Cosmic Commentary


Cosmic Commentary

This is a platform for refining coinciding physics, linguistic, and mathematical symbolisms, and applying such towards the pursuit of single fundamental “particle” theories.

Contents:

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1: Space, Time, Matter, Energy, and Existence

CHAPTER 2: Some General Information

CHAPTER 3: Models

OBSERVATION 0 – Dimensional Protocol

OBSERVATION 1 – A Simple G.U.T.

OBSERVATION 2 – More On The Forces’ Structure

OBSERVATION 3 – Fundamental Ratios

OBSERVATION 4 – Additional Phases Of Matter

OBSERVATION 5 – Black Holes And The Big Bang

OBSERVATION 6 – Energy, Mass, And Matter-Like Objects

OBSERVATION 7 – We Take Up “Distance” In Time The Same As We Do In Space

OBSERVATION 8 – Planck Constants, Quantum Mechanics, And Relativity

OBSERVATION 9 – The Amazing Photon And Other Small Particles

OBSERVATION 10 – Inflationary Period, Seyfert Galaxies, And Quasars

CHAPTER 4: Configuration Physics of a Single Fundamental Particle Closed Universe

CONCLUSION

INTRODUCTION:

The realm of symbols seems as vast as (1) space (1), and I often (2) laugh (2) at some of the nonsense I conjure while pondering symbols describing symbols. For example, you are currently reading simple picture symbols, called letters, which form more complex symbols, labeled words. In turn, sentences could be thought of as an even trickier symbol. Words and sentences can represent real and conceptual physical configurations, such as (1) an infinite empty volume (1) and a (2) sound of enjoyment made in response to a joke (2), and can accurately convey this information between parties depending on the congruency of individuals’ personal semantics. I used the (1), (2), and underlines above, three other symbols, as well as the meaning of the past few sentences, to reference complex symbols describing the configurations of other complex symbols physical counterparts. Now, count how many times the word word and the word symbol have appeared, and then think about how the words word and symbol describe themselves. This connection of so many symbols to so many others, in an ever growing collection, seems to both help and hinder the pursuit of information. When trying to describe a complex system to a certain degree of accuracy, or is it precision, the need for clarity becomes paramount. This led me to wonder how current symbol-based models of language, math, and science are made to coincide with their described “existential” or “physical” experiences.

Commonly, it consists of a looping cycle. Starting with an observation, it moves to the creation and relation of said symbols, and then on to a trial/error refinement process. From there, it becomes an accepted, rejected, or adapted model, which leads to consequences of its advent. Finally, some of those consequences sometimes point to something independent from the intent of the model, and get deemed worth further observation. Considering that tangible breakthroughs can be born from observations about symbol systems, all of which can be converted into a spoken/written symbol system, some unknowns seem to spring from an inaccurate choice of words. Others seem to arise from missing words. Focus science’s linguistic algorithm and new equations will fall into place. Refine science’s mathematical algorithm and new words arise. A noted, yet oversimplified by me example of this, was Einstein’s math symbols saying space and time were related while language symbols still held they were unique. Space-time is now a common concept. The ideas of this writing come from searching physics models for linguistic and mathematic similarities and differences, and then offering possible avenues of re-mapping that information into a more inclusive symbol model that better captures its own coincidence. If anyone reading this can improve the models further, please do so and share it on.

CHAPTER 1: Space, Time, Matter, Energy, and Existence

One place to begin seems like space. Define an empty Space called the NON-RELATIVE SPACE DIMENSION (NRSD). This is analogous to a PURE VACUUM space, however, I chose the word non-relative so as to convey both a non relate-tive state as well as a non-relativistic state. I chose the word dimension from convention, but vacuum or realm may actually work better here for the fact that dimensions are exactly what the NRSD is missing. A more catchy title might be spatial vertigo dimension, but oh well. In conceiving this dimension, the directions or ideas of up-down, left-right, and forward-backward do not exist, because they only exist, when defined relative to something. In other words, opposites imply relate-tivity, which then generates the need for relativity, but more on that later. Since this is just space with nothing in it to relate to, there exists the state of directional vertigo. It is just space itself. The NRSD can only have the values 0 or 1, representing whether it is present or not.

