ponderer

Well, I must be in uncharted territory. Whatever you want to call it, it is a fully functioning universe, most of which I can relate to the existing universe. I am sure the bits which I have not described contain the structure needed to compete the picture. You could apply a complete mathematical description to it if you wanted. My math skills such. I haven't had to use any serious math since I picked apart the Lorentz transformation in the late 90's, and I only needed algebra for that. Should I not bother publishing something I think is of interest, because I have not completed a mathematical analysis, because I lack the skills? If others agree that what I have produced is worthy of further study, they can work out the math. I can't think of any one person who was expected to explain the whole universe to everyone in detail, without getting anything wrong. As I understand, even Einstein got help with the math. Give me a break. This is my contribution. Take it for what it is worth. If it is worth nothing to you, then so be it. I just want it recorded. Maybe it will mean something to someone else, eventually. Maybe it will be the fools universe, like fools gold, a logical trap, a oddity of philosophy. Who knows, I am not blowing any horns, and jumping up and down saying I'm right. I am just happy to have a mental picture of the structure of space-time, even if it is not entirely correct. It's more than I had before. I had no idea how to make any sense of it. I puzzled over it for years.

Well that's funny, because I would distinguish a model, from a theory. Theories are mathematically defined. Models, well perhaps I am using the wrong term. You know, I built models when I was a kid. They looked like a small non-functional immitation of the real thing. They had the appearance, but not all the details that made them completely functional. Some people were amazing, they build model cars from scratch that were fully functional. Does that mean the others weren't really models?

Well, I guess there is no point watching my in box. That's really sucks in a way. You have to wait months before you can try re-submitting to another periodical. I guess they are out shark hunting, because I told the guy right up front that my article was way over their 3500 word limit. I figured I would get a rejection straight away just for that, never mind that I didn't include any references, since none were used, and I don't have any academic credentials. You know, you would think the polite and honourable thing to do, would be to acknowledge receipt and give an initial status. If they are having it reviewed, they should tell you. If the system works the way you say, they seem to have little respect for contributors.

This is definitely a philosophical discussion and rightly placed in a philosophy periodical, if it passes review. How long does it usually take before you receive a rejection notice?

You make some good, points. The study of physics, is actually the study of the Philosophy of Physcis. Along the way the Philisophy of got dropped. Philosophy is a very strict discilpine of logic underlying all mathematics, and material science. I cannot recommend highly enough the book The Philosophy of Science, J.C. Smart. Consequently, I personally think that there should be room for philosophical approaches and discussion in physics. That a model does not agree with observation is important for mainstream physics, in terms of research, industry, text books and such. However, a model may still have a certain philosophical elegance, and understanding its shortcomings may lead to better models. Being an impatient fool, whose father used to tell him all the time, if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself, and finding that physics wasn`t explaining what I wanted to know, well, you get the idea. I decided to used the rule of arbitration of believability, Occam`s Razor. I turned physics upside down. I did an end around, to cut to the chase. Find the absolute simplest explanation possible for existance, period, and a universe just fell out as a consequence. That is philosphical interesting if nothing else.

It's turtles all the way down sonny. The simplest explanation you can possibly have for anything is 1 and 0, where 1 is exists and 0 is does not exist, pertaining to one thing. That appear's to be the limit of Occam's Razor. For all of reality to exist you have to start with at least one thing.

It's visual. I talk about geometry, time, energy, and such. There is certainly mathematics underlying the geometry, but it is not required for the discussion. It really is a philosophy article. I would probably have trouble publishing in a physics periodical. It would be too controverisal. I just want to publish to preserve the model that I worked on all my life, so it is not lost when I die. I'm retired you see. I'm not up for a a huge argument to defend my model as a representation of the real universe. For me it doesn't have to be. I can live in my own universe. I thought I would never understand the underlying nature of space-time, electrons, and protons, and I may not, but in my model I can.

No math, well unless you consider the expression r^4, math. I believe that is the only math expression in the article. It's a model. The complextiy of the inputs into the model is absolute minimum, Occam's Razor, but it requires a tremedous energy input, that would make all the mass and energy in the universe a drop in the bucket. You could power up a pluriverse. The laws of physics would uniformly change over time, and the universe would eventually dissipate. Still it's an interesting exercise, and in that universe I can figure out how to do field propulsion, and probably even travel in hyperspace, by constructing an E-M worm. I see the structure of the manifold, and what protons, electrons, and neutrons are. I suppose you have to be the right kind of person, but I find it fun in a way. I started on this quest to get a visual model of the stuff under the math. That's what I got. Until someone can provide me with a believable one, for the real universe, I have at least a conceptual model from my natural universe.

I titled the article The Philosophy of Physics Or Making a Universe Model from Simple Logic It's about applying Occam's Razor, as a tool to form theory. You know, the Simplest Explanation. Simple Logic. I go through a half dozen or so simple logical steps to create a whole universe. Well, it's just two steps really but you need to logically arrive at those two steps. Once you start it rolling, it really creates itself. It's just getting to those two steps logically, and understanding the unfolding result. I define the qualitative difference between hyperspace and space-time and explain the nature and structure of space-time in the manifold. Most of it is just explaining the logic behind why each simple step is taken, and what happens as a result. The explanation faulters at the traditional divide of classical and quantum physics. I've just recently actually started contemplating quantization and how I would work it into the model. The bridge between classical physics and quantization, seems to be related to magnetism, well at least WRT protons, electrons, neutrons, and photons. It's just a model. I can't claim it explains the real universe. I call it the natural universe since it just happens, when you apply the simplest possible inputs. I mean that literally. I would challenge anyone the apply information theory to the simple construct and show any alternate starting point that could be simpler. In fact it depends on the absolute minimum input two work. If you change anything. It wont work. Once you establish the number of Euclidean dimensions your universe will have, logically, just adding the absolute simplest feature needed to demonstrate volume, energy, and time, plus one duplicate feature to add complexity, and a temporal symmetry breaking, and presto, you have a universe. There is not any math to speak of.

It's like annual compound interest. Any increased growth rate that exceeds that of the expected compound interest means the growth rate is accelerating. However, if the growth rate has varied over time, say on a parobolic sort of curve, you have to take that into account, as well as the fact that you are slicing through time. Big bang theories all show a very rapid growth rate at the beginning of time, which slowed in growth in a parabolic looking sort of plot of 4D radius vs. time. This curve must be factored in for any observations made of distant cosmological objects. Only once these things have been factored in can any current or recent growth rate be shown to be accelerating through observations of local galaxies. Let me put it this way. When you look billions of light years away, those were the days when galaxies were real galaxies and quasars were real quasars. They were young fresh out of big bang college, and looking to spread their wings. Now galaxies have gotten old and have been weighed down by their seeming black holes of troubles, and just don't seem to get around as much any more. You can't say because you look way back in time at the younger universe sipping around in hot cars, that the 60's are back, because you are driving a gas mizer sedan now. See that doesn't make sense to me. If you want to say the the rate of the universe is accelerating, then all the galaxies in the neighbourhood just got a mid-life crisis, and all went out and got Ferrari's and Harley's. It started with that Andromeda galaxy you know. Then everyone had to have one.

Not in the least. The more distant a object, the further back it is in time. If the universe was expanding faster in the past, and has slowed down since, viewing distant galaxies in the past, we will see them receeding faster than nearby galaxies in comparison. The nearby galaxies are in the present, and experiencing a slower growth rate. Seems elimentary to me. All distant galaxies can show us is what happened in the distant past.

I just read a post on a closed thread. It stated that the rate of the universe is expanding, because, distant galaxies and cosmololgical features are receeding faster than local galaxies. This makes no sense to me. It seems to me that being in the past, that they would be moving away faster if the galaxy was expanding faster in the past. I don't get it. My understanding was that the rate of expansion was determined as a relative rate of increase in reference distance, per time period. One would expect that if the rate of expansion was increasing, extactly the opposite would occur, local galaxies would receed faster that middle distance galaxies, but not faster than the most distant cosmological features. What have I got wrong?

I am going the route of trying to publish in a philosophy periodical. Of interest in writing the article, it occured to me that science has been trying to bridge the gap between classical physics and quantum mechanics. I have discovered a natural model that seems to explain many things, but it falls short at the divide between classical physics and quantum physics. Ultimately, this model is lacking in an explanation for magnetism and quantization at the same time. I put it to you that the explanation for magnetism eventually mined from this construct will likely be that bridge between classical physics and quantum physics, with the introduction of chiral behaviour, and rotational behaviour. I have already illucidated my thoughts on the geometry of magnetism, and how it might relate to this particular manifold. I expect that stable holes cannot form without some sort of spin caused by interface sheer. The thickness of the compression wave (wavelength), the sheer velocity, and the energy density of the compression wave, probably combine in some way to determine that only one size hole will be stable. Very speculative.

Thanks, That's what I needed to know. It is what I figured. I have submitted to one philosophy periodical. I will wait for the rejection before trying another. I supppose it is also bad form too, or even a copyright problem, if you publish the article on the net, in advance of any official publication?

I don't know if this is the place to discuss this, but, let's try and see where the moderators move this. I have written an article, which takes a philosopical approach to constructing a universe model. I have never published anything outside the company that I worked for. I am now reitred. I have decided that it would be best to publish in a philosophy periodical, since the model is based on a philosphical premise and reasoning, mixed with very little actual mathematics. I developed this model over a period of 40 years, and it represents my lifetime attempt to understand the actual universe. I am sure the model would be contentious. Of interest to me is that the philospophical line of reasoning, which I feel contains a degree of eligance, and profound simplicity, should not be lost, with my passing, and should be recorded somewhere. So what is the story on publishing? I can expect to submit the article to many periodicals and wait for the rejections, or should I look to be rejected one periodical at a time?

Yes, well the patent system seems designed to discourage you. Compare the patent system to the copyright system. I just designed a XC ski bike "ski track". I thought I would learn mechanical CAD with the apparent coming of the 3D printing revolution. All in all, adult Lego, I would say. It was fun and I considered patenting it, but I don't see myself un-retiring to get stressed out to make XC ski bikes. The patent system put me off. If you don't have a business plan, a patent is an unsupported high inital and ongoing recurring expense. Unless you intend to actually manufacture a product, right away, taking out a patent is just a game for the big guys. Your average home owner, or retiree for that matter, would find the expenses disrruptive to their lifestyle. It seems to me that a better way to do it would be to pay people to patent their ideas, and have a patent market for patents that might be useful. People only get paid if their patent sells on the market. Any patent that makes money on the open market pays an administration fee. If you intend to develop your own product and not sell the patent, then you pay the fees. Create an ideas market where the patent office is a broker. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I gave it some thought. It would have to be an ideal medium for compression waves. Since the intersection of the two waves presents the intersection of two compression waves at different distances from their sources, with wave density diminishing as a function of r^4, one wave would present a uniform less densely compressed wave front, meeting a uniformly higher compressed wave front. The effect may simulate an apparent interface between two different substances, when they are just the meeting of lower and higher density compression waves. This is like a warm front meeting a cold front, or an inversion layer. The depth of each wave is determined by its wavelength. Any oscillation in the intersection between the two wavefronts which exceeds the amplitude energy needed to punch through the wave front on either side, will create a whole. A hole through the less dense wavefront makes an electron. A hole through the more dense wavefront, makes a proton. There is something about the wave front interface, perhaps sheer, that seems to manifest magnetism. I am still trying to get my head around that. An electron and a proton would be represented as stable holes at the bottom of potential wells. That stability maybe due to some sort of higher dimensional spin. That spin may determine that only one size whole is going to be stable, thus leading to only two predomanent stable particles. Neutrons can be assembled from electrons and protons with a bit of topology. You see when you plot the electrostatic field potential for an electron and say that is an electron, and do the same for a proton, they orient in opposite directions. In that higher dimension the resulting magnetic fields from relative motion are an obvious same direction spin about an axis in that dimension. In 3D they manifest as opposite chiralty because their potential wells orient in opposite directions into that extra dimension. This is where wave front sheer might explain magnetic force. Like I said, I am still trying to get my head around it. I was schooled in higher dimensional spin by a very helpful and friendly Australian chap, that I met on usenet before the internet became a GUI. Spin is the same in all dimensions. You have 2 varient dimensions and x number of invariant dimensions. Spin about an Axis perpendicular to 3D can have any circular spin orientation in 3D without changing the extra-dimensional spin axis in any way. It might explain how a consistent extra-dimensional axis orientation can produce unlimited 2D spin orientation in 3D, to produce magnetism. When a charged particle moves, the spin orients to the direction of motion. When you add plots for particle electrostatic fields, the potential wells tip over off perpendicular. The direction of motion is directly related to the direction a potential well tips, and the force, how much it tips. Interestingly, the magnetic field is directly related to the direction of motion and the speed of the motion.

