PrimalMinister

What is space exactly, according to the current theories?

We don't have to discuss my theory; we can just discuss the origin of the laws. If you actually think about it, they must originate in space; that's the only possible location they could be. Where else are they going to originate? I honestly just think you are toying with me for fun while I am here for a serious, important conversation.

Look, I've come here for a serious conversation. I believe I can further our knowledge of the universe. But you have to actually exercise your brilliant intelligence. If we are to keep it simple and just think about the origin of the laws of the universe, it would be obvious to you that they must originate in spacetime; that's the only possible location they could be.

Something is going on with space; empty space won't have any laws.

Look, lets keep it simple and talk about the origin of the order. Ive said the order originates in spacetime, what is so wrong about this? They have to originate somewhere, where are the possible locations?

Of course it is. I believe physics can explain the origin of the order, so it's not metaphysics.

Sorry, I didn't see this post. Configuration is fine with me. My questions go unanswered as well. Look, can we put the forum politics aside and just discuss the nature of spacetime? What is space in the current theories?

Look, I'm not the specialist; you are. You have a responsibility to explain the universe to people like me. But I understand enough to be able to able to ask serious questions and provide a solution to problems unanswered by current theories. I'm not making out I have all the answers, but you don't either, so we are both ignorant in ways. The point is, why are we not working together to explain the mystery of the universe? Why is it a mystery? What's the problem exactly? This should be taken very seriously because a lot is at stake here; the whole human race depends on you taking it seriously.

That's ridiculous. I'm sorry I haven't answered your comments; I am trying to address all of them. This is not meant to be a me vs. you debate; it's meant to be debating the mystery to see if we can make headway, which is what is most important. Physicists shouldn't look down at people; they have a responsibility to explain the mystery, not mock people for questioning their theories.

I'm not asking you to discard the current theory, I'm asking you to think about the facts. I don't care about what we do know; I care about what we don't know. You quoting current knowledge is hubris; I want you to put your brilliant minds into action to explain what we don't know. Help me understand why my origin explanation is stupid and wrong. Why is saying that spacetime is generating matter, an original idea, so ridiculous?

I think physics suffers from a lack of philosophy, as it's simply not asking the right questions. If we don't know something, it's a mystery; we have to penetrate that mystery. I mean, in relativity, spacetime curves, how exactly, if space is just empty? Something is going on with spacetime; space isn't just a void. So I have explained the origin and ubiquity of the laws of the universe, and I am only an algorithm short of it being a full theory. What's wrong with my explanation of the origin? Can you think of a better one?

This is normal science in the current paradigm; the biggest question is how the universe imbues reality with laws, i.e. where do the laws of the universe come from.

its a starting point, there is no point trying to point out its not complete when I said its not complete. I want this to be a discussion about the state of physics. The big bang rests on an assumption that might not be true, that the laws of the universe just magically kick in and persist in apparently empty space. What are physicists trying to work out exactly? Or is Sabine Hossenfelder right and they are lost in math?

If I am right, and I believe I am, it would be a paradigm shift and its self evident it would be. It is science, it's taking scientific principles and applying them to the universe as a whole in a novel and original way.

Polymorphic means to pass through many states, and that is what these units of polymorphic spacetime do; at any given point in time, they could be representing the centre of a star or the middle of empty space and everything in between. Well, we have matter and the four fundamental forces, which conform to certain rules, the laws of the universe. It's like a holographic plate; you have the whole universe in every unit, which means the laws of the universe emerge out of spacetime, and they are contained in every unit of spacetime as rules that give rise to what we already know. This wouldn't be normal science; it would be a paradigm shift. Ok, so it's not a full theory, it's rather a framework that needs more work, but I want to know if it's a good starting point. If I had the algorithm, it would be a full theory; it shouldn't be too hard to work out if someone has good problem-solving skills. It doesn't have to be a holograph; you could say a tile-based world from game programming. Take a chess board, you create one tile that can be black or white, or black with a white king, white with a black king and so on, then just repeat the tile 64 times for the board and have it manifest the state according to the rules of the game. So this is what I am saying is going on with space: that space is divided into units that can be anything from matter to empty space; they are polymorphic. These units change their state over time according to the rules of the algorithm. I would say that these units of spacetime are machines, so the universe is a machine made of machines. The macro is like the micro. It's only a framework at present, and it needs more work. But I already have all this stuff just from its definition, stuff that remains unexplained, it's very economical like that.