Next, and in the same fashion as before, define an empty Time called the NON-RELATIVE TIME DIMENSION (NRTD). In this dimension, before, present, and after, do not conceptually exist, because they only exist when defined relative to sometime. Sometime being a base unit point or event. Since this is just time with notime (analogous to nothing but with a temporal bias) in it to relate to, it causes temporal vertigo. It is just time itself. The NRTD can also only have the values 0 or 1, representing whether it is present or not.

Then one could allow spatial displacements, previously restricted, and thus label DIRECTION RELATIVE SPATIAL DIMENNSIONS (DRSD). In a basic Cartesian model for example, the 3 DRSDs, left-right, up-down, and forward-backward, show direction using three 90-degree angles in an orthogonally defined configuration. These directions allow the observation and labeling of spatial displacements between the origin and the endpoint of a system in any direction. Traditionally, opposite collinear directions such as left and right are considered 1 dimension resulting in 3 spatial dimensions. However, physics may find greater use in modeling opposite directions as separate dimensions, resulting in 6 spatial dimensions. More on the suggestion of this is given later. The DRSD can also only have the values 0 or 1, representing whether it is present or not.

Finally, one could allow temporal displacements and label a DIRECTION RELATIVE TIME DIMENSION (DRTD). In the standard system, the basic unit of time is set equal to the occurrence of a physical phenomenon, currently related to the decay of Cesium atoms. This DRTD allows one to measure temporal displacements between the beginning and ending of a system. The DRTD can also only have the values 0 or 1, representing whether it is present or not.

So where does this lead? Well, the model has 2 non-relative dimensions and 4 direction relative dimensions (3 for space and 1 for time). The 2 non-relative dimensions, the NRSD and the NRTD, are similar in that both are labeled as “dimensions” for convenience, but as their descriptions state, neither has directions or measurement. Again, one might prefer the labels realm or vertigo just as well. And the 4 direction relative dimensions, the DRSDs and the DRTD, are similar in that they provide relative-ly defined direction allowing measurement and displacement.

Space

Time

Non-Relative

NRSD

NRTD

Direction Relative

DRSD

DRTD

The direction relative dimensions should be thought of as stating that directions exist in an inertial relativistic way. Current physical, linguistic, and mathematical symbolism suggest that the Space and Time aspects of the dimensions are unified more accurately as space-time. Applying this stipulation to the NRSD and the NRTD means they could not exist without each other. The same goes for the DRSD and the DRTD. The non-relative and direction relative aspects of the dimensions do not compare the same way. Comparatively, the existences of the infinite non-relative dimensions are independent, but the existences of the finite direction relative dimensions depend on, or are superimposed upon, the non-relative ones. In short, something layered on top of nothing, which is not the same as something from nothing. One could posit that time and space can exist independently of each other, but that event, purely conceptual within the current model, would occur beyond an observable universe, and thus leads to topics outside the scope of this endeavor. From this, comes a place to start writing a basic recipe for physical existence. Existence seems to require at least a space and a time. Intuitively, one might start by writing:

Existence of NRSD = Existence of NRTD eq0-0

Existence of DRSD = Existence of DRTD eq0-1

Existence of Non-Relative Space-Time = NRSD + NRTD eq1

However, equation 1 allows the value of existence to be positive when only one condition is met, and it needs to be 0, and only positive, when both conditions are met. So instead, multiply to get:

Existence of Non-Relative Space-Time = (NRSD) * (NRTD) eq2

This assures an affirmative condition value of 1 only happens when both requirements are met, and that 0 appears otherwise. Well this seems like a good start, but the recipe needs something else. Since this is a physical model, there needs to be some physical thing to model. The definition of matter as having mass and taking up space implicitly requires a direction relative spatial component. This in turn necessitates a direction relative temporal dimension (eq0-1). The definition of energy as the capacity to do work, and the subsequent definition of work as applying a force over a distance, again requires a direction relative spatial component. Mathematically, direction implies a relative relation to at least 1 point or unit chunk in space or time. Physics constructions require that tangible point to be a space-time object.