I wonder if shallow gravity waves in general, interfere with each other and produce occasional peaks. Is there such a thing as a soliton gravity wave?

I gave sunspots some passing thought. I postulated that the galaxy might have gravitational wave spiral arms, that have a wavelength of lightyears, that move faster than the actual stars that make up the galaxy. The spiral arms would then be buffetted by a shallow periodic gravitational tide with a period of years. When the tide is rising the increase in gravitational potential is balanced by reduced solar output, below baseline. When the tide is ebbing, the solar output increases above baseline, releasing the the energy equivalent to the loss of gravitational potential. Then you get solar flares and sun spots. They do seem to be somewhat cyclic. Just a passing thought. Edit to add another passing thought: If all galaxies produce vortex like extremely long period gratity waves, wouldn't that throw off some measurements of light bending around galaxies, depending on where and how the light hits the wave? The gross curvature of space is the whole point. If large scale gravity waves are involved they would be altering the gross curvature of space. Whatever. It's easy enough to test. Our neighbouring stars would have to increase and decrease in solar output in a predictable sequence, with ours, if galatic gravity waves are involved. You would think that someone would have noticed something like that.

I have no thoughts of patenting theory. Seems a odd thing to say. WRT to classes. I can't see myself commuting. If no one is interested, I await the private outcome of my experiments, completed in my own good time. At that point, I will decide what to do, if anything, either way. Such is life.

Yes, Yes. I am aware of this. I might eventually go down to the local university and talk to the resident cosmologist. In any case, it is not a theoy, in that I have not developed any mathematics to go with it. I was looking for the concept that underlies the math already in use. Clearly, there is some additional work to be done to turn the concept into a match with theory. I have no intention of thrusting this on anyone. I would be happy to share the credit with any physicist willing to doing the calculations, if the calculations prove fruitful. This is not inconvenient work without reward. It is an opportunity for someone, to publish a paper, just tack my name on as the collaborative source of the concept. As I have mentioned, I am retired and it took most of my life to come up with this conceptual model. I am working on some experiments, on my own dime, making every part myself. It would be nice to get some support. A mentoring professional, if the concept proves viable, might bring some funding, and some professional assistance. Oh Well, I will likely just go back to working on my experiments. At least if I do everything on my own dime, I don't have to share what I discover with anyone. This thread will disappear into obscurity, and the basic concept will be forgotten by any and all, dismissed as more crackpottery. The patent system stinks, and is a dissincentive to small inventors. I am quite comfortably retired. I had a full and rewarding career. I can just take it all to the grave with me, I don't need to make a name for myself. I thought I would report the outcome of a lifetime of pondering. I asked if it was of any value to anyone who might be in the field. I really don't know. If there are already good embedding theories, perhaps this has already been considered, or there are better more developed concepts. Perhaps, this model is of no use to anyone, which is fine too. It wont stop me from pondering and experimenting. The Little Red Hen