Sorry for being away for some time; life got in the way. I will explain the theory briefly; it should be obvious that, simply by its definition, it could be a theory of everything. With a holographic plate, you have the whole image in every part. I suggest that this is what is happening in our universe. So space is composed entirely of units of polymorphic spacetime, and you embed all the laws of the universe abstractly into every unit of space and just have them manifest over time. This explains the origin and ubiquity of the laws of the universe; they originate in every unit of space and are everywhere because they are in every unit of space. Time is a cycle where the unit of space creates and destroys a generation of reality. In this theory, reality is everything that occurs in spacetime; reality is virtual and being generated by the underlying spacetime. This explains how the laws of the universe appear to be fixed despite being as dynamic as the things they are supposedly governing; it would also put gravity and atomic behaviour under the same framework. It also explains itself without requiring anything additional, so it is self-evident. It's also the simplest universe you could possibly have that can support the level of complexity we observe. It would also be the final eternal truth about the universe, as the units of polymorphic spacetime are immortal, which explains how God did it. OK, so I don't have the math, but this framework already has explanatory power. And you're likely looking at an algorithm that gives rise to the maths we already know. But this is the kicker: the units of polymorphic spacetime contain all the laws of the universe, which include all the known laws and the unknown laws. The unknown laws of the universe, when discovered, will commoditise space travel, finally allowing us to leave the solar system, and it will also give us cheap, green energy. So, is this a good start for a theory of everything?

Mustn't you ponder the mystery to penetrate it and gain insight? This is what I have done, I have took in all the evidence and come up with a solution. And some of the maths out there is abstract mathematics and not real. Take relativity, spacetime isn't real, its abstract, its just a mathematical tool, its just that it explains the properties of gravity to the best of our knowledge. It's not a deeper insight into the nature of reality.

I mean what are you looking for in a theory of everything? Something eternal? Or temporary? Or is it just eternal for this universe? A theory of everything will give us some insights into the laws of the universe, what do you think these insights will be?

Ok, so I am doing the philosophy of physics. The laws of the universe are everywhere, work in any orientation, and are relative to the things they are supposedly governing. Philosophy asks how the universe manages to pull that off, and maths describes how things move. In the standard model, there is no explanation for how the laws of the universe got everywhere, they just magically do. This begs the question and needs an answer, my framework, or outline gives a credible answer. I mean, can you tell me how the laws of the universe got everywhere? You are the specialists.

I would argue that is what I am doing. I am taking a principle from holography (but the same idea is in other fields as well) and applying it to the universe as a whole, and suddenly, I get all this explanatory stuff before I even get to the maths. So I reckon this is a good place to start. And if true it will be self-evident so while supporting evidence is nice it is not required.

Ok, but if I was going to do the maths I would start here, as I get so much from so little. Do you think it is a bad starting point?

Physics isn't some magical thing only people who do maths can participate in. I read about and listen to physicists talk. If my life had been different I might have the maths, I don't. But existing physicists can't explain the origin of the laws of the universe so it begs an answer. My abstraction polymorphic spacetime is rich and economical, it explains a number of fundamental mysteries about the universe with a simple framework.

I don't know if this is the right forum but as I am an amateur physicist this one seems appropriate. My threads, much to my frustration usually get shut down and I don't think it's very much in the spirit of science, especially because it addresses a very serious subject. I may be an amateur but that doesn't stop me from understanding and solving problems within physics. I don't have the math but I do have a simple abstraction that explains numerous things about the laws of the universe. At present, our current models just assume the laws of the universe kick in at the big bang, there is no explanation for why this happens, it just magically does. You might as well say that an all-powerful God is willing things to be the way they are and at a moment's notice could change it. At present, physicists have got as far as understanding that we have laws, but not 'why' we have laws (this isn't a dig at scientists, I am just stating a fact). And I am not talking about the metaphysical reasons why we have the laws we do, I am talking about the physical reasons why we have the laws we do. So while my theory doesn't have the math it's an excellent start to a theory because if right it explains the following: The origin of the laws of the universe (in space at least, not in time) The ubiquity of the laws of the universe (how they get everywhere) How the universe is imbuing reality with the laws of the universe The physical reasons for why we have the laws we do Current models have no explanation for the above and are also based on questionable assumptions. And this is why I think it's worthy of a discussion because it is essentially, if right, a theory of everything. And that's the thing, if I am right, then the human race makes the greatest discovery of all time, the final eternal truth about the universe. That is why I come here, to see if I can inspire someone to look at it closer. I am not sure physicists are asking the right questions of the universe and its laws which is why they are struggling to uncover the secrets of the universe. But the thing is, they are so close, there is not that much to work out. I think physics has stagnated because physicists are no longer interested in the philosophy of physics anymore and are therefore not asking the right questions thus not getting the right answers. My simple abstraction is called polymorphic spacetime, it takes a principle found in a number of scientific and engineering fields and applies it to the universe on the whole. There is nothing unscientific about it and I think it deserves discussion because it touches on so many interesting topics, like the title of this post. I mean the origin of the laws of the universe seems so obvious to me now but it is a complete mystery to the billions of other humans on the planet. I think a discussion on the origin of the laws of the universe is a worthy discussion to have, especially when I am offering a simple, reasonable, uncomplicated explanation of the origin. So what do the moderators think? Can I have one thread so I can join in on the discussion?

I hope this thread has a good conversation on the topics I will post about because I don't want the thread prematurely shut down again. This is serious business as forwarding human understanding for everyone on earth is at stake. I do not have a degree in physics but I think that may have been an advantage as I was able to ponder the problems I wanted to without the pressure of conforming to academia, funding and prizes. For example, many physicists may believe a theory of everything is the unification of relativity and quantum mechanics, but that may not be what the theory of everything is. I know the emphasis is on me to explain this framework however, it answers questions contemporary physics does not so if you are going to stick with orthodox theories you also have a responsibility to explain the things that are not explained, things I am explaining. I think it is only fair you provide alternative explanations within the orthodoxy. Saying and accepting we don't know isn't acceptable, as Einstein said, imagination is more important than knowledge. You have to know as much about the unknowns as you do the knowns, hence I think this thread is worthy of being kept open as it is a discussion about serious subjects. This framework bucks the trend in the big bang theory to add more to explain more and goes in the opposite direction, explaining more with less. In fact, Stephen Wolfram's work is good evidence for this framework because he proved that is not hard to get complexity from simplicity. My intellectual contribution is the reduction of physics, the universe and reality to a single object, what I have called a unit of polymorphic spacetime. You will notice I said the universe AND reality because in this theory they are two different things. I have taken a principle from holography and applied it to the universe as a whole. Immediately the origin of the laws of the universe is explained, along with their ubiquity, plus you have the reasons why we have the laws we do. Not the metaphysical reasons why we have the laws we do, the physical reasons we have the laws we do. The big take on this is that things do not move around spacetime, instead, spacetime moves things about. So what is a unit of polymorphic spacetime? Well in holography you will find that if you take a holographic plate and fire a laser at it you get a 3D image. However, if you cut the holographic plate into quarters and fire a laser at one quarter you will not get a quarter of the image, you will get the whole image a quarter of the size. This is because the whole image is in every part of the plate. This is what polymorphic spacetime is, it is space and time packaged up in units that contain ALL the laws of the universe in abstract. This explains the origin of the laws of the universe because the universe, like a holographic plate, contains the whole in every part. This also explains the ubiquity, the fact the laws of the universe are everywhere. Furthermore, it explains the physical reasons for why we have the laws we do, it explains how they emerge out of the void. Alas, this cannot be a theory of everything because the 2nd law of thermodynamics holds true meaning the universe dies in a heat death the same as in the big bang. Stars are never created, you have to play God and create the initial conditions for stars in simulations. I have a theory on stars, it includes introducing an object that is like the units of polymorphic spacetime but different. Many people won't like it because it will mean that the universe has a remarkably simple, highly sophisticated, incredibly beautiful design that is not only a marvel of engineering but is also a profound, sublime work of art. The universe is already quite incredible, it may be even more incredible. It doesn't need a God however, not a creator God anyway, as the units of polymorphic spacetime, and the universe itself being entirely composed of them, are immortal. So this post is about units of polymorphic spacetime, not the second object, so there is no discussion about whether the universe has a design, just whether or not you can provide a better origin story. Anyway, back to the theory. As I said earlier the universe and reality are two different things, the universe is real but reality is virtual, spacetime is real and everything that occurs in spacetime is virtual. This is because the units of polymorphic spacetime are generating reality in a never-ending process of creation and destruction with every generation of reality popping in and out of existence and strung together to animate us. So we have this principle of having the whole in every part. A unit of polymorphic spacetime is a cube that contains all the laws of the universe in abstract, as potential. Space is composed of units of polymorphic spacetime. Everything is touched by space. Time is how matter and forces manifest going from potential to actual in a never-ending process of creation and destruction. The input for a unit's creation process is the output of its direct neighbour's destruction process and likewise, the output of its destruction process is the input for its neighbour's creation process. The creation and destruction of reality is what causes things to move around and hold their state according to the laws we already know. Physicists dont have a lot of room for manauvre but it just so happens this framework is within that space.

We have oceans, land and an atmosphere, is it any surprise that we have things swimming in the water, walking on the land and flying in the air? I mean the design of a wing comes from the aerodynamics of the air, wasn't it inevitable wings ended up the way they did? I mean there is light, we end up with eyes, there is sound, we end up with ears, what else was going to happen?