Essay Abstract

Mathematics and physics as sciences are human inventions containing many more or less fortunate discoveries. Contemporary research on common grounds of mathematics and physics is highly evolved and requires years of work to master even its elementary methods, knowledge and skills. Very accurate theories for the very small and the very large have been developed over the decades but we still haven't managed to combine those theories. Is that necessary or even possible? Is there something underneath those theories what we have missed so far? Why mathematical theories in physics are so powerful? Following story is about an idea which potentially gives us a new perspective to Nature, physics and mathematics.

Author Bio

Kimmo Rouvari (M.Sc. in math) is a senior software architect working in a large Finnish ITC company. He's very interested in Nature and researching it is practically his second job. He is also the author of Theory of Everything by Illusion (TOEBI).

Download Essay PDF File

Hi John,

Could the FTEP be my Photon diffraction and interference?

Let me see... I'll read your essay first.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #4

Dear Kimmo Rouvari,

Enjoyed your essay and the quote that caught my eye "Most likely there is a layer, or perhaps many layers, under it. Layer underneath QM might include for example realism and point like particles could be concrete, physical, spinning spherical objects."

We share a common background as software architects, perhaps that's why I enjoyed the read. My thoughts always see a computer program running that provides the model of what is being discussed. Your conclusion "TOEBI gives an alternative description of Nature and the root level explanation why mathematics and physics are so linked to each other in so many levels." is different then mine, but has a number of common goals and conclusions.

I take a much more specific look at particles of the standard model and what a model of each particle would have to entail. Hope you get a chance to have a look and offer some comments.

Regards and in my opinion, your essay deserves a good rating.

Ed Unverricht

    Hi Ed,

    Thanks for your comment. I most definitely read your essay in couple of days. This contest is the perfect venue for exchanging and learning new refreshing ideas.

    Kimmo,

    Quite interesting concepts. How does a sea of FTEPs figure in the assembly of atoms bonding into molecules and cells in the classical world?

    Our essays obviously don't afford that space to describe it.

    Jim

      Hi Jim,

      Sea of FTEPs = FTE provides the medium which allows all the interactions as well as provides the buffer between (elementary and composite) particles so that they can find more or less balanced positions. In other words, those particles are able to bond.

      That was the short and simplified description.

      Dear Mr. Rouvari,

      You wrote: "We haven't discovered the True Nature yet."

      Please behold the true nature of the real Universe. Accurate writing has enabled me to perfect a valid description of untangled unified reality: Proof exists that every real astronomer looking through a real telescope has failed to notice that each of the real galaxies he has observed is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance from all other real galaxies. Each real star is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance apart from all other real stars. Every real scientist who has peered at real snowflakes through a real microscope has concluded that each real snowflake is unique as to its structure. Real structure is unique, once. Unique, once does not consist of abstract amounts of abstract quanta. Based on one's normal observation, one must conclude that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real objects have only one real thing in common. Each real object has a real material surface that seems to be attached to a material sub-surface. All surfaces, no matter the apparent degree of separation, must travel at the same constant speed. No matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of real surfaces and those surfaces must all be traveling at the same constant speed or else it would be physically impossible for one to observe them instantly and simultaneously. Real surfaces are easy to spot because they are well lighted. Real light does not travel far from its source as can be confirmed by looking at the real stars, or a real lightning bolt. Reflected light needs to adhere to a surface in order for it to be observed, which means that real light cannot have a surface of its own. Real light must be the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The stars remain in place due to astral radiation. The planets orbit because of atmospheric accumulation. There is no space.

      Warm regards,

      Joe Fisher

        Hi Joe,

        Kind of hit & run? :-) You seem to post the same piece to every thread and on top of that you most likely gave me the rate of 1... nice. Good luck with your essay.

        Dear Mr. Rouvari,

        I did nor rate your essay yet.

        I know that Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract apace/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of abstract NOTHING. I am posting my theorem of unified reality in the hope that it will be understood and accepted by this august body.

        Joe

        • [deleted]

        • Post #12

        Kimmo,

        A ToE is very ambitious. I am a believer in an Aether. To me, the question is simply what properties must an Aether posses in order for reality to be as it is observed.

        I have received many rejections for papers ... usually they are just the standard crackpot letter ... no surprise. Occasionally, the editor will actually include a helpful comment. The position taken by science is very straight-forward. Can you explain something that was previously not understood? Can you make a prediction that can be falsified? What does the idea add that science does not already have. Bear in mind that a new idea must also satisfy everything that is already known. It is very difficult!!!

        If the answer to any of these is weak then why should anyone consider the idea? I don't fault the gate-keepers for this. They must be very careful in guarding their credibility.

        Having said all that, your idea is interesting (to me at least). But how do you account for the mass ratio between the proton and the electron if you think a proton is composed of three electrons? BTW, the mp/me mass ratio is ~1836.15. Also, keep in mind that spin and charge are conserved. Of course, you probably handle that with a combination of an electron and a positron.

        Stick with it.

        Best Regards and Good Luck,

        Gary Simpson

          Hi Gary,

          It's very delightful to bump into somebody else who has the idea that ether (or aether) is the key element in our Universe. On top of ether my theory needs the physical spinning phenomenon of particles. Very simple, yet very powerful idea.

          Three electrons "collect" through this spinning phenomenon a large amounts of FTEPs in between and around of themselves and the amount of "hold" FTEPs dictates proton mass. Naturally I need to prove that rigorously based on FTE properties and particle's spinning phenomenon. I haven't done that yet (too busy with other activities). However, overall spin is dictated by the spinning vectors of the electrons (which are parallel).

          in TOEBI, charge emerges from elementary particle's spinning phenomenon. In case of proton and neutron, those three closely packed interacting electrons destroy the wave pattern which in case of two elementary particle interactions play a huge role. I tried to explain the mechanism in my essay but using only words isn't the best way to go.

          I want to thank you for reading my essay and I'm going to find your essay and read it.

          Kimmo,

          I think of the Aether as a rotational scalar field. I realize that sounds like some sort of crackpot gibberish but it is the best description that I can give. The rotational terms are the result of the vector cross product from Geometric Algebra. I briefly discuss this in my essay. You have arrived at something similar using a mechanical explanation. What you [resent is similar to the reasoning that Maxwell used in his original work and to the atomic vortices that others have presented.

          Best Regards and Good Luck,

          Gary Simpson

          I think that a mechanical explanation is the way to go. Other choices haven't revealed Nature thoroughly.

          20 days later

          Dear Kimmo,

          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

          8 days later

          Kimmo,

          If you have not already done so, please take a look at my essay. There is still a week or so left to vote if you so desire.

          Thanks,

          Gary Simpson

          7 days later

          Kimmo,

          Shark time, so I am revisiting essays I've read to assure I've rated them. I find that I did not rate yours so I am rectifying. I hope you get a chance to look at mine: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2345

          Jim

          Write a Reply...