Author Topic: my thoughts on a TOE (theory of everything)  (Read 1729 times)

Ravening

  • Weres
  • High Priest
  • *
  • Posts: 229
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • ware-ing a hat because I'm balder than Picard
my thoughts on a TOE (theory of everything)
« on: December 31, 2010, 12:40:06 pm »
This is an amalgam of things I have posted on other forums.  There has been some great discussion here so far so I thought I'd give this a whirl.   *<:)

First of all, I am not referring to what physicists call a TOE, at least excepting Max Tegmark who defines a TOE to be a complete description of reality.

That which they call a TOE is really a unified field theory.

Second: a TOE exists. Why?  Well, consider a mathematical way to describe something.  One could form an aggregate (set if you will) of all things that meet that description and call that aggregate the description (it's subtle but not circular).  For example, a description of "Chair" could be done by inserting all things we think of as being chairs into this aggregate.  (Now there might not be an effective procedure for deciding whether or not A is in the aggregate I'm calling "a desciption", but that's beside the point.)  Now here's a second point of contention: I define reality to be the aggregate of all that exists, whatever that might truly be.  Therefore, from these definitions of TOE and reality, reality is a complete description of reality.  Consequently, reality is a TOE.

Third: My question to you all.  Can this TOE (one of many TOEs) be losslessly compressed into a finite document?  In other words, is there a way to make this or any TOE into a finite but complete description of reality?

While I believe the answer is possibly no, I vote yes.  If it is 'no' then the "one inch equation" can't exist since not only is that a finite ToE but it's a one inch ToE.  Unlikely but conceivable.  I hope it is possible.

I believe some preliminary remarks can be made about the shape of the ToE I mentioned earlier.  It's technical but basically what I'm suggesting is that the collection of all structures is the shape of a ToE.
You are doing something very sacred here, something very daring, during your life upon the earth. You are defining yourself, and then recreating yourself anew, in each golden moment of Now.

onishadowolf

  • Weres
  • Realized Monster
  • *
  • Posts: 1473
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • FaceBook
Re: my thoughts on a TOE (theory of everything)
« Reply #1 on: December 31, 2010, 11:18:22 pm »
My question is that you say not from a physics point, but it's permeated by mathematics, so is this from a mathematical point or what? (which would be from a physics point by default) Or are you trying to define a TOE without equations?
-The shadows connect us all-

Ravening

  • Weres
  • High Priest
  • *
  • Posts: 229
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • ware-ing a hat because I'm balder than Picard
Re: my thoughts on a TOE (theory of everything)
« Reply #2 on: January 01, 2011, 12:54:39 am »
This is a TOE without equations.  At least, theoretically there aren't any.  Maybe if a TOE can be losslessly compressed into a finite document, it can be compressed into a one-inch equation.
You are doing something very sacred here, something very daring, during your life upon the earth. You are defining yourself, and then recreating yourself anew, in each golden moment of Now.

hannibal

  • Young Beast
  • **
  • Posts: 54
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: my thoughts on a TOE (theory of everything)
« Reply #3 on: January 01, 2011, 01:46:41 am »

For example, a description of "Chair" could be done by inserting all things we think of as being chairs into this aggregate. 


If I interpret you correctly, It looks like you are searching for a way to draw a blueprint of a universe, that gives instructions on how to build that universe.

Or maybe you are throwing a collection of ingredients into an association or a collection, like a finite? set of objects, then like a jig-saw puzzle, you will attempt to fit the pieces together in a logical order.

I suspect that all that is ultimately required to  build a universe is 1 and 0   %*)



Ravening

  • Weres
  • High Priest
  • *
  • Posts: 229
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • ware-ing a hat because I'm balder than Picard
Re: my thoughts on a TOE (theory of everything)
« Reply #4 on: January 01, 2011, 01:52:25 am »

For example, a description of "Chair" could be done by inserting all things we think of as being chairs into this aggregate. 


