I've been doing a lot of thinking, Phil. It looks like you were correct when you wrote the following to me - "I also still hold to Einstein's view that a mathematical theory is needed at the heart of physics". I've written a little thing called "Equatiom Describing the Universe" which makes me also think a mathematical theory is needed at the heart of physics -

(the equation won't come out right here, but you can see the proper form at http://viXra.org/abs/1305.0030)

Title -

Equation Describing the Universe

Author -

Rodney Bartlett

Abstract -

Originally, I planned to call this article Hu= BEce , or 1 = 1 . But my computer won't let me save that name - so I've changed the title to "Equation Describing the Universe". This equation looks like the one physicists are hoping will be printed on T-shirts in the middle of this century as a description of the Universe. Normally, I'd leave development of this equation in the capable hands of Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein. They aren't here right now ... and it'll be quite a while before they return. However, they instructed me to send you this message on their behalf.

H is for the Hamiltonian, representing the total energy of a quantum mechanical

system. The subscript u stands for "universe" and Hu means the universe operates quantum mechanically (quantum effects operate macroscopically as well as microscopically, and this unification is symbolized by the first 1). BEc is for Bose-Einstein condensate, a finite form of matter that is the first known example of quantum effects becoming apparent on a macroscopic scale (represented by the second 1). Borrowing a couple of lines from the more complete explanation in the Content - "The infinite cosmos could possess this absence of distance in space and time, via the electronic mechanism of binary digits. To distinguish this definition from "the universe going on and on forever", we can call it "electronic infinity or e " (not E8). When the macroscopic quantum effects of the BEc are magnified by e , those effects are instantly translated into all space-time operating quantum mechanically. In other words, you can multiply a BEc (the second 1) an infinite number of times - but no matter how many (or how few) times you do it, you'll always end up with 1 (the macroscopic universe's time and space operating quantum mechanically). Consequent to this operation is the inevitable quantum entanglement of everything (matter, energy, forces); making all space and all time a unification.

Content -

"The universe IS something" ("Astronomy" magazine - March 2013, p.66) is interesting. This letter and its reply continue on from Bob Berman's article "Infinite Universe" ("Astronomy" - Nov. 2012) which says, "The evidence keeps flooding in. It now truly appears that the universe is infinite" and "Many separate areas of investigation - like baryon acoustic oscillations (sound waves propagating through the denser early universe), the way type 1a supernovae compare with redshift, the Hubble constant, studies of cosmic large-scale structure, and the flat topology of space - all point the same way." Support for the article - (after examining recent measurements by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, NASA declared "We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error." - http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html;

and according to "The Early Universe and the Cosmic Microwave Background: Theory and Observations" by Norma G. Sànchez, Yuri N. Parijskij [published by Springer, 31/12/2003], the shape of the Universe found to best fit observational data is the infinite flat model).

Thinking about a finite cosmos makes my head hurt (if the cosmos is finite, what exists outside it? If there's something, that something must be part of the universe. If there's absolutely nothing, how can that be? Nothing doesn't exist.) But I can't really picture an infinite cosmos that never ends. A new definition of infinity is needed. The inverse-square law states that the force between two particles becomes infinite if the distance of separation between them goes to zero. Remembering that gravitation (associated with particles) partly depends on the distance between their centres, the distance of separation only goes to zero when those centres occupy the same space-time coordinates (not merely when the particles' or objects' sides are touching i.e. infinity equals the total elimination of distance). The infinite cosmos could possess this absence of distance in space and time, via the electronic mechanism of binary digits. To distinguish this definition from "the universe going on and on forever", we can call it "electronic infinity or e ".

