Unified Field, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics Meet String Theory, Parallel Universes, the Mathematical Universe, and TOE by Rodney Bartlett

I don't think the abstract on this page adequately describes the topics I wrote about. Therefore, it seems necessary to list the keywords from my article. Actually, I'm feeling nostalgic for my original article, which gives a much better description of "It", so the keywords that tell you what's in my article aren't from FQXi's shortened version. They're from the original, and here they are -

Unified Field Theory; Theory of Everything; gravitation; electromagnetism;

nuclear weak force; nuclear strong force; graviton; photon; dark matter; dark

energy; Einstein; Maxwell; Wheeler; Misner; Rainich; Penrose; binary digits;

Mobius loop; Figure-8 Klein bottle; Poincare conjecture; string theory; fractal

geometry; irrational numbers; transcendental numbers; pi; e; quantum mechanics; computer science; time; wave packets; cosmic wormhole; cosmic string; tides; falling bodies; Kepler; planetary motion; Bell; Rubin; matrices; time

travel; Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe; hidden variables; virtual particles; Aharonov; Cramer; retrocausality; backward causality; quantum entanglement; 5th dimensional hyperspace; space-time; moon; evolution; Earth; mass increase; time dilation; General Relativity; Special Relativity.

The ideas I came up with are very unusual sometimes, but they were necessary to fit in with the unified theory being correct. Despite most of the world considering Einstein's unified field to be a failure, it's interesting that his work is making my heart beat a little faster more than 80 years after he started work on it. As my article shows, the unified field is based in mathematics but will prove to have remarkable consequences not just for maths, but also for the physical world. I therefore chose to write it in the form of an essay (there is mathematics, but no equations) that uses concepts like planetary motion, revised gravitation, and string theory to arrive at a theory of everything. In "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking, it was stated "If a complete unified theory was discovered, it would only be a matter of time before it was digested and simplified ... and taught in schools, at least in outline. We should then all be able to have some understanding of the laws that govern the universe and are responsible for our existence." The essay I've written might therefore be valuable in the education of a young teenager living in the second part of this century.

If you find insufficient detail in these topics, remember that the purpose here is not to go into minute detail. It is to show how everything fits together to form a logical whole. When you understand the whole, you can be certain that attempts to go deeper into the details (with specialized language and equations) will be fruitful, and will not be a waste of time.

As I have thoughtfully pointed out in my essay, BITTERS, the Universe only deals in absolute. Not only is one real Universe occurring in one real infinite dimension, the Universe has to be eternal. There is no way the Universe could have exploded out of nothing.

I found it interesting that we agree on a few points - 1) there is one real universe, 2) the Universe has to be eternal, 3) There is no way the Universe could have exploded out of nothing. My entry does refer to the Big Bang, actually to Big Bangs, but the article is not suggesting these came from nothing. It refers to a nonlinear concept of time where inhabitants of this universe learn about the cosmos then apply that knowledge to produce the Big Bang which did not form the universe but only our infinitesimal local part of it (our subuniverse).

Applying the knowledge gained over thousands of years to our local Big Bang requires time travel to 13.7 billion years ago. The method of doing this (via a 5th-dimensional hyperspace) was written in detail in my original entry - but was unfortunately one of the things deleted to meet FQXi's length restrictions.

If we're going to accept time travel, we can't believe in space-time that is warped and therefore conceivably nonlinear. Nor can we believe in uniqueness that only occurs once. So I'm guessing you don't believe in time travel - and I'm guessing you don't think there are more than the 3 dimensions we see (plus time). I empathize with nonbelief in extra dimensions. For years, string theory's statement about 10 and 26 dimensions frustrated me - but I eventually concluded there must be 5.

However, I do agree when your essay says "I am certain that light must be the only stationary substance in the Universe." Mine says something that's similar in a way - "a photon experiences the whole universe in its existence". Stationary light/a universe-spanning photon implies that there really is a total elimination of distance in the eternal cosmos i.e. my 2nd definition of infinity coexists with the 1st.

Certainly, this makes no sense at all if the universe is confined to the laws of physics we're familiar with. It seems to only be possible if, as FQXi's member Professor Max Tegmark states, we live in a mathematical universe. That is, if your essay's sentence "Information has nothing to do with reality" is an incomplete description of reality.

I think this information underlying reality can 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 in a 2-dimensional program called 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 into a four-dimensional Klein bottle by 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 Einstein's 1919 proposal of gravitational and electromagnetic bosons interacting in what quantum mechanics calls "wave packets" - into an infinite number of Figure-8 Klein bottles composing the infinite universe (according to the known definition of "infinite").

This known definition is something observation and experiment might confirm. The definition of "elimination of distance" would depend on the 1's and 0's of the binary digits. Without this "companion" definition, time travel (whether into the future or past) would be impossible. With it, intergalactic space travel can become possible. And the companion can explain (by the elimination of distance) quantum entanglement in space, as well as time's retrocausality in which the future affects the past.

Rodney, Your essay is still very comprehensible even though you cut it short. I also found the length constraint hard to keep to. With the number of essays these contests attract it is necessary to set limits I suppose.

I also still hold to Einstein's view that a mathematical theory is needed at the heart of physics and I think physicists have been continuing to build on his dream of a unified field theory ever since. The nuclear forces are however newer discoveries that must be included. This is not such a problem now that we know they take the form of gauge theories as do the electromagentic and gravitational force

Thanks for saying my essay is "still very comprehensible even though cut short". That means a lot to me ... Dr. Phil :) I see you coped well with the length restraint.

I do agree that Einstein's view on the necessity of mathematics is correct ... to an extent. I've found maths to be essential, but I must confess that the reliance science has on equations seems old-fashioned to me. Scientists are searching for the Theory of Everything (or Unified Field Theory) but believe they can only find it using equations that are based on the idea of separateness. How can a theory of unification be achieved by clinging to the oldfashioned idea that this thing is separate from that thing and 1 1 = 2 separate things? This is how maths began thousands of years ago when our ancestors had no concept of anything existing beyond the things we can only see as separate.

As for the explanation of dark energy and dark matter (in my essay before I cut it short), it seemed like a waste of space to include equations. Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein have already written the fundamental equations in their theories of gravitation. I didn't want to be repetitious but have simply looked at those theories in a slightly different way that explains problems Newton and Einstein didn't need to deal with (dark energy and dark matter).

I took the time to read what you said about dark energy and dark matter in your original (before you had to shorten it for FQXi's length requirements). I think it's quite brilliant and clearly explains what those things really are, but I think that - and your FQXi essay - will be ignored because you left out equations. Anyway, I have a question. If gravity waves only seem to cancel at the Earth's centre, but are actually magnified and pass through to the other side, why doesn't the water from my shower end up on the bathroom ceiling?

EXPLAINING DARK ENERGY AND DARK MATTER

Thanks for asking that - it's a good question. As for the equations, it seemed like a waste of space to include them. Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein have already written the fundamental equations in their theories of gravitation. I didn't want to be repetitious but have simply looked at those theories in a slightly different way that explains problems Newton and Einstein didn't need to deal with (dark energy and dark matter).

I think the best way to answer your question is to use the Sun as my example - remember, this explanation is not referring to the information content of "bits" but only to "it" (space-time and the physics we're familiar with) . Picture a gravitational wave travelling several thousand miles over the top of the sun. At a certain point, it's diverted about 4 degrees by the sun's mass. About 57% of the wave (its bottom part) is absorbed and helps to form the sun itself (this agrees with Einstein's 1919 paper saying gravitation plays a role in the constitution of elementary particles, and I think this occurs in what quantum mechanics calls Wave Packets). About 43% (its top part) continues through space and reaches Earth. Since this 43% doesn't enter the sun, it must be bent by less than 4 degrees - and as Einstein figured out before it was experimentally confirmed in 1919, this smaller refraction is 1.75 degrees (approx. 43/100 x 4/1).

The part of the wave entering the sun travels to its core - and since gravitation forms mass, the increasing density towards the core means the wave is magnified and becomes more powerful. At the centre of the core, this wave meets a gravity wave from the other side of the sun (the other wave was passing underneath the sun before being refracted). In the sun's deepest depths, the waves meet and apparently cancel. Therefore, Newton was correct when he said an object at the centre of Earth - or the Sun's centre - weighs nothing (actually, the object weighs nothing because the apparent cancellation of the gravity waves leaves it without mass or existence).

However, the gravity waves did not really cancel when they met. They merely lost their effectiveness because they continue to travel in the path already established by the other wave. Concentrating on the gravity wave we started with (the one that travelled over the sun), it carries its ineffectiveness right through the sun and follows the path of the gravity wave that entered the sun from below. Even after leaving the opaque photosphere ("surface" of the sun), the 1st gravity wave mentioned follows the path of the wave that entered the sun from below. It thus remains ineffective for thousands of miles, until it encounters the point where the 2nd wave was refracted. (Applying this to Earth, the gravity wave that entered the far side of the planet would have lost its effectiveness when it emerged from your side of the planet - and it would be unable to push your shower's water to the ceiling, or to overcome the gravity waves that push orbiting satellites towards the upper atmosphere.)

When the 1st gravity wave reaches the point where the 2nd wave was refracted, Number 1 stops following No. 2's path and goes straight ahead on its own path. Here, its magnified and stronger quality resumes and it can push against the Earth or moon (if it intercepts them in the vastness of space). This contributes, to a very small extent, to the Earth moving away from the sun (by an estimated 2 to 2.8 inches per year) and the moon moving away from Earth (1.5 inches each year). Of course, the moon's and earth's inertia is far greater than the effect of gravitational waves and inertia largely keeps celestial bodies in their known orbits.

Looking the other way (from planets to their star), gravitational waves in a magnified condition are able to transfer their increased push to an inner planet when they're absorbed by the planet in the act of mass formation (inevitably, the vast majority of magnified waves do not encounter any planet but dissipate into space). This magnification accounts for planets nearer the sun orbiting faster than those farther out i.e. for Kepler's 3rd law of planetary motion.

The average density of the Milky Way is much less than the solar system. Picture the galaxy, except for the central dense bulge that is maybe roughly 10,000 light years in diameter, made up of solar systems like ours and separated by 4 or 5 light years (the closest star to the Sun is Proxima Centauri, 4.2 light years away). Within those systems, there is a lot of mass and density in the form of stars, planets, moons, asteroids, comets, gas, and dust. But the vast reaches of near vacuum between systems lowers average density enormously - the MacMillan Encyclopedia of Physics says the average density of matter between the stars of the Milky Way is 0.1 neutral hydrogen atoms per cubic centimetre. Since density corresponds to concentration of wave packets and magnification of gravitational waves, there would be extremely little magnifying of gravity waves in interstellar space. I suspect that if it is (very approximately) 10^15 times or a million billion times less, there would be insufficient gravitational magnification to accelerate the stars in the central core or bulge beyond the orbiting speeds of the galaxy's outermost stars (outer stars would not be sped up by the gravitational attraction of unseen Dark Matter in a halo well beyond the galaxy as astronomer Vera Rubin concluded in the 1970's).

Rodney, Nature is a fantastic analogue computer, it solves a myriad of simultaneous equations, however I do not think it divides by zero. Keeping that in mind the holy grail of finding a "theory of everything" will look very different to expectations - it is a presumptuous to prescribe what it includes and excludes.

The article "Infinite Universe" by Bob Berman (Astronomy Nov. 2012) .... is behind a paywall. What is his argument?... An infinite universe is not observable from a finite subset.

"infinity equals the total elimination of distance."

Total elimination of distance or space produces .....nothing. So, infinity = nothing???

A NEW IDEA INSPIRED BY MY FQXi (FOXY) ENTRY -

Referring to http://vixra.org/abs/1305.0030 -

5th-dimensional hyperspace would be tinier than a subatomic particle, like the dimensions invoked by string theory (about 70% of space consists of dark energy, according to the WMAP and Planck space probes - which is interpreted in this article as 70% of a particle also consisting of dark energy since "space-time itself plays a role in the constitution of elementary particles and the nuclear forces" (see paragraph about Einstein's 1919 submission to the Prussian Academy of Sciences). This dark energy can be associated with hyperspace and its binary digits, so a) 70% of a particle is composed of hyperspace, and b) the extra dimension also exists everywhere in empty space. With a single extra dimension of astronomical size, gravity is expected to cause the solar system to collapse ("The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimetre" by N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, G. Dvali - Physics Letters B - Volume 429, Issues 3-4, 18 June 1998, Pages 263-272, and "Gravity in large extra dimensions" by U.S. Department of Energy - http://www.eurekalert.org/features/doe/2001-10/dbnl-gil053102.php). However, collapse never occurs if gravity accounts for repulsion as well as attraction on both subatomic and astronomical scales (accounts for dark energy and familiar concepts of gravity, as well as repelling aspects of the electroweak force such as placing two like magnetic poles together and attracting electroweak/strong force aspects).

Dear Sir,

How can "any fraction of infinity is essentially zero" or "infinity equals the total elimination of distance" be a valid physical or scientific statement? It is logically not consistent and does not correspond to reality.

Number is a property of all substances by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no other similars, then it is one. If there are similars, then it is many. Depending the times of perception of similars, many can be 2. 3. ....n. Zero is the spatio-temporal absence of something that exists elsewhere. Infinity is like one - without similars - with one difference. While the dimensions (the perception of difference between the "inner space" from "outer space" of an object) of one are fully perceptible, the dimensions of infinity are not perceptible. Since there are no similars like space or time and since the dimensions of space and time cannot be perceived fully, both are infinite. Infinity is not a very big number, just like zero is not a very small number. Like different objects with numbers can co-exist, different similarities can co-exist. Mathematics is possible only between numbers, whose dimensions are fully perceived. Hence mathematics using infinities is not possible. Of all physical objects, only space and time are infinite. Yet we use digital segments of these regularly.

Length contraction and Mass increase are only apparent from the stationary frame and cannot be real for the moving frame. What the man on the platform sees cannot affect the train. The passenger on the train will not notice any length contraction. The same goes for mass increase. As per the equation, any particle traveling at the velocity of light would acquire infinite mass. This is because division by zero has been erroneously treated as infinity as explained now. If you divide 20 by 5, then what you actually do is take out bunches of 5 from the lot of 20. When the lot becomes empty or the remainder is below 5, the divisor, so that it cannot be considered a bunch and taken away further, the number of bunches of 5 are counted. That gives the result of division as 4. In case of division by zero, you take out bunches of zero. At no stage the lot becomes zero or less than zero. Thus, the operation is not complete and result of division cannot be known, just like while dividing 20 by 5, you cannot start counting the result after taking away two or three bunches. Conclusion: division by zero leaves the number unchanged. Hence no mass increase.

However, time dilation is real in a different sense. All experiments conducted to prove time dilation are defective. Data from the first experiment available in US naval archives proves that it was fudged. Time dilation has meaning only in relative terms of cyclic evolutionary sequences. The evolutionary cycles are different for different categories or different species of the same category. Their evolution over universal time (Einstein's clock at A) can lead to comparative time dilation.

Dimension of objects is the perception that differentiates the "internal structural space" from the "external relational space". Since such perception is mediated by electromagnetic interaction, where an electric field and a magnetic field move perpendicular to each other in a direction perpendicular to both, we have three mutually perpendicular directions. Mathematical space always contains one dimension more than physical space. For example, a point in physical space has existence, but no dimension, but a point in mathematical space requires at least a line or intersection of lines. A straight line in physical space is the minimum distance between two points, i.e., in one dimension. In mathematical space, it must be drawn on a two dimensional paper. So on. Since the extra-dimensions have not been found even after more than a century, how long shall we perpetuate this fantasy?

Sir, we do not follow everything blindly, as that is superstition. We apply our mind to each case. May be we are wrong. In that case the fallacies in our statements need to be pointed out. Kindly do not take our post as offensive, but a sincere query in search of truth.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sir,

Reading your post was a pleasure because it was so refreshing and thought provoking. We agree with your first assertion that interconnectedness and interdependence are laws of Nature. Even your sense is not immune from this law, as it is only the instrument used by an observer to observer an observable. But your mistrust of mathematics is misplaced. Mathematics explains only "how much" one quantity accumulates or reduces in an interaction involving similar or partly similar quantities and not "what", "why", "when", "where", or "with whom" about the objects involved in such interactions. These are the subject matters of physics.

As we have said, number is a property of all substances by which we differentiate between similars. We differentiate objects by space and duration by time. These (objects and duration) are discrete. But numbers are applicable to our perception of everything. Hence as long as perception remains, numbers will exist. It is neither old fashioned nor redundant. If you cannot differentiate "this thing is separate from that thing", then you are not conscious.

Your "one" and "zero" differentiate not only between them, but also between objects and their concepts that includes "inner" and "outer". Otherwise they are meaningless. By themselves, they do not mean anything. They have to be assigned some values, which will be different for each "one" and "zero". They only conform or deny their existence. In any case, the binary is only a way of expressing higher numbers.

If you do not accept anything, how do you talk about one extra-dimension and hyper-space? These built on existing dimensions and space. But are these concepts scientifically valid? We see through electromagnetic radiation where one electric field and one magnetic field move together perpendicular to each other in a direction perpendicular to both. Hence we have three mutually perpendicular dimensions. By these we differentiate between states of matter: if it has fixed dimension, it is solid. If it has variable dimension, it is fluid and if it is unbound, it is plasma radiation. Since time does not behave like this, it is not a dimension. Where-from you get the extra dimension? From a nineteenth century fiction? Fiction is not science! Space is the ordered interval of substances that also acts like a base or ground for everything that exists. What is hyper-space? Another fiction!

The inverse square law only stipulates that if one of the parameters are increased, then the other parameter decreases proportionately. If the denominator in one case is made zero (by total merger), the result becomes infinite. But this is wrong mathematics. Firstly, infinity is not a very big number that can be fully perceived. Secondly, a number divided by zero remains unchanged as is explained. If you divide 20 by 5, then what you actually do is take out bunches of 5 from the lot of 20. When the lot becomes empty or the remainder is below 5, the divisor, so that it cannot be considered a bunch and taken away further, the number of bunches of 5 are counted. That gives the result of division as 4. In case of division by zero, you take out bunches of zero. At no stage the lot becomes zero or less than zero. Thus, the operation is not complete and result of division cannot be known, just like while dividing 20 by 5, you cannot start counting the result after taking away two or three bunches. Conclusion: division by zero leaves the number unchanged.

Gravitation never reduces the distance between objects to zero. It only shifts the barycenter so that the objects revolve around fixed orbits. Can you show us where gravitation reduced two objects to "the same space-time coordinates"? If you talk of black-holes, it is not caused due to gravitation (as has been interpreted by GR), but for the same reason by which protons and neutrons accumulate in the nucleus violating Coulomb's law. We have discussed it elaborately on many forums.

Newton said both the apple and the Earth are stationary. Gravity pulls the apple to Earth. This itself is debatable, as nothing can be physically "pulled". It is always a push from the opposite direction. The weakening of the stem could not support the mass of the apple, so that it got free and moved in the direction of least resistance. Einstein also told that both the apple and the Earth are stationary, but he reasoned that the space between the Earth and the apple curved, so that the distance between the Earth and the apple became zero with matching distance between the apple and the stem. We wonder, by what mechanism only the space between the Earth and the apple curved leaving all other objects around unaffected! What is so special about the apple that is not in the stem or the tree or al other objects around?

Einsteinian space-time curvature calculations were based on vacuum, i.e. on a medium without any gravitational properties (since it has no mass). Now if a material medium is considered (which space certainly is), then it will have a profound effect on the space-time geometry as opposed to that in vacuum. It will make the gravitational constant differential for different localities (as seen in the acceleration due to gravity case).

Doppler effect is used in light, sound, cosmology, and SR (length contraction). Yet, no one used it to SR to point out that the length contraction is only apparent to the observer due to Doppler effect. When you move towards or away from a mountain, the changing angles of the light coming from the mountain and reaching your cornea gives the impression of change in its volume - hence mass and height, which is the same as length in a different direction. This obvious fact is not seen by many.

Modern science is built on an incremental manner. Theories are built upon "established theories" without continuously evaluating them in the light of the results of latest experiments and observations. This blind acceptance of "established theories" is nothing but superstition. It is perpetuated by the books and papers eulogizing these as "in a brilliant deduction", "with a stroke of genius", "a highly successful theory", etc, to label these theories, which are unwanted misleading information to prevent free thinking and guiding the students in the right direction.

This has been compounded by the race for going ahead, which prevents students to look back. In the peer group, it generates the cult of incomprehensibility. For this reason, precise definitions are becoming rare in science. They use "operational definitions", which can be manipulated to suit their convenience. Look at the declarations by LHC regarding detection of the Higg's boson. Now there is a rush to change the name of the particle to share honors. Given the clarity level, we wonder how many people applauding the writers in this context really understand their views totally! The hurry also generates reductionism, so that totality of the theories is lost sight of. Hence please think independently - think out of the box.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Rodney Bartlett

You have a great faith - it really is very valuable. It would great more if you give a concrete conclusion to our topic.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

Dear Rodney,

I am shared your ideas in somewhat, that you can convinced from my references in article: I am going to appraise your work because it likely to me.

I hope my work will be interested you.

Best wishes,

George

FQXi Article

Hello Rodney,

I noticed that you mention above that there is just one real Universe - something which I am very much an advocate of. Also I found your essay extremely comprehensible despite the constraints of the contest. I wish my essay was more concise than it is!

All the best,

Antony