Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Soul Surfer on 13/12/2019 10:56:20

Title: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology AND a Complete theory of everything Possible?
Post by: Soul Surfer on 13/12/2019 10:56:20
My original Question and discussion "Is an Evolutionary Cosmology Possible"  aroused quite a lot of interest. and has helped me greatly to find out where the sticking points in the arguments are, and encouraged me to create a different approach to what I am trying to get over. 

If you are a new reader you can find this via this link 

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78110.new#new

It has also encouraged me enough to "go the whole hog and complete the thinking on this subject.  In the hope that it may stimulate a few more innovative minds to do some serious work on it

       "The complete Theory of everything
Here is a brief explanation on what I mean.

Many people talk about a "Theory Of Everything"  and mean a complete understanding of all the laws of physics that define how our universe works.  This is in effect only part of the story.  A true theory of everything should include a reasonable model describing how and why these physical laws exist and how and why they work together to produce our universe and any others if there are good reasons why they should exist.  This is what I will call "A Complete Theory of Everything"

What follows requires several steps of innovative thinking that work together so it is a good idea to try and read and understand all of it before nit picking on detail.

My wish is for people with a good solid knowledge and understanding of this range of subjects to analyse seriously What I am saying and find any real fundamental errors in the analysis and synthesis I propose.
Title: Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology AND a Complete theory of everything Possible?
Post by: Soul Surfer on 13/12/2019 11:22:47
Critical Steps in the Evolutionary Cosmology Concept Page 1
 
This note aims to describe the critical logical and scientific steps in the process of developing my concept of an Evolutionary Cosmology that fits within current cosmological thinking.
 
Logical steps
These are steps in my thinking that lead to the consideration that the investigation of a possible physical process that might explain the origin of our universe as it is currently understood could be something worth considering by others with greater skills and experience than me.
 

The Initial concept stated simply
 
Our universe originated in the collapse of a stellar mass black hole in a universe, similar to ours.
 

During the life of our universe which is dominated by what we call matter particles it will create many stellar mass black holes which themselves are new universes .
 
Title: Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology AND a Complete theory of everything Possible?
Post by: Soul Surfer on 13/12/2019 11:42:04
Page 2   Scientific steps
This details the critical scientific steps through the known properties of matter in our universe that allow me to propose this concept.  I will describe this in several major steps.  The each step is more tentative than the first.

Step 1  The release of gravitational energy inside a black hole to create the energy and matter required for a new universe


I do not believe that any serious mathematical physicist working with black holes would dispute this argument it is the same argument about the "Ultraviolet Catastrophe"  solved by Max Planck  that helped to expose Quantum theory.  This has driven a lot of work to define a Quantum theory of Gravity


Next. We go to step 2  an analysis of the basic process in a simple scwartschild black hole and then extend it to include the most probable, the rotating or Kerr form of black hole.

on Page 3



Title: Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology AND a Complete theory of everything Possible?
Post by: Soul Surfer on 13/12/2019 11:48:23
Page 3         Step 2  An analysis of the processes going on during the collapse


                     Step 3  the conversion of the collapse towards the "singularity" into a "big bang" expansion.


This is still work in progress there are other pages still to be added and this includes possible observations of our universe that could ad credence to this idea.

The developed concept stated simply

Our universe originated in the collapse of a stellar mass black hole in a universe, similar to ours but consisting largely of what we call antimatter.  It is probably still linked into this universe via a one way umbilicus in which antimatter particles can enter our universe but through which we cannot observe that universe. 

During the life of our universe which is dominated by what we call matter particles it will create many stellar mass black holes.

Each of these black holes contain a universe similar to ours but consisting largely of what we call antimatter.  We can send particles but not complex objects into this universe from our universe but we can never receive any information back from it other than the standard behaviour of a black hole in our universe as it grows through the absorption of matter and energy or shrinks through Hawking radiation.
 



Title: Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology AND a Complete theory of everything Possible?
Post by: Colin2B on 13/12/2019 14:13:15
This topic has ceased to be a direct science question and has crossed over into New Theories and has been moved to there to allow more freedom of discussion.

Maybe we will have another New Theory move to being published in the near future. Watch this space.
Title: Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology AND a Complete theory of everything Possible?
Post by: Soul Surfer on 17/12/2019 17:41:18
Awkward questions.
 
I have been thinking of these ideas for nearly. 30 years now and have developed them slowly.  All the time I have been looking for anything that can prove them false.  I may have missed a fundamental fact that rules the whole thing out if so I will be glad to hear it.  However I have considered answering a few awkward questions that could be asked.
 
     Black hole mass
 
Q.  if all this mass is being created inside a small stellar mass black hole shouldn't this show in the gravitational field outside of it.
 
A. No because like light, which cannot escape, any additional gravitational fields created by new particles cannot escape from the event horizon.
 
     Black Hole Mergers
 
Q.  If our universe is, in effect, inside a small black hole in another universe what would happen if it merged with another similar black hole or even fell into a massive black hole.
 
A.  Firstly to generate enough energy to create a whole universe the actual "size" of our universe inside this small black hole is almost infinitesimally small it would also have a powerful but short range hawking radiation “barrier” around it associated with the gravitational gradients around the collapsed space dimensions that have now become recycling (complex) time dimensions and the two baby universes could well in effect bounce off each other and never merge.  If that is true a very large black hole will in effect contain a whole swarm of tiny universes all milling around and bouncing off each other.  This could describe the "brane world" description of a big bang in which two "dead" universes are revived by a collision between them.
 
