Alternative Models of Reality

Hello Zeeya,

A quick search informs me that "Zeeya Merali is a journalist and author who has written for Scientific American, Nature, New Scientist, and Discover, as well as published two textbooks in collaboration with National Geographic."

I have an insight which I hope you will think is worthy of a scientific news story.

I entered the FQXi essay competitions in 2010 and 2012, which I have recently reviewed with some feelings of remorse that I could have expressed myself more clearly, knowing what I know now.

The covid-19 epidemic and lockdown in the UK has given me time to reevaluate my ideas and I've been expressing them on Dr. Judith Curry's online site whilst having much time to do so (reminiscent of Newton himself during a past epidemic):

....

I've concluded that there's two types of matter within the Earth, which would invalidate Newton's simplistic equation.

In short, why not consider gravity as a strong force that emanates from a compact exotic core but which only interacts with known matter very weakly?

It's a simple solution, yet solves everything.

....

Kind regards

Alan Lowey

(A former UK missile scientist)

I offered this to the community roughly ten years ago, and thought that I would try the waters again.

The reigning models of theoretical physics are grounded upon the assumption that we have explored phenomena down to the point that what remains is an infinitely differentiable field. Einstein was awarded the Nobel prize for pointing out the limitations of that assumption as applied to water and light waves.

For the last thirty years, theoretical physics has struggled to fit the inconsistencies between theory and measurement by adding additional continuous fields. Even so, it is still unable to calculate particle masses (the Higgs boson does not solve the problem of mass - it only solves the problem of parity violation in the Dirac equation) or explain galaxy formation.

The discovery of dark energy, as Einstein understood (he called the cosmological constant his "biggest blunder") implies that there is a another level of discrete physical structure underneath the reigning Standard Model. The most fruitful way forward, as indicated in the first posts on this board, is with models of superfluidity.

Anyone interested in discussion of strategies should respond to this post.

Brian

What % chance would you give of Einstein's gravity theory being incorrect, with respect to there being a crisis in physics & cosmology for the last 40 years? Starting with the assumption that Einstein's ideas being idolised is where the problem lies imo.

Alan

we see quickly that we have an enormous problem in trying to unify the microscales and the macroscales , in fact the problem comes really from this general relativity at this cosmological scale. The EFE describes geometrical modifications of the photonic spacetime due to the energy matters . They are curvatures of the spacetime. Einstein has well worked about a different interpretation of the gravityation, but that does not mean that newton is false, it is just a spacetime made of photons and we observe it .The gravitational fields so in this spacetime made of photons from a source imply so motions. But the philosophical problem to unify this quantum mechanic with this GR is there. The majority tries to consider so that the quantum gravitation is in the same logic, that is why they utilises the tensors, vectors, geometrical algebras and strings and points to reach, quantify, renormlise this QG. The EFE are good for this macroscale and the observations but that does not mean that we must utilise this GR to explain our standard model and reach this QG. The newtonian mechanic is the best way for me and the fact to return at this old school about the motions of particles. If we consider furthermore the two other spacetimes superimposed and the 3D quantum spheres with 3 main primoridal series, that permits to quantify it. This GR cannot be unified with this QM in fact simply, that is why that does not converge. The fields are emergent due to simply photons encoded in this space vacuum of the DE. The Fields of this GR are different and are not the key for this QM.

I have been working on an physical model that attempts to explain the physical mechanism of the curvature of space by matter. This model proposes that all of the properties of the Universe (time, matter, energy, waves, etc) are all emergent properties of the interaction of the medium of space with quanta of information that I call informatons. These quanta can not rightly be called particles themselves. The less lesser the information contained in a system, the faster that system naturally moves in a vacuum, and photons contain the least amount of information that we are able to detect.

Informatons are the only thing in the universe that can move faster than the speed of light, because they contain less information than light itself. The informatons interact weakly through gravity and I propose that they they could be candidates for dark matter. Before I discuss them further, I would like to detail how information interacts with space and results in what we identify as curvature. Experimentation has shown that light travels at a constant speed in a vacuum, thus space itself is not a traditional fluid-like medium like water, as was suspected before the constant speed was identified. I propose that space is still a liquid-like material, an aether, but that it behaves like a non-newtonian fluid. In the presence of information, space itself is distorted and changed into matter and mass emerges as the meta-property that describes it. Informatons themselves have no mass, only information.

As an informaton moves through space, space is distored in front of the informaton, and the distortion is lost as it moves away. This is why particles move through space in a discrete nature, and don't leave any sort of trail, there is no friction, and the particle appears physically to be in only one place at one time. When a particle moves into a higher area of distortion, information is "borrowed" from the informaton and transfered into space. This process causes the wavelength of the particle to change, but not the frequency, thus the particle undergoes refraction and it curves. Simultaneously it is slowed down, thus time varies depending on the amount of distortion in an area. This corresponds to the curvature described in general relativity, and gravitational time dilation. The curvature of space is actually a kind of refraction, and space itself has a refraction index based on gravity. The more gravity in a area, the greater the refraction, and also the slower than time flows.

Because space is distorted, and expands and contracts based on the presense of information, time is tightly coupled to the physical location of information, and appears to be a fourth dimension, mathematically, but entropy provides an arrow for time. The only way that it would be possible to move backwards in time would be to move all of the information in a system back to the place it was at the desired time to travel to, which is impossible for any system. In order to be compatible with other quantum mechanical observations, Informatons must form into units called swarms. Swarms can interact together to create systems and these systems are what we identify as the particles of the standard model. The informatons, having half the information content of light, move at the square of the speed of light. This results in the strange observations of quantum reality, where a particle appears to be in more than one place at once. Sub-parts of the particle are in fact distributed over an area of confinement and when one of the informatons are observed, all of the rest of the informatons are perturbed and "fall" into the place of disturbance. This is how wave function collapse works.

The expansion in front of, and contraction of space behind an informaton is what we observe as wave/particle duality. The informaton is not a particle, nor is it a wave, but both of these properties emerge from the interaction of the informaton with space, thus they are also both particles and waves, as these things arise from the interaction. This is a paradox, I suppose, not a particle, not a wave, but creates a particle, and a wave, and it is very hard to reason about these things from first principles.

Informatons come in only two varieties, and I give them a property I call affinity which applies to their charge and their spin. One of the informatons, is called an "on informaton" and it has positive affinity, and the other is called an "off informaton" which has negative affinity, the spin affinity can also be positive or negative. In a fully populated (evenly filled) chain, half of the informations have positive spin and half have negative, which cancels the spin out. On and off charges attract ie, they have an affinity for each other. When two opposite spin affinities encounter each other, they cancel spin. Informatons each have 1/3 charge (positive or negative) and 1/2 spin. Every three informatons in a system represent one charge. When a system has a fractional remainder of spin, the fraction is always 1/2 for fermions (there is always one extra informaton to create spin). Swarms with an even number of informatons that all spin in the same direction have net spin one, and net charge 0, while swarms with odd numbers of informatons have fractional spin and fractional charge. When there are two extra informatons, there is a net charge of 2/3 because it takes three informations to form a full charge.

A swarm can also be viewed as a string, or a chain of particles. Because opposite informatons attract, informations form long series of alternating ons and offs, and can be rendered in a type of binary notation using 0 for off informatons and 1 for on informatons. Informaton chains are tightly connected together, whereas swarms that are interacting to form a system are loosely coupled together by charge. In the notation I have developed, coupled systems of chains/swarms are connected by a + sign, while chains are represented by series of zeroes and ones. A chain always has a specific "stable" or "ground" length. The longest chain is 8 informatons, but a swarm may consist of many chains linked together, up to a million informatons in the largest swarms, which are top quarks. An chain can be missing informatons from its "ground" length. When this happens, the chain will have spin but may not necessarily have charge. For example, an 8 informaton chain that is missing 4 informatons will have 4/8 spin but 0 net charge. Note that the muon neutrino results in a convenient chain on which everything larger than muon neutrinos are based on. A muon neutrino is 01010101+01 and is respresented by a the shortcut symbol M in the notation.

Thus 4M+010 would represents 4 chains of what would be a muon neutrino linked together with a three chain. This is in fact the notation for an electron! There are 4 eight size chains 4 2 size chains and one three size chain. Because there are an odd number of informatons, the last informaton adds 1/2 uncancelled spin, and the three chain provides a negative net charge of -1, because each information represents positive or negative and 3 informatons always yield a full charge. The notation for a proton is: RLR + 5519M. In this case, the LRL is a six chain that is missing three informations, thus it has 3/6 or 1/2 spin, positive one charge and an awful lot of muon neutrino-like chains. One of the most interesting particles is the W Boson, which can be either 47288M+LRL or RLR+47288M which results in either -1 or +1. Again the LRL and RLR are both halves of six chains, so there is net 1/2 spin, you can think of the three informations in the six chain as spinning in the same affinity.

There is a lot more to discuss about these ideas, but I am going to stop here and see if there are any comments.

You've started in your first sentence with the assumption that Einstein's gravity theory is correct. Do you believe that gravity is always going to be viewed as a very weak force so that an underlying unification of the known forces can never be achieved??

If in a hundred years time there is still a crisis in physics & cosmology, would you consider compact dark matter to exist at Earth's core??

I believe that in order to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity, it is necessary to propose a single unifying force from which all forces emerge. In my model, there is only one force, that is the force of attraction between left and right pairs. It models gluons as actual physical particles composed to two smaller particles. Given the way the top is constructed and the higgs are constructed, I do not think that the higgs is what provides mass. Instead mass is an emergent property. I will explain this shortly, but let me start with how a proton is constructed and how a top quark is constructed, because they use similar notations.

The proton:

[(LRLR)+(LRL)+(RL)+(L+R)] + [(RLRL)+(RLR)+(LR)+(L+R)] + [(LRLR)+(LRL)+(RL)+(R+L) + (R)]

The top quark:

[Z BOSON] + [ANTI Z BOSON] + [Z BOSON] + [ANTI Z BOSON] +[Z BOSON] + [ANTI Z BOSON] +[Z BOSON] + [ANTI Z BOSON] +[Z BOSON] + [ANTI Z BOSON] +[Z BOSON] + [ANTI Z BOSON] +[Z BOSON] + [ANTI Z BOSON] +[Z BOSON] + [ANTI Z BOSON] +[Z BOSON] + [ANTI Z BOSON] +[TAU] + [ANTI DOWN] + [DOWN] + [ANTI DOWN] + [DOWN] + [ANTI DOWN] + [DOWN] + [ANTI DOWN] + [DOWN] + [ANTI DOWN] + [DOWN] + [ANTI DOWN] + [DOWN] + [ANTI DOWN] + [DOWN] + [ANTI DOWN] + [UP] + [DOWN] + [UP] + 50976[LR] + (L+R)

This notation is unfamiliar to you because I have to invent it to represent the model, so I will explain it, but note you can find the complete model here, in a google spreadsheet:

https://t.co/EYIy2nxUFN?amp=1

You will note that there are either names of particles or a series of the smallest particles (informatons) inside of each bracket. A square bracketed series to terms is called a SYSTEM. Everything from protons on up are systems composed of smaller systems.

For example, looking at the proton avove, it contains two up quarks and a down quark connected by + signs. The down quark, having 1/3 charge, has a dangling + R on it, as so:

[(LRLR)+(LRL)+(RL)+(R+L) + (R)]

The L and R particles have 1/3 charge and -1/3 charge, respectively. This is because they are built from dark particles that when given mass, reduce the dark particles to 1/3 volt each. It is necessary for the fundamental particles to have 1/3 voltage each, but to come in a pair. There can not be three particles with 1/3 voltage, because opposite voltages must attract. Thus the + sign in the notation is NOT a particle of any sort, it represents the quanta of MASS that was converted from the dark energy into mass. The L + R represent INFORMATION. This mass is essentially the energy needed to bond the two particles together. Particles are represented generally from right to left with the largest component particle first, followed by the remaining particles in order of size and charge. If there are more than one string of particles in a row (like four mouns) they must be paired up in muon/antimuon pairs. You can see this above in the top quark. The Z-bosons are interleaved with Z-antibosons, and the up quarks are interleaved with up antiquarks. If there is not an even pairing of these particles, a net charge will result. If there are 8 muons and 7 antimuons, for example, there is a net -1 charge in the resulting particle.

Given the limits of the forum, please see the google sheet for the chart mentioned below.

If you look closely at the chart, you should notice the rule or pattern, for moving from one particle to the next. Particles are "built up" by adding and L or R to the right hand of the previous particle. This "shifts" or "pushes" exiting bits into more complex arrangements. One bit from each group slides to the left into the group to the left. A (R+L) or (L+R) will turn into a (LR). For example to go from a electron neutrino to an muon neutrino a (L+R) is added to the right. Components are always added as one (L) or (R) until you get up to muons which are built from smaller particles. Anyway to do the addition (note the operator, it is different from the plus operator which represents a bond):

(L)+(RL)+(R+L)+(R) ~+ (L)

|| | | |

|--/||--/ | |-/

(LR)+(LR)+ (L+R)

To make it clear, if we number the four positions from 0 to 3, an R moved left from 1 to 0, an R moved left from 2 to 1, an R moved left from 3 to 2, which remains a gluon, but now the gluon is dangling from the end instead of an extra 1/3 charge. Lines are drawn to indicate where the bits move.

Next you should notice the masses of the informatons. Surprisingly, non-intuitively, and paradoxically, they have more energy (1 eV and -1 eV) than expected. Also, they have negative energy. These are DARK electronvolts. When the L or R exist in isolation, they have a surprising amount of mass, they are slightly more energetic than the tau neutrino, so it makes sense that a tau neutrino has less mass just slightly, than 1 eV, as dark energy was converted into light energy and mass.

The movement speed of L and R is the square of the speed of light. The interaction of the L and R particles is response for quantum effects. For example, when a (L)+(R) photon is entangled with another (L)+(R) photon, it becomes a new system

(L+R)+(L+R). The particles rotate with each other at the square of the speed of light thus information is shared between the systems and because they are a system, information continues to be exchanged when they are moved apart. If any of the L or R are stopped, by measureing them, some energy is lost from the system and they fall part back into (L)+(R) photons.

All strange quantum effects become fairly trivial to imagine if the underlying system moves faster than the speed of light, and it does.

I do not have any gravitational math to challenge einstein, and given that dark matter is needed for my model, and dark energy, it is likely that the galaxy rotation problem is not a mathematical error in general relativity, but instead dark matter and dark energy do exist, and are actually part of everything we touch.

To answer your question, no, I do not think there is dark matter at the center of the Earth, I think that technically the entire earth is made from it and so are you.

"All strange quantum effects become fairly trivial to imagine if the underlying system moves faster than the speed of light, and it does." - Swanhart

We are in agreement here. Wouldn't the underlying system be the emission of gravitons which interact mechanically with other larger wave/particles to induce a force of attraction?

In my model, which I am still refining, the concept of ORDER matters. A photon is an (L)(R) pair. Conceptually there is no difference between an (L)(R) and a (R)(L). This means no information is conveyed and information creates mass, it is only present when there is order. The gluon (R+L) or (L+R) also conveys no order, but when you stick it between two other particles order is created: (R)+(L+R)+(L) is different from (L)+(L+R)+(R), they can't be connected without reversing the order of one.

An (L)(R) pair may be a graviton and an (R)(L) a photon or vice versa. They would move at the speed of light whereas each L or R moves at the square of the speed of light. This would explain why gravity is in fact the weakest force.

the (L+R) does one other thing thought, it creates spin which is really flap. IN an (L)+(L+R)+(R) the (LR) and (R) flap like butterfly wings, and this is what we call "spin". "spin" is just an arbitrary name, it doesn't imply actual spin, here it in fact implies an oscillation or "wobble" like the earths tilt.

Further refining my model, I predict that there are two neutrinos smaller than the electron neutrino, from which all matter is built. The on/off and twon/twooff. TheseI can also predict the size of the neutrinos, and the sum off all of the neutrinos adds up to just under one electronvolt, as predicted by actual scientists :)

on 0.001299999996

anti on 0.001299999996

photon 0

graviton 0

gluon 0

anti gluon 0

electron n. 0.002599999991

onon 0.01299999983

anti onon 0.01299999983

muon n.0.200218535

anti muon n.0.200218535

tau n. 0.78002

tau n. 0.78002

Hello,

I have made a 26 minute video to explain my version of the MUH on my YouTube channel. It's called 'Universe on a T-Shirt AKA How Nothing = Everything' - Meat on the Bones of the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis. Link below:

UniverseonaTshirt

The hypothesis predicts that:

a) Dark Energy is a warp caused by Entropy information, just like Gravity is a warp caused by Energy information.

b) One dimension of Space is warped by Energy and Entropy information - in the extreme cases forming Black Holes and Cosmic Rips, which each dynamically add a Space dimension, forming 3D space.

c) This 3D Space further warps to an infinite dimensional space, Matter in these higher dimensions would seem like Dark Matter to us, and the fractal structure means the infinte copies make this type of universe most likely, so we are in a typical universe.