One could now state that non-relative space-time by itself is not sufficient for the existence of energy and matter, and to reiterate, it is actually the existence of energy or matter that causes an IMPURE VACUUM. For energy to exist, it needs matter, space, and time. For matter to exist, it needs energy, space, and time. Where energy and matter have a 0 or 1 value, the equation becomes:

Existence of Relativistic Space-Time = {(NRSD) * (NRTD) * Energy} or {(NRSD) * (NRTD) * Matter} eq3

Existence of Matter = (NRSD) * (NRTD) * Energy eq4

Existence of Energy = (NRSD) * (NRTD) * Matter eq5

Existence of DRSD = Existence of DRTD = Existence of Matter = Existence of Energy eq6

These equations simply tell us, that if a positive value answer is obtained, specifically 1, then the specific conditions for physical existence have been met. This path of exploration compels a more detailed critique of energy and matter. What facts should be considered to build this model?

Examining modern physics fundamentals, one immediately finds properties, conditions, and relationships between matter and energy that have already been mapped. Scrutinizing, one also notices discrepancies in trying to relate all the equations used to model said theories. This can be the next starting point. The model should seek to solve these current symbol collisions while remaining effective for most or all of the existing models.

CHAPTER 2: Some General Information

The components of Energy needed for existence are defined in the metric unit system as follows.

E = (kg * m2) / (s2) = Joules (J) eq7

What then are the qualities of mass? Taken linguistically, this formula biases kilograms, meters, and seconds as a basis for the components of energy. However physically, there is no bias as to whether matter is a base component of energy or vice versa. So it can also be written that for mass M:

M = (J * s2) / (m2) = Kilograms (kg) eq7-1

To that end, the MKS standard should most likely be updated to MJ/KS as to include energy (Meters for Distance, Energy-per-Kilogram (J/K) for Energy-Density, and Seconds for Time). One might notice how these equations satisfy eq5 and eq4, respectively, with components of mass, space, time, and energy. Current science also posits from conservation of energy that within a closed system;

E total = KE + PE eq8

E final = E initial → KEi + PEi = KEf + PEf eq9

Modern consensus recognizes 4 forces of nature including gravity, although, it is now more commonly thought of as an intermediary, quasi, or sudo force based on geometry rather than a “direct” one. The 4 are Gravitational, Weak, Strong-Color, and Electromagnetic (G, W, S, EM). There are models for each, with the suspicion that they relate in a Grand Unified Theory (GUT), but still no concrete symbol connection.

Science has 2 developed models of systems that seem to relate, the General Relativistic Model and the Quantum Mechanical Model, that would also have to be worked into a GUT, but it can’t quite relate them as precisely as some might like.

Science has wave-particle duality that describes 2 related observations of the properties of energy-matter dependant on how it is recorded.

Science has mathematical singularities in the Big Bang, in Black Holes, and in the center of gravity-like objects where its mathematical symbol models break down. Some of these models have special cases or result in pointing to specialized phenomena.

Science has photons, with uncertainty in its description of their nature.

Science has a large list of atomic particles. It has mapped and grouped many of these particles according to similarities and differences.

Science has lists of scalar constants that have been calculated and refined to our best accuracy.

Many who ponder the above information suspect there is something missing that ties it all together. If it is assumed there is, then it is left to find the bridge between understanding these topics and what is already theorized. Any hypothesis can be considered as long as it correlates the data and doesn’t cause too many side effects, especially those violating previously verified occurrences. If it’s a testable model, that’s best. To help this model be successful, one can try to answer, “What is the easiest way, or the least amount of assumptions that can be made, in order to relate the above observances?”

CHAPTER 3: Models

The more I consider these enigmas, the more it seems they do relate. While I have some understanding of physics, it seems I don’t know nearly enough to track all the implications of all the hypotheses made in this paper. Due to these limits, I have tried to indicate where the largest gaps arise with bullets and/or highlighting, and I encourage anyone to attempt to fill in these holes and update the model and me with your progress. It’s up to the readers, to help make the pieces fit.