It is also interesting to note that this concept could in fact explain the biggest "error" in physics namely why the energy density of the universe to be expected from quantum theory is out by a factor of 10120.
 
     The conservation of information
 
One of the big questions about black holes was the fact that information appeared to be lost from our universe and it was felt that information was conserved like energy in our universe.  It has now been agreed that the eventual evaporation of a black hole would result in the release of this information so no information is actually lost.
 
The release of energy during gravitational collapse in effect creates information in the form of particles and this continues the link between energy and information so no problems are created here.
 
       What about quantum gravity?
 
So far I have not discussed quantum gravity because initially this is not needed.  Current thinking in this area based on the equations which show that the simple collapse inside the event horizon of a black hole leads to the formation of a "mathematical singularity" in a finite amount of time.    String theory approaches to particle physics using the classic pure mathematical approach and an arbitrary vibrating string offer a vast number of solutions with little prospect of physical proof without the ability to restrict this selection in some way.
 
I strongly feel that some physical insight will be also needed to solve the problem of creating a quantum gravitational theory and I would like to return to one of the first ideas I had about the universe when I was a teenager and first became aware of space time distortion and general relativity.  I considered that the ultimate structure of the universe would in the end turn out to be that the entities in any universe were in effects bits of the space time of the universe screwed up in one way or another. 

Now a simple vortex in a fluid creates a linear string like structure and can be quite stable in conventional fluid media as can a toroidal "smoke ring" structure this together with some concepts of the physical properties a multidimensional "bulk" fluid medium and the concept of the dimensionality effects on conservation laws could be a starting point with a bit of physical insight to those who wish to solve this problem.  The people who wish to study this might find a lot of help on this from people currently solving problems in computational fluid dynamics where pseudo quantum like effects can occur in classical fluid media.

One of the things that puzzle me about the literature is the concept of the graviton as a particle of gravitational energy.  To me it seems obviously that this is in effect a gravitational analogue of the photon ie a massless particle with the energy in each element dependant on the frequency of the gravitational waves and linked by Planck's constant and in fact is probably the source of the value of that constant.  It is interesting to consider the scales on which gravitational interactions will have to take place between particles in a quark lepton plasma at fantastically high densities for the interaction frequencies to be high enough to to be related to the mass of the particles and start to drive the processes.

One other particle concept that I would like to introduce is that of the gravitino that is the the gravitational equivalent of a neutrino.  That is a particle with half integer spin that exhibits fermionic repulsion but only interacts via gravity  similar to the concept of the sterile neutrino others have used.  The creation of this particle (which would be a supersymmetric particle member)  in the final stages of the toroidal collapse of a spinning black hole could well provide the inflation drive to fully expand the the time dimensions into a new universe and represent a large proportion of dark matter and dark energy,
 
    Where does the second law of thermodynamics fit into all of this?
 
This is probably the most misunderstood law in all of physics. I do not dispute simple facts of the universe continuing downhill run towards a final state of heat death as we can see in the eventual demise of our universe as the black holes in it finally evaporate into mostly very low energy quanta but this aspect of the law only applies to NON INTERACTING PARTICLES!   If particles interact, the route to this final state can be very different because as it is well known and accepted that the precursor state of our universe evaporating is a collapse into black holes! The same is also true for the crystallisation of substances into highly ordered crystals not a diffuse gas.  The eventual evaporation of a black hole in our universe should not affect the existence of the new universe it created because other dimensions in "the bulk" must be involved for these ideas to work.
 
There is another important philosophical point about what aspects of a universe we should study here.  It is largely accepted that our universe is heading irrevocably towards its heat death of infinite scale and zero energy this is not considered as being a good reason not to study and model the route by which it achieves this.
 
The same is true for what is going on during the collapse of a black hole inside its event horizon which is at least accessible theoretically during its initial stages even though the ultimate Condition is the precise opposite of the heat death, a singularity of zero dimensions and infinite energy.  The important feature about this collapse process is that it involves the behaviour of a complex collection of interacting elements just like the heat death.
 
Title: Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology AND a Complete theory of everything Possible?
Post by: puppypower on 21/12/2019 17:27:06
My original Question and discussion "Is an Evolutionary Cosmology Possible"  aroused quite a lot of interest. and has helped me greatly to find out where the sticking points in the arguments are, and encouraged me to create a different approach to what I am trying to get over. 

If you are a new reader you can find this via this link 

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78110.new#new

It has also encouraged me enough to "go the whole hog and complete the thinking on this subject.  In the hope that it may stimulate a few more innovative minds to do some serious work on it

       "The complete Theory of everything
Here is a brief explanation on what I mean.

Many people talk about a "Theory Of Everything"  and mean a complete understanding of all the laws of physics that define how our universe works.  This is in effect only part of the story.  A true theory of everything should include a reasonable model describing how and why these physical laws exist and how and why they work together to produce our universe and any others if there are good reasons why they should exist.  This is what I will call "A Complete Theory of Everything"

What follows requires several steps of innovative thinking that work together so it is a good idea to try and read and understand all of it before nit picking on detail.

My wish is for people with a good solid knowledge and understanding of this range of subjects to analyse seriously What I am saying and find any real fundamental errors in the analysis and synthesis I propose.

One approach I took, many years ago, helped to simplify this monumental task, while offering a way to extend the model to literally, everything, including life and consciousness. The seam that I found, that simplified the task, was connected to Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity; SR. 

As an example of how this seam appeared in my mind, say we have a radioactive isotope with a given half life. We give the isotope velocity to where time slows; based on SR. Since time has slowed in the reference of the moving isotope, the half life would appear to get longer, relative to the same isotope in a stationary reference.

Essentially the motion is creating the same affect, as one would get, if they could directly tweak the forces responsible for the half life, in our own reference.

Since the laws of physics are the same in all references, special relativity implies that motion can tweak all the laws of physics, simultaneously, so they all adjust together, thereby maintaining the same laws of physics for that reference. 

Conceptually all the laws of physics can theoretically be expressed with only three variables; relativistic mass, time and distance. You no longer need hundreds of specialty variables, since those three variables can tweak them all. I attempted to develop what I call the MDT Theory; Mass-Distance-Time Theory for everything. All things became based on only these three variables in various proportions. Motion creates relativistic potential in time, mass and distance, with this potential able to transform everything so it the laws of physics stays the same for any given reference.

If you look at acceleration, it has the dimensions of meters/sec/sec. It is two parts time potential and one part distance potential. All accelerations maintain the same proportions of time to distance. Conceptually, we don't need separate forces, since they are all special cases of the same thing. The accelerated expansion the universe, in this model, is based on time potential tweaking space-time.



 

Title: Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology AND a Complete theory of everything Possible?
Post by: puppypower on 25/12/2019 22:23:27
In my experience, attempting to translating the laws of physics, into this compact format with only three variables, was like trying to put popped corn, back into the kernel. Science has spend  hundred of years fluffing up the details of reality like popcorn; more and more specialty and sub-specialty. There is a conventional resistance toward compaction, since this appears to go the wrong way; backwards, based on the long standing traditions. There are also some basic changes that need to be made that will create confusion.

For example, time is current;y considered a reference variable. Time is not considered a physical thing that you can store in bottle. However, in any scenario of Special Relativity, the induction of relativistic time, distance and mass is all that is needed to tweak all the laws of physics, so they can stay the same in all references, but appear different in other reference. Time at some level has to be a thing.

In this model, time is the relativistic potential associated with time. It has to be a type of thing or potential. It can't be a just place holder or reference convention, since that could not do anything. In this model time is type of potential.

Distance is the same way. Distance is considered another reference convention; meters. But in this model, relativistic distance or distance potential, which I call it, also has to be thing, or it would not be able to do what is observed in SR. With time and distance needing to be redefined, there is continuous confusion between what they are is now, and what they need to be.

Mass potential is easier to accept, since it is already a thing. We can store mass in a bottle. Dark matter would be an example of mass potential. It does the same things as mass. We do not have to see a potential for it to exist and have an impact. 

Photons are currently defined by frequency and wavelength. In this model, photons are a combinations of time and distance potential, without mass potential. If a photon interacts with matter, and is absorbed, it add time and distance potential to the matter; new state of matter, in terms of its time, distance and mass potential.

The mass burn of fusion, converts mass potential into distance and time potential; energy. The three variable can interchange into each other under various circumstances. But the conservation principle still applies.

In the MDT theory, there were six possible universe creation scenarios, which are the six possible combinations of the three letters. The BB theory appeared to be best fit the order M, then D, then T.  This was singularity, inflation, space-time. I name the model after the BB. Wave models use a difference order such as D, T, M.  Distance potential can stored potential in a space. Time potential makes the distance potential viable as energy, Mass potential forms in the wave modals.
Title: Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology AND a Complete theory of everything Possible?
Post by: Origin on 26/12/2019 15:17:38
In my experience,
None of your post makes much sense.
For example, time is current;y considered a reference variable.
No, time is a dimension.
In this model, time is the relativistic potential associated with time.
That is meaningless gibberish.
Distance is considered another reference convention; meters.
No, it is a dimension.
But in this model, relativistic distance or distance potential, which I call it, also has to
Making up stuff based on nothing is not science.
Dark matter would be an example of mass potential. It does the same things as mass.
No, dark matter is matter that does not interact with EM radiation.
In this model, photons are a combinations of time and distance potential, without mass potential.
No, no, no.
Basically your entire post is fantasy.
Title: Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology AND a Complete theory of everything Possible?
Post by: puppypower on 28/12/2019 12:35:56
Distance is considered another reference convention; meters.
No, it is a dimension.

A dimension is a reference variable. A dimension is not something that is tangible or a potential, but rather defines the grid of an arbitrary coordinate system. For example, most planets and stars are closer to spheres than cubes. We could make analysis easier if we replace Cartesian coordinates (x,y,z) with spherical coordinates (r, θ, φ). Now we have two angular variables and one distance variable doing the same thing as three distance variables. This convention could be easier for universal gravity and angular momentum; (r, θ, φ).

There is no special physical significance to the two angles other than what convention assigns as a memory peg. Both are nothing but reference variables for the math. Neither is a self contained potential that plays a role in physical affects. Convention is there for convenience, and does not define a law of physics that participates directly in the dynamics. We model force by plotting it on the grid. Each force has its own plot. This is how we catalog.

In terms of time, this convention is also arbitrary. We measure time with clocks, which are cyclic in nature. The clock returns to midnight each day. Or the more accurate atomic clock is based on the cyclic vibration of atoms. Yet, time is not cyclic, but rather moves in one direction. A cyclic base tool is more appropriate to energy than it is to time, therefore this convention is not the correct tool to model time. It is like using a thermometer to measure distance. It is a tradition that is blindly followed without too much deep thinking.

Clocks and time shows how arbitrary references variables can be. This tradition is highly defended, since so much has been  built on this grid foundation. If you removed or even changed such an important cornerstone  of the grid, the entire math building of science can sag and even collapse. The fear is real. I did this way back when, and it is very disorientating, until you create a new reference system.

If we go back to the original premise of this approach to a unified model for the laws of physics, this model was based on Special Relativity; SR. In SR, velocity, causes relativistic changes in mass, distance and time. These three relativistic variables can cause all the laws of physics to change at the same time. For example, in the twin paradox, the moving twin ages slower than the stationary twin, which means all the physics and bio-physical chemistry of his body has been adjusted, so he is the same person, but holistically adjusted. Three variables adjusted what currently requires hundreds of variables. Say you tried to do this global adjustment of the twin in the lab; temporary slowing of age but without SR. It would be a very complex tweak requiring you adjust every atom and subatomic particle within hundreds of billions of cells using hundreds of variables. This is far more complicated, and would need using more than just three variables.

If SR is true and not a fantasy, then relativistic mass, time and distance are the only three potentials needed for this. These potentials are different from reference time, distance and rest mass. Rather these are potentials based on these reference variables. These three variables, based on time, distance and  mass, makes the coordinate system, "come alive", so all of the laws of physics, plotted on the coordinate system, all get tweaked; simultaneously. If not, SR is wrong. Are you saying that SR has been disproven, and the twin paradox was a hoax?


 
Title: Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology AND a Complete theory of everything Possible?
Post by: Origin on 28/12/2019 14:16:04
Are you saying that SR has been disproven, and the twin paradox was a hoax?
No, I am saying you do not know what a dimension is and you making up stuff that makes sense to you, but is wrong.
Title: Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology AND a Complete theory of everything Possible?
Post by: puppypower on 30/12/2019 00:03:48
Are you saying that SR has been disproven, and the twin paradox was a hoax?
No, I am saying you do not know what a dimension is and you making up stuff that makes sense to you, but is wrong.

I found this definition for dimension on the web

Quote
In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a mathematical space is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it. Thus a line has a dimension of one because only one coordinate is needed to specify a point on it.

A dimension is connected to mathematical space and is not necessarily a physical part of nature. That is why they call it space; void. In the model I am discussing, it has three variables; mass, distance and time potential. This model, if done in mathematic space will use three dimensions; MDT.

As another example, we have five sensory systems. Our brain define our immediate reality in terms of five dimensions; sight, sound, touch, smell and taste. Reading needs only sight and listening to music uses only hearing. These are linear or 1-D down an axis. Eating a fancy dinner, at a fine restaurant, will require all 5-D sensory dimensions if you buy the sizzling platter. Each dimension is gathering different data, with the full dining experience, all this unique data all plotted together in the brain in 5-D space. This is what is real.

In my case, I am not doing the math, but rather I am developing the conceptual framework for a model. I do not yet need mathematical space. Conceptual space is more flexible and can add or substrate dimensions since this is like R&D.

The teen paradox is supposed to be real, therefore if you reverse engineer the affect of slowing aging caused by velocity, Einstein said that only relativistic mass, distance and time changed in terms of potentials, yet everything known to science, adjusted. I am trying to put the popcorn back into the kernel.




Title: Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology AND a Complete theory of everything Possible?
Post by: Kryptid on 30/12/2019 01:31:47
Our brain define our immediate reality in terms of five dimensions; sight, sound, touch, smell and taste.

Those are senses, not dimensions. They don't align with the definition of dimension that you supplied.
Title: Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology AND a Complete theory of everything Possible?
Post by: Origin on 30/12/2019 01:51:01
I am trying to put the popcorn back into the kernel.
It would be better to learn a little physics first.
Title: Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology AND a Complete theory of everything Possible?
Post by: puppypower on 30/12/2019 11:26:36
Our brain define our immediate reality in terms of five dimensions; sight, sound, touch, smell and taste.

Those are senses, not dimensions. They don't align with the definition of dimension that you supplied.

The main difference between applied science and theoretical science is applied science depends  more on verification with our five sensory systems. This type of verification is common to all humans; external data, and this is why the philosophy of science makes use of these five dimensions as the final arbitrator; science must be reproducible and verifiable via the sensory systems of others besides yourself. This factors out subjective affects that math can create. Even new math has to go to the lab for sensory verification.

The brain has been using sensory space for eons. Mathematical space is a spinoff from this  neural foundation. Math takes the place of the sensory processing. Instead of sight and sound, we have x,y,z. If you were hunting, sight and sound allows your brain to calculate distances and directional vectors, as well as calculate forces needed to throw your spear. Math space evolved in the brain, eons before there was external math.

There is more than one way to do the same things. I am trying to add another way. It is not about right or wrong, but about more ways to do the same things. This new way is more compact. String theory uses ten dimensions or ten mathematical sensory systems. This is more impressive for the theoretical mind, but not as useful to the applied mind. Compact is more practical.
Title: Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology AND a Complete theory of everything Possible?
Post by: puppypower on 30/12/2019 11:42:16
I am trying to put the popcorn back into the kernel.
It would be better to learn a little physics first.

I am not trying to do karaoke science. This where you attempt to reproduce the classics hits of science as close to the original as possible. I write my own science music and get to sing it in my own style. However, I do have classic training which is why I know the gaps and concerns and can see where things can improve.