Hello, I have a new blog essay, "A Physical Theory Based on Sets, not Vectors", which I think will be of interest to this community. As the title implies, it questions what is perhaps the most fundamental assumption of quantum theory, which is that states should be represented as vectors in a Hilbert space. In quantum theory, states have physical extension because the Hilbert space dimensions are valued as functions of space. As the essay explains, an alternative formalism is possible in which states (and indirectly any higher-level particles observed to be part of the states) are represented as sets, specifically, as extremely sparse sets of fundamental units of far smaller scale than any particles of the Standard Model. The essential change is that if states are represented as sets, then they inherently have extension (since sets are unordered collections and not reducible to vectors). The essay explains how the spatial dimensions we observe (indeed, all observables) emerge as patterns of intersections of sets, and evolutions of such patterns through time.

Hi FQXi !

The model in the attached article is not "alternative". Just a slightly different look at the same reality.

In a nutshell, the model can be described as combining a relational view of physics with the concept of a "continuum". We consider the continuum as a "relata", as a non-relational entity in relational physical reality.

To read the article correctly, you need to understand and accept a relational position in physics: Relational quantum mechanics, information-theoretical approach to the interpretation of QM, Qbism and similar ones. The paper is based on this point of view.

The idea is very simple, just a little unintuitive. I hope you enjoy it.Attachment #1: 1_Relational_physics_and_the_concept_of_the_continuum_300721.pdf

A new website, https://www.theimplicateorder.com discusses David Bohm's implicate and explicit orders from a prospective of macrocosmic quantum entanglement, and may show that everything is, indeed, enfolded in everything. Admittedly a bit rough around the edges, the website works to take Bohm's grand theories a bit further beyond the realm of speculation into pragmatic, predictive science. The Fourier transform based future forecasting routine seems the most solid part of the work, with the, as yet, most uncertain area of speculation being a pre-casting routine based on the reversibility of the implicate order. An off-shoot from this reversibility, and dependent on it, is a Bohmian up-sampling algorithm which aims to be high-frequency restorative and anti-aliasing: truly alchemical. Inspired in part by Michael Talbot's book, "The Holographic Universe," if any one of these features turns out to be solid, the work may have been worth the time.

Thanks.

the tool that I have invented and I work about it to improve the details is the spherical topological geometrical algebras of 3D spheres . The vectors, scalars , trivectors, quadrivectors are considered and the clifford algebras and banach algebras also. The Bott periodicity also is important and links with the lie groups and the K Theory. I have created this tool focused on spheres and so the 3D is the main part of this tool. The operators permit to create the partitions that we want , you can play with 3 spherical volumes , or like in my model the dirac large number is considered and 3 spacetimes , the GR, the DE, the DM. The operators permit topologically to insert properties like the motions, the oscillations, the densities, .....in fact the operators are numerous and you can choose where you insert these operators. That becomes relevant for the isomorphisms,homomorphisms and the homotopies. An other operator topologically chosen is the symplectomorphism preserving the volumes for the deformations. All so is a question of groups and properties, the relevance in my model is the 3 spacetimes superimposed merging creating the baryonic ordinary matter. The informations so are interesting to analyse and the works of Shannon, von neumann, Gibbs can be correlated. A conjecture appears with the strings in considering a pure 3D and these Spheres.

This is a link to a paper I wrote, as it explains how Quantum Entanglement is able to correlate with the formation of Higher Dimensional structures.

https://fermatslibrary.com/p/c8c4da60?fbclid=IwAR1XFbEJsRNy52ujpM0ANDQwtkKlAlcZF_mFmmDD5QjT-ZsH63OnafWCDQo

.......THERE IS A KEY HIDDEN UNDERNEATH THE INVISIBLE ROCK OF TIME...... .....................Theory of Primary Motion, by S. David Coleman ....................

Have you ever tried to find the dimension often referred to as time? Simply by imagining the line, the square and the cube of the three dimensions then looking around for the fourth dimension? I have and usually with no luck. Until one day when I realized that the three dimensional cube . . . was stationary.

Imagine reaching in and twirling the cube. When I did this it felt like I had found something.

Underneath the invisible rock of time is change. But underneath change . . . is motion. The motion that is everywhere, the motion that is in everything. Motion is a key and it can be used to replace time (no need to worry, time can be added back in later, if it's needed).

If we replace time with motion, then space-time becomes space-motion. But most motion is the motion of mass. And hence this theory, that motion-space-mass are one (instead of space-time).

With this theory comes a deeper and simpler explanation of what relativity is as well as an unexpected coherence with the theories of gravity, the accelerating expansion of our universe, quantum physics and classical/Newtonian physics.

.

.

Gravity and the expansion of the universe

When I saw how integral motion was to space and to mass, I had to explore. What is the motion of mass? What is the motion of space?

For mass, surely it was the inward pulling motion of gravity. This brought me to a possibility: what if we were to start with a kind of quantum something, an almost-something/almost-nothing and contract it with the motion of gravity?

Well, it would become condensed, more compact; it would be more like . . . a particle.

And if we did the opposite, expanding the almost-something/almost-nothing? It would become less like a particle, more spacious and perhaps simply . . . space.

Maybe mass and space come from opposite kinds of motion, perhaps even co-creating each other.

If this were the case, instead of mass "having" gravity, it would be the contracting motion of gravity that was creating mass. And it would be the outward motion of expansion that was creating space.

I was surprised by what had just dropped into place.

If this were true, then the expansion of the universe would make perfect sense.

Science finds that the universe is expanding and this expansion is accelerating. Science explains this by proposing that there is dark energy that makes this happen, and that the universe must have started out super tiny and then " banged" its way into being big.

On the other hand, MSM says that space is simply made of expansion. No big bang is needed. And the dark energy is the same energy that is behind all motion (probably relating to the quantum level of things, but I'll get to that later).

Resolving differences

Science has a difficulty with the theories of gravity, relativity, classical/Newtonian physics and quantum physics. Each works well, but they do not all work together. Throwing in dark energy and dark matter only makes it worse.

So When I dropped motion-space-mass (MSM) into the context I was surprised

by how many of their differences it resolved and how many of their quirks it made sense of. It felt like MSM belonged there.

Black holes and relativity

I explored MSM and the extreme gravity of black holes. Here it is quickly obvious that the proportions of mass are quite large to the very small amount of space and with motion that is so reduced that does not even allow light to escape.

In this situation, MSM seems to be in a kind of flux, or an imbalance.

Apparently, more mass means there is less space and less motion.

I then realized that the theory of relativity was saying much the same thing,

except relativity is essentially saying space-time is reduced,

while MSM says space-motion is reduced.

It took a bit for it to dawn on me. Maybe the way motion, space and mass are relating with each other . . . is relativity!

Maybe relativity actually has an effect on more than just space-time.

The more I looked at it, the more I could see that

when any one of the aspects of MSM is greater, the other two aspects are less.

And that it works this way with each of the three aspects.

If this is true, then relativity is actually far simpler and yet more comprehensive.

The edge of space

So does motion-space-mass actually work this way?

What would happen if we tried increasing space instead of mass?

Ok, if there were lots of space, presumably there would then be less motion

and less mass.

The picture I got was the edge of the universe thinning out into space and then

even more space, with almost nothing else there - - kind of the opposite of

a black hole.

The edge of the universe might also have an event horizon that we couldn't see past if the expansion of space accelerated faster than the speed of light.

This was intriguing, but it seemed difficult to know if it was true.

Quantum

And then, what about the other leg of the three-legged stool?

What about lots and lots of motion?

In this situation, it would follow that there would be less mass and less space.

So, what has a bunch of motion (and a lot of interactions from those motions), very little Mass (and little gravity) and very little space (or the tiniest distances).

It was surprising to find that I was describing the quantum level of things.

I had my doubts about this at first, but the more I looked, the more it fit.

For instance:

One of quantum's quandaries is "Why is gravity almost non-existent on the quantum level?" (it's 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001 less than the other forces!)

The thing about MSM is that it fully expects low mass and low gravity in this motion relativity (or motion imbalance) situation.

I was encouraged to see how well MSM fit here.

MSM also addressed the oddity of how an electron disappears into a cloud of probability. MSM says that this is more motion than mass, that mass just barely exists in this cloud. It could also be said that the distinction between mass and space has nearly disappeared.

Also, "Why do two "entangled" particles interact instantaneously over a distance?" MSM says this is a space problem. Space (distance) just barely exists and is no longer behaving like space.

The molecular level motion (as heat) fits as a transition between

quantum level hyper-motion and our larger, more stable Newtonian level.

Quantum is paradoxical. As I see it, it's everything and everywhere

but it's also right on the verge of being nowhere.

Right on the edge of being nothing.

Resolving quantum

Seeing the quantum level as a motion imbalance meant that the discrepancy of "How can tiny quantum building blocks build an intrinsically different classical/Newtonian physics (macro) universe?" was now resolvable.

MSM says that quantum motion needs space and mass to expand it, individuate it and to balance it out. In other words, quantum motion by itself cannot be a building block at all. It takes motion-space-mass together to build a classical/Newtonian world.

What was becoming more obvious was when one aspect of MSM goes off on a tangent, such as more mass (black hole), or more space (edge of universe) or more motion (quantum level), then classical physics stops working as well.

However, when MSM is in balance, classical physics works quite well.

The energy of MSM

I had to wonder, why would MSM work as a kind of reciprocally flexible relativity? It occurred to me that it would make sense if there were a fixed amount of energy in MSM; when one aspect had more energy, the other two aspects would get less energy - - a kind of E=M+S+M.

Background

I'm not writing this theory out in mathematical or physics terms because I did not arrive at it in this way. I'm not a physicist and except for a bit of astrophysics in college, long ago, I'm not qualified.

This theory arose partially from a different exploration.

For years, I've been looking at my own thinking process, looking at how our concepts are held, how things get fixed into memory.

I saw how memory cannot afford to continually update with every slight change,

which means that our concept of a tree is very unlikely to include every new variation of each fluttering leaf in a light breeze.

This exploration has led to seeing how our concepts, fixed into memory, come across more as "things" or nouns and less like happenings or verbs or . . . motions.

I think this made it easier for me to see time not as a "thing" or a noun,

rather as a concept - - a kind of fossilized concept of motion.

I think it's likely that when we see "time" we're simply seeing the "timeline" of how events are arranged in our memory, much like a series of still photos which must be kept in a specific order for them to accurately represent motion.

This "timeline" becomes a necessary part of the neurobiology of every animal that needs to be able to predict motion.

Time

Our idea of calendar and clock time relates to the most reliable, steady, visible motion we know; one that is common to us all, the motion of the earth.

But I think that what makes the "rock of time" invisible is that it's based on an even steadier, more constant motion, one that is everywhere and is quite invisible to us. And this is the inherent motion (or the compilation of many tiny motions) of the quantum realm. Quantum motion is as invisible, as constant and as ubiquitous as our sense of time is.

Yards and miles can be used to measure space.

Kilograms can be used to measure mass (and gravity).

Time is not used to measure time; hours and days are used to measure motion.

Arrow of time

It is impossible to reverse or duplicate every motion, interaction and resulting change. This can be seen as "the arrow of time". However, some motions and changes are easily reversed, for example, thawing a molecule of water inside a box and then re-freezing it. The motion of the heat flow is reversed and the water is frozen again. Has time has fully or partially reversed inside the box?

When time is seen as motion we find that the "arrow of time" becomes far less absolute.

In a funny way whether time exists outside of our brain or only inside doesn't matter so much; once motion-space-mass is arrived at, time can be added back in if it's needed.

With or without time, MSM works the same way.

Dark matter

So far, I have not found much that scientifically contradicts this MSM theory, but there are a couple of situations where MSM does not just drop into place so easily:

one is dark matter and how galaxies spin.

Science says the outward edges of galaxies spin so fast that the mass there should be flying off and away. The current solution for this problem is a vast amount of an invisible dark matter that provides extra gravity without collecting visible matter where the dark matter resides (mostly surrounding the galaxies).

But, so far, this dark matter can not be found.

This galaxy problem involves mass in motion in a large space,

so it seems like MSM should have a good answer about what's going on.

At one point I thought the expansion of space within the galaxy might shift the calculations of the mass and spin of galaxies. This now seems unlikely to me.

What I wonder is, are mass and space co-creating each other?

If so, then, is mass helping to pull space out, and is space helping to push mass inward?

If this were happening, then the space expanding between galaxies would be pushing against the perimeters of galaxies, pushing them inward.

This same push could be happening on a particle or planetary scale, but would be more noticeable on a galactic scale.

This answer seems a bit contrived to me, and yet it might explain the situation.

Relativity question

Another difficulty brings us back around to relativity

and the spaceship that travels at nearly the speed of light.

Relativity says that this very high speed essentially reduces space-time. (If length contraction and time dilation are seen as one).

MSM says that the speed of light is intense motion which would reduce space and mass.

This brought in a dilemma. Replacing time with motion would mean the motion of the speed of light would be reducing . . . motion! How could this be?

It took a bit to realize that this high speed travel was a single motion,

in a single direction,

which was taking away the energy of other motions, reducing all of them including: expansion of space, contraction of mass, clocks, Muons, quantum motions, etc. That made some sense, but . . .

Science says, when traveling at very high speeds,

mass and gravity would stay the same (even as the inertial or relativistic mass increases)

whereas MSM says, mass and gravity would be reduced.

In my reading and research I have not been able to find any actual experiments done that specify what the gravity of mass is at very high speeds.

So stay tuned. It's kind of a small but crucial point.

Electromagnetic motion

One thing I had noticed was that expansion and contraction were much more

self-referential motions than most other kinds of motions which were primarily interacting with everything around them.

Only recently have I realized that there is at least one other self-referential motion and that is spin.

Spin relates to electromagnetics. It seems likely that MSM could also bring the electromagnetic field cohesively in with the other theories already discussed.

Possibilities

I speculate that our universe might be returning to the

almost-something/almost-nothing, if MSM gets so imbalanced that it breaks down completely (all one element and none of the other two) in the innermost part of black holes and at the very edge of space.

And at the quantum level, I speculate that everything is vibrating4 in and out of

the almost-something/almost-nothing, such that the universe is breaking down

as well as being reborn in a multitude of constant "tiny bangs," as it were.

The mass and space that's lost (in black holes and edge of space) could be

re-entering the universe in this quantum vibration.

Situations where new particles or new hydrogen (or new space) are forming

seemingly out of nowhere or nothing would be an indication of this rebirth.

Could a kind of pre-quantum, pre-mass be the halo of dark matter predicted to be around galaxies? 16 Could mass be entering galaxies in this way?

If so, then are galaxies funneling down into their black hole centers? If so, I would expect simpler elements at the perimeters of galaxies and more complex one at the interiors.

The question arises, what is this almost-something/almost-nothing?

It could be many things; it could be an interface with an anti-universe,

or if E=mc² holds true, it could be pure energy.

This would mean that mass is being converted into energy, a nearly spaceless, massless energy.

If so, then:

Could the bulge at the center of most galaxies be due to this energy pushing outward?

If so, then the size of the black hole should relate to the size of the bulge.

Could the background radiation (that we currently attribute to the big bang) be space converting back into this almost-something/almost-nothing at the edge of the universe?

Could this almost-something/almost-nothing be the same energy that drives quantum motion as well as the contraction of mass and the expansion of space?

I don't know but these are some the possibilities of a MSM universe.

What was underneath?

Did I find fool's gold underneath the invisible rock of time?

Or did I find a kind of secret of the universe?

It's difficult to say, but what sticks with me is -

if it's fool's gold, then why does it explain so much, and so simply?

Why does it bring together so many separate theories, so easily?

Why aren't there more scientific findings that contradict it?

Is this theory true?

It will take more exploration, more referencing and work on the math and physics.

So dare I say it? We'll know. . . all in good time.

Website primarymotion.one (for this theory with references and better spacing)

The author grants permission to copy, distribute and display this work in unaltered form, with attribution to the author, for noncommercial purposes only. All other rights, including commercial rights, are reserved to the author, S. David Coleman (full name Sanford David Coleman Jr.).

THERE IS A KEY HIDDEN UNDERNEATH THE INVISIBLE ROCK OF TIME (For the large perspective of how many theories of our universe fit cohesively together.)

The following is an addition to the theory of Primary Motion that I posted yesterday. This gives the website link and a WORD attachment as well as a PDF attachment. These files are properly spaced and also include references.

Website PrimaryMotion.one