The Day After the “Nightmare Scenario” by Scott S Gordon

Scott Gordon

Essay Abstract

The "Nightmare Scenario" as stated by Sabine Hossenfelder in her article, "Could No New Particles at the LHC Be Exactly What Physics Needs?" is upon us where "we'd finally have to admit the truth: we're completely lost." Given the current impasse of theoretical physics, it is time to expunge ourselves of preconceived notions of what we think we know about time and space. In essence we need to "go back to the drawing board". Since we have no idea where the current impasse is rooted, everything we think we know about time and space needs to be questioned. In other words, the drawing board needs to be a clean slate, a "Tabula Rasa." Consider a thought experiment that does just that. Imagine the origin of the universe. The universe as it existed before the Big Bang, before there was light, before there was matter and most certainly before there was a written equation that the universe somehow needed to be configured to or conformed with. Now imagine this thought experiment which begins with only one structural component and energy that is used to derive everything that is currently known about Quantum theory and Relativity as well as everything that is otherwise not yet known about Dark Energy, Dark matter and Gravity. This fundamental theory exists and is presented. Another preconceived notion that needs to be expunged is the thought that such a theory would arise from within the physics academic community.

Author Bio

Scott S Gordon was born and raised in Brooklyn. After earning a Master's in Biomedical Engineering, he worked his way through his medical education as a keyboard musician. Scott married Dianne Zullow, MD and raised three wonderful children. He has been a practicing orthopedic surgeon for the past 30 years.

Download Essay PDF File

John Hodge

First you say create a new paradigm, then you say keep the Big Bang model and all that goes with it. There are other models such as the continuous creation or steady state or cyclic universe concepts that could be further explored. I suggest mine - the Scalar theory of everything that corresponds to both GR and Qm and solves some problems and has made predictions and has performed a diffraction experiment that rejects all wave models of light.

Scott Gordon

Hi John... It is not that I wanted to keep or not keep a "Big Bang" in my theory. The new paradigm is finding a starting point that only includes one ingredient and energy for its initial alignment. I really have no control of where my theory brings me after the initial conditions. I know about the other ideas of continous creation or steady state or cyclic universe but there is a specific reason why these other possibilities cannot be possible.

Before the Big Bang, the alignment of the building block entities that collectively compose spacetime (these are spinning point that create a planar of field of operator values) all exist on each other's planar operator field. This creates the parallel planar universe which only has 2 spatial dimenions. It is very unstable because of a relative wobble in the planar can occur that gradually increases to the point where a spinning block entity's planar operator field lies "off" the plane.

This puts energy along the "hidden" axial direction of the other entities and creates distance along newly created direction (the third spatial dimension) sending the parallel planar universe into choas as all the entities composing the parallel planar universe undergoes a vacuum decay phenomenon to try and balance out the energy now in a universe that contains three spatial dimensions.

As the new cubic lattice forms, some of the entities are accelerated to a speed where they cannot settle into a position of the lattice. That speed in the speed of light which in my theory is defined as the speed required for energy to make the jump to the next higher energy state and remain as an independent energy. An entity that reached c is transformed into the primordial photon. In my theory Light was first created during the big bang. The energy associated with the photon is proportional to c^1 in the equation E = (h/wavelength)c^1 or E = hv.

If this is true, then there is no way for the universe to ever have another big bang because you can't return to a parallel planar universe and there are no more "hidden dimensions" that would allow for another vacuum decay phenomenon. Once spacetime stabilized into its new lattice all the photons created can never have their energy go back to the energy state of spacetime which is proportional to c^0. Nor can new photons be created, so the transition between E0 to E1 energies are forever blocked in both directions. That is why we have the law of conservation of energy and conservation of momentum. It is also why the LHC will never find new math - the E0 energy of spacetime can never be exposed, we cab only see its effect.

One of the key aspects of my theory is the hierarchy of energy (See the equation below). It reveals that no matter how much energy is present in our spacetime, the energy of spacetime will always be proportional to c^0. That means that no matter how much energy is in our underlying spacetime, any photon moving through our underlying spacetime will be measured moving through it at c^1. This is why we got the results of the Michelson Morley experiment.

I can go on and on with other things that are derived from my theory, all in line with our well-established laws and theories of physics. So like I said - the only reason why there is a Big Bang in my theory is because there was no choice, from the starting postulates of my theory, it was inevitable. :)Attachment #1: The_GOD_Equation_bold_with_trademark_r.jpg

Gene Barbee

Hi again Scott,

I read your essay and now realize we have a great deal in common. We have alternative "theories of everything". You are a young surgeon and I am old "inventor" R&D engineer but we both decided to "help" science. I know that you would never be convinced to think along the lines I do and visa versa. Philip Gibbs wrote about this in his essay. It explains in general why science doesn't converge. I suspect you enjoy working on this; I certainly do. We would probably agree that others should read our work, comment and adopt our perspective. For example, like you I publish on Academia.edu and vixra.org. People read the work but seldom say anything. This robs us of feedback we need to improve our work or present it in a more appealing way. We both realize that we are outsiders in a field dominated by university physicists and funded government projects. They never see our work because they operate in different circles with different access to information. I sometimes think this is sinister. Would solving some of the problems in science curtail their funding? How would they justify the next huge space exploration device or high energy collider if they admitted that would only extend their thinking a small amount? But it is their thinking that counts...not ours.

That said, I enjoyed your essay and your graphics were well done. Actually, I can see similarities between our theories. I am curious about the motivating force for the big bang. I view consciousness as a structure that supported transition from information to reality. We develop consciousness and hope it is, in the end, inclusive. As a TOE Doc, what are your thoughts?

Scott Gordon

You are so right Gene that we will not convince each other of our theories but that is not necessary - what is important is that we have the opportunity to see what other's have done and have these collegial chats.

My theory is a physical model (not mathematical one) where the math of the model must come from the model and progression of the model must follow the rules of mathematics.

The difference in my theory is the hierarchy of energy and if it is correct would literally be the last extension of and completion of Einstein's work. We know of two energy states where one is E = mc^2 (by Einstein) and E = hv (By Einstein and Planck). However hidden from us is the base energy state where all the energy of the universe existed in this form before the big bang... That was the energy associated with the entities that collectively contruct spacetime and this energy is proportional to c^0. Plrease read my response to John Hodge where I explain this a little better and where I answered your question about "the motivating force" or what I would call the conditions that existed to create the Big Bang. All the best!!!

Philip Gibbs

Gene is right about the difficulty of getting feedback. When the WWW first appeared there were fewer of us publishing ideas in this way and I found I did get some comments, but now the FQXi essay contests are one of the few places where this seems possible. Some authors get feedback on viXra but it is the exception rather than the rule.

I think anyone in this game has to accept that they will be their own greatest fan and will probably have to work alone and largely unappreciated to take the ideas as far as they can. If someone seems to get some inspiration from what I write I am happy about it, even if I don't get any credit. The joy for me is the development of my own ideas and the inspiration I get from others. Any appreciation is just a nice bonus.

Scott Gordon

Gene - You a noble man - But what if you found the actual solution to the theory of everything by way of re-building the entire field of physics from a new, true, solid foundation? I am sure you would want the credit... and why not - YOU would deserve it.

I totally agree with you that this essay contest is an excellent way to get some ideas out from the non-professionals and hopefully to the people in physics academia. But I wonder if they would consider referencing any work published here?

Paul Butler

Dear Scott,

I read your paper and it has some good understandings and concepts, such as the understanding that we must question everything that we know about time and space and I would add that we must also question everything that we know about the structure of the fields, energy photons, and matter particles that exist in that space and the concept that space could be composed of zero dimensional points. On the other hand, your paper is much like many others that I have seen that fall short of being actually workable because it attributes characteristics to some things that they don't actually possess in reality. You do rightly hold that motion is very important in the structure of the universe, but its use in your theory in the form of spinning zero dimensional points is contrary to the way that motion actually works in reality. First, all motions travel in a straight line in the absence of an interaction with another entity. Secondly, a zero dimensional point cannot spin. It has a point about which to spin, but does not possess any extension to spin about that point. A zero dimensional point cannot move in a zero dimensional world because it has nowhere to move to in any direction. A zero dimensional point could possibly move in a one dimensional world, but it would have to be different in some way from the other zero dimensional points that make up the space on that one dimensional line world. That difference could be that it is in motion, but it could only move in one direction at one motion amplitude rate (velocity) along that line by itself. For it to move in a cyclical manner back and forth in that dimension, so that it would become a stationary motion (particle) it would have to interact with another motion that would periodically reverse its direction of travel or have its direction reversed by interactions with the ends of the dimension, etc. This is because a given motion can only read its direction and motion amplitude information and use that to update its current position information to the next spatial position that it moves to. All that it can change by itself is its current spatial position. Its current direction of travel and its motion amplitude level can only be changed by an external interaction with another entity. This means that even a back and forth cyclical motion requires an interaction at each end of the motion's back and forth travel to reverse the direction of travel of the motion. An interaction requires some form of contact between entities to transfer the information changes between them. The probability of an interaction between two entities is dependent on the potential interaction cross section. The greater the cross section, the greater is the probability of interaction. This is why entities that contain angular motions, such as energy photons and matter particles, are much more likely to produce interactions than those that contain only linear motions, such as sub-energy particles. A zero cross section size results in a zero probability of interaction. This cross section depends on the potential maximum range or distance of motion at the intersection point and the actual size of the interacting entities within that range. A zero dimensional entity has a zero size and, therefore, can have no possible contact surface through which interaction information could be transferred and would, therefore, not be able to interact with another entity. This is why considering matter particles to be point objects makes no logical sense. It is also why believing that they actually can be point objects results in the extension of that idea into other areas of thought such as your concept of space being composed of zero size point objects. You could have a one dimensional entity that could interact with one or more other one dimensional entity(ies) to create a back and forth cyclical motion that would contain it within a specific location range of the dimension to make a form of a matter particle, but it still could not spin because spin is a two dimensional cyclical motion structure that requires at least a two dimensional world to function in. Even in a two dimensional world, a zero dimensional entity could not spin because as mentioned above, it contains a point about which a spin could occur, but it does not possess any extension that can spin about that point. A one dimensional entity could spin in a two dimensional world because its line would provide the extensions necessary for it to spin about its center point. It would still require the continual interactions of at least two motions to generate and continue its spin, however, because a single motion can still only travel in a straight line regardless of how many dimensions exist in the world. Let's say that you want to make a simple one dimensional spatial system using your zero dimensional spatial components. If you take one million of them and align them up against each other in a single line, how long will that one dimensional spatial line be? It is an easy calculation, so I will give it. 1,000,000 objects X 0 size of each object = 0 size of dimensional line. This shows that you can't generate size or distance from objects that contain no size or are zero size objects. This is probably why you quickly change from the point entities to the space between them to define distance. The problem with this concept is that in order for there to be a distance between the points a separate spatial system must already exist to produce the space between the zero dimensional points. Since you end up with a spatial system anyway, it appears that the only reason to envision the zero dimension entities to exist in that space is to support the vacuum energy concepts of quantum mechanics instead of following things back far enough to see that those concepts are also unneeded and unworkable. Of course, it could be that you also believe that motions can't exist by themselves, but are only characteristics of some other non-motion object that only possesses the motions as only an attribute of that object. When you look at interactions in reality at all size scales, you will find that the only thing that is truly conserved in an interaction is the total amount of motion content. This may come as a surprise to you because it appears from your paper that you believe that all of the energy photons came into existence at one time and are all still in existence and by extension I would assume that you also believe that no new energy photons have been created since then. In reality energy photons come into existence and go out of existence all the time around us and we can easily observe this. If you have a car and get in it and start it up, you are starting up an energy photon production device. It not only converts the chemical energy stored in the sub-energy fields of the gasoline molecules into the mechanical or motion energy that propels the car down the road, but also generates large quantities of new energy photons mostly in the infrared frequency region of the spectrum. That is why the engine requires an engine cooling system that circulates liquid antifreeze coolant through a radiator that is cooled by the air flow of a fan to keep it from overheating. When you desire to stop the motion of the car you press your foot on the brake petal which engages four other energy photon generators (one in each wheel) to convert the cars kinetic motion into energy photons. These photons are also mostly in the infrared frequency region. Of course, stars produce very large amounts of new energy photons as a byproduct of fusion, etc. Energy photons are continually going out of existence also. They can be absorbed by electrons in atoms and their motion is converted into the angular motion of the electrons that allows them to move to a higher level in the atom. Energy photons in the visible light spectrum can transfer enough motion to an electron in an atom to allow the electron to completely escape the atom and also have additional kinetic linear motion to allow it to travel away from the atom. Note that the photons are created from motion and also give up that motion when they are absorbed and cease to exist as photons. Matter particles and, therefore, their total mass are also not conserved. When a matter particle and its antimatter particle are allowed to come together at low kinetic energy levels, they are converted into energy photon(s). Also energy photons with a high enough frequency so that they contain enough motion to produce matter particles can produce them if they come into contact with an adequate angular motion component, such as the sub-energy spheres of an atom. This means that they are also composed of motions. Fields are also composed of motions that I call sub-energy particles. Once you can get your head around the concept that all things are composed of motions and once you have analyzed how motions work, it becomes easy to see that all that they require is empty space with positions in which they can be positioned and move from one to the next. One other thing that needs to be mentioned is that there is no time dimension. We live in a motion continuum. The present is the current condition of all motions in existence. The past is the motion conditions that did exist, but no longer exist because the motions have moved on from those conditions to their now present conditions. The future is the motion conditions that will exist, but do not yet exist because the motions have not yet moved into those conditions. From this you can see that there is no past to go back to because it is erased by the continuation of the movement of motions and there is no future to go to either because the motions are where they are now and do not exist in the positions that they will later exist in. This understanding greatly simplifies the generation of structural understanding. This comment is getting long so I will end it, but I will just mention one more important thing. When you consider the generation of a balanced static mass effect in matter particles, a two dimensional rotation will not work. You need a three dimensional enclosed motion to produce it. I hope this helps you.

Sincerely,

Paul

Scott Gordon

Hi Paul -

I have to say you have very diligent in reading my paper - You have made some very important points and I will address the best I can in a post.

You state, "your paper is much like many others that I have seen that fall short of being actually workable because it attributes characteristics to some things that they don't actually possess in reality."

When you really learn my theory - (this is just a very brief essay with very limited math) there is a reason why other papers fall short of reality and why this one does not. You are using your current knowledge and applying it to the entities of spacetime... This is a big no-no... We will never be able to directly see, experiment on, or show the entities of spacetime in ANY physical manner - My theory reveals why that is so --- and to do so (exposing the entities of spacetime) would break the laws of physics. So in a sense you are right - the entities are not workable "particles" in reality, they are entities that cannot be physically exposed because to do so would break the laws of physics. That is why I call them entities and not particles - All of physics deals with particles and to use the physics of particles and apply them to these entities leads to misconceptions of the entities.

You went on to talk about "motion" of the entity of spacetime -- I cannot answer this in a post and I will only refer you to the first chapter of my book that discussed this in detail.

https://www.amazon.com/GOD-Entity-Gordons-Theory-Everything/dp/1457538709/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1514069173&sr=8-1&keywords=the+god+entity See the look inside feature and read the first chapter for free.

I agree with some of your statements - there is no place for the spinning point to go... You are being held back by the same thing that holds every physicist back from finding the theory of everything - "The Ruby Slipper Conundrum" - and that is another big explanation and problem.

I would suggest you read these papers to give you an idea of how the hierarchy of energy plays a key role in addressing all your issues regarding dimensions and "particles" existing "in" spacetime as opposed to entities that exist "as" spacetime.

https://www.academia.edu/30755282/Hidden_Dimensions_..._Not_So_Hidden_After_All

https://www.academia.edu/27987699/_Why_Cant_the_LHC_Find_New_Math_

This statement you made is something I agree with --"It is an easy calculation, so I will give it. 1,000,000 objects X 0 size of each object = 0 size of dimensional line."

But this statement tells me that you may not have understood how the spinning point entities of spacetime (with their operator fields based on relative spin) collectively create spacetime and the creation of the parameter of distance which was in my essay.

Next item... You state, "This may come as a surprise to you because it appears from your paper that you believe that all of the energy photons came into existence at one time and are all still in existence and by extension I would assume that you also believe that no new energy photons have been created since then. In reality energy photons come into existence and go out of existence all the time around us and we can easily observe this. If you have a car and get in it and start it up, you are starting up an energy photon production device."

But I am not saying that it is these same photons - I'm saying that what we currently know of as energy in our universe was created at that time. When you say "no new energy photons have been created since then" Photon energy (E1 energy) is captured by particles of E2 energy and the energy released in photons again - but the net energy remains the same - the point I made is that the energy we know about (E1 and E2 energy) can never become the energy of spacetime (E0 energy) and the energy of spacetime can no longer create new primordial photons (arising from only spacetime itself) - This is why we have the law of conservation of energy.

It will be a long time for me to get this theory across because people bring their misconceptions from what they know about "particles" and apply them to entities. It is also almost impossible for a person to think outside of the three dimensional box and to understand why there is a three dimensional spacetime in the first place.

In your last statement you said, "When you consider the generation of a balanced static mass effect in matter particles, a two dimensional rotation will not work. You need a three dimensional enclosed motion to produce it. I hope this helps you."

This statement shows that you have not gotten through the Ruby Slipper Conundrum and are using terms and parameters like mass, motion and dimensions which pertain to particle "in" spacetime and not the entities "of" spacetime.

I very much appreciate your comments Paul and the time it took you to respond. It really helps in where I am lacking in getting the theory across - I know you may be thinking I'm just delusional but once you learn the entire theory - there is no way you go back to your current model which for the most part remains the same for E1 and E2 energy. My theory does not change physics, it finishes the model by adding in the missing ingredient required to get past our current theoretical impasse.

By the way - one of the main problems in basic physics is how do particles come to be associated with their energy fields. In a nutshell energy fields are created by the interaction of E1/E2 energy with the E0 energy of spacetime. This is another paper you may be interested in:

https://www.academia.edu/34884714/Dark_Energys_Role_in_Gravity

Paul Butler

Dear Scott,

You are right that I am using my current knowledge, but I am not really trying to apply it to space-time because my current knowledge goes beyond the concept of space-time so that concept is no longer required to explain the structure and functioning of the universe. You are right that we will never be able to directly see, experiment on, or show the entities of space-time in ANY physical manner because it doesn't really exist. When I began to look at man's current scientific structure, I found that the understandings that it generated were very vague in nature. I wanted to know the details of the structure and operation of matter particles, energy photons, and fields, etc., but I found that the current theories could not supply this information. It could account for observed interaction outputs of particle interactions and the probabilities of the occurrence of each output result, but it could not give any good indication of the structure that generated those specific outputs and their probabilities of occurrence, etc. When I began to look at all of the observational information concerning matter particles, energy photons, and fields it became obvious that their structures were all connected to some base source entity. The theories backed up that concept since E=MC^2 essentially says that the mass of matter particles is equivalent to the energy of energy photons. The observational data showed that matter particles and energy photons could be converted into each other. It also showed that they could both be converted into simple angular or linear motions. The linear motions seemed to be the simplest in structure, so I began to research the structure of motion. I found that linear motions are very simple and contain only three information structures. These are the motion's position in space, its direction of travel in space and its motion amplitude (speed) of its travel through space. All of the observational data indicated that the total number of energy photons and matter particles are not conserved because they can be converted into each other, which would change the number of them in the universe, but the total amount of motion in an interaction is always conserved. This meant that motions are the true energy entities and are the only entities that contain the ability of action within themselves as part of their structure. All other entities can only act or interact through the motions that are within them. I then began to determine how fields, energy photons, and matter particles can be built up out of simple linear motions. Simple linear motions that travel in three dimensions at the speed of light or less were ideal as the particles that make up fields. An energy photon also contains a linear motion that always has a motion amplitude of the speed of light and it also contains an additional cyclical motion that travels back and forth at ninety degrees to its direction of travel. If you consider that there is a fourth dimension and also consider that if a field particle (I call them sub-energy particles because they hold the position below that of an energy photon) receives enough motion that it would exceed the speed of light, it exceeds the threshold level above which all motion is transferred to this fourth dimension and if this fourth dimension is very small and is connected to the other three dimensions at ninety degrees like the others are to each other, then the back and forth motion of that extra motion in the fourth dimension as it travels to one end of the dimension and bounces off of the end and then travels to the other end and then bounces off of that end can create the observed frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects of energy photons. Matter particles work in a similar, but more complex way. If the fourth dimensional motion exceeds a threshold level it can travel into the fifth dimension. Observational data shows that it does not automatically transfer there though. The presence of an angular motion component, such as that received from the sub-energy field near the nucleus of an atom, is also necessary to allow the transfer into the fifth dimension. The motion contained in the fifth dimension drains back down into the first three dimensions. The interface between the fifth dimension and the lower three dimensions is such that the motion begins to transfer into one of the lower three dimensions and the flow rate linearly increases to a maximum level and then decreases linearly back to zero. When the flow rate in one dimension reaches its maximum level, the flow begins into the next dimension. The flow rate reaches zero in the first dimension just as the rate reaches the maximum level in the second dimension. At the same time the flow begins in the third dimension and reaches its maximum level when the rate reaches zero in the second dimension and flow also then begins again in the first dimension. This cycle continues as long as motion remains in the fifth dimension. When the motion enters into the lower three dimensions from the fifth dimension, it would cause the energy photon to travel faster than the speed of light, but the extra motion is transferred back into the fourth dimension. All that is left of the transfer in the lower three dimensions is the angular component of the motion that continually changes the direction of travel of the photon, so that it takes a three dimensional curved path that encloses upon itself to create a continuous cyclical three dimensional enclosed path. The enclosed path is what we call a matter particle. The great amount of angular motion in all directions creates the matter particle's balanced rest mass effect. When the motion is transferred back into the fourth dimension it will transfer from there back into the fifth dimension if the fourth dimensional wavelength fits properly into the matter particle's enclosed path, such that the proper angular motion component is present to allow the transfer. If it does, the inter-dimensional motion transfer cycle is complete and the matter particle is stable. If it does not fit, the motion completely drains from the fifth dimension through the lower three dimensions and into the fourth dimension. In that case the matter particle's enclosed path disappears and the particle is transformed back into an energy photon, which travels off in some direction at the speed of light. All that is needed to explain everything is motions and a spatial system in which those motions can occupy positions and continually change from one position to the next in and can interact with each other in. This can all be done without breaking the laws of physics, which as you admit your theory requires. I use the word particles to identify the individual entities that exist whether they are field sub-energy particles, energy photons, or matter particles. I am not referring to the wave/particle duality concept in which energy photons are considered to be waves and matter particles are considered to be solid point particles that behave somewhat like little billiard balls with rest mass, etc. Neither of these concepts is true. Both energy photons and matter particles are partially composed of cyclical motion structures that can appear to be wave like during interactions, but they also produce angular motion components that generate mass effects during interactions that would appear to be particle like effects, etc. Such things as wave/particle duality, etc. that cannot be very well understood using quantum mechanics are clearly understood when the underlying motion structures are known. I read the first chapter of your book and I find that some of your logic that you use to justify your concepts appears to be based on assumptions that have no proof of validity. As an example you say that the basic entity must not contain the property of distance, but there is no logical reason that it could not just be the method of introduction of distance into the structure of the system. To put it another way, distance can be a property of the most basic entity and could introduce it into the rest of the structure of the system. The C^0 speed would have a value of one since any number to the zero power equals one. This has no real mathematical significance in the E^0 formula, so I guess you just left it in as a reminder that you are dealing with the lowest energy level compared to the levels where C^1 and C^2 are used. In your example you talk about a spinning point moving toward an adjacent point on one side of it and away from another point on the other side of it. You then say that other spinning points must be added to equal the pressure, so that the point will remain displaced in that new position. I am assuming that you don't actually mean that new points come into existence in those spaces, but only that it would take the amount of energy that those points would provide if they did exist. Is that right? Are you saying that the points can actually move in relation to one another and if so, where does the energy required to do so come from? If the point is to maintain itself in its new position that energy would have to be continually applied to it. This would mean that its source would have to be continuous. It would also seem to me that if a point moved toward another point, it would apply pressure on the point that it was traveling toward and that should then make that point move also in the same direction. In addition to this the point on its other side that it was moving away from should also move toward it because of the reduced pressure that it would experience on that side of it. Are you considering the energy that keeps the points separated from each other to be composed of the motion contained in the spinning points or is it composed of something else? One problem that I see is that in the beginning when there were no dimensions for points to exist in and be spread out or separated from one another in, only one point could possibly exist. If that point somehow began to spin, there would be no other points to create relative spin motion in comparison to it. There would be no place where there could be points that are closer or farther away from the spinning point because that would require at least one dimension to already be in existence that could contain more than one point and allow them to be in different positions from one another in that dimension. How do your account for this in your theory?

You are right that your concept of the structure of space-time does break all of the laws of physics, because you consider that the spin motion at the center of the point would be infinite and would decrease the farther away from the center you get, down to zero at an infinite distance when at all of the structural levels that man has come to understand so far, the rate increases the farther you are from the center and decreases to zero at the center point of the spin. As an example, a point on the surface of the earth at the equator would travel at the rate of about twenty four thousand miles a day, but a point near the north or south axis of spin that is one inch from the center of spin would only travel a little over three inches in a day. Of course, there would not be any place farther out from the center of the point because a point has no extension beyond its center for there to be any place where another point could exist unless the point exists in an already existent spatial system of one or more dimensions. If you have explanations for these things please let me know what they are. When I was talking about the generation of a balanced static mass effect in matter particles I was not talking about space-time level entities, I was talking about the construction of matter particles, such as electrons and protons, etc. I have not seen how you envision them to be constructed yet in your theory because your current paper and the first chapter of your book do not cover that level except a mention that they come from E^2 energy, unless I just missed it somehow. If you can give me that information of how you view matter particles to be constructed that could help me to better understand your theory. As I mentioned above my current model only requires the existence of motions and a spatial system for them to be positioned in, to travel from one position to the next in and to interact with other motions in and it does not require the breaking of the laws of physics, at least those that are truly applicable to reality, such as the laws of motion, etc. My current paper covers the fundamentals of the construction of all eight hierarchical levels of structure, since it is about "What is Fundamental". My other papers on this site's contests give more detailed information in several areas. The internal motions within matter particles entrain sub-energy field particles to travel through them, which generates their internal fields that keep the internal motions of matter particles in an atomic nucleus from interacting directly with each other. There is also an external field structure generated that captures electrons and is the interaction point of elastic interactions and also contains the particles (protons and neutrons) within the nucleus of the atom, etc. I have other questions also, but this is getting long, so I will stop here for now.

Sincerely,

Paul

Scott Gordon

Hi Paul,

You have a lot of questions for me to answer... I can't post my entire book... I can refer you to this paper which gives a brief manner in which particle contain energy proportional to c^2.

https://www.academia.edu/27987699/_Why_Cant_the_LHC_Find_New_Math_

I can also tell you that the energy of spacetime is real and it is important. The energy field of particles are created by the interaction of E1/E2 energy with the E0 energy of spacetime. In addition gradients in the E0 energy of spacetime is responsible for the outward force on all matter, so in this regard the energy is real.

There is no constant creation of New energy - the displacement of GOD entities in the examples I gave were purely "what if's" and cannot happen in actuality. These examples were given to derive mathematics of E0 energy being proportional to c^0.

In addition you throw around the term "dimension" as if you are physicist thinking that you know what a dimensions is and how a dimension is created... You should read this paper on dimensions:

https://www.academia.edu/30755282/Hidden_Dimensions_..._Not_So_Hidden_After_All

All the best!

Scott

Paul Butler

Dear Scott,

I read your papers and first let me say that I believe that we hold one concept in common although it is expressed somewhat differently in our presented theories and that is that one of the two most basic entities in the observable universe is motion. Because you are locked into the natural creation viewpoint, it is understandable that you feel the need to consider the construction of the spatial system as the other most basic structure to explain the total construction of the universe. I, on the other hand, have decided to limit my current level of information transfer to man here to the construction of the next lower level of hierarchical structure of which man currently does not have a workable conceptual understanding, which is the level of matter particle, energy photon, and field particle structuring. I am doing this primarily for two reasons. First, an understanding of the construction of these entities will clear up many of the quantum and relativity nonsense beliefs, such as that things cannot happen unless they are observed, that the various particle interaction results and there probabilities of occurrence are due to some mysterious random quantum energy fluctuations of spatial vacuum, the concept of multiverses, and the idea from relativity that time is an existent dimension, etc. Once these erroneous concepts are eliminated, the math becomes much simpler and a complete understanding of the universe down to the level of the spatial system that is designed to provide the positions that basic motions can be on, can move from one to another on, and can interact with each other on and the basic motions that inhabit that spatial system can then be more easily understood. I, therefore, start with the existent spatial system and basic motions as the two most basic structures presented in my theory. I leave the mechanisms behind the structure of the spatial system that produces what we perceive as space and the outputs of the motions that are contained in that mechanism that we perceive as basic motions for a later information transfer when man has first been able to understand the levels down to that mechanism. The second reason that I do not provide that information at this point is that man in this world would like to think of himself as god with power over everything and, therefore, would not readily accept that there is someone much greater than him who has constructed the universe and everything in it. The problem is that when you go beyond the simple level of the spatial system and its basic motions to what generates and maintains that system and those motions, the complexity expands outward in the same way that it expands in the other direction when you go from the simple motions to the construction of sub-energy particles, energy photons, matter particles, all of the different atoms that can be constructed of them, all of the great multitude of different possible molecules that can be constructed from the atoms, and the innumerable large scale objects that can be made of them, etc. It is like figuring out after a lot of observation and then putting those observations into a coherent understanding of your world, that you are really just the output images on a very large television screen or computer monitor except that instead of just being made of a light output, you are also made of matter particle and sub-energy field outputs and in three dimensions instead of just the two dimensional TV screen. The organizations of these outputs as they appear in your world require a behind the scenes complex mechanism in the same way that the television also requires to display its image and in addition to that a more complex information structure is needed to generate the actual entities that appear on the screen and to update them as a result of their interactions, etc. The problem is that you have no way to observe those behind the scenes mechanisms. If, on the other hand, the one who made the television and the other needed mechanisms would write a book that gives some of the details of their construction and would then display that book on the screen, so you could read it, you might be able to get some understanding of it. That is what has actually happened, but that is for the next level of understanding, which most people would not currently be able to accept, because of their naturalist outlook on life that prevents them from considering or looking into such things.