OBSERVATION 0 – DIMENSIONAL PROTOCOL

Commonly, spatial conceptions treat directional dimensions in linear fashion. That is, like a line, extending infinitely in opposite 180-degree manner. On the other hand, time flow is commonly conceived in ray fashion only moving forward from a point. I.e., you can move back and forth in space, but only grow older in time. Consider “Cartesian-like” motion in 6 ray-like dimensions. Allowing these 6 perpendicular (3-pair anti-collinear) ray-like spatial directional dimensions, instead of 3 line-like ones, makes moving through space “look” a lot more like moving through time. In fact, one can then neatly state that we exist in ray-like 7-D (6 spatials and 1 temporal). Imagine walking forward and then turning around and retracing your steps. Now, instead of “walking back in the opposite direction you came”, you treat it as still moving forward, just in the opposite dimension. In this way, one can only ever move forward in space, the same way one can only ever move forward through time. If Einstein’s idea, that space and time are unified as space-time, is applied to physicality via a light cone, then the quandary arises, that if one can’t move backward in time, one shouldn’t be able to move backward in space. Consider the total cosmic motion of anything on earth. While something might seem relatively still, it is hurling through space rather rapidly, so that nothing earthbound ever has a chance of recovering an actual former universal position at a former time. This model points out that you can move through time, and are already a time traveler moving towards some point in the future, away from some point in the past. You are an occurring event. To stop time in one dimension would require at least a second ray-like time dimension perpendicular to the first, and to travel “back and forth” through time would require at least a second ray-like time dimension in the opposite direction of the first.

Next, consider an object in 6 ray-like perpendicular (3 pairs collinear) dimensions. For starters, imagine a cube. From the point of view of the center of the cube, it exists forward in all 6 dimensions. However, from the point of view of a corner, when any surface of the cube is parallel to a coordinate system plane, it only exists forward in 3 dimensions. In fact, any finite 6-D object existing in an infinite ray-like 6-D dimension can be viewed from a perspective point that shows the object as only existing forward in 3 dimensions. Similarly, any line segment existing on a line can be viewed from such a point on that line as to show the segment as existing forward in only 1 dimension. Since the measure of a finite object in the DRSD is a measure of relative displacements, and line segments represent these, although that object exists in all 6 ray dimensions, its spatial displacement at any given moment can be condensed to be at most 3-line-dimensional from some point of view. Throughout this paper I often still use 3D, 1D, space, time language due to convention. However, I will try and suggest using a 7-D space-time-energy-matter (S.T.E.M or just stem) perspective, when relevant, for developing mathematical models.

OBSERVATION 1 – A SIMPLE G.U.T.

I am attempting to write equations to represent relationships that must be satisfied in this model of the universe. Later, they need to equate, or rather, fit together. For now I say Simple G.U.T. because I begin in mostly Newtonian style. The complete fitting together must evolve from considering all the equations of the model as the elements or subsets of a single larger set or algorithm and then seeking the mathematical, physical, and linguistic equations that relate element to subset to whole set. Of course, this whole set would not be solely Newtonian, and would at least have to be Einsteinian-like, as well as quantum like. So, I ask, what other relationships are readily observable, or result from the previous stances of this paper? From eq8 and eq9, note that total initial and final energies are related to total and initial potential and kinetic energies. Physics recognizes forces in 4 parts. In what seems to me to be the easiest way to start writing a Grand Unified Theory, these forces of the universe can be related with the following equation. T stands for total, KE is Kinetic Energy, and PE is Potential Energy.

ET = KET + PET = GET + EMET + WET + SET eq10

This equation says that the total Energy of a system is equal to the sum of its Kinetic energy and its Potential energy, which is also equal to, the sum of the energies negotiated by the 4 forces; Gravitational energy, Electromagnetic energy, Weak Nuclear energy, and Strong Nuclear energy. Of course, one can make a more complete notation by separating the kinetic and potential of each force, in which case you get:

ET = KET + PET = GPET + GKET + EMPET + EMKET + WPET + WKET + SPET + SKET eq10-2

Or, considering eq9, one could write the lengthier:

E final = E initial → GPEi + GKEi + EMPEi + EMKEi + WPEi + WKEi + SPEi + SKEi = GPEf + GKEf + EMPEf + EMKEf + WPEf + WKEf + SPEf + SKEf eq10-3

When these quantities of energy, matter, dimensional space, and dimensional time reach certain Critical Ratios, like near the beginning of the Big Bang or in a black hole, the forces join and become indistinguishable or separate and become unique. This can be likened to phase changes in matter and leads understanding of why eq10 seems to hold true in the universe to an examination of the big bang, black holes, and matter phase behavior.

