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

“Not really, one doesn't need to apply a multiverse to account for the w=-1 equation of state for DE. Even though we do not fully understand DE we cam readily model it's influence using its thermodynamic contributions. In the case of DM the situation is different in so far as its influence matches that of matter with equation of state w=0. Even though we don't know the particle itself. “ Nobody knows what DM/DE is. My hypothesis is meant as an explanation for the gravitational and thermodynamic contributions of DM/DE. As an overlapping closed system certain contributions of the negative universe are detectable in our universe. “GR was never designed to predict the SM of particles. It is designed to handle field treatments of relative measurements with a variable time. “ GR was modest at first but after his predictions were confirmed, He became more bold with his claims. Both Einstein and Hawking near death thought that TTOE would be found in m-theory. “You haven't defined how your expanding the first law of thermodynamics you need the equations for that. What you have described isn't a closed system by any rules of thermodynamics. So you wouldn't be able to apply the first law regarding conservation laws in a multiverse scenario as you would be dealing with multiple systems.” The multiverse should be considered a closed system, obeying the first law. The interactions between the 2 are within that closed system. Both require the contributions from the other. Can you guess what happens when entropy reaches zero in the negative universe? I’ve left out a lot of good information from this summary. “Not to mention there is no evidence for a multiverse itself though the possibility of a multiverse existing is viable that doesn't entail it has any connection with our universe even through BH'S. Even if there is connection through a BH you still have to deal with Raye of information exchange and causal connected regions limited by c. “ The evidence for a multiverse is detectable as DM/DE. There is some thought required to work out the aperture effects, the connection may be less than the width of an atom. Hawking radiation may be deflection? “So quite frankly I see no viability in anything you have described thus far. Quite frankly you could literally invalidate the theory by both GR and thermodynamic laws.” I disagree, my hypothesis embraces both. “Not to mention that you would require the mathematics to make testable predictions which is completely lacking.” This summary was originally intended for ordinary people. I can translate it into Nerdspeak later. There is actually quite a bit of math there, just written out in prose.

"Not everything comes in pairs for starters, the strong and weak force both have three charges as one example. " I didn't say everything I said "many" There is a lot to say about pairs of things and dualism, etc, but I was invoking more the spirit of Newton with that part of the hypotheses, "Secondly Kaluzu Klien theory describes a specific symmetry group U(1) ekectromagnetic charge under rotation symmetry at the infinitismally pointlike scale and has nothing to do with Blackholes and their singularities. The U(1) symmetry group is also called the circle group due to the rotation symmetry relations. You might want to study Kaluzu Klien as it is one of the earlier steps to unifying the four forces under symmetry and symmetry breaking. We have since unified the strong and weak force only gravity remains elusive due to renormalization. It tends to diverge from renormalization. The fifth dimension under Kaluzu Klien has nothing to do with other universes." forget Kaluza klein if its a problem for you. My hypothethetical model would contain 8 universes, The pos and negative universe and six more miniscule small "pocket" universes, no mass or dimension possibly just EM and Nuclear forces. I do understand the multiple definitions of dimension or dimensions, and if I worded something sloppily I apologize. Ill be honest I have aspergers and I have difficulty with levels of meaning. I've been in crisis the last six months trying to write this so that people can see the logic as I do. Really I would like to know if you understand what I am trying to do, sloppily worded or not.

I appreciate all comments on this short summary. Most importantly...do you get it? When Plato thanked Pythagoras, he recognizes that only by pairing his study with that of his predecessor was he able to create something new. His early model of the universe was a two part system of forms and things. He was right. We expand his work to modern multiple universe theory or m-theory. The forms become (near perfect) formal information which is created and stored in the negative universe. Things become all mass, energy and concepts in the known universe. *Life may create informal information. The divide (Interaction) between the pair of universes is described as the singularity. The realms are asymmetrical in dimension and function Looking at Newton's third law it is expanded by recognizing that all forces and many other fundamental things occur in pairs. He was right. So for every universe there exists a (-1) universe with corresponding laws and mass. The pair is asymmetrical in function. So we have M-theory (-1) super asymmetry. We expand the first law of thermodynamics. Neither energy or formal information can be created or destroyed in our universe. The second law expanded: While the total entropy for our universe is increasing, it is decreasing in the negative universe, in total it remains constant. Einstein bent the fabric of space time, but failed describing the physics of the singularity, and uses a gravitational constant undefined. Expanding Einstein: In the negative universe mass and energy are together equal to the total formal information in the multiverse. The singularity is the location where the universes transition from positive mass/energy to a "fluid" or plasma with negative mass. Hypothesized Kaluza Klein pocket universes layered between and in opposition to each other create a surface tension for the fluid of the negative universe. As our universe is bent, our pair bends, twisting together in a bond. Bubble structures shape the fabric of the multiverse, strong in form. The standard model successfully describes pairs of particles, pairs of forces Electromagnetic (+,-), and Nuclear strong and weak. The standard model fails to describe dark matter/energy effects on gravity like Einstein. And lacks a unified theory for mass. Dr. Jaime Farnes, in his work "Bringing Balance to the Universe", successfully describes the effects of dark matter/energy when treated as a "fluid" with negative mass. So, the math works out for a negative universe as the source of Einstein's gravitational constant. Before the big bang our universe had the potential to become very large and support life. But had low mass and energy. The negative universe had a small potential size, high energy/mass/info and (-1) laws. Time reversal counters negative gravity. In 8 dimensional space we use a Cartesian graph to illustrate our universe and the negative universe as an asymmetrical pair with the singularity at the origin. Accurately recording a particles position and momentum would create formal information, which cannot be created in our universe, so we have the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The quantum entanglement mystery explained: Since formal information for spin of pairs of particles is stored in the negative universe and there is near zero relative distance between any point in the small negative universe and any point in ours. Info transmit is instant. A mutualistic pair of universes would obey the laws of conservation. Both benefit and indeed are intrinsically bound (twisted) together.

I've thought out your biggest concern Mordred. As hinted to in the video is the only interaction between the pos and neg universe is at the singularity. At this point all the forces and energy are directed into a single vector aligning with the axis of that particular singularity and towards the negative universe. I'm working out how hypothesized Kaluza Klein pocket universes layered between and in opposition to each other may provide a kind of "surface tension".

Thanks for the feedback Mordred, I will ensure that those sections are written more clearly if I continue. I would welcome anymore discussion, this is early speculation.

I never claimed vector symmetry as you are describing. I used the cartesian graph to help "illustrate" overlapping multiple dimensions as an asymmetrical pair and is not literal. There are many examples of asymmetrical pairs. the third law of course describes a pair of symmetrical forces. I also wanted to explore how to describe not only an opposite law but possibly an inverse opposite law. the 5 minute summary wasn't adequate to fully explore this. I'm hoping that mathematical proofs can be derived eventually with my thesis combined with the already accepted Heisenberg uncertainty, and quantum entanglement observations. the asymmetry is in found in the relative sizes. The negative universe would be relatively dimensionally small. the asymmetry is also clear for the pre big bang conditions.

m-theory -1 super asymmetry. information theory. I have a lot more than the summary.

I just realized I made a mistake. I guess you are not supposed to post videos, but the written version I'm still working on and I imagine it is more than 80 pages. Its not an ad, its a video presentation that I made. I just need to know if I should keep working on this or if it is best to give it up.

Be gentle please, it may be wrong but the logic and the sentiment is good.