To get back to your paper, you either have a problem of lack of understanding of how things work or you have not developed the language to properly express them. First you say that the void contains a very large number of points. If that is the case then these points must be existent entities of some nature. You say that they can possess the property of containing motion. This suggests that in order to contain a motion within themselves they must be composed of some substance that can interact with a motion and contain it. You do not address what the points are composed of, which makes an unanswered more basic concept yet to be developed. You say that the motion contained within the point is in the form of a spin. Basic motions continually move from one point to the next. This requires an existent spatial system of at least one dimension for them to travel in. A spinning motion is a cyclical motion that requires at least a two dimensional spatial system to exist in. This is because a spinning motion is the result of continual interactions between two or more motions acting at directional angles to each other. If the spin that you are talking about does not conform to the laws of motion then you should not use that analogy, but instead make a new word and then define it to describe the details of what is actually happening and also the same thing about the point if it does not conform to the current definition of a mathematical point. If all of these points exist in the void, it seems that the void that you are talking about does not conform to the basic understanding of it as being an empty spatial system. You could also consider the void to be completely nothing, but nothing could not contain anything even zero dimensional points that possess properties such as the ability to spin, etc. Without the existence of any dimensions, the only thing that could exist is just one point because if any more points existed they would create a one dimensional world in that a motion could travel the distance that would be created between them from one point to the other. In reference to a primary spinning point, you talk about the surrounding or adjacent points. In a zero dimensional world, there could not be any other points next to or surrounding the point because there would be no possible positions in existence that were next to or surrounding the point without the construction of at least one dimension to provide positions for those points to exist in. One point could not be relatively closer or farther away from another point without forming a distance between them. You say "Relative motion of each surrounding point represents a circular path". A path is a way that can be traveled from one place to another, which is essentially a distance that can be traveled. A circular path requires the existence of at least two dimensions because a circle is a two dimensional object. When you talk about a god entity's energy field, what is that energy field composed of? Is it something that would exist as part of the entity even if it is not spinning or is it either the spinning motion itself or somehow caused by that motion? When you talk about the existence of an infinite energy field across a god entity's diameter are you saying that the field contains an infinite amount of energy? If the entity is a zero dimensional point it would seem that its diameter would be zero also. When you talk about E2 energy you say "is associated with a particle that displaces the surface of the water medium in a circular motion of the water. This constant circular motion of the water is required for the creation of E2 energy contained in particles". What is the water that you are mentioning and since this is at the scale of entities that exist in space-time and not as those existing as space-time it would seem that their motions should conform to the observed laws of motion, so how is the circular motion generated and maintained in them? I am assuming that the circular motion is what you consider to be the source of the matter particle's rest mass. A normal circular motion is a two dimensional entity. It can exist in a three dimensional object, but it does not produce a three dimensionally uniform mass effect. As an example, If you have two spheres of the same size that are rotating at the same speed in the same direction (counterclockwise), such that the axis of one is parallel to the axis of the other and they move toward each other with the center of one heading directly toward the center of the other and then they interact with each other, the interaction side of one will be moving in one direction that is perpendicular to its direction of travel in one direction while the interaction side of the other will be traveling in the opposite direction in a line that is also perpendicular to its direction of travel. This will cause a mass effect that will tend to cause the spheres to repel each other. If, on the other hand, you bring them together, such that the axis line of one is aligned with the axis line of the other and they are both rotating in the same direction, when they come together their rotation does not introduce a mass effect because the rotation does not exist relative to one another. It requires a three dimensional motion to maintain an equal static mass effect in all directions around the matter particle.

You may have a good point, but it is counterproductive to use examples that exhibit behaviors that are opposite to those that you are trying to convey. It would be better to make up new words for the new objects or concepts and then describe their behaviors as meticulously as you can while at the same time keeping the explanations of your concepts as simple as possible. I will stop for now and wait for your reply to clarify to me about these things.

Sincerely,

Paul

Stefan Weckbach

Scott, I have a question.

Is the approach you gave in your essay able to make a testable prediction that could be falsified and if yes, what prediction would this be?

I do not want to know that, eventually in the future, your approach would be able to make a prediction or something like that, I ask for whether or not it actually does or does not, as it stands right now.

Scott Gordon

My theory does predict something that physicists are planning in a future experiment. They predict that neutrino/anti-neutrino interactions will result in annihilation. That will not happen. The mass found in neutrino does not have the same structure of mass found in particle made of E2 energy. (See the hierarchy of energy). Neutrinos are composed of E1 energy. Annihilation occurs when particles containing E2 energy has their energy jump down to the E1 energy state. Neutrinos are already in the E1 energy state, so the neutrino/anti-neutrino interactions will NOT result in annihilation.

Stefan Weckbach

Thanks for your answer.

I have some further questions.

Do you think that such a future experiment is feasible *in principle* due to the laws of physics?

If yes, then would you agree that until such an experiment is made in the future and the results of it are known, your model is just that, a model, although it may refer in some way or the other to all the hitherto known physical laws?

If no, then would you agree that your model may be elegant and consistent, but cannot prove that logic is *more* fundamental than nothing (the latter in the sense of the absolute non-existence of everything, including space, time, quantum fluctuations, imagination, logic and even your two primordial postulates in your model)?

Scott Gordon

I do think that a future experiment is possible to support my theory (such as the neutrino/anti-neutrino annihilation experiment planned). And since I answered yes let me address your next question...

One of the very necessary aspects of a new model for a theory of everything is that it is in total agreement with all theories that have not yet been disproven. This is not an easy task to accomplish since we know a lot of physics theory. Currently the best candidate right now for a theory of everything is string theory (M theory to be more specific) but the interesting thing about String Theory is that it did not start with a model... It started with someone noticing that some math somewhat conformed to current knowledge. The conforming of the math continues to today trying to make string theory "work". This is not how a theory of everything should come about.

Once the correct model is found, the math will automatically fall out of the physical model and literally derive itself as the model becomes more complicated. So for now The Gordon Model is just a model but as it derives more and more of everything we know from the bottom up, it should be eventually be recognized at some point as a theory that out-performs string theory.

Now I can also say that there will never be an experiment that can directly reveal the existence of the entity that is the building block of spacetime because the laws of physics itself (according to Gordon's Theory of Everything) will not allow it - to do such a thing would mean breaking the law of conservation of energy. By saying this, means that there is "logic" at the fundamental base of my theory...

If everything in the universe can be perfectly derived from my theory, all the laws of physics, all the particles that exist, all the energy fields that are created, all the forces that exist, and even show why certain particles are impossible to exist (and will never be found... ie. tachyons, gravitons, elementary magnetic monopole particles),... Then it would be logical to say my theory is correct.

There are reason why physicists cannot get past their current impasse in physics and find the theory of everyting, they are locked into their methods:

1) No experiment can ever reveal the entity of spacetime and its associated energy

2) The solution cannot be derived from where our current math stands now because we use basic parameters that we have no idea of how they came to exist... ie. distance, dimensions, the property of "straight", etc...

My model is unique starting with a component building block of spacetime and showing a linear progression of how everything came into being. It is kind of gratifying that my model reveals the last of the energy states where the first two were found by Einstein. He found E=mc^2 and E = (h/wavelength)c^1 but he never found the beautiful and simple math of the hierarchy of energy where the base energy state (where most of the energy of the universe remains) as the energy of spacetime propotional to c^0.

I hope that those who are interested in the solution to what is fundamental give my model a chance and explore it (and scrutinize it) more deeply.

Gary Simpson

Scott,

I agree that a new form of mathematics is needed to resolve the problems in Physics. However, I do not necessarily think this means that everything must be discarded. After all, both QM and GR work.

It seems to me that you are recreating Euclidian Geometry. Euclid begins with a point, then a line, then a plane, then a 3-D space. You begin with a point that is spinning. But for the point to spin, there must be time. There must also be some way to determine that it is spinning. So, you have not really gotten around space-time. BTW, a point can be viewed as the limit of a sphere where the radius tends to zero. A hyper-sphere could also be used with the limit being an infinitesimal piece of space-time.

I was not able to follow the rest of your argument. That does not make it wrong. It just means I could not follow it.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Scott Gordon

Oh I forgot to respond to this Gary...

"I agree that a new form of mathematics is needed to resolve the problems in Physics. However, I do not necessarily think this means that everything must be discarded. After all, both QM and GR work."

You will find that the math I provide in my theory leads to ALL the math we know and to the math that expresses the postulates of GR and QM. In that regard it fulfills the requirement that what we know is correct but needs adjustment when all the pieces of the puzzle are taken into account. (such as dark energy) - This paper may lay some of you concerns to rest:

https://www.academia.edu/34884714/Dark_Energys_Role_in_Gravity

Again all the best!

Scott Gordon

Thank you Gary for so elegantly making my point. Don't worry you are no the only one in this situation. The reason why the theory of everything has not been found is because no one can get through "The Ruby Slipper Conundrum". Even though I addressed in my essay what you are questioning in my last post - it is difficult to register. The problem may stem from the question of what is a true void universe, no parameters (time, distance, direction, etc...) no energy, -- I will just post here the paragraphs from my essay that addresses your issue... Anything I add will be in () and then I'll better explain the Ruby Slipper Conundrum.

A universe that has no spinning points is a universe of only points with no way to distinguish one point from another. In this new mathematics, points that cannot be distinguished from each other are considered to be the same point (therefore no distance exists). A spinning point added into a universe of indistinguishable points creates a relative motion of all other points in the universe. Since there is no parameter of distance established yet, the new math uses a new parameter called "length". It is important to keep in mind that the new parameter being called length only depicts whether a point is "relatively closer" or "relatively farther" from the spinning point and is never to be confused with what we know as distance. (it is difficult not to equate this new parameter I am calling length to distance - length is NOT distance)

Distance cannot be defined by points because points do not have the property of distance ( you made this point before and I agree) and between any two different points there are an infinite number of points. Depending on your perspective the surrounding points can be considered moving circumferentially or not moving at all. (If you are on the spinning point, the surround points are moving, if not, the points are not moving at all) Since the circumferential points cannot be differentiated from the perspective of the spinning point they need to be considered the same point with the same value for their circumferential motion. It is not necessary for us to know a specific quantitative value for this circumferential motion; it just has to be the "same value".

We can express the "relative" circumferential movement of the surrounding points mathematically using the relative length (l) and the "relative" angular velocity . The angular velocity is given in terms of another new parameter associated with "time"; but this parameter we are calling "time" is not what we currently conceive as our known parameter of time. (Similar to the relationship of length compared to distance) This new parameter of "Time" is "relative" and is considered to pass "relatively quicker" or "relatively slower" with no quantitative value. The angular velocity is in terms of 1/"time". ( I should have wrote this as 1/"relative time" realizing that the relative time is not the same parameter as we know as time.

The Ruby Slipper Conundrum is explained this way... I coined the phrase "The Ruby Slipper Conundrum" and to understand why - you need to know the story of the "Wizard of Oz". It has to do with the main lesson of the tale.

I love to explain it so here it is... The Ruby Slipper Conundrum basically is this...

Everything we "know", all our theories dealing with all the particles, all the laws of physics, all the parameters we use... are known by the way particles and energy exist "in" spacetime... But we have no idea what spacetime is made of to give it its properties. Let's suppose that spacetime is composed of a single type of structural unit. We shouldn't call this structural unit a particle because all particles we know exist "in" spacetime. We will have to call this building block structural unit an "entity" and say that the entity exists "as" spacetime.

Now comes the hard part... We would need to describe the entity's properties in mathematical terms. To do so you would have to pull an entity out from its structural position "as" spacetime and put it where there is no spacetime and THEN express its properties in mathematical terms. Now I ask you - How do you do that?

There is no distance,

no time,

no dimensions,

and no directions!

Is anyone capable of understanding the mathematics associated with this entity? I assure you that answer is NO! And I also assure you that if you were given its correct math without going through the learning process called the Ruby Slipper Conundrum, you would not believe it and close the book before you got to start learning the correct theory of everything.

In my book, The GOD Entity: Gordon's Theory of Everything, I start with this entity as the building block entity of spacetime and I have to give its mathematics... but to give its real math would not be accepted. So I must use the Ruby Slipper Conundrum learning process. This process starts by artificially putting the entity "in" spacetime like the way we acknowledge all other particles. Doing so gives the reader a chance to wrap their head around some math that they will accept. I do this fully knowing that there are errors introduced at this time (which would not be noticed by the reader). These errors will have to be corrected later.

The math given for the entity can still get the reader through the internal structure of spacetime and the internal energy structure of light. But it will have to be corrected when I get to the internal energy structure of particles containing mass (Chapter 7). When I give the true math of the entity at this time, the reader will have an easier time accepting it because you have already learned enough of the Gordon Model to see why it is correct.

The reason why I call this learning process the Ruby Slipper Conundrum is because at the end of the Wizard of Oz, the wizard takes off in his balloon without Dorothy. She starts to cry that she will never get home and the good witch comes. The good witch tells Dorothy not to cry, that she ALWAYS had the power to go home because she has the Ruby Slippers. Dorothy says But I had the ruby slippers ever since I arrived at Munchkinland, why didn't you tell me this before... And the good witch says -- "Because you wouldn't have believed me!"

This is why every physicists needs to go through the Ruby Slipper Conundrum as it remains the biggest stumbling block to finding the theory of everything.

I can only lead people to this theory -

All the best Gary

Georgina Woodward

Hi Scott I like the presentation of your essay as a day of creation of the universe. the times of day breaks it up into readable sections and I think it is an attractive literary tool, making it more than just information. Like some of your other readers I do wonder why after sweeping the board clean, you choose to keep certain theoretical pieces. For me, it is spacetime that needs putting to rest. I think you must consider it indispensable and yet it was Einstein (who is said to have) said-"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." Nevertheless you have presented your own model in a nice way and I appreciate the thought that has gone into it. Kind regards Georgina

Scott Gordon

Thank you for the kind words Georgina. I do not write academic papers - I am not in academia but I did co-write the National Lampoon movie RoboDoc.

Anyway - I know it seems like I swept things away and then re-introduced them... But here is what really happened. I wanted to know why the speed of light was measured the same in all reference frames. We know the properties of light and we know the math of waves. There are no other waves models that has a wave and no medium. So just like Einstein (http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html) I concluded there MUST be a medium for light AND it must be unlike anything we ever were familiar with.

Besides having a master's in engineering - I have an artsy and creative side to me - I composed and arranged and produced the original music soundtrack to RoboDoc. I threw out the notion that spacetime is made of nothing or is just something that should be mathematically expressed without a model that explains how it comes to possess its properties and I worked on how spacetime is constructed and what its building block structural component is along with the math to express it. The math of the component entity is not easy for a trained physicist to grasp. Actually the math is easy, the concept of an entity that builds spacetime and not a particle that exists "in" spacetime is difficult because of the ruby slipper conundrum. The ruby slipper conundrum is the main reason why physicists have not been able to solve the theory of everything for the past 100 years - Einstein came close just by realizing that spacetime had to be a medium when he stated this...

"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

Einstein knew that something about spacetime had to be explained. What he never figured out is that spacetime is an energy medium and the base energy state from which the two higher energy states came. It is kind of ironic that Einstein found the two higher energy states but did not realize that there was a hierarchy of energy based on powers of the speed of light. All I did is finished what Einstein started and in doing so stumbled onto the hierarchy of energy and the theory of everything.

It will take a long time for physicists to take my idea seriously but in the immortal words of Mahatma Gandhi...

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win."

I do expect to win because I know why physicists are in the nightmare scenario...

They cannot obtain any data from any experiment that will directly expose the energy of spacetime (to do so would break the laws of physics) and they cannot use any of the current math we have to derive the energy of spacetime. Physicists are really in a bind...

Eric Weinstein put out this video and It seems very likely... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw88utUCx9M

Funny how life takes you places you never thought you would be...

Joe Fisher

Dear Dr. Scott S. Gordon,

You wrote: "The new math starts by expressing the properties of a component building block ingredient. This ingredient along with energy is the only ingredient required to build our universe and everything in it, starting with the building of spacetime itself. The new math must be simple because the universe starts with one basic ingredient which builds in complexity. The more complex the structures in the universe become, the more complex the math required to describe it."

My research has concluded that Nature must have devised the only permanent structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Scott Gordon

Hi Joe,

Your research has one aspect similar to mine that being the primordial ingredient that existed long before even our 3 spatial dimensional spacetime. However everyone including physicists have fallen into a certain way of thinking which prevents them from getting to the primodial building block entity.

There are two aspects missing in current theory:

1) The ruby slipper conundrum - where we cannot use our known math to describe the mathematical properties of the building block component entity (I say entity and not particle because we know particles as they co-exist within spacetime as opposed to the entity which exists "as" spacetime)

2) The Hierarchy of energy where physicists know two out of the three Gordon energy states (physicists know the energy of light and the energy of mass but not the energy of spacetime itself).

The reason why the theory of everything has not been found is because there is no way to derive it from our current math. (Our math must be derived from the math of the theory of everything) The other reason is because there is no experiment that will reveal the energy of spacetime and the fact that it is proportional to c^0.

Wishing you the best of luck on your theory.