OBSERVATION 2 – MORE ON THE FORCES’ STRUCTURE

The 4 forces all map in some way as radial and linearly independent. With radial I include that force varies over r and that for any given r force is in some way proportional. No motion or force acting along one axis can be translated in to a combination of motions acting along the other axes.

Due to these similarities, a total force (FT) equation for the 4 forces seems mathematically constructible. A generalization of the FT field equation in Newtonian Algebraic style is then:

FT = G + EM + W + S =

FT = (-(Gm1m2) / r2) ± ((kq1q2) / r2) ± (W) –(S) eq11

I have left W and S in eq11 without a more specific formula because I haven’t yet found simple algebraic equations for the fields with respect to distance. This is not to say they do not exist. More specifically, for the strong force S, which is a result of the quarks “color force”, science observes that at 0m the force goes to 0, at about 10-15m it’s at a maximum, and that at >10-15m it quickly drops to 0. The empirical formula for the S force potential is related to nuclear binding energies and therefore probably relates to Weizsacker’s formula. S is asymptotically attractive. For W, data show that it uses the exchange of intermediate vector bosons to convert quark flavor, and that its influence drops to 0 after about 10-18m. G and S are negative and EM is ± because this supports modern data and syntax convention. I’m not sure about W. I have guessed W to act as either ± like EM for two reasons. One, W and EM are already unified in electro-weak theory and there is a neat symmetry between the proton, neutron, electron group and the W+, Z, W- group, so I think it may be modeled by this characteristic, and two, data show it is not a mathematically unaltered inverse square, leaving the possible symmetry in the forces.

ATTRACTIVE

ATTRACTIVE OR REPULSIVE

INVERSE SQUARE

Gravity

Electromagnetic

MIN, MAX, MIN

Strong

? Weak?

At this point, researchers have farmed enough data that even equations from a best-fit curve taken directly from experimental observations of the strength of these forces would probably vector in the right directions for the S and W equations. Note, that I used equations relating forces between objects. You may find it easier or more worthwhile to use potentials (like FG = -Gm1 / r) instead.

OBSERVATION 3 – FUNDAMENTAL RATIOS

From eq6, eq8, and eq10 come some seemingly fundamental concepts describing interactions in the universe. They deal with energy, matter, space, time, and their corresponding relationships. It seems then, that each individual relationship between these topics would be important. Quantitatively, if Joules (J) represents the amount of the quality energy, kilograms (kg) the amount of the quality matter, meters (m) the amount of the quality space, and seconds (s) the amount of the quality time, then some of the possible important fundamental ratios are as follows.

J / kg – energy per mass R1

J / Vo – energy per volume R2

J / s – energy per time R3

kg / Vo – mass per volume R4

kg / s – mass per time R5

Vo / s – volume per time R6

In these examples, volume (Vo) = m3, rather than distance, is used to represent space. Note, that one can just as easily write the reciprocal relationships of each ratio. R1 represents velocity2 (v2). R2 represents pressure. R3 represents power. R4 represents density. R5 and R6 represent flow. However, this is only a small number of the common combinations of these units. At this time, I realize that for this section to continue, I should start with a study of units, each listed in MKS units.

OBSERVATION 4 – ADDITIONAL PHASES OF MATTER

Elementary education first teaches that there are 3 kinds of matter: solid, liquid, and gas. Later, perhaps in modern physics, one learns that there are 2 additional states: Bose-Einstein Condensate and Plasma. But what are these “phases”, and what is going on here? Phases are indicative of how much energy an object or object group has and what configurations it is in. Phase changes occur at critical temperatures. At a phase change the configuration of matter and energy is changing. In plasma for example, when a gas’s temperature/energy rises sufficiently, there is enough energy for some electrons to move freely, unattached from their nuclei. Why stop the labeling of this phenomenon with plasma?

Instead, it seems phases can be considered in the general model. That is, “When quantities of energy, matter, dimensional space, and dimensional time reach certain critical ratios, a phase change occurs, and that on each side of this adaptation, matter can be labeled as being in a different state.” Therefore, there are at least 3 other states that could be labeled.

