Now, this is a bold concept, but what it means is that EM, which are bipolar, interacted with positive charged supergravity points, resulting in a vortex of existence modified by the electromagnetic waves, which stabilized the positive charge with negative charged particles, electrons, to make an atom. If so, then atoms are points in space where the cosmic primordial gravity, which is super strong, is the proton/neutron nucleus of the atom; and the electrons are the resulting harmonic shells which modify this nucleus into a unit of atomic mass. Why "harmonic"? Because the universe works that way: God sings and atoms dance.
The resulting four forces: Strong force, electromagnetic force, weak force, and gravity, are all derived from this positive/negative interaction between the nucleus deep gravity and electromagnetic photon energy. Of these, strong force and weak force are neutralized at very close range, so they cancel out to zero (in and of themselves almost immediately); electromagnetic and gravity both leak out of the atom, so they extend to infinity. Now, remember that all this started with the rewriting of E=mc2 as a function of zero x infinity = 1 = atom mass, with cosmic gravity observed as a very weak residual force. And what do we have again? Zero/strong-weak forces X infinity/em-gravity = mass. Like Yogi Bera said, it's deja vu all over again!
h/cl + g = m = (unity) 1.
This is significant because it incorporates a world that is at once relativistic (c), quantum mechanical (h), gravitational (g), and de Broglie wavelike (l); all of which combine into an expression of TOE based on the interaction of energy and gravity to equal mass, with an atomic residual gravity which we know as a Gravitational constant (variable constant) in relation to c and l.
This is exemplified by calculating the following Gravity-Densities for the planets: DELTA GRAVITY (Planet's vs. Earth's)/PLANETARY MASS (in Kgs.) = GRAVITY DENSITY RATIO (in relation to surrounding energy-gravity region):
The Small Rocky Planets:
Earth: (1)/5.94e24 kg = 0.168
Mercury: (1/2.6)/33e24 kg = 0.01166 (very low ratio)
Venus: (1/1.105)/4.87e24 kg = 0.2269
Mars: (1/2.6)/0.69e24kg = 0.5989
Gas Giants: See Below.
Pluto: (1/15)/0.0013e24 kg = 51.28 (a very high ratio!)
The Gas Giants:
Jupiter: (2.53)/1900e^24 kg = 0.00133
Saturn: (1.066)/568e^24 kg = 0.0112
Uranus: (0.904)/86.8e^24 kg = 0.01042
Neptune: (1.129)/102e^24 kg = 0.0107
Please note that the inverse of these ratios yields a more intuitive reading, i.e., Earth=5.9, Merc=85.7, Venu=4.4, Mars=1.67, Plut=0.19. This shows the contrast between Mercury, very high energy-density ratio, and Pluto, with a very low energy-density.
The Gas Giants have inverse ratios: Jupit=752, Satur=526, Uran=95, Neptu=93.5.
Claude on Thursday, May 23, 2002 - 04:43 am:
Ivan,
I think before you become too engrossed in establishing a formula, two issues should be resolved: 1) No data is available to prove black holes exist: 2) Your thoughts on photons lead to a problematic dead end. Follows are a series of links; among the many of them is a composite notion of where we must solidify a TOE. Every paper in every link has the potential to destroy every TOE theory imaginable; therefore, a complete understanding of the potential effect that just one wrong character in an equation renders it – worthless. To begin, please go to:
http://www.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/aether_5.htm
It is the last article located at:
http://www.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/aetherqr.htm
You will find many links at the above URL, and all of them are relevant to what we are attempting to accomplish. To read the abstracts for every article presented, use this URL.
http://www.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/aether.html
Before going much further, The Yilmaz Theory of Gravity should become familiar turf because it is the one Gravitational theory that makes sense, corrects the known errors in Einstein’s theories; moreover, it fits a Steady State hypothesis to near perfection. If the theory can be validated, it will destroy the BBT. Einstein, never actually bought into the BBT, neither did Fred Hoyle; however Hoyle could never overcome the flaws in his own Steady State theory, but the Yilmaz theory does exactly that. I have added work by Jason Douglas Brown to the new website by permission. It gives an excellent working position to learn how the theory works, the corrections to Einstein’s theories, refutations to others, and hopefully will assist by forcing present day cosmology to re-evaluate present patently false notions. A couple of internal links in the work by Brown do not work but one of the sites has ceased operation, the other apparently moved elsewhere.
http://www.newtheory.org/jason%20brown/newtheory.html
Einstein was to put it rather bluntly, intimidated by Minkowski, whose interpretations of Relativity actually gave rise to the BBT as eventually proposed by Lemaître, and others. See the following,
http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/minkowski.html
To fully understand the problem of light, you must understand what and how the notion of – time – affects everything. There is no potential whatsoever that – time – can be any part of the necessary equations that will be formulated in this process. Time, is wholly, and fully an independent curiosity that is local phenomena that occurs between our ears, your ears, my ears, everyone’s ears. In other words, time must be relegated to precisely what it is; otherwise, all of this is an exercise in futility. You can grasp these notions by studying the following link.
http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/twins.html
Before we establish a philosophical, theological, and common sense TOE, the science portions must be soundly grounded, for if it is not, the results for the general public is worthless.
By Claude on Sunday, June 2, 2002 - 01:05 am:
The basis of a TOE – Part II
In the first part we established four premises requisite to compose a TOE; those premises follow.
