Alternative Models of Reality

Hello everybody

I have been looking for a place to open a pet topic. I've had a bit of a look around here, and it does seem people here might be open somewhat to unfamiliar abstract notions, if they offered some promise of tackling the more stubborn unknowns. But I have to warn you, I do not hold conventional wisdom as sacred. If I suggest something that contradicts your preconceptions, then please ask yourself what justifications you have for those preconceptions. If your justification is based on acceptance of conventional theory, then it is not necessarily a disproof of what I say. And besides, sometimes you just entertain a discussion because of its originality, to see what can be said in its defence.

Space is observed to possess an expansive quality (Auv), and this expansion is thought to be undertaking work on the universe state. What if we are right about dark energies emergent work capacity, but our theories are misdirecting where that capacity for work is directed within the universal system? Take a moment to consider the possibility that mass (Tuv) is a form of "work" performed by Gauge Bosons, and that the capacity to perform this work originates with this earlier mentioned expansive quality Auv.

In this respect Auv will be the emergence rate of a space born regenerative elemental field, and its subsequent absorption and conversion into a form of work that is Mass, Auv = Tuv, which is typically written as Guv = Tuv . This explanation honours the equality known to exist between Gravity and mass, and is simply surmised as a field energy conversion, to mass work potential.

Why would this system arise in nature, whereby a space born regenerative field would give its energy content up, an exchange enabling Gauge Boson animation toward acts of work? And that Gauge Bosons would then direct that work towards building atomic and cosmological structures, such that we see in the universe today?

This is where I show you towards a door, which you might peer through, judge on having seen nothing familiar, then simply turn away. I on the other hand have walked through this door, and although I would describe my account as rudimentary, I have noted enough things of interest to serve as guide. If you will follow my lead?

If you hypothesize that the regenerative elemental field of space is generational in nature, then you can envision the possibility of it being Darwinian in nature. And interestingly, although people demonstrate a strong eversion to thoughts of Darwinian principle being applied outside of biology, it is the only driver of articulated complexity and apparent fine tuned purposefulness known to science. Does physics demonstrate an articulated complexity and apparent fine tuned purposefulness? I think so, and I also think it requires a natural explanation. Are peoples eversions to Darwinian physics rational, or is it simply because no reasonable self consistent hypothesis has been put forward for consideration?

Life on Earth is enslaved to Darwinian progression. If you're not evolving in this finite competitive environment, then eventually you're going to fall to disadvantage, of a something that is advancing its scope for survival and resource. This is essentially the main reason life on Earth relies heavily on systems of mortality, enabling healthy generational exchange and evolutionary progression. So what does this have to do with the wider universal circumstance, you ask?

If the universe and everything within it has one original cause, emerged from an ultimate simplest configuration and progressed towards a more advanced state. The space born regenerative field will have emerged first, and at some point within its growing population body, it will have needed a solution for clearing prior generations for renewal. Facilitating generational exchange and evolutionary advancement. The Gauge Boson emerges for the first time stage left, and provides this universal mortality function. Bosons consume the field, allowing the field to advance its evolutionary state, which surely includes refining its metabolism of whatever natural energy potential of space, it must be that it is exploiting. Over time the field achieves higher energy levels, for which the gauge Bosons ultimately become beneficiary's. Gauge Bosons begin to evolve structures that direct the fields energy potential towards useful acts of work, that enhance its role within the universal system. The better the Bosons perform their role, the healthier the field, the more energy flows to the Bosons. A feedback loop that drives towards ever increasing universal energy levels and fine tuned purposeful complexities. All properties of matter, including mass, nuclear, molecular bonds, heat, chemistry, are various activities that point to Gauge Bosons as their cause, and build the universe we witness around us.

Each of these acts of Bosonic work, contribute towards building just such a material universe, as if to enhance an atmospheric interaction between elemental field and matter. Atoms in their articulated structural complexities, spread across space 100,000 times the volume of nucleonic parts, and galaxies spread across awe-inspiring stretches. And all for reasons so humble, as to be analogous to why we hang washing out to dry, increased atmospheric interaction.

I reiterate, don't let unfamiliarity be your judgement. There within is a line of reasoning that makes a remarkable kind of sense of even subtleties of universal order. A full bodied explanation of micro and macro, and provides ultimate gap filler for many scientific unknowns. It takes practice to work your way through to the contemplations I now entertain, but at the same time it's not so complicated, once you've found the thread.

Nice to meet everybody and look forward to dialog.

Steve

Zeeya Merali,

I claim that I have arrived at 'a theory of Everything'. It is based on the hypothesis that "motion at speed 'c' is the fundamental property of matter, and force is reaction to motion". This makes both energy and force finite and equal , and thereby removes all infinities and singularities. Newtonian physics is enough to explain the universe, if we just make the above modifications.

Energy = Force = mc2/2 (energy units can be used for force also)

There is only one type of fundamental particle, and light is streams of fundamental-particle pairs. The pairs rotate as they move forward and this creates three-dimensional wave patterns, and so light shows properties of waves.

The fundamental particles integrate into electron-positron pairs. Positron is slightly heavier. Half the energy remains inside electron/positron and half remains as speed. The force also splits into two; half as gravity and half as electrostatic force. Thus gravity and electrostatic force have the same constant at that level, and force can be calculated in both cases using mass. Gravity and electrostatic force are separately conserved; magnetic force is created at the expense of electrostatic force. Charge represents the quantized internal-energy of electron/positron.

Charge= quantized energy = mc2/4.

Neutron contains 919 electron-positron pairs. Atoms are formed from neutrons. Molecules are formed solely by magnetic interactions between unpaired electrons in atoms. Atoms/ molecules get packed as large bodies like stars and planets using the whole electrostatic force and part of gravity. The rest of the gravity is used for interaction between large-scale structures, and this gravity is very weak. G is directly proportional to the square of the speed of the moving body. Motion is absolute, and we can know whether a body is moving by measuring its G. G is zero for a body at rest.

The so-called universal G = G for the speed of Earth (can be theoretically deduced)

Galaxy clusters are the individual units of the universe, and move at about one-third the speed of light. They have high internal energy also. Speed- internal energy ratio cannot remain static, and oscillates between the extremes. When internal energy changes into speed, the clusters move outwards causing expansion. Once the speed reaches the limit, the speed starts decreasing and the universe contracts.

The universe oscillates between hot and cold states. Cold state is symmetrically opposite to hot states, and the temperature can be taken as negative. The expansion starts with maximum acceleration. At halfway, the acceleration is zero, the average temperature is 0K, and the speed of expansion is maximum. Now it has reached nearly halfway. The existence of life and intelligent beings indicate this.

Speed of expansion at halfway = 2c/p ..... (p is the mathematical constant pi)

Absolute zero wavelength = 5.14x10-3m

The universe is in a dynamic equilibrium. when the speeds of the clusters increase, their G increases, and as gravity available is finite, the distance between them has to increase. So the distance between large-scale structures is not arbitrary. The present Earth- moon distance can be correctly predicted from the theory.

This alternate model is simple: Only one type of particle and one type of force to start with, and everything emerges from these. However the universe always existed as a pulsating single unit and never as particles, only that it is theoretically possible to explain the formation of such a structure in a bottom-up way.

My research is completely independent, and I think this the only forum available to discuss this. Thanking you for providing such a forum. I invite every body associated with this forum for a discussion.

Jose P Koshy

time and space are negative energy tachyons - time and space decrease mass and energy of positive energy particles - shape of time and space around mass creates a force away from mass - gravitons create attraction gravitons are tachyons with negative momentum

for years I have talked about this - if there is dark matter it needs to have a certain size a certain shape and a certain density to work - tidal forces between galaxies would change size shape density - there is not any dark matter

for years I have talked about this - kill cancer - give photoactive dye and nano particles to person - send particles like protons and ions through person particles hit photoactive dye and nano particles photoactive dye excited state kill cancer - it could be true this can save almost any person who gets cancer

Kurt Stocklmeir

Thank you Jose, I enjoyed the read.