Bose-Einstein Condensate ¨ Solid ¨ Liquid ¨ Gas ¨ Plasma ¨ EM and W forces unified with S and G separate ¨ EM, W, and S forces unified with G separate ¨ All 4 forces unified

For amusement, I shall dub these states as STRONG-PLASMA, GRAVI-GAS, and COSMOID. I stated above that these 3 extras were at least the states that should be considered. I leave open the possibility for practical phases between these that more accurately map particle mixtures, but my current knowledge does not allow me to articulate what these specific points would be. Also, I leave room for the chance of phases such as wherein the W and S forces are unified but the EM and G forces are unique. Or, there may even be one wherein S and EM are unified but W and G are unique. Sub-atomically, these should be “viewed like plasma”, but with the free particle being a different one than the electron. While I currently deem these last 2 options unlikely, where the possibilities of these alternate phase configurations originate is pursued later.

The placement of the phases above was chosen to correspond to a current scientific view of the original splitting of the forces after the Big Bang. A next logical step would be to describe these phases, and accordingly, they are high-temperature, high-energy phases. To elaborate further seems to require following two approaches. The first path is that of the subatomic particles, where each particle is considered for a phase and is described as either acting as usual, or as having given up or taken on a quality of freedom due to the change. Alas, my current knowledge of plasma cosmology does not permit me to do so. The second path, one I can tread at least partially down, is to continue to draw information from the environment in which such phases are found, namely Astronomy.

OBSERVATION 5 – BLACK HOLES AND THE BIG BANG

I get the sense that science has overcomplicated some of its description of black holes, so I will try to oversimplify and see where that gets. First off, matter is commonly defined as “anything that has mass and takes up space”. Next, don’t forget the conservation of matter-energy. Science has successfully mapped the “edges” of black holes, using a model that includes a Schwarzschild radius, by positing a black hole mass. So, let’s try stating that black holes do have mass, and lots of it, do take up space, they are large, and do absorb energy and other matter. Black holes seem like matter to me! “And what type of matter is it,” might one ask. It is matter in one of the alternate energy phases described above. In a black hole, the quantities of energy, matter, dimensional space, and dimensional time have reached a critical ratio and have reunited. The overall effect of this recombining from the phenomena is that of extreme attraction.

A convenient guess could be made that black holes are in the GRAVI-GAS phase, emitting only gravitational energy. (I’m not familiar with the idea of Hawking Radiation yet to know what I think of it or how it would affect my writing here.) When treated as a solar or cosmic nucleon, further speculation might map a black hole as a group of particles, consisting of at least 2 GRAVI-GAS type particles, held together by a GRAVI-GAS binding energy. Right before the big bang, for a contraction model, and immediately after, for many current models, the universe was in a COSMOID phase, according to this model’s terminology, and a certain amount of energy-matter was crammed into a little itty bit of space-time. In a universal contraction model, everything converges, similar to a black hole pulling everything in. Science also models, that during the Big Bang, there was relative-ly a ton of energy but little mass. And, it says that energy has been exchanged for matter ever since, leaving tons of matter. This helps formulate an idea for the purpose of black holes.

If a Big Bang releases a ton of energy and starts the process of a large-scale conversion to matter, then a black hole might absorb a ton of matter and start converting it into stored energy. Black holes are then likened to giant gravity batteries or nuclear cores, storing energy until a critical ratio or instability is reached when it can release it once again. Finally, consider the similarities between a big bang, a black hole, and our universe. The matter in the big bang volume could not escape, matter in a black hole does not escape, and nothing can escape the universe. From some imagined macro external perspective, we exist in a black hole.

OBSERVATION 6 – ENERGY, MASS, AND MATTER-LIKE OBJECTS

While it is charted that energy and mass RELATE via mathematical symbolism, by equations like E = (1/2) mv2 and E = mc2, and that their existences COINCIDE via physical symbolism, it should not be claimed via linguistic symbolism that energy IS matter, but rather, that energy and matter describe different aspects of an encompassing energy-matter. For example, I can go to the apple on my counter and pick it up. I can hold it, lift it, and throw it. However, I can’t go to the hardware store and buy a bushel of energy, throw it in the back of my car, and drive home with it. Sure we can store energy, as in a tank of gas, but this always takes place with the help of tangible matter.

This is similar to how relativity views space-time. While on one level it recognizes space-time as a single entity, on another level, it separates their coincidence. It does so adjectively, by using the terms time-like, space-like, and light-like. This is when it is helpful to have carefully defined terms of what dimension is reall