THEORY OF EVERYTHING BEGUN FROM ABSOLUTE CONCEPT., 'Complete' T.O.E. construction project.

Something to consider here is that there's a potential difference between 'nothing' and 'nothing specific' or things that are predictable and knowable and things that are unpredictable and unknownable (these would be things that would defy description, or at least likely any description of them would be just as questionably valid as any other description of them).

Imagine a purely flat desert without any landmarks - if you take a step in a single direction, which way are you going? It wouldn't be any specific direction and in a sense, motion has been detached from residing within the same space as direction.

Now imagine instead that you were moving through a landscape with entirely random features. Again, which direction are you heading? If you aligned your motion with some landmarks (which could immediately change for someone else or after you moved past them) and created a detailed map of the exact path you took, it would not correlate with observations you encountered later, if you tried to repeat it or with observations for someone else.

Though this random landscape would still provide detailed landmarks and unique experiences at any moment, it would not relate to anything outside itself and could be seen as informationally detached from relevance to anything other than potentially concepts like motion or landmarks or walking or whatever properties you interpreted the concept of motion through it.

It's interesting to consider that in terms of an objective direction, velocity, position etc. The random landscape and the uniformly flat landscape are effectively identical, yet the two vary in subjective content. Consider that if we possess finite sensory capabilities within a finite period of time, then we can only acquire a finite quantity of information within that. If existance, on a scale larger than the physical universe was potentially infinitely complex, we could only observe a small subset of events within it as the information contained by all would be larger than our ability to perceive it, within a finite period of time.

Obviously objects that closely shared common landmarks and metrics for their interactions would appear closely related and tightly coupled in their properties. This correlates well with objects being close to each other in space, as in the extreme, if two objects shared all properties in common, they could only appear as a single unit and within the context of space, that would be a single point like object (no tolerance for spacial variance would be available and you couldn't "slip" anything between them to make them appear differentiable).

Of course objects that we only weakly correlated in properties would be preferentially biased toward appearing distant, and influences upon one would be unlikely to have a significant correlation in the other and these would be perceived in these respects as physical separate, independent and distant from each other.

Now recognize that in the extreme, for objects approaching a relationship in which nothing is shared in common between them, though we might extrapolate out to something approaching infinite distance, the concept of distance itself is based upon properties of space - an object can only remain distant or two objects can only remain separated to the extent that they both remain consistant to the properties defining locations within space. Objects that were entirely unrelated would not be perceivable as specifically either distant from each other or near each other as they would not share the same space of interactions.

Notice that the Big Bang can be interpreted in two contexts as either representing our observations of very distant objects on a larger scale of space or as a simultaineous juxtaposition of being objects tightly coupled in an unobservable past - in either case we observe no (or little, as technically we should not be able to deterministically prove anything about entirely unrelated objects) relationship between these objects as they approach either an unviewable infinite distance or become dependent upon unobserved properties of an unwitnessed history. You could analogize this similar to looking through more and more stacks of distorted glass and seeing objects appear to blur, spread and become disorganized the further out we're looking, though interestingly enough, in the extreme, these objects are not actually confined to being distant from us but simply that they remain incoherently related to our local references for spacial metrics, and you have a scenario in which there is no specific boundary except incomprehension or growth and learning itself.

I personally assume that in order for me to see a distant star, my observation of it cannot remain entirely independent of myself - the entirity of that star is unwitnessable by me, and from that perspective it's not real within my subjective context of observation, but the photons I see that are representative of such a star can not have arisen from solely a one way trip from there to here, otherwise it could not exist as something at a specific distance relative to me, and there is a bidirectional interaction that localizes each of us to each other. Another analogy here is of a bat using sonar to "see" the contours of objects - it does not accept all audio information as representing objects but instead filters or isolates a subset of audio components that it generates in order to isolate a perspective relative to itself and reject outside interference - though we could still assume outside interference could create aliases and virtual objects for a bat using sonar, it would still be, once again, a matter of the bats subjective capabilities to isolate these, and this could simply be remapped to using a more complex signature emission for "self" so as to reject a larger quantity of "other" from the perception.

This post has been edited by StevenA on Jul 17 2008, 08:03 PM

Hi rondor. I think your reasoning is correct.

But 'heaven' and 'hell' are Human mind-states, not 'places'.




g.

[FONT=Times][SIZE=1][SIZE=7]rondor-still kicking.

the collider at cern,thinking about it and what could happen if there is success for their efforts,as usual my sideways mind wonders if the outcome will shed light to any of our thoughts in the from scratch forum,for me,i have long believed that if matter is taken to its lowest common denominator what remains is vibration,no doubt complex forms,but what then?what, i feel and what i have stated,is that it should then quickly return to space,i have nailed my colours to the mast so to speak,but i suppose i can always claim that no power exists great enough to do this! any port in a storm,but what if, iif all of the mass should disappear and only space increase.

mind boggling, mind boggling?dont mind if i do,just run me through the rules i may be a bit rusty.

best regards, rondor

The only revolutionary outcome at Cern will be the internet. The collider is a huge expensive water balloon experiment that will provide more questions and misguided theories than answers. Such is the circle of life. At least it gives physics professors something to do until aliens start showing up (hahaha).

imagine a universe consisting entirely of entities that have no other properties than a simple internal state that is either on or off. call them bits. each bit observes 2 other bits and changes its state (time itself would be discrete) according to what it sees. it does not matter 'where' these other 2 bits are at. (think quantum entanglement). in fact the whole concept of 'where' would be meaningless to them. space itself would not exist.

to make it more interesting we would have to imagine that the bits can somehow increase in numbers by dividing in two. we could imagine that the whole thing began with a single bit which divided repeatedly forming a vast chaotic sea of bits in which life could conceivably evolve.

now I dont know if such a universe does or even could exist but I do propose that the concept of 'space' might not be as fundamental as it is usually thought to be.


thousands of years ago it was common sense that the earth couldnt be round because everyone knew that objects would fall 'down' off the sides. we know now that they had it backwards. 'down' is whatever direction objects happen to be falling.

people say that its common sense that objects require 'space' to exist. what if they've got it backwards. maybe 'space' is just a description of how the objects that exist interact. what if objects could interact in ways that are not space-like? like quantum entanglement for instance.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthr...0176#post460176

This post has been edited by granpa on Jan 13 2009, 11:01 AM

instead of asking 'what is the true fundamental nature of the universe and existence' maybe we should just ask 'how would we program a computer simulation to simulate the universe' assuming that wehad a computer large enough and powerful enough (it MIGHT have to be capable of computing things that are np hard) (or it might not)

the obvious starting point would be to divide space into tiny regions and dedicate one precessor to each region. each processor would communicate with its immediate neighbors.

This post has been edited by granpa on Jan 13 2009, 11:59 AM

.
Hello again, everyone!

I have been ill for some time with my longstanding allergy/asthma/cancer conditions which have had deleterious effects on my optics for some time now (more recently, the swine flu virus reactions/complications haven't helped!).

Currently am well enough to work on my 'real world' projects which have also fallen behind deadlines due to my latest longish bout of illness/recovery.. But soon (hopefully in two weeks time if my optics hold up!) I will try find time to read through much of what has transpired here at Physforum during my extended absence.....and then add my next contribution to this Q&A thread process so as to progress this project's theorising technique/logic flow to the next stage.

AlexG.... Hi Alex!.....sorry that our discussion (ie, about light path/speed/velocity from the source etc) was interrupted by my illness before I was able to provide you with a 'gedanken' which you can perform for yourself that will demonstrate objectively/mathematically the point that free 'emitted' photon follows an absolutely independent path etc once emitted from source. I look forward to doing so and resuming our discussion on that aspect in a couple of weeks. Cheers till then, AlexG!


Everyone.....Good to be back with you; and I look forward once more to constructive/polite scientific/general conversations with you all. Cheerio to all....and 'see' you again in a couple of weeks!

RC
.

This post has been edited by RealityCheck on Oct 26 2009, 11:52 PM

The absolute concept is (drum roll ) ....NOTHINGNESS! known as the Zero Point Field in current Physics but is actually a more profound idea that that.

The following is a response I posted elsewhere regarding Big Bang cosmology but it nicely fleshes out my ideas....


----------------------------------------------------------------------
stop thinking of a beginning in space/time. Space and time originate from the Big Bang and not the other way around.

Asking what happened before the Big Bang makes as much sense as asking what happened before 1 + 1 = 2. Clearly Mathematics exists in an atemporal (eternal) reality and so does the Big Bang.Another notion that must be abandoned is the notion of a first cause. This notion is closely related to the notion of a beginning of time that I criticized in the previous paragraph.

The Big bang must be an ontological phenomenon. What I mean by this is that the Big Bang cannot be caused by some external influence but must instead be a phenomenon that must happen self referentially. Consider the flushing mechanism of a toilet bowl. This is a simple example of an ontological phenomenon. There is no outside influence causing the stoppage of the filling of water in the bowel. The toilet bowel mechanism, by its ontological nature, regulates itself

Another way of describing an ontological phenomenon is to call it a truism. For example, the statement that all tall people are not short is a truism. So indeed the toilet bowl mechanism is a truism, it regulates itself because by its very definition it must regulate itself.

The Big Bang is similarly a truism, it must come into being ontologically (or self referentially). What causes reality to refer to itself? There cannot be a cause so therefore the act of self reference must be ontological. The act of self reference must be the very essence of primordial reality.

I propose that reality is NOTHINGNESS. Now, NOTHINGNESS REFERS TO NOTHING BUT IT IS NOTHING SO IT IS REFERRING TO ITSELF! There you have an ontological self reference. There you have a "beginning" to reality without a first cause.

The actual process by which this feedback loop creates all we observe now can be understood by considering the teachings of Chaos theory. The Nothingness feedback loop (aka Big Bang) leads to Chaotic phase transitions, very similar to the transition of water to steam for example. The Big Bang can also be understood by studying Godel's Incompleteness theorem (IC). The meaning that arises from meaningless symbols in IC is equivalent to the feedback loops within Chaos Theory.

Now, if reality originates from Nothingness then I predict that the Big Bang cannot start as a point of infinite density because there is no mass at all at the start. I theorize that the Big Bang starts with zero mass and zero density. Furthermore, the Nothingness that starts this whole process must be conserved. Mass/energy must total to Nothing. Reality is a zero sum game.

Hi all,


I wonder if anybody read the 8th May edition of New Scientist page 41 on entanglement where a Nature paper (vol454, p 861) was referred to. It concludes that if we have free will and if reality is as we think it is then the speed of the transfer of information between two photons, kilometres apart and deemed as entangled, was more than ten million times the cosmic speed limit we use in all of our calculations. Hence we need to find a TOE which fits !!
I've been thinking about this beginning point for ages and I know it's a physical property we are looking for and I tend to think that energy has to be a starting point as this must have been the driving force of the big bang and so must be contained in everything.

Hope my ramblings are not inane!

I always see what is referred to in the BB theory as "The Singularity" as the beginning point.

The singularity expanded and the universe was created. Because the singularity is everything contained in the universe, we can say it like this "The universe existed, then a change occurred and the universe started expanding. (very simplified I know)

In this sense, I now see the universe connected to the singularity. They are one. Galaxies and their phenomena are parts of the singularity constantly connected.

The term BB, always made me think of an explosion which would mean the singularity exploded creating the universe. End of the singularity.

Now, I see it differently. My new opinion has brought me into conflict with the some of the BB theory, and yet so much of what I have learnt of the BB (which is very little), still seems to fit.

I see this in my mind visually, so I am not sure it adheres to the rules of this forum (if they still exist), because I have not observed the science for myself, but have compiled this image from as much reading of scientists and laymen’s work as I have been able to do, and from day to day observations of phenomena around me.

Now, I see the singularity existing with the universe (they are connected and are one, I only define them differently to visualize easier). Our universe I see on the outer reaches of the singularity. An event (an imbalance of some kind I have yet to fathom) occurs to the singularity which causes an imbalance. The imbalance causes the singularity to expand, like a "burp" (I now name thee the burp theory), causing a gravitational shockwave to dislodge matter from the edge of the singularity pushing it outward.

The very outer parts of the singularity are made up of extremely light particles possibly what we call “space” (I lack the technical skills to define exactly what, but in essence the lightest of all stuff). Under the layer of space is matter and anti matter, and under that layer other stuff (possibly dark matter) getting denser as we near the core of the singularity.

As the shockwave hits the outer edge of the singularity it forces these various particles on the edges, to push into each other with tremendous force (could be the BB here), mixing and crashing parts of dark matter, anti matter, and matter together with “space” and the singularity expands by a percentage of some sort relative to the size of the singularity (age of the singularity). This is how I visualize the birth of the universe.

The singularity expands until all the momentum of the initial burp has been dissipated and gravity begins to win the war. Then all that was dislodged is pulled back toward the singularity and we wait for the singularity to “burp” again.

Although I visualise the singularity as spherical, it could technically be any shape.

Of course as much as I can find agreeing theory that would fit into this model, I can also see problems too. Hopefully constructive criticism will help me come to a clearer picture.

No more than most posters here, so don't hold back!

You asked a better question than fredinjeddah sort of made words about, anyway.

fredinjeddah

In this Post

My opinion is that you should not ask for my opinion. I know very little. I haven’t even completely grasped GR. I’m trying to understand dark matter, but without a good background in GR, it’s too difficult for me to even understand the galactic rotation curve. I’ve read a lot of books, took some online courses, and I’ve watched many lectures, but that’s about it. I would never try to come up with a theory when I still struggle with even the standard models. My laywoman’s opinion of any “Theory of Everything” is that it seems impossible. That it shouldn’t be called a T.O.E., it should be called "The Fundamental Law." If there is a fundamental law, it would be this law, and the unimaginable number of accidents.

The “big bang” name is unfortunate because it suggest we are identifying an event that triggered the expansion. It also makes people think that it was an explosion localized in space. Both are wrong. There is no evidence for a center that might have exploded, or an event that triggered the expansion. I think the standard model aka, “Big Bang” picture only deals with the way the universe is now, and we trace its evolution back in time, with our observations and theories. If there is an instant, at a big bang, when the universe started expanding, it is not in the current theory, as far as I am aware. I don’t think that anyone has thought of a way to adduce objective evidence that such an event really happened. Someone can correct me, if I am wrong.

I’m not really sure how the scientific community treats speculative theories that are beyond the standard model of the Big Bang. The Penrose/Hawking singularity theorems require a BB singularity to have existed. When I try to read some of the speculative ideas, I get too confused. You can’t really imagine a singularity in a point of space, if space did not yet exist. Even though singularities are thought to exist in the centers of black holes, I think singularities still defy the current understanding of physics, as far as I know.

There have been many documented frivolous criticisms, which have been irrational and destructive. I think that most cosmologists would be delighted to abandon the “big bang”, if any alternative looked reasonably promising. The standard model is the best that we have at this point in time. I think everyone realizes that there is room for improvement and even revolutionary changes that might occur, due to the normal surprises that physics endures. Nature is capable of surprising us but in mature science it is rare. However, the expansion was surprising and most cosmologists agree that the standard model has to be pointing to another surprise of some kind. There are many contenders, dark matter, modified gravity theories, or maybe just our limited ability to detect all the mass.

If you have not already read it. The “Principle of Physical Cosmology" by P.J.E. Peebles is a great book. It starts at the development of cosmology, works through GR, then modern cosmology. That's the best I can do.

N/A

Penrose-Hawking Singularity

My opinion, is that asking others opinions is the only way to obtain a balanced perspective on any issue.

Far more than I have done, so I can only learn from your experiences.

Me neither. I am only laying out an opinion based on other peoples opinion and what my logic dictates. Ultimately it is only my opinion.

T.O.E I agree is a bad term.It almsot seems an impossiblity to create a T.O.E. I think it should be categorised more distinctly, for example, The T.O.E if you adhere to the BB model, or the T.O.E if you adhere to the "Inflation model" etc. Even then it would be difficult. Ultimately there is only a T.O.E for me and a T.O.E for you, and even that theory would constantly change (as has mine a few times), but in order to obtain my T.O.E, I need to see another T.O.E.

I agree, it is an unfortunate name for this model.

On reflection, I think you are correct, the BB is a model of the universe, it is not a theory trying to explain the origins of the universe.

Of course, on reflection (and I am the guiltiest of all) it is incorrect to call it "The Big Bang theory", as no one scientist sat down and declared this a theory. It is a model.

I think various scientists are working on their own theories as to what caused the expansion, and these theories may prove what caused the expansion, and these theories either affirm or contradict the BB model (most times with more questions being created), but they are not the BB model.

I think the great Carl Sagan was correct in saying, that the universe always existed. Until other objective evidence comes along, it should be considered the answer for now.

Is the fact that the universe is expanding, not proof of an event happening. If an event did not happen, why was matter dispersed in an expansionary manner. What else could have caused this but an event? The only other logical opinion I can muster right now, is that the expansion is the process and nature of the universe. The universe always existed and what we observe is what the universe does, no event needed.

The universe is a constantly changing structure, and what we are observing now, is the expansion, and it may be that another phase will come and another and another. It is not a beginning of one and an end of another, it is a constant change in a constant universe?

Maybe the singularity only comes into existance at a certain phase of the universes life (maybe during a contracting phase) when matter condenses enough? Of course I am speculating that the universe contracts which is highly debatable although I believe this.

. Ditto!

Thank you my queen. I truly appreciate your response, it all helps on my little journey.

This post has been edited by fredinjeddah on Jun 2 2010, 07:03 PM

An example of a very short TOE. Everything is randomness. There is no model of randomness. If there would be a model it wouldnt be randomness. Order aka repetition is a subset of randomness. Thus order is a type of randomness something like mindless repetition. Repetition on top of repetition and you get an apparent order and even the laws of physics.Universe always exists aka energy always exists. Laws of physics are not eternal.
In very short version - Reality is eternal randomness. No meaning, no reason to exist, no cause of existence. As far as we are concerned it all depends on what we beleive is true.

Magical.