If I interpret you correctly, It looks like you are searching for a way to draw a blueprint of a universe, that gives instructions on how to build that universe.
That's a good way to put it.

Quote
Or maybe you are throwing a collection of ingredients into an association or a collection, like a finite? set of objects, then like a jig-saw puzzle, you will attempt to fit the pieces together in a logical order.
Something like that, but yea with your insight, the post might make more sense in its big picture sense.

Quote
I suspect that all that is ultimately required to  build a universe is 1 and 0   %*)

That'd be swell.
You are doing something very sacred here, something very daring, during your life upon the earth. You are defining yourself, and then recreating yourself anew, in each golden moment of Now.

hannibal

  • Young Beast
  • **
  • Posts: 54
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: my thoughts on a TOE (theory of everything)
« Reply #5 on: January 01, 2011, 02:32:49 am »
We are constructed of reality pixels, 1 and 0.

I made a picture of myself using a checkerboard interference pattern...


Ravening

  • Weres
  • High Priest
  • *
  • Posts: 229
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • ware-ing a hat because I'm balder than Picard
Re: my thoughts on a TOE (theory of everything)
« Reply #6 on: January 01, 2011, 02:34:56 am »
That picture is scary in its lack of talent. Scarier than your avatar of some old man.   :-fly) :-fly)

Your eyes do look big though.  Do you see a lot?
You are doing something very sacred here, something very daring, during your life upon the earth. You are defining yourself, and then recreating yourself anew, in each golden moment of Now.

onishadowolf

  • Weres
  • Realized Monster
  • *
  • Posts: 1473
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • FaceBook
Re: my thoughts on a TOE (theory of everything)
« Reply #7 on: January 01, 2011, 03:04:45 am »
Building a universe using binary code. First you have to have all info on the universe/multiverse to convert it, sadly though we have only scratched the surface of the universe/multiverse.
-The shadows connect us all-

Ravening

  • Weres
  • High Priest
  • *
  • Posts: 229
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • ware-ing a hat because I'm balder than Picard
Re: my thoughts on a TOE (theory of everything)
« Reply #8 on: January 01, 2011, 03:07:15 am »
More like transcribing what's there.
Building a universe would be nifty.
You are doing something very sacred here, something very daring, during your life upon the earth. You are defining yourself, and then recreating yourself anew, in each golden moment of Now.

hannibal

  • Young Beast
  • **
  • Posts: 54
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: my thoughts on a TOE (theory of everything)
« Reply #9 on: January 01, 2011, 03:43:45 am »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_ensemble#Criticisms_and_responses

Quote
  Tegmark's response in [8] (sec VI.A.1) is to offer a new hypothesis "that only Godel-complete (fully decidable) mathematical structures have physical existence.
 



« Last Edit: January 01, 2011, 03:45:31 am by hannibal »

onishadowolf

  • Weres
  • Realized Monster
  • *
  • Posts: 1473
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • FaceBook
Re: my thoughts on a TOE (theory of everything)
« Reply #10 on: January 01, 2011, 03:49:00 am »
This is from Wiki, it has the basics of what you are looking for.

""M-theory
M-theory is a theory in physics, that incorporates and generalizes the five superstring theories. It was first proposed by Edward Witten in 1995, during a conference at USC. While not complete, M-theory can be applied in many situations, ironically including supernatural situations. The incompleteness of this theory provides good ground for the formulation of an M-theory creation model.
An interesting side note of M-theory is that in naming it, Witten he did not say what the M stands for. He has stated that “’M’ stands for ‘magic,’ ‘mystery’ or ‘membrane,’ depending on your taste.” Other suggestions included “matrix” and “mother of all theories”. However has will be show below, from a Creation Science stand point M would best stand for miracles.
The one down side to M-theory, is that at present it make no unique predictions that could be used to falsify it or at least none that are currently testable, but this is a common difficulty with cutting edge theories that under development. This is a problem of developing the theory and technology catching up, and is not inherent to M-theory itself.
Basic Concept