I'm curious about your atomic structure being entirely a composite assemblage of positron - electron pairs. If you have something further to add about this, I would be interested plz? Matter being a composite antimatter structure, it solves the absent universal antimatter problem doesn't it? So you propose they exist together within Neutrons obeying an exclusion principle?

Steve

Dear Steven,

My theory, whether it is right or wrong, is complete in nearly all respects. Gravity and electrostatic force are similar. So both should be calculated using mass. However we use charge (a relative value for mass) for calculating electrostatic force, and the difference is adjusted in the constant used. But for proton and nuclei, the charge- mass ratio is different, and so using charge leads us to the wrong conclusion that proton and nuclei have a smaller size. I argue that size of neutron is proportionally larger that it can contain 919 electron-positron pairs. So exclusion principle is not applicable.

Here, it may be noted that in spherical-packing, 1838 smaller spheres are required to obtain a larger sphere having minimum imperfection and perfect symmetry, if the smaller spheres come in pairs. That is, 919 is not an arbitrary number. The structure of neutron is explained here.

The strong nuclear force is actually gravity at the level of electron/positron, and is as strong as the electrostatic force. When an electron and positron remain touching, the electrostatic force is completely used. The pair can either disintegrate, or integrate into neutron using whole gravity, forming a closed chain of electrons and positrons with alternate gravitational and electrostatic bonds.

Neutron being unstable, changes into a proton-electron system. Here, one electron-positron pair splits, the electron comes out, and the lone positron remains at the center thus forming a proton. Some radiations (particles along with the natural energy) are released as a consequence.

Jose P Koshy

Hello to you 3 and happy new year 2017 also,

Mr Koshy,

Do you consider quantum gravitation like an emergent electromagnetic force?

Regards

Hi Steve D, and yes happy new year all.

Jose, I'm reading some tech detail which clearly makes sense to you. You understand it takes practice to realize your view, so I and everybody else have to find short cuts for rudimentary assessment. So we can decide if its worth the greater effort necessary to realize.

What are the top five advancements to scientific understanding that your theory offers? I'm not asking for a detailed account. I just want a plainly spoken conversational type summery plz? Something for the lazy listener

What do you think Jose, Joe, Steve, are people thinking about my earlier post, or is it just a bit to unfamiliar?

Hi Steven, thank you for sharing your interesting idea. You have specified Darwinian evolution. I don't think Darwinian evolution is exactly what you require. While there are environmental selection pressures, as in Darwinian evolution, as some structures are able to persist and others are destroyed or dismantled, I don't see self replication at the astronomic scale. Seems to me there are just more of some kinds of structure than others; those for which the environment is conducive. Regards Georgina

Hi Georgina, nice to meet you, and thank you for your reply. Although I haven't read your work, I note your interest in the nature of time. I intend to look through your above linked piece, and to see if perhaps it gives our works a common footing in some respect. The concept I present for you here, does prescribe to a particular treatment of the property of time. Hopefully a constructive conversation with this community, will allow me to progress my explanation that far.

I understand and yes, you do make a very reasonable comment. However I do very specifically refer to Darwinian principles as being responsible for universal orders and complexity, photonic, atomic and cosmological. I have an analogy which will make my intended meaning clear, but first I would like to touch on the nature of our Dark Energy observations. I'll try to raise a particular question in your mind.

It cannot be said that conventional theory is not brave! It does after all openly confront this extraordinary circumstance, an observation that universal space everywhere, is growing in extent. Furthermore, convention acknowledges that this observation must be attributed to something of an energy content, because of the nature of its energetic kinetic interaction with the material universe, hypothesized Universal Expansion. Occasionally you hear whispers toward the obvious implications this has for conventional interpretation of energy conservation laws. No energy created of destroyed within a closed system. Dark Energy a cause without prior cause? It does have the ring of fundamental force, don't you think? I have the feeling these issues are generally well considered, after all they are obvious enough. But I also have the sense mainstream considers these troubles under somewhat hushed whispered tones, so as not to arouse to much public attention while it stands as such an intractable issue of physics and cosmology. But still, brave for confronting and not shying away from this obscure Dark Energy observation.

In addition, how many different methods of energy creation, can it be expected that the universe has in its employ? Big Bang and Dark Energy emergence both? It is only a speculative assumption, but I feel a very reasonably aimed assumption, that the universe might only ever have possessed one mechanism for energies emergence. And if we have a direct observation that hints at energies fundamental emergence, then that source should be investigated as being that possible sole universal mechanism. An aimed assumption.

So what I will attempt to do, is have you view the potentials for Dark Energies emergence in a fresh light. I am going to have you confront the realization, that there are very few fundamentals required for a system to engage Darwinian principles. Perhaps as few as two, an entity might require an energy potential to exploit, and direct that energy potential towards replicating itself. Some might argue semantics, that generationally compounded change is another fundamental requirement, but actually, it might be that perfect copy making isn't impossibly, and that change is therefore inevitable. And even if perfect copy making is possible, systems will still adopt an evolutionary progressive stance for obvious benefit. Darwinian systems evolve to progressively evolve.

To be continued............

Hi Steven, you wrote "However I do very specifically refer to Darwinian principles as being responsible for universal orders and complexity, photonic, atomic and cosmological." Could you please give the Darwinian principles you are talking about? As inorganic matter is different from organic matter with mutable code allowing different phenotypes and different expressed phenotypes on which selection can act. Just would like to understand at the outset what you are taking and leaving from the Darwinian model.

Steven, sorry I meant to say -different genotypes and different expressed phenotypes..... No edit tab available today: )

Steve,

At the most basic level, force exists as reaction to motion (of the the most fundamental particle). When electron-positron pairs are formed, this force splits exactly into two, gravity and electromagnetic force. So both are emergent forces. As all matter that we can see are made up of atoms, and atoms in turn are made up of electron-positron pairs, the division of force is final. However, magnetic force emerges from electrostatic force, and so gravity and electromagnetic force are separately conserved.

What at present is considered as strong nuclear force is quantum gravity. Gravitational energy is finite and so the left-over gravity from the quantum-level is weaker, and the left-over gravity after formation of bodies like stars, planets, etc. is very weak. This very weak force is now identified as gravity.

In fact, it is the same gravity that is present at the quantum level and the cosmic level. But the available gravitational energy decreases as matter integrates and so the constant decreases. The constants at different levels can be theoretically deduced.

Jose P Koshy

Kurt,

Sorry, the above reply was wrongly posted in your thread.

Jose P Koshy

Steve,

At the most basic level, force exists as reaction to motion (of the the most fundamental particle). When electron-positron pairs are formed, this force splits exactly into two, gravity and electromagnetic force. So both are emergent forces. As all matter that we can see are made up of atoms, and atoms in turn are made up of electron-positron pairs, the division of force is final. However, magnetic force emerges from electrostatic force, and so gravity and electromagnetic force are separately conserved.

What at present is considered as strong nuclear force is quantum gravity. Gravitational energy is finite and so the left-over gravity from the quantum-level is weaker, and the left-over gravity after formation of bodies like stars, planets, etc. is very weak. This very weak force is now identified as gravity.

In fact, it is the same gravity that is present at the quantum level and the cosmic level. But the available gravitational energy decreases as matter integrates and so the constant decreases. The constants at different levels can be theoretically deduced.

Jose P Koshy

Steven,

My theory offers the following:

1. Unifies gravity and electromagnetic force.

2. Removes singularities and infinities completely.

3. Removes all physically meaningless (in my opinion) concepts like, dark matter, dark energy, independent fields, wave-particle duality, metric expansion, mass-less particles, mass-giving particles, force particles, space-time, etc. from the domain of physics.

4. The number of arbitrary physical constants is the barest minimum, only four.

5. A single unified theory encompassing everything from the quantum-level to the cosmic level.

Regarding your hypothesis, my reply is posted under that thread.

Jose P Koshy

Steven,

You start from an arbitrary assumption: an expanding space. OK. Then you say everything emerges from the space, again arbitrary. The second arbitrary assumption, in my opinion, is invalid, because it is a change and you have to logically explain that change. In physics, what we can do is just explain the changes; we cannot say why space or matter or fields exist.

You view an evolution from simple to complex. Why is it in that direction, and not in the reverse direction? You have to account for that.

Why do you prefer Bosons? May be you just call it bosons.

So what I get from the post is that you have an 'idea' that now remains as a seedling. As a seedling, its consistencies/inconsistencies remain unexposed. As it sprouts, these will emerge in a visible form, and you will be pruning out the inconsistencies one by one, until you get the perfect structure. This is a hard job, but that is what makes it worth attempting.

As long as the present theories are incomplete, there is justification for alternate models. However the alternate model has to be more perfect than the present ones. I would like to know whether you are a beginner in the academic field or not.

Jose P Koshy

Thank you Georgina. Your original meaning was well received, I do understand your question. Phenotype, great word by the way. I think the main effort of this undertaking I do here now, will answer this question. I am drafting it afresh, so will submit it soon.

Thank you for your input Jose. Your comments and critic are well received.

Yes, a number of arbitrary assumptions, which I will ask you to judge within context of what is to follow. I have drafted these explanations before, but I find the process of rewriting leads to refinement, and I'm constantly advancing my conceptualizations which need to be incorporated. So I'm writing it afresh for this presentation. This also allows me to be responsive in my explanations, to the questions put forward to me.

In answer to your question, why simple to complex?

Darwinian systems tend to be progressive in this way, driving towards ever increasing levels of articulated complexity. But of course there are exceptions to this general rule. But the evolutionary circumstance I am describing is progressive, driving towards higher levels of complexity.

Light is a Gauge Boson, Gluons are Gauge Bosons. I will provide a fuller account as my explanation develops, however here it is in brief. Every universal energetic interaction owes its explanation to a Gauge Boson. Even gravitational interaction which points squarely at mass, mass generating Gluons, which are Gauge Bosons. Mass drives gravitational acceleration with the same general mechanism, or function that light employs to propel voids of space. It is so simple, it should be evidently so. But I don't expect this will yet be enough to convince people, so I will provide the explanation of how this is achieved by nature, and why this is so of nature. Sounds unlikely and impossible right! Plz stay tuned

I would describe my seedling as a young but established plant. It has taken root, and in my mind at least, looks likely to advance. But that doesn't mean it couldn't use some assistance, and pruning. I know you cannot judge this from what I have presented so far, but I have substantial more to say on the subject. It is a brave and assertive hypothesis, and does not dwell in the safety of obscurities that cannot be proven or disproven. And if I am wrong, there will be myriad opportunities to pull me up short.

Yes, I entirely agree with your sentiment. Nature is up to something, and people haven't worked out what that something is yet. I think people have this natural tendency to assume the unknowns are unknown, because they are hard to realize shrouded in complexity. So they look towards complex ideas for solutions, like string theory for example. They delve into the complex math hoping to learn something new and inspirational about nature. Assuming all the while that masterminds will progress science with brute brain computational power. I on the other hand am searching in the other direction, I presume the universe emerges from simpler configurations, I presume scientific advancement will be achieved through natural insight, inspired from natural observations. Whether that ultimate insight will come from a Brainiac, or somebody less presuming, time will tell.

Am I a beginner in the academic field? I am not a member of academia and nor have I been. Judging from my qualifications, I would be judged least likely to contribute to science. But that would be disregard of my personality, and natural aptitude.