1. The universe exists
2. The universe is a necessity
3. A necessity serves a purpose
4. A purpose is the functional use of an object or being to obtain a specific end
Conclusion: The universe exists because of necessity, and serves a purpose as used to obtain a specific end or result.
Discussion: Here, we must attempt to elucidate the purpose served by the universe, but where to begin is our problem. If the universe always existed as a necessity, it is obvious the universe is not an accident; therefore, the purpose for that of which the universe serves is congruent. If the purpose of the universe is congruent, that means the purpose is not contingent, which means, the purpose of the universe is also a necessity, specifically of the logical type. If it were not, there would not be a purpose for the universe. Logic? Here, we must ask a pointed question: Can logic be totally external, and independent of a living entity that is capable of using those results from logical operations? I believe the answer is readily apparent from the use of modern computer apparatus. A computer can be programmed to perform calculations; however, the calculations that result are meaningless to the computer that formulated the result. If all of this is true the answer to the question asked is, an unequivocal and emphatic, no; therefore, there is but one conclusion for us to consider – there is no alternative. The purpose of the universe is to support life.
Second postulates –
1. Life exists
2. Life exists as a necessity
3. Live serves a purpose
4. Life is the means to obtain a specific goal
At this point, I digress in order that discussion can take place. From here forward, formulation of a TOE is relatively straightforward; it encompasses modern science, common sense, analytical thinking, and logical progression through conclusion. It does not entail the use of difficult formulas, nor are they even required.
Claude
By Claude on Friday, June 21, 2002 - 12:43 pm:
The Four Forces of the Universe-
Strong Force
Weak Force
Electromagnetic Force
Gravity
Again, the four forces identified by science, reinforces the conceptual Hierarchical Order of Structure of the Universe. The conceptual Hierarchical Order further retains the sense of order as perceived by humans, of which could possibly be subject to change; however, if in fact such a change is required, it would demand conclusive, irrefutable proof.
____________
The four forces of nature are the strong force, the electromagnetic force, the weak force, and the gravitational force. We are more familiar with gravity and electromagnetic force; however, a brief explanation of each is necessary for understanding how each force’s functions result with observable phenomena. First is a comparison of the relative strength of each force, and the functions associated with them.
The strength of a force depends on the distance over which it is acting. Gravity, the force exerted by one object on another drops according to the square of the distance between the two objects. The equation for the force exerted by gravity is:
F(gravity)= -GMm/(distance-squared)
where G is a small constant, and M and m represent the masses of the two objects. The minus sign merely indicates the force is attractive. We say the "range" of the gravitational force is "unlimited" because it exerts its presence across an arbitrarily expanse of distance. The force of gravity diminishes as distance is increased between two objects. The electromagnetic force has a similar formula. The repulsive force between two electrons is:
F(EM)=Cee/(distance-squared),
where C is a large constant. The e (typed once for each of two charges + - ) is the charge of the electron. Please note: the strength of the force drops with the distance between the charges in a way identical to gravity. Also, if we were talking about an electron and an anti-electron (which has the opposite charge), then there would be a minus sign indicating the force between opposite charges is attractive.
We can compare the strength of the gravitational force to the electromagnetic force on two electrons by taking the ratio between the two forces. The distance-squared cancels out and we are left with:
F(gravity)/F(EM) = Gmm/Cee.
I intentionally omitted the minus sign, so we must remember, that gravitational force between the electrons is attractive and the electromagnetic force between the two electrons is repulsive. When I plug in the values for G, m, C, and e, the ratio is 2.4x10^(-43), which in words would be stated as: two-point-four times ten to the minus forty-three. That is a very small number. In other words, gravitational force between two electrons is very weak if compared to electromagnetic force. The reason we feel the force of gravity, although it is so weak, is that every atom in the Earth is attracting every one of your atoms, and there are a lot of atoms in us, and the Earth. The one reason we are not knocked about by electromagnetic forces is, we possess a near equal amount of positive and negative charges, so, in essence, we are electrically neutral.
I think he weak force is inappropriately named. It's thought to be as strong as the EM force, yet unlike the EM force, it is a short-ranged force. In fact, the range is only about 1/100 the size of an atomic nucleus. The weak force is outside of the realm of daily human experience. It can be studied via super-colliders by using the accelerator to produce particles, which transmit the force. These are real particles, and are identified as the W-boson and the Z-boson. Because they are very massive, we must a high-energy accelerator to produce them. The large mass of the W-boson and the Z-boson is also the reason the force has a short range. The particles, which carry the EM force is called, the photon (yes, light). Because photons are without mass, the EM force potential is long range as was described above. The weak force and the EM force have been found to be linked at high-energy or, equivalently, short range. They both can be described by one set of equations, which is known as "electro-weak" theory. Steven Weinberg, Sheldon Glashow, and Abdus Salam made these observations from 1967-1971. They were the Nobel Prize recipients in physics for unifying those forces.
Last we must consider the strong force. This is outside of the experience we get in everyday life (not that it doesn't have everyday life consequences). Remember that a proton or neutron is composed of three quarks – those quarks have strong charges, and are bound together by the strong force. Unlike the case of the EM force, where there is one electric charge and one anti-charge (plus + and minus - charges) there are three strong force charges and three anti-charges. We call the three strong force charges "red", "blue", and "yellow," and their anti-charges are called "anti-red," "anti-blue and "anti-yellow." Those particles, which transmit the force, are called gluons. Gluons are without mass, like the photon; but, unlike the photon, which is electrically neutral, the gluons carry very strong charges and a different very strong anti-charge. A gluon might be "red-anti-blue" (for example) or any combination thereof, and there are eight types of gluons. We call the three charges "colors" although they have nothing to do with what we see.