Before M-theory, superstring theory required 10 dimensions (9 special dimensions and 1 time dimension) were the extra 6 dimensions are curled up many orders of magnitude smaller than an atom, thus making them imperceivable. M-theory not only adds an 11th dimension but allows the extra 7 dimensions to be as large or larger than the 4 dimensions of space-time that are already known. One way of dealing with the extra 7 dimensions called Matrix theory, proposes that the extra 7 dimensions are related to the 4 dimensions of space-time in a non-spatial ways, like time, but this explanation is a little vague.

A more elegant solution is based on membranes. Membranes are multidimensional objects also called p-brane referring to the spatial dimensionality (p) of a particular brane, such that a 1 dimensional string would be a 1-brane and a 2 dimensional surface would be a 2-brane. These structures are generally referred to as branes. Resulting from M-theory equations, they are membrane-like structures consisting of from 1-11dimensions. The idea is that these branes exists in an 11-dimensional space, and that they contain universes. According to this model our universe is a 3-brane. This 11-dimensional space is called the bulk in Brane cosmology.

Each of these branes is its own universe and could have different laws. Further more these parallel universes could be closer than your computer screen, but in directions we can not perceive. Also since they are outside the space time of our universe, they would have a time all their own. The Bulk could even have its own distinct time or no time at all.
Strings on Branes


In M-theory, most of the strings of string theory; in our universe; are open and attached to our 3 brane at their ends, these in clued the particles that make up atoms and transmit three of the four forces. Sense the atoms of our bodies are attached to our 3 brane we can not move off of it into the extra 7 dimensions. Furthermore since we perceive the universe entirely there interactions with electromagnetism (light) and interaction with matter; that is likewise attached to our 3 brane; we can not see or otherwise perceive the extra 7 dimensions. This is one reason why it is difficult but not impossible to test.

The exception among the four forces is gravity whose particle (graviton) is a closed loop, allowing gravitons to go out into the extra 7 dimensions, which is why gravity is so much weaker than, the other tree forces. This is an aspect of M-theory that provides the possibility of testing it in the near future.

This also shows that interaction can occur between branes. In this case gravitons from one brane are shown interacting with another, this has been proposed an explanation for dark matter. It is likely that gravitons are not the only closed loop strings and that other particles are capable of interacting with other branes.


One possibility is that some open strings could be attached to one brane by at only one end, and if another brane is close enough such strings could also be attached to the other brane thus providing another way for interaction to occur between branes.
Another possible way for interactions to occur between branes is for them to come into contact with each other. In fact collisions between branes have been proposed as a possible cause for the Big Bang proposed by Evolutionists as the beginning of the universe, however this is speculative and not a requirement of M-theory.
Thus an important aspect of M-theory is the existence of realities parallel to ours and that interactions are possible between them and ours.
M-theory and the Supernatural

Once upon a time parallel universes were an unacceptable topic in physics. It was a topic that resulted in ridicule. Partly because of the inherent difficulty in testing such a model but it also extended from philosophical position of naturalism. The tendency was to see our universe as all the ever was, and all that ever will be, so the notion that there was any thing outside our universe simply came to close to religion for the taste of some. M-theory has changed that by bring the idea of parallel universes into the mainstream of physics.
Since the supernatural can be considered as anything from outside our universe, the direct interactions between anything and anyone from outside our universe by definition are supernatural events. In fact the event where Christ appeared to his disciples in a locked room can be easily understood in terms of Christ being able move his resurrected body through higher dimensions since the room would be open to those. So by using parallel universes M-theory blurs the line between natural and supernatural, this not only provides a scientific door the supernatural but is also provides a physical theory for possibly modeling such events in a testable manner.