For example, I saw a seam in Special Relativity. Velocity causes changes which Einstein called relativistic mass, distance and time. The twin paradox and relativity experiments, demonstrated these three variables are dynamic appear to be able to weak all the laws of physics. So why not simplify and use this for the same things?
Title: Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology AND a Complete theory of everything Possible?
Post by: Origin on 30/12/2019 14:34:06
However, I do have classic training which is why I know the gaps and concerns and can see where things can improve.
All indications are that you have no education in science past the high school level.
For example, I saw a seam in Special Relativity. Velocity causes changes which Einstein called relativistic mass, distance and time. The twin paradox and relativity experiments, demonstrated these three variables are dynamic appear to be able to weak all the laws of physics. So why not simplify and use this for the same things?
This sort of gibberish is the evidence of your lack of education.
Title: Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology AND a Complete theory of everything Possible?
Post by: Kryptid on 30/12/2019 19:43:28
The main difference between applied science and theoretical science is applied science depends  more on verification with our five sensory systems. This type of verification is common to all humans; external data, and this is why the philosophy of science makes use of these five dimensions as the final arbitrator; science must be reproducible and verifiable via the sensory systems of others besides yourself. This factors out subjective affects that math can create. Even new math has to go to the lab for sensory verification.

The brain has been using sensory space for eons. Mathematical space is a spinoff from this  neural foundation. Math takes the place of the sensory processing. Instead of sight and sound, we have x,y,z. If you were hunting, sight and sound allows your brain to calculate distances and directional vectors, as well as calculate forces needed to throw your spear. Math space evolved in the brain, eons before there was external math.

There is more than one way to do the same things. I am trying to add another way. It is not about right or wrong, but about more ways to do the same things. This new way is more compact. String theory uses ten dimensions or ten mathematical sensory systems. This is more impressive for the theoretical mind, but not as useful to the applied mind. Compact is more practical.

None of that was a refutation of what I just said.
Title: Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology AND a Complete theory of everything Possible?
Post by: puppypower on 31/12/2019 13:59:49

The main difference between applied science and theoretical science is applied science depends  more on verification with our five sensory systems. This type of verification is common to all humans; external data, and this is why the philosophy of science makes use of these five dimensions as the final arbitrator; science must be reproducible and verifiable via the sensory systems of others besides yourself. This factors out subjective affects that math can create. Even new math has to go to the lab for sensory verification.

The brain has been using sensory space for eons. Mathematical space is a spinoff from this  neural foundation. Math takes the place of the sensory processing. Instead of sight and sound, we have x,y,z. If you were hunting, sight and sound allows your brain to calculate distances and directional vectors, as well as calculate forces needed to throw your spear. Math space evolved in the brain, eons before there was external math.

There is more than one way to do the same things. I am trying to add another way. It is not about right or wrong, but about more ways to do the same things. This new way is more compact. String theory uses ten dimensions or ten mathematical sensory systems. This is more impressive for the theoretical mind, but not as useful to the applied mind. Compact is more practical.

None of that was a refutation of what I just said.

I am trying not to be confrontational.  Rather I am trying to be informative. If you say something is yucky, and i say it is yummy, back on forth, ad infinitum, this is a waste of our time. it better to help you see what I see.

In terms of the MDT model, experiments were run using radio active isotopes  with a known half life. They used a particle accelerator and found that the half life increased due to time dilation. This helped to demonstrate SR as real.  Relative reference did not apply, since the similar radioactive material. that was not in the particle accelerator experiment, but in the lab, did not change half life simply by observing relative reference and pretending it was moving. Only the materials that had real added energy;in the  accelerator, did anything in reality based on SR.

One can infer from this that velocity; kinetic energy, produced the relativistic affects in mass, distance and time that tweaked the isotope half life. Kinetic energy appears to be the conduit for this change into unified MDT potential, with the affect more noticeable at speeds close to the speed of light.

Relative reference can see similar affects, in space and time, but my guess is relativistic mass will not change since this needs kinetic energy in a more absolute sense. Relativistic mass may be the actual conduit for changes within the laws of physics above and beyond relative reference affects.

In the twin paradox, only the twin with energy used by a rocket, ages slower. The stationary twin does not age the same even if he can see the relative reference illusion in space and time from the relative motion. My guess is the universe has real relativistic potentials in MDT; based on absolute energy, mixed with relative reference illusions, with the real called dark energy and dark matter.

We can see red shift due to motion and this is relative to reference. But relativistic mass is not as obvious in terms of relative reference and appears to be misunderstood. There has been a push to dismiss it. I will explain relativistic mass better next time.
.

Title: Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology AND a Complete theory of everything Possible?
Post by: puppypower on 02/01/2020 18:14:36
Let me see if I can explain my theory of relativistic mass. Matter and Anti-matter pairs form at the upper limits of energy. Very high energy photons can split into matter and antimatter particle pairs. What this experimental observation tells me is that matter is at higher potential than energy, since matter forms only at the highest potentials of energy. In that respect, matter is analogous to a ceiling while energy is analogous to the floor. Like a ceiling and floor, the two are separated by a gap which in this case is defined by two distinct references; inertial is the ceiling and speed of light is the floor. 

When matter and anti-matter interact, they quickly annihilate with the release of energy. This is a simple way for the ceiling to return back to the floor changing reference back to the speed  of light in the process. This path has a small activation energy, with the lowering of potential, the driving force back to the energy floor.

In our modern universe, we have matter but with very little anti-matter. The net result is the matter is stuck at the ceiling, with no simple path back to the floor. Unlike matter and anti-matter annihilation that offers a direct path, with a low activation energy, the activation energy for conversion of matter to energy is very high. As such, returning to the floor is usually done piece meal via the forces of nature. This gives the universe ceiling longevity.

In terms of special relativity, motion as velocity, adds kinetic energy to matter. Matter and mass cannot go the speed of light because the activation energy hill is too high. However, as mass approaches the speed of light, which is the reference of the floor, a form of potential appears that is called relativistic mass. The potential is like are arch which tries to discharge but cannot.

When we add kinetic energy to mass to create velocity, we are adding floor potential to the ceiling potential. We are adding energy, that is lowering the potential of the ceiling as it approaches the reference of the floor.

One way to explain this is say I have a glass of water at 5C. The water is cold and refreshing but it nevertheless contains energy. If I add the positive energy in the cold water, to the positive energy of a glass of water at 50C, it does not get warmer to 55C. Even though both contain energy, the energy does not add in a direct way. Energy will flow from the warming water to the cooler water, in an attempt to equilibrate.

In the case of mass and kinetic energy approaching the speed of light, the mass ceiling cools down and the energy floor warms up.

The current way we view matter and energy is matter is defined as the floor, since matter is cool and warms with added energy. The energy is warm and the speed of light is faster than any inertial speed. If we add energy to the matter floor, in the Newtonian world, it will get warming and it will move faster.  However, this is backwards in terms of matter creation, since matter creations occurs at the ceiling, This may be a tough tradition to reverse.

In terms of the flow of potential from ceiling (warm water glass) to the floor (cold water glass) for equilibrium, this is called relativistic mass. While the warming of the energy floor is connected to relativistic time and distance; space-time potential.
Title: Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology AND a Complete theory of everything Possible?
Post by: puppypower on 05/01/2020 23:30:49
Before talking about distance potential or the D, in the MDT model, let me reiterated the main observational premise. In the twin paradox, the moving twin returns to earth having aged less. Besides human biology being tweaked by special relativity, material properties of the ship, clocks, computers, etc., will adjust, and if the space ship had been fueled by any energy source, including nuclear, that too would adjust. All this change occurred because we used energy to create velocity in space-time, and we approached the speed of light, the kinetic energy potential manifests itself as three relativistic potentials one each in mass, distance and time. Conceptually, all we need is three variables to do everything in physics. While simplicity is closer to perfection.

Let me see if I can explain D or distance potential, in the MDT theory. The closest existing concept to distance potential is connected the second law, which states that the entropy of the universe has to increase. This is due, in part to distance potential.

Entropy is a state variable, which means for any given state of matter *temperature and pressure for example, there is a very specific amount of entropy associated with that state. Absolute zero is a state where entropy reaches a minimum. Entropy increases is associated with greater complexity. If we increase temperature from absolute zero, complexity increases.

Entropy, at a base level is connected to how things are spread out and orientated in space. The a nuclei, atoms and electrons of a molecule, are in various modes of motion, forming a distinct distribution pattern in space at any given state. If we stopped time, so everything freeze frames, an orientation in space still remains, even without time, with a given amount of entropy; state. 

An increase entropy, via the second law, adds complexity, such that the orientation in space changes. This potential for a new state of higher complexity, within space, is driven by distance potential. Distance potential is sort of like a blue print of what can be in terms of quantum states. The second law is more than pure distance potential, since entropy increases by adding energy which contain distance potential and time potential; wavelength and frequency.

In terms of entropy and the added energy needed for entropy to increase, the time potential within the added energy is primarily connected to force and acceleration, with acceleration d,t,t or one part distance and two parts time. The distance potential; extra d, maintains the core orientation in space; quantum facade.

Kinetic energy is 1/2 MV2, with V2=d,t,d,t or in this case, acceleration d/t/t plus d; distance potential. The second law is an example, where distance and time potential, do not have to always be in proportion for each affect, as they are in the concept of space-time. In other words, different ratios of M, D and T create different phenomena and affects. Energy, as photons, is where distance and time potential are in proportion.
Title: Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology AND a Complete theory of everything Possible?
Post by: puppypower on 08/01/2020 13:07:06
A useful application of the concept of distance potential is the observation called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Quote
The uncertainty principle is one of the most famous (and probably misunderstood) ideas in physics. It tells us that there is a fuzziness in nature, a fundamental limit to what we can know about the behaviour of quantum particles and, therefore, the smallest scales of nature. Of these scales, the most we can hope for is to calculate probabilities for where things are and how they will behave. Unlike Isaac Newton's clockwork universe, where everything follows clear-cut laws on how to move and prediction is easy if you know the starting conditions, the uncertainty principle enshrines a level of fuzziness into quantum theory.

The uncertainty principle says that we cannot measure the position (x) and the momentum (p) of a particle with absolute precision. The more accurately we know one of these values, the less accurately we know the other.

The uncertainty principle is connected to using energy; photons, to measure position and momentum. We shine a light on a phenomena and know it properties by how the light reflects back to our collection instruments  Energy and space-time are based on equal proportions of distance and time potential. In the observations connected to the uncertainty principle, the fuzzy affect  in distance and momentum. implies there is extra distance potential, beyond energy.

Heisenberg's observation and his uncertainty theory proved distance potential as a separate potential. Distance potential, superimposed onto classic energy based observations of position and momentum, adds fuzzy dice to the classic distance parameter; delta, that is common to both position and momentum. However, this is not fuzzy, if is assumed that distance potential can act as  separate potential, that can be superimpose for other affects.

Einstein originally proposed his theory of Special Relativity in 1905. Heisenberg published his theory in 1927. It is interesting how history works out.  They both had what they needed to simply and unify physics, but the boat was sailing another way leading to greater differentiation of nature via quantum theory. It was not trying to compact but expand.

What I found is all states in physics, can be defined simply by using the three variables in the MDT theory in various proportions. Energy as photons, contain equal parts of distance and time potential; wavelength and frequency, with the magnitude different for different wavelengths.

A back hole approaches zero distance potential, being composed of mostly of mass and time potentials. Energy is not given off by a black hole, since energy needs equal parts of distance potential to be expressed. There is no distance potential for energy expression. Although we cannot see energy escaping, this is not to say a black holes cannot give off time potential, which will not be visible using traditional energy collecting apparatus.

The early universe phenomena called inflation is where spacetime appears expand faster than the speed of light. This is where extreme distance potential adds to space-time. It creates an uncertainty in position and momentum based on what we assumed are the speed light limits. However, there is no violation of the speed of light, since distance potential is not under that speed limit. That applies to energy and matter. A probability function in classic theory allowed for here and there at the same time; volume.

In the MDT model of the universe, we begin with mass potential; singularity. Conservation laws apply with mass potential partially converting to distance potential; inflation, and then further converting to time potential; energy and space-time, stabilizing. In the MDT theory there are six possible combinations of the three variables or six universe formation theories, depending on the order of the potentials.

If we applied a DTM sequence model for universe formation we would get distance potential appearing first. This would be similar to a Creationist style model where the blue print of the universe forms out toward infinity; entropic potential are set for the states of the universe; second law. There is not yet time and mass potential; brooding over the deep. If we add time potential, energy appears when the time potential is in proportion to the distance potential; let there be light. Then mass potential appears for substance in the energy field. In an DTM model the universe layout appears first. There is an instant inflation toward infinity before light and substance, and when that appear, the universe gets filled in. The ancients did not have the modern astral physics data to confirm this possible scenario. However, they appeared to have had something similar to the MDT model allowing them to define a possible scenario in MDT.

The last variable I need to explain is time potential. I will do this next time.

Title: Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology AND a Complete theory of everything Possible?
Post by: Soul Surfer on 08/01/2020 17:56:00
Puppypower

Firstly I have taken the trouble to scan through your vast number of words and come to the following conclusions.

What you are writing has nothing to do with any sort of analysis of the topic that I started.

It appears to have been written using a science and cosmology keyword random text generator and is total garbage.

It is therefore not worth the effort of taking apart and is best ignored by others.   

I would request that if it is possible all the conversations and flaming after my initial presentations on the main topic be deleted or moved to another location by the administrators because it is just not worthy of this site's attention.
Title: Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology AND a Complete theory of everything Possible?
Post by: puppypower on 09/01/2020 14:40:23
Puppypower

Firstly I have taken the trouble to scan through your vast number of words and come to the following conclusions.

What you are writing has nothing to do with any sort of analysis of the topic that I started.

It appears to have been written using a science and cosmology keyword random text generator and is total garbage.

It is therefore not worth the effort of taking apart and is best ignored by others.   

I would request that if it is possible all the conversations and flaming after my initial presentations on the main topic be deleted or moved to another location by the administrators because it is just not worthy of this site's attention.


Your original topic question was, "Is an Evolutionary Cosmology and complete theory of everything possible? You went on to show how complex this was and offered a sequence of steps that might lead to the goal. You set up a map for the quest.

Many people feel the answer is yes? However, your outline, as thorough as it was, made the journey appear overwhelming, in light of all the things we currently know. This is not to say this much planning is not good, but it made the task seem very daunting.

I am on the same page with you, in terms of the final goal.  I asked many of the same questions and I finally came to the conclusion, that if Einstein could not do this, using current theory, I am not going to be able to do it either. It is a huge undertaking, even more so for a non-expert who has to come up to steam on their own. This is not to say I did not make an effort. What I was able to do was find a seam that simplified the task. It found a short cut through the mountains.

To repeat the basic premise of the simplification, in Special Relativity, and thought experiments like the twin paradox, velocity creates relativistic potentials in mass, distance and time. According to the twin paradox, these three potentials, stemming from only velocity, can adjust all the laws of physics, simultaneously. If not, the twin that returns would be dead and/or mutant and his rocket twisted, amalgamated with missing parts. To me this clean and comprehensive tweak implied it should be possible to redefine the laws of physics in just these three variables, since these three variable did everything. This would make an impossible task more doable. 

The practical problem, that you are addressing, is this approach is totally alien and odds, since this is not how we do physics, today, and these three variables are not part of any published literature. I got too far ahead of the curve, since I could not wait for the resistance to be appeased.

I can see your preference for wanting to retain traditional variables, since there is less resistance and negative feedback from the environment. But that approach is very difficult, eluding even the best minds in Physics for over 100 years. My approach is more compact, which will make it more doable, once one gets use do the three variables using applications. 

For example, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is based on observation and correlation. It can be modeled with statistical math. However, it still has no logical explanation using existing theory even after almost 90 years. We can model it with statistics, but that is not the same as explaining why it occurs. This hole in the why, impacts others things. This gap leave is a hole in existing theory, that will create a structural defects in a unified theory. Instead of a fastener we have fuzzy dice without nails. In the simplified model, this has a logic connected to distance potential, which is one of the variables in Special Relativity.