I have taken a totally philosophical path. I chose Occam's Razor as a philosopical tool. I started with trying to understand the structure of particles. Philosophically, Occam's Razor required that there are no particles, only space-time. Particles must be stable geometric convolutions of space-time. Einstein developed the concept of non-Euclidean space-time, and curved space in gravity wells, implicating a 4th dimension. Kaluza suggested that E-M could be included in a unified model with gravity, but it would require a 5th dimension. Plotting electro-static potential wells in 5D puts electrons and protons facing in opposite directions. Of interest relativistically, and WRT E-M is some of the fallout of this model. Magnetic lines of force which are opposite for electrons and protons in motion, may relate to a same direction spin about a higher dimensional access. Funny thing about spin, it is the same in all higher dimensions. You have two variant dimensions and X number of invariant dimensions. A spin axis perpendicular to 3-space can only have two variant dimensions at most in 3-space. I am still pondering this. Philosophically, the only thing required to get rid of the particle is to replace it with a hole in space-time. You can have a hole at the bottom of a potential well facing down or up, extra-dimensionally. The holes provide long term stablitiy, to massive "particles". A proton and an electron can be combined into a neutron, using a peculiar topology. At the time I felt that a 3D universe needed to be contained in 5D Euclidean space, for any of this to be viable. I postulated a concept of bi-space, where two things were colliding in higher dimensional space, and holes were being punched in either one by energy spikes that exceed the coheasive threshold. Non-massive particles just osclliate between the two sides of the bi-space interface. This is the simplest explanation. Occam's Razor. In 1971 I brought this idea to a Relativity Specialist who was a professor at the University of Toronto. He said that it was interesting but said I needed to provide some sort of causality. So, I pondered for many years. This is what I came up with. Two colliding 5D spherical waves, with one occuring after the other, but before the first wave reaches the source of the second wave. Philosophically, this is a very satisfying model in some ways. It provides a uniformly expanding universe, with uniform laws of physics defined by the properties of the greater medium and the grossly symmetrical wave collision interface. The model provides a manifold containment solution, in a 5D Euclidean space. I thought it might warrant some consideration. I would suspect that determining the wave propogation rate, the delta t and delta x between the two proposed spherical waves which most align with the most compatible existing theory, might be a good starting place. Wave length and frequency of the two waves would likely be factors, in the properties of the universe generated. If the growth rate curve can be exactly matched to an existing theory, things get interesting. I sent an e-mail to Sean Carroll, asking him to see if he might do such a caluclation. He did not reply to my emails. I guess if you don't have a PhD in physics and some leading edge publications, your voice falls on deaf ears.

What indeed? I don't pretend to have all the answers to anything. For all I know there is a regular 5D ripple tank running, making many universes at once. All I have is what appears to be the simplest model that allows for a contained 3D environment, in a 5D Euclidean space, which mimimics in some ways our universe. I had never seen one before I created it. Have you? I do not know to what extent the model can be examined to find further parallels. I figure that the wave is likely to dissipate energy as a function of r^4. The first wave should have less energy at the intersection than the second wave, since the intersection will always be closer to second wave source. This might account for the difference in the mass of the electron and the proton for example. No explanation, just speculation. I am not a physicist. I am also retired. I simply ponder, what might lay beneath and give rise to the equations.

Not concerned with balls, thanks, more concerned with spherical waves in a higher dimension Euclidean space. Spherical waves fit the bill since they form an expanding spherical shell, which can easily be intersected with another such wave shell. They also form from a point source. The resulting intersection is an expanding 4D shell with a 3D surface, that starts at a single point like the big bang, and then grows in a fashion similar to most models of universe expansion, if the second wave initiates after the first wave, and before the first wave arrives at the source of the second wave. It is only a geometric construct. The properties of such a construct have in no way been proven to be analogous to actual space-time. My question is, would further investigation be warranted along these lines.