Since the gluon is without mass, you might think the range of the strong force is infinite, like the EM force; however, after studying behavior of the strong force, it becomes apparent that the three quarks in a proton or neutron behave as if they were bouncing around freely in a relaxed elastic spherical container. None of the quarks can escape the container, for when a quark reaches the boundary of the proton or neutron the force begins to act, and increases exponentially with every incremental increase of distance between the quarks. That is vastly different from the other forces, which get weaker at longer distances, and it occurs because the gluons have the color and anti-color charges. The strong force also acts between protons and neutrons in an atomic nucleus; the manner is similar to that of simple chemicals, which are held together by electromagnetic force. A nucleus such as helium, which has two positive EM-charged protons, is stable because the strong force overcomes the electromagnetic forces. The strong force binds those two protons with about 25-35 MeV of energy. The electromagnetic forces attempt to push the protons apart. The net result is such that it takes approximately 1 million electron volts of energy to separate the two protons. In contrast, the electron is bound to a proton in a hydrogen atom by only a few electron volts. By now you know enough to consider the size of the nucleus in comparison to the size of an atom to judge if this is truly a fair comparison The strong force is indeed, strong.
It is believed that if we could study the electro-weak and strong forces at very high energy levels, we could learn if they were linked together somehow, like electricity and magnetism are to form EM, and like EM and the weak force are to form electro-weak. Such a theory would be the often-mentioned, Grand-Unified Theory. We also have good reason to believe that it might be possible to include gravity with the other three forces. Such a theory would be called, Super-Grand-Unified Theory. The "Superstring Theory," is a candidate.
How strong is the strong force? The answer is, it depends on the range. At short distances the strong force is weak; at long distances it is very strong. That effect is completely different from the other three forces, and arises because the force transmitters (gluons) are without mass; they have strong-charges, and different strong anti-charges.
For those of you interested, I heartily recommend,
"The God Particle," Leon Lederman, Dick Teresi, February 1993; Delta Publishers, ISBN 0-385-31211-3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By G-man767 on Saturday, August 3, 2002 - 02:18 am:
I hate to harp. I, too, love math, logic, physics. But the key to TOE can't reside in all the formulae of constants or algorithms. Why? Because it doesn't provide us with a 'way' to observe from both inside and outside a system at once. As I see it, the enduring issue (beyond metrologic definitional refinements) is one involving delay versus simultaneity: How is it that the Observer is the Observed? How to develop a new calculus that extends beyond the subject-object/observer-observed paradigm? Uncle Albert took things as far as he knew how to. But we still find ourselves at an impasse. How is it that an actual is never a true actual [since in motive process, it's ever-unsettled], but can and does become truly actual only at that point at which its total [futural] potentiality is achieved/reached/subsumed? As Yogi Berra famously said, "It ain't over 'til it's over." What if only the past--that which has occurred--were affirmationally 'actual'? And yet, also what if such actualness of the past were contingent on the ultimate/final/omega of all that is 'now' in process? Would it simply add a further margin of doubt/improbability to our current model assumptions? Finally, is 'futurity' interior, aka 'inside' or exterior to our operative postulative system?:) G-man
By G-man767 on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 09:12 pm:
In a nutshell, here's my own personal TOE: Both
light velocity (c) and absolute gravity (G)=
simultaneous alpha/omega time. Both c and G are
equivalent to each other, and represent the
universal constant. All values less than c or
greater than G have only potential time. Hence,
Time has not yet begun, yet 'Now'= alpha/omega t.
I also think that if Matter=Potential Energy, then
a current function of Matter=E. Suggesting further
that all values less than c also have c (or G) as
their ultimate constant. Strange ideas, I know.
Just thought I'd float them:) G-man
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Ivan A. on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 04:26 pm:
PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATION FOR A 'THEORY OF EVERYTHING'
On reading Quantum physics, on a possible Theory of Everything; i.e., Paul Davies "The New Physics" (Cambridge Univ. 1989), and John Gribbin "The Search for Superstrings, Symmetry, and the Theory of Everything" (Little Brown 1998); I am struck by a common problem to which there seems to be no solution. Though best minds have studied this for over a century, from Faraday and Planck to Einstein and Fermi to Salam and Weinberg to Gell-Mann and Nambu and Wu and scores others, there is a lack of conceptual coordination, as expressed by the mathematics, of being able to relate the strong and weak forces, electromagnetic forces, and the weakest force of gravity, into a general theory. I suspect that it may be possible to re-coordinate the mathematical expressions where there is a 'basic common denominator' into which all functions have to fall, and from which all Quantum interactions of the higher levels would then find expression. Though mathematics is a language, one of how interactions relate, with its own grammar and structure, it is nevertheless only a language, much like ordinary spoken languages, and thus may lend itself to expressions of both truth and fiction. I will try to express below, in ordinary language, what I think can be translated into mathematical expressions, and from which I think we may find models that express reality closer to the truth than understood hitherto. And if so, then we may have found an expression, which can later be translated into mathematics, which may be the possible foundation for a Theory of Everything, not only as a theory tying together the forces of physical reality, but ultimately as the supranatural forces that tie together all living things that exist within it. We would know we had achieved this goal, perhaps albeit an unachievably lofty one, when we can translate the mathematical language into observable and measurable phenomena in the natural world.