The Uncertainty Principle could be mathematically modeled. The principle says we cannot measure both position and momentum, at the same time. However, we can model this in terms of probability functions. In these functions, things can appear to be in more than one place at any given time, with some places in the distribution appearing more often in time; higher probability. It occupies a volume in time, instead of a point in time.

A simple concept like being able to move in distance, apart from time, says the same thing as the probability function in the uncertainty application. In the simplified model, this is called distance potential. Once distance detaches from time; distance potential, something can be in many places at the same time since it is outside of time. Now we no longer have the concept of speed, so there is no violation of speed limits even for quantum jumping. Distance potential, such as in the inflation period of cosmology, is an application of the uncertainty principle and distance potential. This compacts apparently unrelated things.
Title: Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology AND a Complete theory of everything Possible?
Post by: puppypower on 11/01/2020 11:58:11
The topic is about a theory of everything. The topic, when started, lingered for many days with SoulSurfer outlining what he felt was a organized way to approach this historical yet difficult problem. I decided to offer help by showing a way to simplify the task.

The problem appears to be, that although I remained on topic, I did not approach this in the traditional way. I did it differently because that path has never worked in the past, even though some of the best minds of Physics, attempted it over the past 100 years. I felt we needed to think outside the box, and crack some traditional eggs to make an omelet. 

The approach I took was based on Einstein's theory of Special Relativity; SR, which he published in 1905. This is considered proven science and therefore was as solid foundation. In this theory, velocity creates relativistic changes in mass, distance and time. This math is well understood and the theory has been proven by various experiments. It is used all the time in astral physics. If this foundation was wrong, then we would have unpublished a lot of papers and books. It would be like getting and keeping a Pulitzer Prize in Journalism for what proves to be wrong.

Conceptually, in thought experiments of SR, like the twin paradox, velocity, via SR, creates three new variables; relativistic mass, distance and time, which when working together can tweak thousands of parameters in a reference, to make it possible for one twin to age slower. Aging is more than just a clock slowing down. It would need to involve complex physical biochemistry.

Einstein said the laws of physics are the same in all references, which means that the tweak in space, time and mass,, will require all the laws change in a coordinated way. If we had to slow the aging of a twin, piecemeal by means other than SR, it  would take thousands of separate experiments. Yet three variables can do the same thing.

If my logical extrapolation is incorrect, than SR and its variation thought experiments have been a hoax, and what we think we know of SR is very deficient. You cannot have it both ways. Either I have found a simplification schema using SR, or I have disproven assets of special relativity. Which is it?

I worked under the assumption that SR was proven science and that my extrapolation was logically consistent. Was I wrong to assume SR is correct? Or is SR nothing more than a reference illusion used to support imaginary and self serving theory in Physics? I am open either way since I would have done a service to science either way.
Title: Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology AND a Complete theory of everything Possible?
Post by: Soul Surfer on 18/01/2020 23:51:20
Puppypower your latest statements are slightly more coherent and on topic but still do not show a proper understanding of what I am trying to get over to the experts in the field.

Let me explain.  My whole professional life has been involved successfully in creating innovation in areas of systems science and technology in advance of the developments of technology at its growing points together with persuading businesses to adapt and develop their products and skills to make use of them as they become available.  As part of this I have had to keep up with scientific advances over a very broad field as well as exercising my personal interest in the fundamental limits of physics and astronomy.  One of the main things is to find "holes" through which totally new industries and products can emerge.

I do not dispute any of the established science and mathematical theories.  These involve a great deal of skills and knowledge and also a lot of painstaking observations.

The message I am trying to get over is that there is a very important blind spot or gap where theoretical and experimental study is possible.   That is the behaviour of material inside the event horizon of a black hole from shortly after it formed to a short period later when conditions reach the limits of experimental science.  These are well researched and understood for the big bang but are not considered for what I will call for want of better words "the medium sized crunch"!

To my mind this is about the same as saying that the future of our universe is uninteresting because it is perfectly obvious that it will all end in the heat death after a suitably long time.

The possibility of an Evolutionary Cosmology leading to a theory of everything is an interesting aspect that could make putting effort into the study of this critical period more attractive.   However even if this is not possible it could result in further insight into the potential choices in string theoretical and quantum gravitational studies and break down the current impasse brought about by the generalities and multiple solutions caused by unlimited mathematical synthesis.

What is needed is some good ideas to generate suitable boundary conditions for the equations and geometries involved.
Title: Re: Is an Evolutionary Cosmology AND a Complete theory of everything Possible?
Post by: Soul Surfer on 25/01/2020 23:54:31
There are two other very imoportant additional benefits to the approach to cosmology that I am suggesting

Firstly it explains why our large universe consists largely of matter when most theories of origins suggest that when matter is created it from energy is always in particle pairs with one matter and its corresponding antimatter particle.  The tendency is to suggest that there is a slight imbalance in favour of matter and that most of the matter and antimatter created during the big bang has annihilated releasing energy.  There are hints of a very slight asymmetry between matter and antimatter in Tau particles but this is very small.

The matter in this concept is locked into the compacted dimensions of what was space and is now time.

Secondly the fact that the multidimensional compacted time dimensions are common to all particles at all times allows the wilder concepts of quantum physics to be explained and understood as all the matter particles in our universe have their antimatter partners locked in these compacted time dimensions which are colocated.