Thankyou for responding. I could have explained things a bit better I guess. I am considering Kaluza before Klien came along. I mentioned Kaluza only, but perhaps I should have made it more clear. It would be natural for most to automatically tie the two together. The intersection of two solid 4-spheres would produce a universe with an edge. Go fast enough and far enough in any direction and you eventually "fall off the edge" of the universe. How do you create two solid 4-spheres? How do you get them to intersect, they're solid? The intersection of two hollow 4-spheres would produce a hollow 3-sphere like a soccer ball. This could model a 2D universe like Flatland. With respect to manifolds. The residents of such a 2D on a soccer ball Flatland universe I am sure could also have endless discussion about their manifold without considering that anything exists outside. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I am just saying that many theories require higher dimensions, containment is an issue. I am looking at what kind of containment mechanisms might be at play in higher dimensional embedding space. The universe as the active intersection of two 5-spherical waves does not just account for containment. For one thing, it would account for the expansion rate of the universe without concern for dark matter or dark energy. The expansion rate would not depend on mass or energy. It would be determined by the propagation of the intersection of the 5-spherical waves. The mass and energy of our manifold are just along for the ride.

Totally new here. I don't expect to hang around. I am not a physicist. I am more philosophical, so I am bringing a philosophical question, given that physics is really the philosophy of physics. Here is the simple logical train of thought that I followed. I just want to know if there would be any value in it. Perhaps, this line of reasoning is old hat, and has been rejected. I came to these conclusions using proactive Occam`s Razor. Rather that using Occam`s Razor to assess the value of competing theory, or conjecture, It occurred to me to start with a problem and look for the simplest possible explanation. There are many views on cosmology. However, in general the universe is believed by cosmologists to have begun at a single point from which it expanded perhaps as a sort of 4D spherical hollow shell with a 3D skin. This skin is called the manifold, and it is generally believed that nothing exists outside the manifold. However, somehow we also have something called hyperspace, through which we may be able to tunnel, that is outside the universe. Theodore Kaluza proposed that 5D metric tensors could be used to include Electro-Magnetic force into a unified description of Gravity and Electro-Magnetism. Although not proven to be particularly useful, this has also not proven wrong. The problem was that 5 physical dimensions would be required to use 5D metric tensors. The fundamental problem with any 5D or even 4D universe proposals is containment. We are certain of only 3 physical dimensions. All observable behaviour occurs in 3 dimensions and we cannot even at the highest energies or deepest gravitational wells, perceive anything occurring outside the familiar 3 dimensions. Any conjecture about higher dimensional universes must offer an explanation for this containment. The manifold concept does this by simply denying existence to anything outside the manifold, without accounting for the 4D spherical gross shape of the universe. A 4D construct can exist, but no account is given for containment of the skin of that construct, except to deny existence to all else. I would like to propose that alternately we might consider the simplest way to model a contained 3D environment, as the expanding shell of a 4 dimensional sphere, in a 5D universe. The simplest representation would be the intersection of two hollow 5 dimensional spheres (5-spheres). The intersection of two hollow 5-spheres is a hollow 4 dimensional sphere (4-sphere). In order to model an expanding hollow 4-sphere, representing the expanding universe, the two 5-spheres must collide or expand, perhaps some of both. The simplest explanation is that the two 5-spheres are expanding uniform wave fronts, whose sources are displaced from each other. The universe as we know it is the product of the intersection of the two 5D waves fronts. Wave length then accounts for why the 5-spheres are hollow and so create a hollow 4-sphere at the intersection. Consider that at some point in 5-space we generate a highly energetic 5-spherical pulse wave. At some distance X from this initial wave we generate a second similar wave pulse at time T after the first wave, where T is small enough that the two waves will collide head on, at a point between their sources. The intersection then expands as a hollow 4-sphere wave intersection. Considering that both waves fronts are travelling at the same rate, their progressive paths describe a parabolic intersection over time, indicating the growth rate of the 3D universe over time. Is there a simpler explanation that could provide a contained 3D environment that still allows for the unmitigated existence of a full 5 dimensions. ----- So do you think there is any value in this line of reasoning.