If we take into account that much empirical data on Quantum Electrodynamics and gravity has been gathered, and that this data generally bears out General Relativity as posited by Einstein and successors, then we should assume that the data is good, as it is being measured, and that only a way to fit the data into a more generalized theory is lacking. The math is at times tricky, requiring canceling out infinities in order to renormalize the equations as Gibbin writes (pp. 65-67): "Mathematically, the infinite mass of the cloud around the electron is compensated for by assuming that a 'bare' electron would have infinite negative mass. With careful mathematical juggling, the two infinities can be made to cancel out...); which leads one to think that infinities in calculations need to be removed, since it is improper to divide or multiply by them. However, what if infinities were the desired results for which we were looking, and from which we could draw a common denominator? Would measurements of quarks, leptons, muons, nucleons, electrons and neutrinos then fall into place? This would be the goal of a Theory of Everything, I would think.
UNITY IN OPPOSITES, on the Interactions that cause Universal Being:
Let us make a basic assumption about how is structured the universe: "Unity is found in opposites." There is ample demonstration of this, that positive and negatives attract to form a unity, much as the two poles of a magnet cancel out in between to remain one complete force. So the pluses and minuses of the universe seem to cancel out, whether in a state of stability, where all things rest in balance, or dynamically, in a state of becoming. This principle applies as well to atomic and subatomic existence, implying that there is a kind of balance in existence that normalizes the opposites into unity, or what we then perceive as a kind of existential-reality stability.
If this is so, that opposites normalize into unity, then it would seem that a logical place to search for a basic assumption for a Theory of Everything would be in the two extreme universal forces that are opposed to each other. I would recommend that from the observable universe there are two such very great forces: Quasars and Black Holes. One is the brightest object in the universe, the Quasar; the other is the darkest, the Black Hole. Now, this is not a starting point, but rather an observation from which a starting point can be established. So the next step would be to identify from our known observations of physics the two opposing forces that influence matter and its creation or destruction. For this I would suggest "Photons", as light, as representative of all electromagnetic waves of all magnitudes, in all spectrums; and an "unknown" as the opposite to photons, as that which represents the 'dark' force. It is this 'dark' force that I think is missing in Quantum physics as it now stands. There are measurements and theories of Strong Forces, gluons, that bind the proton and neutron together. However, these are little understood, and if one were to theorize instead that such a force, being the 'glue' Strong Force that holds together the nucleus, then it may approach forces of 'infinite magnitudes' similar to what we observe in Black Holes, a kind of Total Force. Or perhaps it could be best described by the measurable force of the 'unknown' X particle, or 10 (to 15th) GeV, i.e., 10 million million times the electromagnetic weak force; then we would be seeing it as equivalent to a force at the time, theoretically, of the Universe being only 10 (to minus 37) seconds old, or at the very beginning of the so called Big Bang. (I am skeptical that the Universe started this way, and think that instead this may be happening on a continuous basis throughout the cosmos as tiny 'mini-bangs', but this is not important for this purpose here.) So we are then looking, from this deduction, for a dark 'strong force' to be opposite electromagnetic 'light photons' that approximates the binding force of the universe at its 'creation', in effect, with near infinite gravity cohesion. This is not to be equated in any way with 'gravity' as we understand it, what is keeping me in my chair as I write this, but rather as a force so powerful that in theory it contains all of existence within it at the 'birth' of the Universe.
Much of physics, it appears to me, is fancy, as the Big Bang is a fanciful account imagined because of how the math works out; same as measuring the colorful eightfold path of interquark forces leads to mathematical expressions for which our minds are not equipped to imagine; to imagining photons as being both particles and waves. In this case, the fancy as deduced here is that there is a force that approximates a compressed universe into its singularity, which is so powerful that even photons cannot escape it, except at close quarter as within the atom. This is why I alluded to earlier to the Black Holes, because they are evidence of such a force. So, to give this 'unknown' force a name, one that has not been used in the colorful description of Quantum physics, and one which approximates the nature of this force, being gravitationally near infinitely powerful, I would give it the name of a gravity "infiniton". This is not to be compared to a 'graviton' which measures a very weak force, that of gravity, but rather the very strong force of the 'infiniton', which is inside the atom.
PHOTONS AND INFINITONS:
Now, by default, because we do not know this force other than through its various manifestations as evidenced by how it interacts with photonic electromagnetic energy, we are then forced to treat it as an unknown, yet one of near infinite, or even infinite, properties. One can look at the universe's Black Holes for evidence of how these infinitons work, that they are able to absorb all light and matter into themselves, to go... where? The answer is Nowhere, for they simply reabsorb into what the Universe is made of, nothingness. On the other side of the polarity is what the universe radiates with, the electromagnetic energy of light, or photons, in all its spectrums from X-ray to infra-reds. Then, how these various energies interact with the infinitons is what manifests as created matter. These interactions are then measurable in Quantum physics, from which we can gain an understanding of how light interacts with the properties of the infiniton 'dark matter'. Thus, if so, then Quantum physics should become greatly simplified. On the other hand, the Big Bang would come into question because this theory would point that, over great distances of space, light is being gradually absorbed by the resulting 'dark force'. So in cosmic space, over those distances, light would red-shift with time, not because of space expanding, but because the dark matter left over from the interaction of photons and infinitons acts like a drag on it. In the same manner could be measured how photons knock out electrons from metals, or how the wave-particle nature of electromagnetic energy interacts at different levels of the nucleus to measure at what state is the energy within the atom, away from the all collapsing force of the infiniton. All these would be measurable evidence of the interaction between photons and infinitons. The rest would then be arithmetic, to design a periodic table of how various levels of energy between the photons and infinitons interact within the atom. And when this is done, we then are close to arriving at a Theory of Everything, because then we can incorporate gravity and dark matter into the equation.
GRAVITY AND DARK MATTER:
How photon energy and infiniton energy interact explains the mechanics of atomic structures as they exist in our observable reality. However, the offsets between these two powerful opposing forces are not total, in that there is a leakage that then 'renormalizes' with what happens in the universe. That leakage, I suspect, is what is left over from the attractive force of the infiniton as it is modified into atomic existence by the electromagnetic forces of photons; the resulting byproduct force, which is a rather weak force, is Gravity. In the equation of TOE (still unwritten), the universal constant would then work out to be what is left over as gravity, as the force that then unites all of existence into a comprehensive whole everywhere throughout the cosmos. Gravity, as a left over force of infiniton attraction, is then spread out evenly to affect all objects, and even the photons themselves, over great distances. This is evidenced by successfully using 'gravitational lenses' in space astronomy, where the gravity of distant galaxies act as a lens on the light coming from behind those galaxies, and magnify it to be picked up by orbiting space telescopes. So photons and gravity do interact, but because this interaction is rather weak, it is observable only over very great distances, unlike the strong interactions between photons and infinitons within the atom, where they interact directly. Because this weak interaction is happening all over the existing cosmic space, it creates a kind of 'shadow' through which light must struggle, which we then think of as 'dark matter'. I do not think this dark matter actually exists, but it is only a manifestation of how light interacts with gravity over great distances. So, like gravity, dark matter is then a waste product of the photon-infiniton interaction, and is measurable only by how light interacts with it over great distances. Therefore, in the final equation of TOE, Gravity is only a left over constant from the subatomic interactions of photon electromagnetic energy and the very dark glue of infinitons as the near infinite common denominators of the universe, of nothingness.
INTERRELATIONS AND BEING:
It should be understood that this Theory of Everything is being sought after in a philosophical sense, fanciful or not, rather than strictly in a Quantum physics sense, though the mathematics developed from it could lend itself to physical observation. This would be the test, that the math measures against observable reality, whether in a better understanding of Quasars and Black Holes (which may in fact not be collapsed stars at all, but rather 'infiniton stars'), or how energy is exchanged both within and without the atoms. It may yet prove that Gravity as a force is duplicatable, perhaps at levels far in excess of those exhibited by natural bodies in space; same as it may prove that the velocity of light is not the greatest speed in the universe, that there are things much faster. Though I could envision this only as a theoretical philosophical idea, that the infinitons mentioned above have instantaneous force, that they attract outside the values of time, and thus their 'leakage' of gravity is likewise instantaneous in its potential attraction; but if so, then gravity is 'felt' over immense cosmic distances instantly also, though only as a byproduct weak force. This could mean then that gravity is a faster 'communicator' within the universe than light, and if so, the 'interrelationships' that span the universe are intercommunicating instantly all the time, which could lead into a whole new way of seeing how the Universe interacts with itself.
In the end all things come back to us, for we are the seekers with our being, and we are the storytellers. We have to find meaning which will give us a sense of understanding of how things are, of how existence affects us in our minds and bodies. It is for this reason that we have posited a concept of 'being', to which we belong and within which we feel our inner existence. That this 'being' can then be connected to outer existence in some unified way becomes the goal of the Theory of Everything, and either we find our consciousness connected to all existence within this being, or we do not. If reality is a vast interrelated phenomenon of itself, of how it interplays between the universe spanning electromagnetic energy of photons and the universe crushing infinite gravity force of infinitons, then how this drama creates both matter and life within its existence becomes a potentially unifiable theory, of everything. Life and mass, consciousness and light, all become interrelatable as one, canceling out unnecessary opposites, one vast interrelationship that is able to coordinate itself from the largest dimensions, and to identify itself into the smallest parts. And, to be true to itself in a principle of mutually canceling opposites, both Consciousness, the byproduct of Life, and Existence, the 'isness' of Itself, combine into Being, the Who we Are. And thus, what had been seen as an existence of the duality of Mind and Reality now becomes combined, the Theory of Everything, as One. But... One what?
TOE, The GREAT MANDALA OF BEING:
Being=> Consciousness=> Identity=> Change=> Motion=> Photonics=> Supergravity.
These are the seven great elements of the Theory of Everything.
Above is the snake biting its own tail, the great mandala, of how the universe is its own simulator. Each of the above is an identifiably separate but interwoven state of being element into which fall the whole, and from which then radiate the individual parts. That there is change and growth in the universe over time is one unifying feature to this Mandala of Being, and that all parts within the whole are interrelated at close and great distances, is the fabric that holds the mandala of everything together. Let us elaborate each of these categories of being as we close in onto the conclusion of a Theory of Everything. Rather than starting at the beginning, as most stories do, let us instead start at the end.
BEING:
We are. This is the great mystery of existence, that there are beings who are curious of their own existence, ourselves. Humans question, but more than that, they interact. We interact with the reality within which we individually live; more importantly, we interact with the reality of each other's existence, the being of other existences who then interact with us. Is this not the most wonderful mystery of all? That we could reach into the existence of another, and they into ours, is pure magic. By what reason, what great plan of existence, do we then meet the people we meet, discourse, relate at an intellectual distance, or in the intimacy of our feelings, touch other human beings's being, and even interact through agreement, or conflict? Is this not a miracle too little appreciated because of its universality, its commonness? I think that the accident of birth, and the events of meeting other beings, and what progresses from all this is not accident at all; rather, it is the most marvelous event of universal existence, that we are, together. Being is a magic miracle.
CONSCIOUSNESS:
If the first miracle of existence is being, then the second is consciousness. In ordinary language, we are conscious because we have a feeling of ourselves. But in universal terms, what I would call philosophical language, we are conscious because we live, we learn, we do, and we choose. These are characteristics that most living things share in common. We are alive with learning and doing and locomotion and choosing, even when we are not aware we do this. What distinguishes humans from most of the other animal species is that we have an acute awareness of our awareness, that we are conscious of our consciousness. Into this consciousness fall our thoughts and feelings, our loves and hates, our thinking of ourselves and others, and how we view the reality within which we exist. We are curious of how we were born, which we cannot remember, or what happens after we die, which we cannot truly imagine. Likewise, we are curious of what is happening around us, when did it begin, and of how it will end. But most curious of all is that life around us also is, and if taken to mean that it is also conscious in its own way, then we are all together in a sea of consciousness that is the fabric of a universe. It is a universe within which living consciousness is a condition of existence, which each living thing must make choices and then act in how it had chosen. We can choose because we are conscious, which we must do to survive. Consciousness is an integral part of our being alive.
IDENTITY:
Each thing is what and where it is. This is the basis of all identity, including us, the who we are. In a theory that encompasses everything, then being as an identity of inanimate matter is not so different from being of living things. We all share an identity of being within the whole, the fabric of a universe that is its own simulator. How each thing is interrelated into that whole then determines its role and place within that whole. If the whole is to be taken as being total, infinite in space and time, then we are all products of how that interrelated infinity has defined itself. This is more than merely A = A; rather, it is where A = everything else to infinity and back again to A. Within this new definition of A, some of us display characteristics of being alive, while others do not. We do not know that of what we are all built is not also conscious, but its expression as being alive is limited to how the infinite reality had defined it. Because no two things can occupy the same space at the same time, living things have a different universal identity from the inanimate objects, though life uses the inanimate to build itself a body within which to be alive. And when the game is done, we all return back to an identity of the inanimate, of which we remain in mystery. Each of us is as we had been positioned through space and time into the identity of being who we are, either alive or not. We are what and who we are.
CHANGE:
This is the pivotal point of the universe, that things change. We live in a dynamic existence which remains fixed or static only for periods of time, for in the end, all things change. When we lift up an object, and toss it away, we had effected change. But the universe had already allowed for this, and the change that took place did so within the parameters of what had been allowed. If the change was acceptable in some universally constructive way, then it was added back into the totality interrelationship that defined that change; if it was not acceptable, then it was rejected and failed to materialize. So it was with the changes that characterized living species, which then either evolved to accommodate changes in reality, or perished. This is always a biaxial event defined by both time and space, where the changes are registered within the whole, and from the whole came a redefinition in how this change fit into the interrelationships that were created from it. When change became so accepted that it developed consciousness, then the universal totality became alive. We live in a changing and living universe, which defines who we are individually in ourselves, in relation to who we are in the whole.
MOTION:
Everything spins. This is a fact of universal reality, that all things are in motion all the time. This motion is another miracle of existence, of the great wheel of being. However, this motion does not happen in a vacuum, rather it is influenced by all the other motions around it, either up close or at great distances. We live in a fluid universe where the fixed relations are constantly subject to change, and when this influence is felt, motion results. When life first appeared, it immediately reached for the ability to move, to move about, and to seek out what it needed for survival. Even plants, which are rooted to a spot, will move in successive generations to places more appropriate for survival, same as they will move towards the light of the sun. The forces of the universe perpetually exerted on each thing cause motion. Motion is everywhere all the time.
PHOTONICS:
Light is the messenger of the whole. We are continuously bathed in photonic light which reaches us from the greatest distances of universal dimensions. When the Hubble telescope finally worked, we were amazed to see fully formed stars and galaxies 15 billion light years away from us, a light still reaching us today, 15 billion years later. I suspect that we will discover that this light had been traveling to us from even greater distances. As each photon hits an atom it then releases an electron, which if then reabsorbed releases a photon. This is how the universe is built, of electromagnetic waves of energy quantized into particles of light which then interact with the basic units of matter as expressed by atomic mass. And all this is tied together into a universal whole effecting motion and change, which then is defined by interrelationship into identity, which then exhibits life and consciousness, which in the end becomes a unit of being. All these interact with one another, spatially and in time, at infinitesimally small distances, and infinitely large universal dimensions. Photonic light is absorbed by living matter, first through photosynthesis in plants and algaes, then eaten by animals, transformed into being, and in the end returned into the planet, and thus into the stars from which it came. We are alive on a great mandala of light, of being, and the photons are its messengers. Akhenaten was not so far off!
SUPERGRAVITY:
Now we have come full circle, from being to nothingness. If light is the messenger of being, then the gravity that holds together the universe as a great mass is its shadow. In the algorithms above, we theorized that: h/cw + g = m. This is not an absolute statement, only one that illustrates that the forces of the universe can be expressed in how they interrelate with one another. Brought to its simplest, the universe has no mass and no time, it is nothing. This nothingness is expressed at the center of each atom, same as it is expressed within the center of each black hole star, that nothingness is the superforce from which nothing escapes, not even light, a kind of supergravity. Yet, this infinite blackness is then relieved, or modified, by the photonic light that encounters it at close quarter, which then defines the atom. This is what is sought in the algorithm above (expressed originally as: [1/c2 x hc/w] + g = m = 1, where 'h' is Planck's constant, and 'w' is light wavelength, which then multiplies out into: h/cw + g = m; see Algorithm posts above), which is how light modifies the supergravity into a unit of mass. This is also the expression of infinity times zero equals one, where mass is then equal to one, photonic light is infinity mass, and supergravity is zero mass. Zero. Nothing. Being into nothing, until modified by light. This is the miracle, that electromagnetic waves of light bring out being, consciousness, identity, change, and motion out of itself, from an infinite reality, into a reality of everything. This is the light, as expressed by its interaction with nothingness. Light versus supergravity is the basic fundamental unit for a Theory of Everything: infinity versus nothingness. And nothingness gave in to infinite light to allow for one.
So the Great Mandala is complete, and the snake bites its own tail, as it had been expressed through the ages of visionaries and mystics. We have given this snake only a more modern face, a description that redefines reality in terms of how we now understand it, still subject to change. Each part of the Great Mandala connects to every other, and each can be further expanded infinitely. In time, we will evolve to better understand it, and with it evolve our consciousness to better understand and become our being. We are far greater than we know, and the universe is far simpler than we have made it. Like the concentric circles of Aristotelian and Ptolomeic astronomy, we had through Quantum Physics described the universal reality into multidimensional algorithmic functions curving space and time, when in fact, there is much less to it than that. We are not at the center of the universe, anymore than everything else is at its center; rather, we are simultaneously at the perimeters, while all things around us are bathed in light; and the concentric circles within which we travel are really around each other. And then how we choose to do this, this dance around each other, either with love and understanding and tolerance, or with conflict and pain, that is for us to be conscious of, to choose. Within everything, by how it was all infinitely designed, like the snake biting its own tail, we are the makers of our realities. We are the light filled scriptwriters, and players in each others plays. Think, whether through dreams or fear, or sexual attraction, the neurons in the brain are fired with who we are: Being. Or is it Love? This is why we were born: To Be. It is who we are. That is all.
CONCLUSION:
Such is the Theory of Everything, both as an algorithm of the basic photonic/infiniton interaction, which is embodied in the atom; and on a cosmic scale how electromagnetic waves, such as light, interact with the supergravity force, such as black hole stars, with gravity as the left over product that spans the universe. However, the Theory of Everything physics is not the whole of it, only the basic building block of how the universe is built. It is the phenomenon of Interrelationship that defines what IS, how each thing within the cosmic reality has found its place within the universal whole, in terms of everything else, ad infinitum. This is a Quantum jump in human consciousness, that we can step outside our subjective selves and objectify Being in terms of how it defines itself, including all life. That the universe is in motion and subject to change is daily observable; that it has come to Being in this dynamic state, of how it came to this from some primordial soup of non-structured plasma like being, is nevertheless still a mystery. We do not know the answer to this, and can only guess that sometime long ago, perhaps trillions of years ago, the universe existed only as a plasmic potential that gradually differentiated itself into the energy of light and supergravity it is today, from which were then born the first primordial atoms, and into which evolved all things as they are today. That some of these products of this interrelated evolution could now look back upon its existence, and wonder, is a miracle even a Theory of Everything cannot explain. We are the most miraculous product of an infinitely designed Totality of Being, and for that we should not only be overwhelmed and awed, but should be truly grateful and respectful of what IS, of ourselves, and of each other. I had asked above "One what?" In conclusion, the Theory of Everything is thus embodied in One, as a living, thinking being: It is each one of us.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's about Time?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Sextus on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 12:07 am:
Since time does not seem to subsist without motion or even rest, if motion is abolished, and likewise rest, time is abolished. Nonetheless, some makes the following objections against time. If time exists, it is either limited or unlimited. But if it is limited, it began at a certain time and will end at a certain time. Consequently, there was once a time when time was not (before it began), and there will once be a time when time will not be (after it has ended); which is absurd. So then time is not limited. But if it is unlimited, since part of it is said to be past, part present, and part future, the future and past are either existent or non-existent. But if they are non-existent, and there remains only the present, which is momentary, time will be limited and the original difficulties will follow. And if the past exists and the future exists, each of these will be present. But it is absurd to call past and future time present; neither, then, is time unlimited. But if it is neither unlimited nor limited, time does not exist at all.
Further, if time exists it is either divisible or indivisible. Now it is not indivisible, for it is divided, as they themselves declare, into present, past, and future. Yet it is not divisible either. For each divisible thing is measured by some part of itself, the measure coinciding with each part of the measured, as when we measure a cubit with a finger. But time cannot be measured by any part of itself. If, for instance, the present measures the past, it will coincide with the past and will therefore be past, and similarly it will be future in the case of the future. And if the future should measure the rest, it will be present and past, and so likewise the past will be future and present; which is nonsense. Neither, then, is time divisible. But if it is neither indivisible nor divisible, it does not exist.
Time, too, is said to be tripartite, partly past, partly present, and partly future. Of these the past and the future are non-existent, for if past and future time exist now, each of them will be present. Neither is the present existent; for if present time exists it is either indivisible or divisible. Now it is not indivisible, for what changes is said to change in the present time, but nothing changes in indivisible time - iron, for instance, into softness, and so on. Hence present time is not indivisible. Neither is it divisible; for it could not be divided into a plurality of presents, since time present is said to change into time past imperceptibly owing to the rapid flux of the things in the Universe. Nor yet into past and future, for so it will be unreal, having one part of itself no longer existent and the other part not yet existent.
Hence, too, the present cannot be the end of the past and the beginning of the future, since then it will both be and not be existent, for it will exist as present, but will not exist because its parts are non-existent. Therefore it is not divisible either. But if the present is neither indivisible nor divisible, it does not exist. And when neither the present nor the past nor the future exists, time too is non-existent; for what is compounded of things unreal is unreal.
This argument, too, is alleged against time: If time exists it is either generable and perishable or ingenerable and imperishable. Time is not ingenerable and imperishable, since part of it is said to be past and no longer in existence, and part to be future and not yet in existence. Neither is it generable and perishable. For things generated must be generated from something existent, and things which perish must perish into something existent, according to the postulates of the Dogmatists themselves. If, then, time perishes into the past, it perishes into a non-existent; and if it is generated out of the future, it is generated out of a non-existent, for neither of these is in existence. But it is absurd to say that anything is generated from a non-existent or perishes into the non-existent. Therefore time is not generable and perishable. But if it is neither ingenerable and imperishable nor generable and perishable, it does not exist at all.
Further, since everything, which becomes seems to become in time, time if it becomes, becomes in time. Either, then, it becomes itself in itself or as one time in another. But if it becomes itself, it will be at once both existent and non-existent. For since that within which a thing becomes must exist before the thing, which becomes within it, the time, which becomes in itself does not yet exist in so far as it becomes in itself. Consequently it does not become in itself, nor yet in another. For if the present becomes in the future, the present will be future, and if in the past, it will be past. And the same may be said of all the other times, so that one time does not become in another. But if time neither becomes in itself nor as one time in another it is not generable. And it has been shown that it is not ingenerable either. Being, then, neither generable nor ingenerable, it is wholly non-existent, for each existing thing is bound to be either generable or ingenerable.
--Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism, Chapter XIX. --- Concerning Time
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By WJ on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 10:25 am:
All!
I still don't understand. In spite of the cosmological arguments setforth, on a micro human level, if time was an illusion (not real) then we would not exist. It requires time to give birth.
Or, if time is an illusion, we are in fact timeless spiritual Beings living a physical life that is relative to time. How bout that for a leap of faith!
What do the physicists think of spiritual essence and existence? Probably the way physicist Paul Davies considers the 'Mystery at the end of the Universe'!
Walrus ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By davet84 on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 - 02:12 pm:
I find I am with you WJ.
I have a book titled the world Treasury of Physics and Maths. It's a series of essays by prominent Mathematicians and Physicists. In one essay a mathematician makes the observation that he and his colleagues must admit that mathematics (in the research sense) has hit something of a wall. He says that mathematics will become something of a hobby for those inclined that way.
There is a branch called 'Concrete Mathematics' which is very much alive, that used in computers and engineering etc.
For me, and I suppose for 98% of people who don't understand even the first few lines of a Maths book, there is just that 'mystery at the beginning' and the 'mystery at the end'. There is also that 'something in the middle' which is less mysterious, and which we can live with and relate to.
Dave.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By G-man767 on Sunday, March 17, 2002 - 01:28 am:
After the 3rd stanza, much inferential speculation begins. As I've noted before, a TOE need not account for a 'God' (according to some cosmologic argument). It also wouldn't require a definition of 'Consciousness,' per se (especially if it demanded a unification of science and metaphysics). I believe a TOE in its advanced technical description must account for what amounts to a limitation that was noted long ago by the ancients: if the eye that sees cannot see itself, it can only know sight through the experience of seeing. As I sit across a negotiating table from my opponent, I try hard to imagine myself walking in his shoes, and how he sees/knows me, from his seat. Still, I can never achieve absolute certainty. How to see all angles, all perspectives...given the limits of my viewing proximity? I see a face, but not the back of the head. I can hear a voice, read expressions, sense tonalities...I can empathize. But I can't read thoughts, for sure. If only mine eyes could be in two...an all places at once:) G-man
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Ivan A. on Sunday, March 17, 2002 - 11:14 am:
Dear G-man, 1st, All,
I must also agree that for TOE, we should not invoke a 'God', and rather keep it philosophically secular, otherwise, God becomes an easy out, and answers get thrown back into religion, not science.
***
I was at a party last night with a group of scientists, mostly computer geeks, but also a few physicists, and one patent attorney. So we turned to the question of TOE, and some interesting points c