My Theory Of Everything. (Still Mathematically Incomplete)

[Dubbelosix]

1. The big bang was not the origin of time, and to achieve that, I have decided that a pre-big bang phase could hold new secrets about a much more primordial phase of the universe from which the observable horizon originated from.

 

2. The pre big bang phase was a supercold dense all-matter fluid dominated region which underwent a Helmholtz-Gibbs thermodynamic phase transition in which it collapsed into a gas radiation vapor phase. This can be demonstrated easily to satisfying the current understanding that the post big bang phase is primarily dominated with radiation. This would be the residual energy left over from that phase transition.

 

3. The phase transition into the radiation vapor phase is an irreversible process, owed to the strong gravitational fields during this phase. In other words, the curvature of spacetime allows an irreversible particle creation giving rise to what is known as the nucleosythesis process of early cosmology. This leads to another phase the second condensed phase in the third era.

 

4. The early radiation underwent some kind of inflationary phase also which led to photons transmutating into matter. Clearly most of the radiation has condensed into different phases of diffused matter, since matter is but a concentration of energy (a provable experimental fact of nature). The fact that antipartcles when meeting their particle cousins reduce back into photon energy, may be telling us that particles are just bounds of electromagnetic fluctuations. I draw on the Casimir electron, which involves its charge interacting with a virtual photon - the result was that it generated the mass and other facets of the observale properties of the electrin, eventually with a corrected fine structure to excellent degrees.

 

5. According to 4, I explained a ''type of inflation phase'' since I object to Guths origiinal proposal as the reason for inflation. My concerns are not baseless, in the last year I learned that the founders of the proposal were now being rejected because it leads to eternal inflation. A not-so-novel solution is that a rotary property of the universe that I began to think bout, could have been responsible for the universe inflating to great degree's due to an internal centrifugal force. With some investigation into the works of Sivaram and Arun, the Friedmann equation could take into account the rotary phase but they did not justify it. I later showed you could justify it through a series of equations of motion derived from the classical equations. I also suggested it could explain dark flow, a subject that held fascination with me for a long time because more acute observations seem to indicate it is a  real phenomenon, with scientists suggesting, quite speculative theories about large masses existing outside the observable horizon which was 'tugging on the matter in a particular directionality.'' Instead, it seems, this directionality would also arise from a rotary feature to the universe. The real reason we want to go forward with this, is simply due to the fact that a rotary feature to the universe makes the universe itself a system which` follows the laws of the full Poincare group of spatial symmetries.

 

6. Since very little can be said about the pre-big bang phase (which is largely untestable at this moment) there are some things we will expect. A pre-big bang phase has been commonly misunderstood as a situation that must imply a pre-Plankian phase. This is entirely an old idea and has been refuted in at least three ways I know of over the years. The pre-big bang phase could very well have been a primordial egg which was in the Planck scale dynamics. If this is the case then it will follow the rules of quantum mechanics. Secondly, since change must occur in the pre-big bang phase giving rise to an instability and collapse to further implode in radiation energy implies that even entropy applies to the pre big bang phase.

 

7. Of course the issue of where this ''pre big bang phase'' came from, is just as puzzling as the questions surrounding where the big bang itself came from. Since gravitational effects dominate in the pre-big bang phase, some other, not-so-novel but quite intelligent solutions can answer these problems, I predict, in unique ways as our understanding of physics increases. I remain hopeful, for instance, a universe creating itself. At first this seems like a paradox, but I independently came to the conclusion a number of years ago that the universe could create itself in a curved timelike loop.

Edited May 24, 2018 by Dubbelosix

[Moronium]

Well, you've made a whole lot of factual claims about events that happened over 13 billion years ago, so you obviously  know a lot that no one else knows.  Poor Einstein struggled for decades to come up with a "theory of everything," yet failed, not to even mention innumerable other prominent physicists who have worked on this for decades.

 

Be sure and let us know when the math is "complete," eh?  That will surely prove, once and for all, that your knowledge is correct.  Math knows everything.

 

It's a good thing you didn't put this in the "alternate theories" sub-forum.  Some poor soul might have missed out on the truth if you'd done that.

Edited May 22, 2018 by Moronium

[A-wal]

Predictions!?!

 

6. "Secondly, since change must occur in the pre-big bang phase giving rise to an instability and collapse to further implode in radiation energy implies that even entropy applies to the pre big bang phase."

 

A 'theory of everything' is one that includes quantum mechanics and general relativity as subsets in the same framework. Good luck!

[Super Polymath]

Are you almost there?

