Essay Abstract

From what I have read man has always had creation myths. They are also called cosmologies and we think they are becoming more accurate with the invention of mathematics and application of the scientific method. We discuss possibilities, obtain data and attempt to fit fundamentals together because we are curious and draw meaning from nature. Over time we understand more and ascribe less to supernatural causes. Nature's beauty and size is awesome and our cosmology deserves a fresh view. On the surface, physics tells us that mass is solid and distributed throughout space but we also know this observation is mind based information. Natural logarithms, complex numbers and a few conservation laws are all we need to understand most of physics. The topics covered include current questions regarding unification, quantum gravity and cosmology but many of the details are in references due to our 10 page limitation. The title will be explained but it is proposed that mass plus kinetic energy is balanced to zero by field energies and that the number of particles in the universe is explained by probability 1 as an initial condition.

Author Bio

Independent Researcher. Colorado State University Mechanical Engineer, 1965. Career in aerospace and R&D. Contributor to FQXi, viXra, Academia.edu and Amazon Books.

Download Essay PDF File

Gene,

We certainly start off together, that "man has always had creation myths", and today's cosmology serves this purpose for many. I also like your observation that "natural logarithm, complex numbers, and a few conservation laws are all that we need to understand most of physics."

I got lost at the information code correlating fundamental energy. I do not doubt that there are numerous such codes that describe specific physical entities, and energies, but I need to understand what such codes are based on. For example I'm interested in how you determined that one of the quarks in the neutron has 13.8 Mev rest mass. Does a proton fit into the same scheme as the neutron?

I suspect that some of the answers to where the numbers came from are in your papers referenced at the back. In particular is the quark you mention a 'generic' quark, or specifically the up or the down quark?

Thanks for presenting your model, on which you've obviously spent quite a bit of time and effort. And I invite you to read my essay and comment on it.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

a month later

Dear Gene,

I think I can agree with the part of your interesting essay that says: The initial conditions is energy = 0, probability = 1 and exchange = 2, although I don't quite grasp the exchange part.

I suspect the universe can start from nothing so energy = 0. Also a state of perfect order is equal to probability = 1, and the second law of thermodynamics suggests entropy was probably zero at the big bang. When entropy, S = 0, Probability = 1.

Regards,

Akinbo

    Dr. Okinbo Ojo, (what a great name)

    Thanks for reading my essay. I went directly to yours and read it with interest. You are versed in the classics undoubtedly and it is refreshing to see the old arguments presented and argued anew.

    I am concerned that current physics literature talks a great deal about space and time without ever defining what they are. The reason appears to be that space is associated with gravity and quantum gravity is yet to be discovered (there are proposals but no consensus). How can we know if space ahead of an object annihilates and reform behind an object if physicists don't understand where space originates? Your proposal that time separates space agrees with my work but I wish there was agreement of what allows time to count upward, rather than repeat in quantum mechanical equations.

    I really like the quote from Wheeler, thanks. My work over the last 20 years is well documented and the question "how can it be otherwise" resonates with me. Unfortunately it is just a little too complicated to put in a 10 page essay (I tried to put it one essay in 2012) and clearly people don't read the references.

    Your statement regarding "exchange 2" is interesting. Your essay is about the implications of cutting in mathematics and physics. Subtracting a logarithm 2 is identical to cutting since it divides by 2. With energy zero (a point of agreement), the complimentary action is multiplying by 2 (adding the logarithm 2). Here is the exchange 2:

    N1 E1 mass N3 E3 field1

    N2 E2 ke N4 E4 field 2

    13.432 13.797 MeV 15.432 101.947 MeV

    12.432 5.076 MeV 10.432 0.687 MeV

    And here is the energy implication:

    E1 mass ke difference (E3+E4-E1-E2) E2 ke E3 field 1 E4 field2

    13.797 MeV 83.761 MeV 5.076 MeV -101.947 MeV -0.687 MeV

    Total mass plus kinetic energy 13.797+83.761+5.076=102.634 MeV

    Total field energy=-102.634 MeV

    Energy is conserved because 102.634-102.634=0

    N (entropy) is conserved because 13.432+12.432=15.432+10.432.

    The above exchange is new to physics (but similar to a gauge transition). In your way of thinking, I cut and compared the results. The whole was maintained (zero energy) and information N=25.862 remained unchanged. However, something new was created. The whole now represents nested orbits. The mass E1 has kinetic energy and is caught in two fields. I show how four such orbits exactly give the mass of a neutron. I also show that the second field is the gravitational field since, when combined with cosmology, it allows one to calculate the gravitational constant G. This is quantum gravity and defines what space and time actually are.

    I don't think this is hard to understand. More likely, human nature is very suspect of anything new. I have had the good fortune of time to apply this theory to important physical processes (binding energy, cosmology, elemental abundance, black holes, thermodynamics and all the meson and baryon masses and decay times). It has never failed to match experimental results. How can it be any otherwise?

    Gene

    Your over-view is more on the subject of empty space which co-relates everything from cosmologies driven theories.

    But it's a misconception to relate such cosmology theories as myth from which you have made your purport.

    Sincerely,

    Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

    25 days later

    Gene,

    Valuable essay again, very underrated again as you've freed yourself from normal entrenched thinking. In particular I agree the 'nested orbit' concept is central to decoding reality, and the Fibonacci/logarithmic spiral is more fundamental than most have yet seen.

    You may like this short but pertinent and packed video http://youtu.be/KPsCp_S4cUs (see the last frame spiral - and do give it a thumbs up!) as well as my own essay, which reveals a hidden mathematical 'switch' trick confounding doctrinal physics.

    Best wishes

    Peter

    Thanks Peter, I read your essay and responded under your thread.

    18 days later

    Dear Mr. Barbee,

    I thought that your engrossing essay was exceptionally well written and I do hope that it fares well in the competition.

    I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

    All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

    Joe Fisher

    22 days later

    Hello Gene,

    This is very interesting. It is of course a toy model at this point, or a precursor to a meaningful theory - in Physics terms. When presenting any alternative model, it is essential to repeatedly say 'in this model' or some such, in an expository paper, because it is sometimes unclear where you are presenting your model and when you are speaking about known or accepted Science, but overall your paper was well crafted and enjoyable to read, and the numerical relations are worth investigating further.

    All the Best,

    Jonathan

    Hi Jonathan,

    Thanks for the advise on the need to say whether I am presenting new science or commenting on known science. Actually, I have gone back to data and re-correlated everything in a new way (with information theory). The difficulty I am having with communicating a new theory across is that people will not read the work. It is just long enough not to fit into the FQXi page limit (I tried in 2012) and the references go unread. People are quick to pick up that it is different and different translates to wrong.

    Congratulations on your good score (I helped) but I don't know if any of the essays are good enough to be remembered in 10 years. Physics needs some new thinking. I recently read some of Jack Sarfatti's papers in academia.edu. He quotes Jeans "one giant though" and also quotes Hawking's thoughts about holographic projections. There is more divergence than consensus.

    Write a Reply...