String Theory

[Gem]

Originally Posted by The Back Seat

Yes the universe is accelerating outward. If you relate this phenomena to any other sequence of oscillating events, it will oscillate at a frequency(similar to a pendulum). An oscillating wave displacement over time will accelerate upward then slow down and accelerate back downward and then repeat another cycle. This would mean that the universe is currently accelerating outwards and will eventually slow down and accelerate back the other way. Stephen hawking recently made this prediction and related it to the god particle effect. If this prediction is correct, then this would explain what happened before the Big Bang and the paradigm of how far the universe can actually expand.

They used to assume that the universe was slowing down because logic would suggest that gravitational attraction would act to slow things down, turn them around and bring them back together. Big Crunch. The pendulum works under this gravitational assumption.

The universe is acutally accelerating (to everyone's surprise), so they theorised dark energy, and went looking for evidence of it, and found evidence that most of the universe is made of dark energy. There is no reason for a crunch, because the dark energy exerts a force that drives the galaxies apart, and hence, the gravitational attraction between them becomes weaker.

The god particle fills empty space as the universe expands.

The Higgs Boson is immeasurably small. It's the Field that permeates the entire universe.

Once there is enough empty space the universe will feel a pull in the opposite direction causing a slow down and acceleration to a collapse and then another Big Bang. I would recommend checking out Stephen hawkings prediction that "the god particle will destroy the universe". It's a very interesting way of looking at it and is currently, in my mind, the best explanation of what lies ahead.

Some theorise that the universal density of dark matter remains constant because it is endemic of space itself, but regular matter universal density reduces as mass is dispersed over a larger and larger volume.

I don't really understand it, but apparently Hawkins said something like that in regards to a particle collider which would be bigger than Earth itself.

[r6r6]

Gem---Light is emitted from one electron and it arrives at another electron... from the perspective of the photon, that journey takes no time. The departure and the arrival is simultaneous. It goes to follow that since it takes no time to go from a to b, it also takes no time to go to c or d or e or f, and therefore, a photon is everywhere at once or the universe is sizeless.

Our finite Universe is not sizeless.

Metors, planets, suns, sloar systems, galaxys etc all of have a size and a finite sum-total ergo a finite Universe, composed of all of its parts = finite sum-total. This has to to do with integrity ergo wholeness i.e, wholness is inherently finite.

Finite = integrity = having a associated 3D size, even if that size is in fluctuation.


I'm not convinced that you or anyone else know's the perspective of being a photon. I would use the analogy of dying, know body really knows what becomes of the metaphysical-1 mind/intellect or any alledged soul, once we die i.e. unless we can travel at the speed-of-radiation, or die, we do not really know from those perspectives.

r6

GEm=Our observation of time or distance is the analysis of the relationship between massive objects... and speed depends on an arbitrary point of reference. All motion is relative, but light is moving at the same speed relative to all reference points, as it must, because if we chose a photon as a point of reference, everything would arrive there simultaneously, or there would be no distance, and the universe would be point like.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Our finite Universe is not sizeless.

If one took the location of a photon as a reference point, everything in the universe would be moving at the same speed and in the same direction. That's not really accurate though because the photon would have already arrived at all locations, so it would have a reference point of everywhere at once.

Metors, planets, suns, sloar systems, galaxys etc all of have a size and a finite sum-total ergo a finite Universe, composed of all of its parts = finite sum-total. This has to to do with integrity ergo wholeness i.e, wholness is inherently finite.

That's only because the reference point is considered as though it wasn't massless.

Finite = integrity = having a associated 3D size, even if that size is in fluctuation.

There isn't really a size but it appears there is because of comparison. Distance is relative. Of course, at c, there is no distance, hence no size. If we selected an arbitrary reference point and treated it as massless... finite would have no meaning.

I'm not convinced that you or anyone else know's the perspective of being a photon. I would use the analogy of dying, know body really knows what becomes of the metaphysical-1 mind/intellect or any alledged soul, once we die i.e. unless we can travel at the speed-of-radiation, or die, we do not really know from those perspectives.

I'm merely extrapolating about a photon perspective based on the theories of Einstein Relativity and maybe a bit of Lorenz...i.e time dilatation and length contraction. They are very well confirmed.

[r6r6]

Originally Posted by Gem

I'm merely extrapolating about a photon perspective based on the theories of Einstein Relativity and maybe a bit of Lorenz...i.e time dilatation and length contraction. They are very well confirmed.

The words above contain two significant concepts that relate specifically to having a size--- as I suggest the Universe and all of its parts do ----"length" and "dialation."

I.e. there can exist no "dialation" or "length" without reference to a finite size.

"Relatively" is in reference to size/quantity ergo related to 3D--- volume, mass, color, frequency etc... --- and time..

r6

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

The words above contain two significant concepts that relate specifically to having a size--- as I suggest the Universe and all of its parts do ----"length" and "dialation."

Yep... there is a length of distance and a length of time to traverse that distance, unless one travels at c. Then there is no distance or time.

I.e. there can exist no "dialation" or "length" without reference to a finite size.

It's a reference to the behaviour of mass. It simply doesn't apply to massless particles.

"Relatively" is in reference to size/quantity ergo related to 3D--- volume, mass, color, frequency etc... --- and time..

r6

It really comes to the point that nothing exists in and of itself. Things only exist as interactions. Distance (the fundamental of 'size') is entirely relativistic.

Relativity shows that distance contracts and approaches zero at light speed, so relativity shows the conditions where there is a distance and the conditions where there is no distance...

Planck came up with something different though... so it's not like one theory explains everything.

[r6r6]

Gem---Relativity shows that distance contracts and approaches zero at light speed, so relativity shows the conditions where there is a distance and the conditions where there is no distance...

Hi Gem, "approaching zero" is not zero ergo there is size/quantity value involved and size/quantity value is associated with dialation and length elsewhere asI previously stated.

A low frequency geodesic dome appears as Euclidean polyhedron, yet as the frequency increases the geodesic dome begins to approach the metaphysical-1, mind/intellect concept of a pure/perfect sphere, yet we know, no such purely perfect sphere can ever attained as a reality i.e. the pure/perfect sphere/dome is only a concept of mind/intellect.

Planck came up with something different though... so it's not like one theory explains everything.

Yeah, that is what some physicists--- theoretical and/or not ---as well as some mathematicians are expressing that idea more and more.

I'm not convinced, however, my own explorations involving my discovery of a numerical hepta{7}-hexa{6}sine-wave with all primes--- except prime #2 and 3 on one line ---led me to the following recetnt discovery that appears to be relatively simple-- not sure yet as I dont have math skills --- and appears to me to be related to your above comment involving more than one theory to explain Universe as ToEverything type scenario or formula.

The crux of my discovery involves two kinds of numerical intervals occurring in the hepta{7}-hexa{6}sine-wave on 4 differrent line levels.

Line/level 1 starts with number #0 and it has the same periodic interval/frequency as line/level 4 that starts with #3.

The 2nd 3rd line/levels have also have same periodic frequency set of intervals with each other but differrent from Line/level 1 and 4. If this hepta{7}-hexa{6}sine-wave, is a basic/fundamental expression involving a ToEverthing, then I see that, there may need to be two differrent formula ie. likend to your above more than one theory for Universe.

0............6...........12...........18........... ....24...........30............36.............42
..1........5..7......11..13......17.19.........23..25......29.31.......35.37........41..
....2....4......8..10......14..16.....20...22........26 ..28.....32...34......38..40...
.......3...........9.............15............21..............27...........33....... .....39.......

Initially I discovered, that, the resultant of any number{ n } times eleven, was always on the same line/level as the number( n }.

Currently trying to see if this is true for any number besides #11 and does it make a differrence the line level or how much bigger or smaller the numbers involved are.

Ex 2 * 9 gives resultant 18, and that is not on the same line/level as #9.

I originally sent my hepta{7}-hexa{6}-sine-wave discovery to three science type magzine publishers back in the 90's, and 6 months later-- to my surprise ---I recived a letter from overseas, England, and Oxford University. Turns out to bea mathematician Ian Stewart--- if I recall correctly --who stated that he have never seen the wave or hexagonal expression of the prime numbers before, but that what I discovered involing only the primes, had already been disicovered algbraically 200 or 400 years ago, 6*n plus or minus 1 is the algebraic formula for where any primes beyond 2 and 3 must reside.

Anyway that is an aside story, from the one above with two differrent periodic interval patterns. Maybe chaos involves the shifting of the numerical sequence. If we begin with one instead of 0, then the whole all primes on2nd line falls apart.

r6

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Hi Gem, "approaching zero" is not zero ergo there is size/quantity value involved and size/quantity value is associated with dialation and length elsewhere asI previously stated.

Approaching 0 only applies to mass because it takes infinite energy to accelerate mass to light speed. It does not apply to massless particles because massless particles always travel at c.

A low frequency geodesic dome appears as Euclidean polyhedron, yet as the frequency increases the geodesic dome begins to approach the metaphysical-1, mind/intellect concept of a pure/perfect sphere, yet we know, no such purely perfect sphere can ever attained as a reality i.e. the pure/perfect sphere/dome is only a concept of mind/intellect.



Yeah, that is what some physicists--- theoretical and/or not ---as well as some mathematicians are expressing that idea more and more.

Plancks constant has been mainstream physics since early 1900's... and the three fundamental measures, distance, mass and time are actually fundamental... i.e. there is a minimum quantity...

This Video explains 'size' according to Planck. It's geeky interesting.

Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaN8uM_2_sk
Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCZ0U2sDi9M
Part 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNv9KVXhu2w

I'm not convinced, however, my own explorations involving my discovery of a numerical hepta{7}-hexa{6}sine-wave with all primes--- except prime #2 and 3 on one line ---led me to the following recetnt discovery that appears to be relatively simple-- not sure yet as I dont have math skills --- and appears to me to be related to your above comment involving more than one theory to explain Universe as ToEverything type scenario or formula.

I look at it in this way. The map is not the terrain, it is only a representation, so a mathematical/geometric model is a 'map' that represents the terrain (laws) of the universe.

As Niels Bohr once said, "It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about Nature."

The crux of my discovery involves two kinds of numerical intervals occurring in the hepta{7}-hexa{6}sine-wave on 4 differrent line levels.

Line/level 1 starts with number #0 and it has the same periodic interval/frequency as line/level 4 that starts with #3.

The 2nd 3rd line/levels have also have same periodic frequency set of intervals with each other but differrent from Line/level 1 and 4. If this hepta{7}-hexa{6}sine-wave, is a basic/fundamental expression involving a ToEverthing, then I see that, there may need to be two differrent formula ie. likend to your above more than one theory for Universe.

0............6...........12...........18........... ....24...........30............36.............42
..1........5..7......11..13......17.19.........23..25......29.31.......35.37........41..
....2....4......8..10......14..16.....20...22........26 ..28.....32...34......38..40...
.......3...........9.............15............21..............27...........33....... .....39.......

Initially I discovered, that, the resultant of any number{ n } times eleven, was always on the same line/level as the number( n }.

Currently trying to see if this is true for any number besides #11 and does it make a differrence the line level or how much bigger or smaller the numbers involved are.

Ex 2 * 9 gives resultant 18, and that is not on the same line/level as #9.

I originally sent my hepta{7}-hexa{6}-sine-wave discovery to three science type magzine publishers back in the 90's, and 6 months later-- to my surprise ---I recived a letter from overseas, England, and Oxford University. Turns out to bea mathematician Ian Stewart--- if I recall correctly --who stated that he have never seen the wave or hexagonal expression of the prime numbers before, but that what I discovered involing only the primes, had already been disicovered algbraically 200 or 400 years ago, 6*n plus or minus 1 is the algebraic formula for where any primes beyond 2 and 3 must reside.

Anyway that is an aside story, from the one above with two differrent periodic interval patterns. Maybe chaos involves the shifting of the numerical sequence. If we begin with one instead of 0, then the whole all primes on2nd line falls apart.

r6

Interesting theory, but of course a prime number must be odd, so they must fall on the second or the fourth line. One basically needs to find out if a prime number would ever fall on the fourth line... but an prime number will never fall on the fourth line because only multiples of three will ever fall on that line, so it's perfectly safe to say that all the primes will indeed fall on the second line. That does validate the 6n+or-1 rule too, because all the first line will b multiples of 6, and it's interesting how you approached it.

[r6r6]

Gem---Approaching 0 only applies to mass because it takes infinite energy to accelerate mass to light speed. It does not apply to massless particles because massless particles always travel at c.

Perhaps beta( fermionic electron ) come closet to traveling the at the speed-of-radiation( 700 million miles per hour approx. ) i.e. 90%(?) the speed-of-radiation.

Mass is said to increase as fermionic particle speed increases and somehow this leads to some mathematical concept that it would take infinite phyiscal/energy to accelerate a fermionic particle to the speed-of-radition.

The exact maths and concepts of that are beyond my understanding much less comprehension but appears to involve some kinda expontial increase.

Infinity is not a size/quantity value, so physicists invented renormalization to deal with sizeless/quanta-less infinite values.

So we have these fundamentals that invoke strange set of parameters;

1) speed-of-radiaiton, only if fermion converts to photon, otherwise infinite values are invoked,

2) illogical non-common sense of a photons speed being constant to any fermionic matter observers whom, may be moving toward, or, away from the photon;

3) at any speed, that we observe to have a limit in the 90% area of speed-of-photon

4) time is alledged to not exist at speed-of-photon--- your approaching 0? --yet the photon involves speed and time/distance values.

Plancks .... and the three fundamental measures, distance, mass and time are actually fundamental... i.e. there is a minimum quantity...

That minimal size/quantity will be specific to graviton. imho And, Lee Smolin has posited via Loop Quantum Gravity, that the minimum may vary over time, as specific to a graviton altho, those ideas may also translate over into a cosmological macro-finite varible specific to our finite Universe expansion limits.

This Video explains 'size' according to Planck. It's geeky interesting.
Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaN8uM_2_sk

I have limited monthy cap, so have to be careful with my internet access. I watched the first vidieo and do enjoy those teachers who take complex math and simplify it, tho it still takes a whatever degree of effort to understand and then comprehend it.

His values reminded me of Arthur Youngs writings. Arthur Young invented the Bell helicopter and then went on to create is Theory of Process Unification of Universe map, based on torus, #7 and 4-lines/levels.

To be clear here, even tho Arthur uses a numerical 4-level/line map, he began with the counting number one( 1 ) and I began with non-counting number zero( 0 ) and I have never heard of Arthur when my I began my 4-line/level doodling and response from Ian Stewart in mid-90's.

I look at it in this way. The map is not the terrain, it is only a representation, so a mathematical/geometric model is a 'map' that represents the terrain (laws) of the universe.

I agree, and that goes for the cosmic laws also, they too, are not the terrain, that are metaphysical-1, conceptual complements to the terrain.

As Niels Bohr once said, "It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about Nature."

The mathematical expressions--- what we have to say about Nature ---are many and varied. The geometric expressions have three aspects, as referenced to nature. imho

That does ...{ not }... validate the 6n+or-1 rule too, because all the first line will b multiples of 6, and it's interesting how you approached it.

It began with pencil and paper doodling. My final drafts, with conjectures, that I sent to the three science type magazines were created on my Commodore-64 and included the hexa{6}gon expression ergo all primes on two radial/radii lines.

The Vector Equilibrium is of course defined by 4 such hexa{6}gons, and it took me 8 years before it finally came to me how to express my quasi-2D hepta{7}-hexa{6}sine-wave pattern in 3D.

As for my hepta{7}-hexa{6}-sine-wave pattern as Unification of Universe Map, I only began to think that way, with the discovery of any number( n ) * 11 will have a resultant that is on same line as the number( n ).

I'm slow to see if I'm on to another 'revelation' type discovery here, untill I can experiement with numbers on all four lines etc.....I flunked math in 9th grade and never had any formal math education after that.

So maybe, once I found out if there is any more numerically worth 'revelations' in my sine-wave, I can then address possible string associations or Unification scenarios. I dunno.

Tho once the thought sine-wave GUTOE crossed my mind, it kinda of made sense, consireding how many fermionic and bosonic particles have a complementary wave nature. I dunno.

r6