[Super Polymath]

[Vmedvil2]

Looking good dubbel, now you just have to explain the 4 forces, since you have a expansion equation, as energy or temperature or force or entropy or Lagrangian in their current state since you have the BB structure already that comes from the BB structure. I can't wait to see you pull this off, which does dubbel choose to display the current universe state in after the decoupling of forces. I did Lagrangian from binding energy field(Graviton field). There is going to be a big dubbel equation here in a moment or a very long system of them, a really long one just wait especially once he starts to get into particle interaction through the Weak Nuclear force,

Edited July 28, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Super Polymath]

There is going to be a big dubbel equation here in a moment or a very long system of them, a really long one just wait especially once he starts to get into particle interaction through the Weak Nuclear force,

[Shustaire]

Dubbleosix I recommend you approach this toy modelling under a more rigid approach. Study group theory, first define your metric rules, obviously GR is a good choice but for quantum effects a betteer choice would be under QFT. Then look at the symmetry gauge groups [math] SO(3)\otimes SO(2)\otimes U(1)[/math], you will find that physics in all the SM arena is far more readily understood by examination of these groups. You have some of the tools already to excel your understanding by already knowing many of the inner, outer, exterior product relations under Dirac notation. Study how these terms relate to the tensors of a group spinor relations

 

An FYI for all readers, one of the fastest ways to piece together a good understanding of physics today regardless of theory is to understand how the gauge groups work. (all modern physics theories employ them).

Edited July 28, 2018 by Shustaire

[Super Polymath]

You've setup the perfect basis in which to utilize my E8. If you plot it I swear to God all of my conjectures on dark flow, non-BB cyclic cosmology, sub planck particles, & ESP would be confirmed.

 

Unfortunately I've envisioned the behavior of this particular cellular automaton to form my conjectures, but it would take years of calculus to acquire the extensive vocabulary needed to plot that E8, & as-of-yet theoretical forms of computation. Just managing to use the cellular automaton to create such types of computing necessary to plot it's own behavior (retrospectively forming an extension to the periodic table of elements to the point of becoming universal, without any uncertainties in it's particle's positions & momenta) would equate to physically detecting tachyons. That's what Einstein's potential unified field oscillations were supposed to be able do to our cosmological model. But the Philadelphia Experiment must have failed to use ESP signalling to achieve UFOs to make the presence of Navy Destroyers & comm channels completely undetectable to the enemy.

 

I cannot stress the kind of scientific break-though such a new elementary physics would lead to!

[Vmedvil2]

Dubbleosix I recommend you approach this toy modelling under a more rigid approach. Study group theory, first define your metric rules, obviously GR is a good choice but for quantum effects a betteer choice would be under QFT. Then look at the symmetry gauge groups [math] SO(3)\otimes SO(2)\otimes U(1)[/math], you will find that physics in all the SM arena is far more readily understood by examination of these groups. You have some of the tools already to excel your understanding by already knowing many of the inner, outer, exterior product relations under Dirac notation. Study how these terms relate to the tensors of a group spinor relations

 

An FYI for all readers, one of the fastest ways to piece together a good understanding of physics today regardless of theory is to understand how the gauge groups work. (all modern physics theories employ them).

 

 

Dubbel already did a SO( 8 ) I calculated it myself, unlike polymath here it seems that Dubbel has actually constructed a Thermal E8 with connections to entropy of the BH and other particle systems, that is why I am so interested to how Dubbel treats the forces in their current state.

Edited July 30, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Super Polymath]

 how Dubbel treats the forces in their current state.

He would have derived that from what I write here:

 

 

Let's say you have three dimensions, x,y,z; each with a value of one in a linear time continuum going one, & a negative xyz each with a value of 1 in a negative arrow of time going the other. Now in a lateral dual continuum .3 of each linear continuum going in through each other, canceling out, now xyz have a value of .7 with a total of 2.1 dimensions. Now in our next reel point .2 of each arrow has passed into each other, leaving a value of .8 for xyz, with a total of 2.4 dimensions. From reel one to reel two the dimensions of space time have increased, this is time contraction (fast forward) the reverse of time dilation (slow motion).

 

Or from the same notion. Constantly remove a volume & you're constantly instantly accelerating by the volume removed.

[Super Polymath]

[marcospolo]

All that math, and you still have not realized that its not possible to figure out if or how the universe began, regardless of those equations.

The effort will result in a similarly unbelievable and ludicrous hypothesis to the BigBang  fantasy story.

[Dubbelosix]

That is where you are wrong, perhaps what you mean, it is impossible to prove a theory, which is foundationally-true. My view on unification, does not mean we will find a single network of equations to describe a universe, but will ultimately be contested with other interpretations. 

[Dubbelosix]

But in theory, it should be possible to show how the big bang arose. 

[marcospolo]

But in theory, it should be possible to show how the big bang arose. 

Its not possible to prove a theory with an experiment or with math, regardless of weather the theory is foundationally  sound or not.

 

And why would you think the theory of the Big Bang was actually something that really happened?  It's just a maths construct, not necessarily anything to do with the Universe or the physics thereof.

[Dubbelosix]

Its not possible to prove a theory with an experiment or with math, regardless of weather the theory is foundationally  sound or not.

 

And why would you think the theory of the Big Bang was actually something that really happened?  It's just a maths construct, not necessarily anything to do with the Universe or the physics thereof.

 

I don't have issues with big bang per se, I think it's missing some details. It seems very likely an event called big bang happened, we just have to understand why.