1's and 0's would make the bosons of gravity and electromagnetism which would interact in Wave Packets to produce matter. All matter in the universe then has the potential to behave like a Bose-Einstein condensate (a state of matter composed of bosons cooled close to absolute zero in which atoms fall or condense into the lowest accessible quantum state, at which point quantum effects become apparent on a macroscopic scale). The bosons composing gravity and EM can all have the same properties e.g. position, velocity, magnetism and spin (force-carrying particles, or bosons, defy Pauli's exclusion principle). The matter we know obeys Pauli's exclusion principle. So how is it different from a Bose-Einstein condensate. To exhibit Bose-Einstein condensation, the fermions (particles of matter) must "pair up" (not in the normal manner of sharing electrons) to form compound particles that are bosons. This "pairing-up" may be achieved by using e-infinity to delete distance. This leads to a photon (such as from the Sun) experiencing the whole universe - including BECs, gravitons, and other photons - in its existence.

It's impossible to point to the 4th dimension of time, so this cannot be physical. Since the union of space-time is well established in modern science, we can assume the 4th dimension is actually measurement of the motions of the particles occurring in the 3 dimensions of length, width, and height. The basic standard of time in the universe is the measurement of the motions of photons - specifically, of the speed of light. This is comparable to the 1960's adoption on Earth of the measurement of time as the vibration rate of cesium atoms. At lightspeed, time = 0 (it is stopped). Below 300,000 km/sec, acceleration or gravitation causes time dilation (slowing of time as the speed of light is approached). If time's 0, space is also 0 because space and time coexist as space-time whose warping (gravity) is necessarily 0 too. Spacetime/gravity form matter/mass, so the latter pair can't exist at lightspeed and photons are massless (even when not at rest).

Suppose Albert Einstein was correct when he said gravitation plays a role in the constitution of elementary particles (in "Do Gravitational Fields Play An Essential Part In The Structure of the Elementary Particles?" - a 1919 submission to the Prussian Academy of Sciences). And suppose he was also correct when he said gravitation is the warping of space-time. Then it is logical that 1) gravitation would play a role in constitution of elementary particles and also in the constitution of the nuclear forces, and 2) the warping of space-time that produces gravity means space-time itself plays a role in the constitution of elementary particles and the nuclear forces. Gravity, being united with EM and the nuclear forces, is therefore the ultimate physical source of all repelling and attracting. Mass increase at increasing accelerations is inevitable because the object is encountering more spacetime and gravity (the producers of mass; which also confer mass's equivalent [energy] on cosmic rays that travel far enough through space, turning them into ultra-high-energy cosmic rays). But mass increase cannot become infinitely large since space-time, gravity and mass don't exist at lightspeed. The object is converted into energy which means mass and energy must be equivalent and Energy must equal Mass related to the Speed of Light (E=mc^2, in the words of Albert Einstein).

Since there is zero, or no, spacetime at light speed; infinity exists in that state - all distances are totally eliminated and a photon experiences the whole universe - as well as all time - in its existence). "Physics of the Impossible" by Michio Kaku (Penguin Books 2008, p.227) says, ".. whenever we naively try to marry these two theories (general relativity and quantum theory), the resulting theory makes no sense: it yields a series of infinite answers that are meaningless." We see that infinite answers are supposed to be arrived at because light is important in Relativity and "infinity (in the sense of total elimination of distance) exists at light speed". Infinity and infinite answers are not barriers to uniting general relativity and quantum theory. When we realize that c=∞ (infinity exists at light speed), those infinite answers can yield not nonsense but real meaning.

With all distances deleted and a photon experiencing the entire universe in its existence (including gravity and the nuclear forces - carried by the gravitons, gluons, W+, W- and Z0 particles), the cosmos has become finite (even subatomic or quantum sized). The "pairing up" of particles by e-infinity i.e. by the electronic binary digits of 1 and 0 permits matter we know to defy the exclusion principle and act as though it was buried at the centre of a planet. No gravity-EM interactions in wave packets occur at the planet's centre; meaning there is no mass* and, agreeing with conclusions from Isaac Newton's theories, (hypothetical) objects weigh nothing. Also, "pairing up" of particles by e-infinity means quantum effects become apparent on a large macroscopic scale. This permits a "distant" event to instantly affect another (exemplified by the quantum entanglement of particles separated by light years), or permits effects to influence seemingly separate causes (exemplified by the retrocausality or backward causality promoted by Yakir Aharonov and others). This means quantum processes wouldn't be confined to tiny subatomic scales but would also occur on the largest cosmic scales.

* According to the Lagrangian - the L of a dynamical system which summarizes the dynamics of the system - fermions should be massless, and the common view is that it's the Higgs field/boson coupled to them that gives them their masses. There are several explanations for the creation of mass - Einstein's gravitational / electromagnetic interaction being used here.

Why do fermions obey the exclusion principle if e-infinity (binary digits) pairs them up to exhibit Bose-Einstein condensation and quantum effects becoming apparent on a macroscopic scale? It must be because of temperature. The slightest interaction with the outside world can be enough to warm fragile BECs (they're normally very near absolute zero or -273.15 degrees C), forming a normal gas. Remembering that our world's average temperature is almost 290 degrees C above that, it's no surprise that the vibration from the heat splits the paired particles apart and causes them to obey the exclusion principle. Since this article refers to the 1's and 0's of base 2 mathematics (the binary system), physical explanation (heat splitting particles apart) isn't enough and a mathematical explanation (at least in a limited context) is desirable.

Let's borrow a few ideas from string theory's ideas of everything being ultimately composed of tiny, one-dimensional strings that vibrate as clockwise, standing, and counterclockwise currents in a four-dimensional looped superstring. We can visualize tiny, one dimensional binary digits of 1 and 0 (base 2 mathematics) forming currents in a Mobius loop - or in 2 Mobius loops, clockwise currents in one loop combining with counterclockwise currents in the other to form a standing current. Combination of the 2 loops' currents requires connection of the two as a four-dimensional Klein bottle. This connection can be made with the infinitely-long irrational and transcendental numbers. Such an infinite connection translates - via bosons being ultimately composed of 1's and 0's depicting pi, e, √2 etc.; and fermions being given mass by bosons interacting in matter particles' "wave packets" - into an infinite number of Figure-8 Klein bottles.** Slight imperfections in the way the Mobius loops fit together determine the precise nature of the binary-digit currents (the producers of gravitational waves, electromagnetic waves, the nuclear strong force and the nuclear weak force) and thus of exact mass, charge, quantum spin, and adherence to Pauli's exclusion. Referring to a Bose-Einstein condensate, the slightest change in the binary-digit flow (Mobius loop orientation) would alter the way gravitation and electromagnetism interact, and the BEC could become a gas.

** Each one is a "subuniverse" composing the physically infinite and eternal space-time of the universe (our own subuniverse is 13.7 billion years old). We don't have to worry about accelerating cosmic expansion - the result of more space, forces, energy and matter being continually produced by binary digits - leaving our galaxy alone in space. As "dark energy" causes known galaxies to depart from view, more energy and matter can replace them (since the universe obeys fractal geometry, gravity is the source of repelling and attracting not only on a quantum scale but on a cosmic scale, too i.e. it accounts for dark energy - it accounts for dark matter and Kepler's laws of planetary motion, too [but that's a long explanation best left in http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0218]). The Law of Conservation says neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed (though the quantity of each can change), so a better phrase might be "binary digits recycle spacetime" (when matter changes into energy or energy becomes matter, we commonly say matter or energy has been created). As well, other expanding subuniverses can collide with ours and their galaxies enter our space to keep our galaxy company.

    Rodney, thanks for the long comment. One bit I especially like is that the idea of particles from gravitational fields may return.

    By the way I fixed up the equation in your viXra abstract when you submitted it this morning. You can always put in the HTML yourself if you need equations to work. Here you can do it with LaTeX.

    I finally got around to reading a couple of these essays. Your necklace approach to string theory is in some ways similar to what I wrote in my essay with S-matrix channels. I presume it will appear here in a few days. Yangians are a form of the universal enveloping algebra, and this is in part what my essay concerns.

    LC

      That sounds very exciting. I looked at Yangians for connections to Necklace Lie Algebras but could not find anything substantial, but if there is a connection with UEAs it would be interesting. As you probably know the iterated integrals also come up in relation to polylogarithms so the whole scattering theory area looks connected to these ideas.

      We must be due a new batch of essay very soon.

      Francis, the protons are accelerated to a speed where their kinetic energy is over 8000 times the mass equivalent of the proton according to [math]E=mc^2[/math]. When they collide head-on some of this energy can be used to create particles much heavier than the proton.

      Philip:

      In other words the input eV under a strong magnetic field imparts mass increase.

      I would say that the mass creation can be easily worked out under input eV and magnetic field.

      Thus infinite masses or particles can be created at different eV and B fields.

      And one can get whatever particle one is looking for at different eV and B fields for a fleeting moment.

      The process I have worked out for electrolysis of water and thus solved the electrochemical series.[click ref 16 in my essay]

      So yes the Higgs Boson can also be worked out.

      Question:

      Can the appearance of the Higgs Boson mass for a fleeting moment be taken as evidence for being the precursor of a proton?

      Francis, you are right that there is no theoretical limit to mass of particles that can be produced in proton colliders. The practical limitation is that energy is lost as the proton rotates and magnet strength cannot hold the protons in a circle at higher energy.

      I am not sure what you mean by the Higgs boson as a precursor for the proton. A Higgs can sometimes decay to protons rarely, but the properties of Higgs Boson and proton are different in almost every way.

      Yangians have representations with polylogarithms. Li_s(z) functions are interesting functions which contain zeta functions and the Dirichlet functions. I have thought for a long time there are some interesting deep connections to supersymmetry and STU physics. In particular S-duality is really a form of the Bohr-Somerfeld quantization rule ∮p•dq = nħ, which really contains the Schrodinger equation if we include the Hamitonian constraint S = ∮p•dq - ∫Hdt. The evolution of the wave ψ = ψ(0)e^{-iS/ħ), computed from variations δψ = δt∂ψ/∂t will derive the Schrodinger equation. In much the same way I think there is an underlying dynamics to the S and T dualities which are Yangian or related.

      Hi Philip,

      I have been going through all of your vixra papers to understand better what you are proposing. It is interesting that you have proposed a mathematical universe( which is exactly what my theory proves) long before Dr. Tegmark formalized the notion. I have many questions but I will be brief this time.

      for the readers this paper of yours is a very good summary of your ideas but I wish there was more math to compliment it.

      http://vixra.org/pdf/0911.0042v1.pdf

      1. I am surprised that none of your colleagues discuss your theory here or elsewhere. Can you point to places where such discussions have taken place in case I am wrong.

      2. What is your opinion of Eric Verlinde entropic gravity theory, you seem to hint at it indirectly.

      3.does this paper relate to your work

      http://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0406200v2.pdf

      4. In my theory I derive these crazy simple formulas that fall out of my system which sort of ties them to Knots and Alexander polynomial trefoil similar to your idea

      1/m_e= (27/2)*(1/alpha -2 -alpha )= 1822.88747

      where alpha/FSC =.007297352568, charge ^2=3, 27=3^3, m_e, m_p are electron and proton mass

      moreover,

      M_p/m_e= (27/2)*(1/(alpha) -1) -1/3 = 1836.152654

      looks fantastic, I wonder if there is any link to knots/Alexander polynomial trefoil.

      In the next questions I will go very deep into the analysis of your theory.

        qsa, thanks for looking at my work and asking so many good questions. I am going to answer each point in a separate message.

        You said "It is interesting that you have proposed a mathematical universe( which is exactly what my theory proves) long before Dr. Tegmark formalized the notion."

        I don't think I can claim to have had this idea before Tegmark but I thought about it independently. There are also differences in our views. A key part of my idea is universality and I think others are starting to pick up on that idea now.

        The paper you cited was actually a book so it was deliberately not too mathematical but no publisher would take it. I should try to write up the universality idea and put some maths behind it.

        Have you written up about how your theory proves it?

        1. I am surprised that none of your colleagues discuss your theory here or elsewhere. Can you point to places where such discussions have taken place in case I am wrong.

        My ideas have not been discussed much at all. I have been cited a few times but not as much as I would like. This raises an interesting point.

        When I was young and naive I thought it was the proper thing to survey the literature and cite any prior work of a similar nature, especially for new radical ideas. I thought everyone did this both as a courtesy to people who had earlier ideas and as a courtesy to their readers who would find it useful to see similar work if they wanted to build on it. When I first started working on space-time structure I got carried away with this idea and ended up writing a bibliographic review with hundreds of references. It actually got cited quite a few times even by some influential people.

        Now I know that most people do not work that way. Citations are too important a commodity to throw about like that and citing prior work can undermine their own claims to have done things independently. Most people follow the principle that they only cite other work that is needed to understand the present paper. They often wont cite prior similar work even if it was an important influence. Sometimes people are even open about this and think it is the most correct and honest thing to do. Perhaps they are right. See this article on backreaction for example http://backreaction.blogspot.co.uk/2008/02/peer-review-iv.html

        What this means to you and I is that it is critically important that we make sure all our ideas are recorded in papers that are stored in permanent repositories from the earliest date possible. That is why I started viXra. If some outsider has an interesting idea I don't think they should lose their claim to priority just because they are excluded from repositories.

        It is important to identify your key ideas to yourself first and make a point of writing about it as explicitly and clearly as you can. If is an important idea that nobody has written about before then write a whole paper about it and introduce suitable terminology. Don't bury it in long papers as an aside and certainly dont forget to mention it because it is so "obvious" Apparently the Higgs boson was so obvious to Englert and Brout that they forgot to mention it and Higgs nearly did too.

        Coming back to the original point, no, nobody discussed my main ideas much, but I know that the onus is on me to develop the ideas further. A rough and vague idea wont count for much if someone else comes along later and publishes a more polished version with a better mathematical finish.

        "2. What is your opinion of Eric Verlinde entropic gravity theory, you seem to hint at it indirectly."

        I like the idea of entropic gravity. It goes well with the idea that qubits are fundamental. However I dont like his explanation for the cosmoloical ratio of dark energy to cold matter. He predicts it to be constant when standard theory and observation says it increases.

        I will answer more later. Going to watch Feynman film on BBC2 for rest of evening.

        "4. In my theory I derive these crazy simple formulas that fall out of my system which sort of ties them to Knots and Alexander polynomial trefoil similar to your idea

        1/m_e= (27/2)*(1/alpha -2 -alpha )= 1822.88747

        where alpha/FSC =.007297352568, charge ^2=3, 27=3^3, m_e, m_p are electron and proton mass

        moreover,

        M_p/m_e= (27/2)*(1/(alpha) -1) -1/3 = 1836.152654

        looks fantastic, I wonder if there is any link to knots/Alexander polynomial trefoil."

        Interesting but the trouble with producing formula for such mass ratios is that the proton is composite and its mass is the combined effect of many unconnected processes. Why would the answer be something you can easily calculate? To be convincing enough to make people take notice you would need accurate formulae for all hadron masses with similar expressions so that it becomes obvious that it cannot be a numerical fluke.

        The knot stuff could be interesting but you would need to tell more.

        Thanks for the reply.

        Yes, I also had many misconceptions when I was young and naïve. I have an MPHIL in EE from Sussex, but since I have had many careers like in engineering, applied scientific research, business and many other activities.

        I spent a year dealing with products from Silicon Graphics and Texas Instrument (speech), I was appalled in the end at what I found about the people. Only very (and I mean very) few people knew what was going on, even then I was not happy with the span of their knowledge and techniques. Before that I had a God like image of the people in these ultra-high tech companies. The same happened when I got involved in business.

        I have always loved math and physics and read as much as I could which was limited considering my responsibilities. Then few years back when I got to a semi-retirement situation, I decided to give my real love much more attention. And surprisingly it wasn't long before I had a hit with my theory. I did not know Tegmark, Wolfram or Conway or many others. I knew the older ones like Wheeler and Guth. I had again this super god image of physicists. I thought to myself now here are the smart with high integrity people that I belong to. After some experience, I had to come down to earth and face realities, again for the last time.

        We are all humans display all the negatives like inaptitude, jealousy, laziness, treachery and so on plus all the circumstances that control us. But we do have the good parts also which some people like to display like compassion and honesty, we do exist in a superposition!

          As for my theory I will try not to say much until I have written the paper. The reason that I am late is that I have not put in all the other important results in my website and I have just came up with a method to do interactions in higher than 1D and hoping I can get new or more accurate results.

          As for these formulas, you could say they might very well be a fluke if it wasn't that these fall out of simulation and there is more than one as you saw. And here I add another one all from the same system.

          electron g-factor=(4m_e/3eh)*(2/(3*m_e*alpha) - 2*e^2 -1)

          =2.00231934...

          .. e=3(charge square),h actually h_bar=(e/alpha)^.5=20.2758.. m_e=.00054858

          Of course, I know the standard theory of proton, but my system seems to only show the STABLE particles only as simple formulas.

          But you are right I need to show the whole thing in one coherent system, and the onus is on me. The problem is that my system is based on simulation, although simple, but most people don't find the time to verify. I hope I can make much better presentation soon to ease all these difficulties.

          More about your theory later. Reading that long book of yours.

            In your book

            http://vixra.org/pdf/0911.0042v1.pdf

            You say this (notice the Highlighted third line)

            "I imagined what might happen if the fixed linkage structure of the lattice was discarded. It could be made dynamic allowing any site to link to any other nearby site at random.

            ** Why not even allowing linkage to any site no matter how far away?**

            For maximum simplicity each site should have no preferences for which other sites it likes to link to. When doing lattice gauge theory calculations, the path integral of quantum mechanics becomes a sum over different configurations of the field variables weighted by a factor related to the action. Dynamic links changing at random fit into the sum quite naturally. It now includes a sum over all the ways of linking up the lattice sites as well as a sum over the values of the field variables. You can even look for interesting physics in models where there are no field variables, just random links between events. This paints a rather strange image of the universe. Events and links between events would be fundamental objects but there would be no built in structure to space-time, no continuity, no dimension. The dynamics would be determined by the form chosen for the action as a function of the way the events were linked up. It might take into account the number of links meeting at each event, the number of triangles which form and other similar quantities which depend on the network of connections. For the right choice of action, lattices with a four-dimensional structure might be favoured and the structure of space-time could be determined dynamically. In some appropriate limit a continuum might emerge. If it could be done it would show how the laws of physics, including the nature of space-time, could be derived from much simpler equations than those normally used to specify them. Such speculations are often naive and unlikely to work out right, which is why Wheeler likened such models to a bucket of dust. Nevertheless you have to try these things out because if you do not make a few mistakes you never learn anything. The attractive thing about the idea for me was that you could simulate such systems on a computer and watch what happened. The results I got were not overly encouraging. There is no simple and natural way to specify the dynamics of the lattice so that it tends to form structures like space-time, unless you build in some preference for which sites want to join up. To go further it would be necessary to think more carefully about how space-time is expected to behave."

            In my theory this is exactly what I do. Do that and you are basically done !!

            That forth line and coupled with a rotational invariance scheme are the reason for nonlocality( which leads to spin just like Dirac discovered it by integrating relativity). But don't worry you also get the usual reason for causality.

            A side note, I get the feeling that nobody is reading, do you?

            More later.

              Physicists such as those you mention are very smart people, but it is true that there are no Gods. The foundational problems they (and we) are trying to solve are very hard and our limited human capacity is not adequate. It is only by working together and exploring all directions that progress can be made. The issue is that some ideas are ignored when they come from the wrong people.

              It is always assumed that scientists do their best work when they are young. The truth is that if they dont do good work when they are young they are thrown out, and if they do do good work they are then burdened with teaching and admin duties.

              The ideas are more important than the people and should be judged on their power and consistency alone.