JGNLBCA

Abstract This is an outrageous hypothetical exploration of what is possible when you expand on some of the principles of physics, for the purpose of explaining some of the biggest questions left in physics. The paper expands on the work of Plato, Newton, Einstein and many others to establish a two-part Universe with one part quantum computational. Thermodynamics is revised accordingly. Information takes it rightful place, where many theoretical models leave it out, as the most critical foundation for cosmology. In the modeling process, a simple pathway to a different and deeper understanding of the problems we have in physics is revealed. The singularity is defined as a transition and a pivot. Dark matter and energy are hypothesized as antimatter held in a separate frame of reference and as a superfluid of negative mass. The real observations are discussed and explained as the hypothesis is applied, including accelerated expansion due to transition. Uncertainty and entanglement are illuminated with the properties of information.

What do you think? Fundamental Cosmology and Physics Beyond the Standard Model4.pdf

Ok, I have been reading with a bit more patience. Right now I am looking at superposition states of anti-matter being DM. They did the double slit experiment last year with positrons. Would DM need to be at near zero degees K? Does this smell fishy? Please disregard the previous confusing post regarding Hilbert spaces.

It took more than 10 years of sober observation and reflection to figure it out for myself. My life is better knowing. Early diagnosis is better now, I suppose, if you have access to health care. Testing now is easy and painless if anybody is wondering for themselves.

I can relate with every word here. Bravo! I'm 49 and didn't even know I was on the spectrum until about 3 years ago. Back to OP. I don't know how far you have gotten with your student but I know when I was a kid in high school and after I had mastered trig and and trig based physics I had a giant shock, a trauma really. At that time, calculus and that progression in physics felt like someone telling me that "everything you have just learned isn't correct". I thought I knew precisely how most things worked, but then I was told to start over from scratch where everything is much messier. I crashed and burned. My academic career never really recovered until a a few years ago. Break the news to the gently and when you change from one way of thinking to another, make sure they understand why. Also they should know that they do not need to forget or disregard the previous way of thinking because it is still useful. I hope this helps.

Earth Capture theory is not a new idea, but an old debunked one if memory serves. Early Earth's history was largely influenced by a period of increased vulcanism. Vulcanism was responsible for increased CO2 and temperature, not a variation in the sun. The giant-impact hypothesis is far more interesting to talk about IMO. "Good point, which points to another issue that requires explanation: where did it form and how was it ejected from that system?" There are ways to eject a planet from its solar system. Can we re-capture that ejected planet in a different system if every vector matches up, possibly. Is that likely? No.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.1556.pdf The Algebra of Grand Unified Theories John Baez and John Huerta this one stops working for me here. "In general, if a system’s state can lie in a Hilbert space V or in a Hilbert space W, the total Hilbert space is then V ⊕ W." Instead of either V or W every particle in a systems state (the universe) must lie in varying degrees of both Hilbert spaces V AND W dependent on its location in its galaxy per observed galaxy mechanics. I give significant weight to this one little observation and equation from my outline: "We might agree, as Newton would, that if the Higgs Field is described as a positive scalar force as G+ then there must be an opposite balancing negative scalar force observed as the effects of dark matter and energy as G-. For every G+ there exists G-."

Everything copied and pasted. Thanks

Yes QFT. That is exactly where I will study. The writers notes that I was writing to myself should've have clued me in. But if QFT is completed and unified with the The Standard Model and Relativity as it should applied as you suggest, will that answer all the big mysteries that I list in the intro? (honest question) Work being done with "partner" particles is where I was looking. Those partner particles would NOT be mirrors as asymmetry would dictate but they would fulfill the role to complete QFT symmetry weirdly.. And then I am lost.

Hawks and Hounds hunt better together.

No, please criticize my paper, that is why I'm here. Not many have offered an outline as big as this yet to my knowledge. I want people to please point out the errors in my way of thinking so I can grow personally. If M-theory is an issue for some here I have no problems renaming the terms oppoverse, multiverse, and dimension to operate within a 4D one and only universe theory. The terms would describe unknown parts of that one universe. From my perspective It can be see a one thing, or a group of things working together. Now I suppose I could write a 428 page scientific paper describing the chemical and physical properties of the valve cover, belts, pulleys and air cleaner on an engine. But then, you still would learn nothing of how a 4 stroke engine operates? Maybe that is the problem. My simple model does work somewhat as a function over time.

I would say that if I read 428 pages of mathematics I would probably be left unsatisfied and frustrated as well. My point is how can you possibly even begin to work out the minutia that is demanded without a working roadmap or an outline? This is speculation after all, a place to dream and ask questions. Count the question marks in my article. I am still working out more of the math, but I honestly need help. I think you can see that I addressed many of the issues you had and I appreciate the help already given. I guess I'll see you next year.

I think I'm ready for you this time Mordred! I told you I'd be back. Sorry no abstract yet, but it is much better than it was last year. I do know that it is still full of errors and have my big red marker ready. the project.6.pdf

I do have a psychological aversion to calculus that I developed when I was young (funny true story). I do know that high level calculus is required for the QM equations. I can also tell you that whatever I do it will be a much simpler approach than SM theory. That being said it might be many months before I respond again, or never. so I leave you with a couple of quotes from Feynman.. "You can recognize truth by its beauty and simplicity. When you get it right, it is obvious that it is right—at least if you have any experience—because usually what happens is that more comes out than goes in. ...The inexperienced, the crackpots, and people like that, make guesses that are simple, but you can immediately see that they are wrong, so that does not count. Others, the inexperienced students, make guesses that are very complicated, and it sort of looks as if it is all right, but I know it is not true because the truth always turns out to be simpler than you thought." "I do feel strongly that this is nonsense! … So perhaps I could entertain future historians by saying I think all this superstring stuff is crazy and is in the wrong direction. I think all this superstring stuff is crazy and is in the wrong direction. … I don’t like it that they’re not calculating anything. … why are the masses of the various particles such as quarks what they are? All these numbers … have no explanations in these string theories – absolutely none! … I don’t like that they don’t check their ideas. I don’t like that for anything that disagrees with an experiment, they cook up an explanation—a fix-up to say, “Well, it might be true.” For example, the theory requires ten dimensions. Well, maybe there’s a way of wrapping up six of the dimensions. Yes, that’s all possible mathematically, but why not seven? When they write their equation, the equation should decide how many of these things get wrapped up, not the desire to agree with experiment. In other words, there’s no reason whatsoever in superstring theory that it isn’t eight out of the ten dimensions that get wrapped up and that the result is only two dimensions, which would be completely in disagreement with experience. So the fact that it might disagree with experience is very tenuous, it doesn’t produce anything."

Yep, my mistake. I was thinking of Sagan and Hawking