The Bible mentions several places that in our current form are both unseen an unreachable. In 2 Corinthians 12:2 the Apostle Paul speaks of being “caught up to the third heaven”. The third heaven seems to be the place where believers go at death, while there is no specific mention of a second heaven; it is implied by the reference to the third heaven. Since what we call space is called heaven in Genesis 1, it is likely our universe is the first heaven, this is supported by Revelation 21:1. It is likely the second heaven is where angles and demons do their thing; in any case that realm is both unseen an unreachable. The Bible also mentions two other places hell and the lake of fire, they too in our current form are both unseen an unreachable. In M-theory all of these unseen and unreachable places could be on separate branes. Furthermore M-theory shows hows these different branes can interact, thus allowing the spiritual world and ours to interact.
M-theory and Creation Science

For Creation Science, M-theory offers tools for modeling phenomenon and dealing with problems in unique ways. For example a very near by brane (d<<10-36m) might react electromagnetically with our brane. If matter on the other brane were extremely cold it would draw heat form our brane, thus removing any excess resulting from accelerated nuclear decay, and high geologic activity. Now this is just speculation, but such possibilities would seem to be a natural result of M-theory. The point is that M-theory allows for the modeling of events that by definition would be considered miracles, thus the statement above is the M in M-theory should stand for miracles. Now such models dose not take God and other spiritual beings out of the equation, but simply provides a model of how miracles may work, after all knowing how a car works does not eliminate the designers or builders of that car.
By providing tools for the modeling of miracles, M-theory changes the scientific landscape in a manner favorable to Creation Science. While this will not deter hard core anti-creationists it is a great opportunity and one that needs to be pursued.""
-The shadows connect us all-

Ravening

  • Weres
  • High Priest
  • *
  • Posts: 229
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • ware-ing a hat because I'm balder than Picard
Re: my thoughts on a TOE (theory of everything)
« Reply #11 on: January 01, 2011, 03:50:12 am »
Great, a new hypothesis!

Now as far as M-theory is concerned, that is regarding a unified field theory, not a theory of everything as described in my opening post.

Tegmark's work is closer to what I've been doing.
You are doing something very sacred here, something very daring, during your life upon the earth. You are defining yourself, and then recreating yourself anew, in each golden moment of Now.

onishadowolf

  • Weres
  • Realized Monster
  • *
  • Posts: 1473
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • FaceBook
Re: my thoughts on a TOE (theory of everything)
« Reply #12 on: January 01, 2011, 04:03:26 am »
True, but I think merging the two could bring you closer to what you want.
-The shadows connect us all-

Ravening

  • Weres
  • High Priest
  • *
  • Posts: 229
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • ware-ing a hat because I'm balder than Picard
Re: my thoughts on a TOE (theory of everything)
« Reply #13 on: January 01, 2011, 04:13:38 am »
That would be what I want but that is a large mountain far away, I'm closer to a plateau on this mountain I'm on; I think I'll climb it and then maybe take on that other mountain.  Kinda like twin peaks though as the two mountains are very connected.

What I've got is what I think the shape of a finite TOE can be.  Wrote me a little article about it.  One of my academia contacts noticed a little flaw which invalidated the whole thing but I just removed the strength of my conclusion and it still had the same overall impact as far as result.  What I claim is that the reduced product of all mathematical structures is a TOE and that has a finite description.  It doesn't say anything about that reduced product, just that that is it, assuming a few things like reality being independent of mankind and that a structure with the property that all structures are embedded within it, is a description of reality.
You are doing something very sacred here, something very daring, during your life upon the earth. You are defining yourself, and then recreating yourself anew, in each golden moment of Now.

hannibal

  • Young Beast
  • **
  • Posts: 54
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: my thoughts on a TOE (theory of everything)
« Reply #14 on: January 01, 2011, 05:29:30 am »
The geometric basis for the nomological relations is an important factor in the isomorphism between physical reality and abstract reality. Topological spaces always contain non-empty sets of individuals i.e. points. all sets within the toe are networked in a topological hierarchy. Descriptive incusion becomes isomorphic with topological inclusion.



 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk