M

Michael Smith

Charles St Pierre
My essay actually agrees with the well supported idea that the phenomenological universe is not centered at zero, but rather possesses a non-zero potential (Higgs ground state) as an inherent asymmetry and baseline complexity. Your example of matter and anti-matter annihilating into a non-zero energy is good evidence for that.

However, I suggest that the non-zero asymmetry we see in physical phenomena emerges from an even more fundamental geometric symmetry/neutrality which is centered at zero, just as complex number rotation is centered about the origin in a mathematical sense as a base-4 cycle or its more versatile and efficient cousin, the base-12 cycle. When the base-12 number cycle is in turn viewed in its simplest form as a cycle of four prime number positions symmetrically placed around the circle (at 1, 5, 7, 11), these four further simplify to two net vectors at positions 7 and 11 which are no longer symmetric (interestingly, creating a 2:1 asymmetry much like the Boltzmann and Schrodinger solutions you mention or the +2/3:-1/3 charges of the fermions). This is how I suggest that non-zero phenomena can emerge from zero-centered neutral geometry.

However, we see that this inherent neutrality is still preserved in natural phenomena when we take a broader view. Returning to your example of matter and anti-matter, they actually do represent the neutrality of zero in terms of equal and opposite charge or in terms of equal and opposite states of energy (matter versus annihilation energy). I also believe that classical logic not only applies to real number systems but also complex numbers when imaginary numbers are viewed as circular potentials not yet manifested onto the real number line. In this perspective, neutrality precedes symmetry which in turn precedes polarized phenomena. Thanks for the comments and feedback.

Nicky The geometric model I'm describing is not quite suggesting that love equals neutrality, as love is definitely not neutral as you astutely point out, but rather that the overall prime vibration waveform is neutral by virtue of the non-neutral asymmetries of its twelve positions/qualia balancing out.

Position 6 (geometry of love) is one of those asymmetries as it falls below the neutral axis as an intersection between the two polarized waves, but which is balanced out by positions 0 (starting potential) and 12 (cycle completion) which occur above the neutral axis. So, although position 6 is neutral "horizontally" in terms of opposite polarities cancelling out in a central point of unity, it is not neutral "vertically" in terms of amplitude/quality. As such, position 6 can be considered the biased perspective of love relative to which everything is compared while the rest of the twelve positions are the other experiential themes/states which enable us to understand what love is from what it isn't. If reality is fundamentally vibrational then any state must presumably have an equal and opposite polarity/amplitude to even exist, including love.

That to me is the underlying paradox my model suggests - to fully know love is to fully experience the polarity of non-love in all its forms. The challenge for humanity is to explore both sides of that coin objectively and to see value in both the light and the dark, but always returning to a center biased towards love. Yes, humanity's track record shows how easily we can veer off towards negativity and self-interest but I'm hopeful for a more harmonious and "neutral" future. Thanks for your thoughtful feedback.

Vladimir Rogozhin The foundational logic upon which my essay is based is that everything in reality, including logic itself, must begin from a neutral state of possibility. However, as nothing can be created nor destroyed, that neutrality should be preserved every "if-then" step of the way in any logical treatise within science. As geometry is arguably the simplest and thus most logical way of describing reality, I suggest that everything follows a simple geometric progression from 0D point to 1D line to 2D cycle and 3D vibration. But to retain neutrality, that geometry at each step would need to be polarized: from a polarized pair of points (i.e. matter/antimatter) to a line centered about the origin to a bi-rotational cycle to a bi-directional standing wave vibration. The problem with many scientific theories in my view is that they violate this idea of neutrality by assuming reality is a one-way street, of some creation event of "something from from nothing" such as a singular Big Bang and perpetually expanding universe in forward time without a polarized counterpart/contraction/reverse stage to maintain neutrality. I am not familiar with the "hundred-year-old beard" problem or dialectical triad you mention but thanks for your question and feedback.

Georgina Woodward Thanks for your feedback. The neutral ground I'm suggesting in my essay is more along the lines of paired polarities working together in a complementary and balanced way rather than a averaged middle ground which, as you rightly suggest, would be less effective. To me it's this relational polarity which seems to give rise to many forms of dynamic neutrality in nature such as vibration, symmetry, energy/mass equivalence and the conservation laws. As such, polarized qualities need not necessarily be exact opposites which "cancel out" in a physical sense to embody neutrality but rather complementary states which allow a positive/negative range for diversity and complexity to emerge.

When considering an alternative path that science could or should have taken, we are faced with the dilemma of deciding which formative assumptions would need to change. In this essay, we take a more dramatic approach - of wiping the slate clean and seeing how science could have emerged assumption-free from pure logic alone. This leads us down a surprisingly simple geometric path of least action in which qualia is more fundamental than quanta and conservation of neutrality most fundamental of all.

Download Essay PDF File

Peter,

Thank you much for your encouraging feedback. I read and rated your article just now. It's excellent and we seem to share a similar quest for a simpler way to the truth!

Cheers,

Michael聽

Peter,

Thank you for your kind comments. Yes, duality and its cyclic nature is a fundamental property聽which I feel yields a much simpler, more tangible and geometric picture of reality. Although I am not at all qualified to weigh in on the increasingly complex physics聽theories聽I see today, their very mathematical complexity seems to obscure what they are trying to describe. My perhaps idealized view is that Nature should be inherently simple and efficient in principle and in form.聽

I did explore octonians聽but find that quaternions are sufficient to fully describe the double-helix dynamic as 3D rotations in 4D space. Again, less is more!

I just read and rated your聽excellent article and found much to ponder. Your distinction between physics and metaphysics is a thought provoking one, particularly the idea that numbers and math fall under the latter category as abstractions which are only approximations for nature. My take is that the fundamental laws from which physical phenomena manifest can still serve as a valid and computable "ancient Greek" blueprint for the identical shared properties of all galaxies, suns or grains of sand, even though chaos/complexity/etc. effects distort the ideal and create uniqueness upon physical emergence.

Your concept of a 180-degree physical analogue for entanglement I found consistent with my thinking too, only I represent it as a 180-degree rotation of the complex plane such that particle/anti-particle聽pairs occur at geometrically identical though polarized positions within the double-helix probability聽waveform. Other ideas we seem to share include electron spin and galactic discs as toroidal rotation, matter arising from motion relative to the Higgs ground state, and all contributing to cyclic spiral fractals of form.

Thanks again and all the best!

Michael聽

Thanks much Shawn,

Depicting projections with "poor man's CAD" (i.e. Excel) can be a little limited, but worked out OK in this case!

- Michael

Great article Tim. You present your ideas clearly and logically so that even a non-physicist "newbie" such as myself can appreciate the main points.

I was drawn to your title as my (much less rigorous) theory approaches possible unification through fractal geometry as well. I too suggest that the space-time of general relativity may emerge from the higher dimensional geometry of a quaternionic structure, but come at it from a rather unique way - through the cyclical nature of the prime numbers in base-12 (my article is titled "Primarily True").

I posit that my "base-12 prime vibration" as a fractal invariant pattern should emerge in space-time at 10-to-the-power-11 logarithmic fractals (in terms of particle density) as that would represent a complete logarithmic cycle or "octave" of a quaternion power cycle in base-12. This might help explain why there are that many galaxies in the observable universe, suns per mature spiral galaxy, atoms per DNA molecule and even neurons in the human brain. In the gap between each such fractal would therefore be where nature would emerge in an unstructured way, much like your conjecture.

One question: If the quaternion model were purely geometric such as I'm picturing - as simply prime positions on the base-12 circle (thus Euclidean), would it not then become computable after all? If I understand it correctly, Tarski's geometric decidability theorem seems to indicate that would be the case. Any insight would be much appreciated.

Cheers,

Michael

Excellent article, well written and logically argued.

I completely agree with your premise that living organisms, unlike machines, possess genuine creativity and that a physics theory needs to accommodate that. I particularly resonate with your description of phenomena such as premonitions, synchronicity and intuitive hunches being the very opposite of the mechanistic "engineer's narrative" as I coincidentally was a mechanical engineer and statistician for 30 years only to experience a sudden intuitive awakening (for lack of a better term) about 5 years ago. This includes frequent clairvoyant images, intuitive insights and premonitions.

Although very unsettling at first (for a former hard-core skeptic), I have come to embrace this and explore it as rationally as I can to see where the rabbit hole leads. Although having next to zero training in physics and only a casual interest, I immediately became fascinated with the field as well as prime numbers, base-12 and ancient numerology for some reason. Eventually the connection made sense over the next few years as I pieced together a consciousness-inclusive model not unlike yours (my article is called "Primarily True" if you're interested in a look). I didn't even know about FXQi or the article contest until a week ago when I "happened upon" mention of it in a book I was reading by Dean Radin about Psi research. As I had just put together my model, the timing was perfect to submit an article. Ta-da!

Based on my somewhat unique perspective, I thought I would share a few comments that might be informative for your consideration... or at least amusing.

First, I now define a "living organism" as that which is consciously self-aware, thus not only limited to being physically embodied. I also consider the present as our 100% probable future with all other potentials as lesser probabilities of becoming. Like you say, our future can still be influenced by our actions, which to me amounts to altering which next outcome is most probable. And although our past has already been determined, I feel its memory is not necessarily fixed - i.e. our future re-informs how we perceive the past, effectively altering our perception (consciousness) of what really happened.

From my own experience, my ability to access a specific outcome from my "future memory" per se seems limited to the extent to which undecided free will (mine and others potentially affected by it) may influence it. In other words, the more inevitable and significant the event (such as a major forest fire), the earlier and more clearly I tend to pick up on it. Still, it is also because of free will I suspect that I am not generally able to avoid unpleasant events even if I sense them coming. I get the feeling too that we sometimes experience unpleasant circumstances if it serves the greater good of all involved... almost like taking one for the team!

Lastly, I don't believe all such future memory phenomena have a common physical origin but rather a common non-physical one - consciousness. I am confident both the physical and non-physical can all eventually be explained by a single physics model, once we treat consciousness-reality duality as the wave-particle duality of that theoretical approach. That's my take on things anyway... subject to continuous revision no doubt!

Sorry for the long-winded post and thanks again for the thought provoking article.

All the best,

Michael

Hi John,

Thought provoking essay...

Your definition of understanding as the ability to predict events/observation versus wisdom as the ability to cause them is an effective framework to build upon. I too agree that a paradigm shift will be required to reduce the limitations to knowability and will necessarily need to include consciousness and the human condition in the scope of a truly comprehensive TOE.

I differ somewhat from your view that mathematics rejects duality of the algebraically discrete and geometrically continuous. I would offer as an example the ixi=-1 representation of the complex plane - it describes both the algebraic relationship between real and imaginary numbers as well as its half-rotation geometry of the complex unit circle. You do, however, note the significance of two-from-one as a natural emergent phenomena such as cell division and DNA. I just see that property of duality as being more fundamental.

So to me, unobserved mathematics such as imaginary numbers or extra dimensions do not necessarily imply a mathematical model is flawed, but perhaps just that duality such as wave-particle duality should be viewed as a "composite particle" most knowable when considered as a single coin rather than two sides, only one of which we can perceive at a time.

Thanks for helping me think deeply on this fascinating topic!

Regards,

Michael

Essay Abstract

Although nature seems most knowable when its wave-particle duality is intact, it hides that dual nature upon physical observation. Physical reality and the mathematics which describe it are further constrained by limitations of what may be logically proven, computed or predicted. However, these limitations of the observer effect and number theory would not apply if nature's duality could be fully described in purely geometric terms in probability space. This essay suggests a radical way to do just that. Starting from the prime numbers as the simplest elements of mathematics, the base-12 number system as arguably the most efficient number system for nature and the complex numbers as its natural language, a simple 3D double-helix waveform emerges in 4D quaternion space. When the 2D projection of this waveform is then interpreted as the fundamental probability waveform of physical reality, remarkable alignment is found with the way nature appears to work at all scales - including compelling explanations for open mysteries such as dark energy, dark matter, quantum gravity, time and the particle structure of the quantum world. Even if it's too simple to be true, it offers a back-to-basics approach to view nature at its conceptually simplest.

Author Bio

Now retired, I received a BS degree in mechanical engineering from General Motors Institute in 1986 and MS degree in applied statistics from Oakland University in 1988. A professional engineer in manufacturing for 30 years, my main areas of focus were operations management and process/lean improvement. A life-long student of science and numbers, I am captivated by the mysteries of nature and enjoy pursuing those mysteries wherever they may lead!

Download Essay PDF File