John Henke

Made of energy is an abstraction. There is also no science behind saying that the universe has any physicality that transcends a mathematical structure--or, if there is, I'd like to see it. If you gave me a specific example, I'm willing to bet there would be a lot of assumptions and abstractions used. My explanation requires as few assumptions and abstractions as math itself. You seem to assume that I mean that the universe had a central location of zero, but I don't even assume that. I assume that 0=U and that the universe is mathematical in structure, and that's it--a bare minimum of assumptions and choice and abstraction, this minimum being the key to explaining how the universe could be created without consciousness. Well, if you're first comment wasn't a critique, this definitely is. I'm not sure I understand the logic of it, but I think you're saying that you think in my mind the equation is the universe and so changing it would make me wrong. That's a straw man. Of course I don't believe that. When I say phenomena, I'm talking about the most basic aspects of my theory, for example the way I get my x eigenfunction. That's as much a mathematical phenomena as Euler's identity. Now theoretical physicists have used Euler's identity and added a bunch of terms to it like k and omega, etc and so too have I explored how the universe might have used this phenomena to create itself. But if the universe did create itself using these equations, I would never dream that my first model would perfectly match up with it. There are a lot of ways of defining things, moving things around, etc as you'll see in my new model tomorrow.

This is energy not math. And your alternative explanation for how we got here? Yes, it is. So it massively revises it but produces the same results? How is it that two people have already critiqued a model I haven't even released yet? No, it doesn't produce the same results.

My new model of relativity pretty massively revises the theory. Before you critique it, you should see it. When I was a kid, I went to a magic show in Las Vegas with my family. The magician disappeared and then reappeared instantly a distance away. It seemed to be clearly the same person. Afterward my family was talking about how it happened and I suggested he had a twin. This was a perfectly reasonable and viable option, but they laughed it off and seemed to think that there must be some more complicated perhaps even more mystical answer. You assume the universe is physical, but I've provided what seems to be a completely feasible explanation to a very difficult question. Can you provide a better alternative? I wouldn't object to that. Should I just post a new thread? Has anyone ever proposed an equivalent of 0=U where U is the universe and theres a mostly negative half to the universe that cancels with our mostly positive half?

This is going to be long, but that statement makes it so painfully clear that this theory has not yet been well understood. I would argue that the only philosophically feasible option for a universe being created from nothing is one where 0=U where U is the universe. If that’s true, then the universe is purely mathematical in structure and the sum of its positive and negative parts equates to zero. I would hold that it’s impossible to explain a viable alternative to this without resorting to something abstract and/or mystical. If you have one, then you can prove me wrong. Otherwise let’s assume the universe is purely mathematical in structure, and if it were to be based on the current mathematics, it would have to know what a derivative is and how to take it and then decide to multiply it by -i(hbar). It would have to somehow decide to multiply each position along the x axis by x for the x eigenfunction, etc, etc. To my eye, this is the model that is clearly man-made and has been bent and curved by human will to describe physical phenomena. I’m not questioning that it describes physical phenomena, but I am questioning whether it can itself be physical phenomena in a mathematically structured universe. Contrast the current model to the relative philosophical simplicity of my model as it transitions from a waveform into an eigenfunction and then even from a quantum wave form to a particle form only ever using the multiplication and division of two different equations—equations that in their original form occupied no more than a quarter of a page each. And if it’s true that the universe is purely mathematical in structure, then the math must involve waveforms. There are a highly limited number of ways of creating waveforms mathematically, and possibly none that haven’t been discovered, and so the options are limited. I’ve shown a new one, and argued why it could give a natural explanation for the source of the universe. Theoretical physicists have shown another, but has anyone ever argued that it was natural and equated to the mathematical structure of the universe? I know of no philosophy that requires or implicates the current fundamentals of quantum mechanics, and I’m only trying to replace those fundamentals. So before “guessing” that I’m bending the numbers to my own will, contrast mine to the current model. I have defined certain variables, and to a great degree my mathematics have been bent by me in an attempt to describe physical phenomena. And these are admittedly going to be the points most vulnerable to revision. However, there’s absolutely nothing that’s mystical or poorly defined about my math. And you may disagree, but Mathematica doesn’t. A mathematical phenomena that the universe could have used to create itself without consciousness and without choice—that’s what I believe I’ve found though I’m still searching for the specifics. Tomorrow I will write a post going over my new model of relativity, but also explaining the fundamentals more clearly, addressing all of the recent questions.

I just haven't worked on it much yet. I will put that toward the top of my list of things to do. There's a lot to do and it all takes time.

Then this is probably the best advise given this thread. Well, I thought I was, but I will try to make my terms equate to the terms in Griffith's. I'm on it. I'll post something relatively soon.

That's one of the things I'm working on right now, and I'm so far happy with my progress. Thank you. And thank you for your input. It's helped a lot.

I say that because one of the more speculative parts of my theory is that it says that a particle is the same as their QM partners except they may have no spin and may have no angular momentum but they still have k bar and omega bar values, so it wouldn't make sense to say they had, for example, an angular frequency, but they still have energy based on omega overbar. They're variables, and I just chose them arbitrarily. I'm in the process of redefining them so that they work correctly, so I won't go into too much detail now. It's more or less the same. Here's an example of a particle in a square well. I will first give the x eigenvalue form. This is important because this equation occurs within the equation for the waveform and the area over which the waveform spans is determined by the area over which its x eigenfunction spans. Note that both eigenfunctions span a distance of 2 meaning that both waveforms are in an infinite square well with walls a distance apart of 2. X Eigenfunction with k bar=1 Waveform in Infinite Square well with k=1 X Eigenfunction with k bar=2. Waveform in Infinite Square well with k=2. And the same pattern would hold for higher integer values of k. There may be a way to graph it as a function of position. I will look into that. But this represents one of the biggest differences between my waveform and QM's wavefunction. QM has the position as an input and mine has the position as an output (which is intuitive enough as it's essentially a naturally occurring x eigenfunction). This is why I had to include the x eigenfunction in the above example, to show that the waveforms with k=1 and k=2 both spanned the same well because even though the k=2 exists over more initial time, its x eigenvalues still only span a distance of 2, same as for k=1. At any rate, I'm in the process of rewriting my theory and time is one of the things I will redefine in my post tomorrow. Infinite Square Well k1 and k2.nb

Thats the equation in natural units.

That does suggest it is 1 to 1 and that is probably the case. I probably need to rework thw theory. I think the mathematical phenomena is still promising even if Ive messed it up somewhere.

Do physicists know what scale time is on relative to length?

Im confused about whether you read the post and you're saying it doesn't work or whether you skimmed the post and didn't see my equation for mass. I've got a definiton for what seems to equate to Planck's constant. And k bar and omega bar are the same as k and omega. And minimum frquency seems to be the same as mu. Ive got a definition of C. So you can multiply those together to get QM version of the energy momentum relation. My biggest concern is that the definitions of wavelength and the eigenvalues don't line up right.

I just gave my equation for mass.

You've got a sharp eye. I just made a mistake. They equations don't change frequency when calculated correctly. I'm not sure which ones you mean exactly and I'm not sure what you're trying to show, but in any case I have to go to my default answer for these more complicated questions which is, "if e^i(kx-wt) can do it, then why can't my equation?" I'm not trying to reinvent the car, I'm just trying to reinvent the--well, the wheel. f My Version of the Wavefunction My Version of the X Eigenfunction My Version of the Energy Eigenfunctions My Version of the Momentum Eigenfunctions List of Terms and Equations 2.0.docx

I ask because I dont want to waste your time with my long winded explanation if its built on a false premise.

If you were to graph over ti, for example, an uppercase gamma component, then it would appear to be linear, but if you zoom in close enough, you'd see there's actually a very slight curvature. Components with a negative exponent have negative curvature, and components with a positive exponent have a positive curvature (I think, I haven't yet run every single number). For omega components, the lower the value of s+te, the higher the curvature will be. For gamma components, the lower the value of sn*Sqrt(k), the higher the curavture will be. If particles have the same values for these variables but opposite curvatures, their curvatures mostly cancel, but there is still an extremely small remainder. Using this curvature to concisely describe some physical phenomena would be the primary method of testing it, but that challenge has so far proven to be well beyond my abilities. There are so many possibilities and combinations of variables, and I don't know enough about the nitty-gritty details of how force works much less dark matter and energy. If you'd like to hear some of my highly speculative theories on this let me know. A functionalist would argue your first and third sentences contradict. If the function of math can truly equate to the function of physical reality, what is it about physical reality that transcends its mathematics? And I mean function in the philosophical sense (although it may be in the mathematical sense as well). Can we agree the universe came from nothing? If so can you come up with a better explanation than "0=U" where U is the universe? This is highly theoretical, but I would speculate that there might be a mostly negative and a mostly positive half to the universe and that if the entirety of the universe were added together, it would equate to zero. I've got a few cards up my sleeve, but before I play them, I need to know something that's not easy to look up on the internet. In nature (nature and not necessarily the current mathematics we use), is it clearly the case that the p eigenvalue is never higher than the E eigenvalue? Because my favored model requires the p eigenvalue be higher than the E eigenvalue in all cases except when the particle is moving at C in which case they'd equate. This is essentially because it's based on v=E/p.

Combed through it some more and found more corrections.

I made a mistake with the gamma components. The s^2 term should multiply the rest of the equation, so there should be brackets around everything else. So for example, beta sub a should look like this: Another correction: Also, lambda should have the same total scale that theta is based on. Also, all components in the same dimension have the same values for k overbar. And all components in the same equation have the same values for omega overbar and q. Anyway, obviously there are errors to be corrected, but I'm going to bed.

The goal of this post is to make clear how to run these calculations and the logic behind them has been omitted except where it is needed to illustrate how to run the calculations. I’ve removed delta, epsilon, iota, rho, kappa and lowercase alpha as well as any other point of confusion I could find. This has made the post long, but the math should now be well defined. List of Terms and Equations 1.0.docx In the ways this is a mathematical phenomena, in those ways it stands as apart from me as Euler’s identity did from him. Just as theoretical physicists have used the phenomena of Euler’s identity to describe quantum phenomena, so too have I endeavored to use this mathematical phenomena to describe the universe. And so this leads two questions. The first is whether or not I have described the universe using this phenomena and the second is whether or not the universe can be described using this phenomena. It may be important to differentiate these questions as they may have different answers. I assume that the universe is purely mathematical in structure and so to adhere to my own assumption no aspect of my theory should be anything but math. I have and will use abstractions but I expressly agree that they should never be divorced from their mathematical representations. If you have suggestions on how to improve the notation or general clarity of the math, let me know and I will change it. I would like the mathematics to be perfectly clear so let me know if there’s anything that isn’t.

I would like to write out all the mathematics in crystal clear terms and will post it in no more than 2 to 3 days.

Alright, I was working on a model of probability but I will drop that for now to write an extensive post going over the fundamentals. I would like to write something of as high of quality and clarity as I can, is there a deadline for that post?

Initial time and evolving time I did explain on the third page. You can do a ctrl-f search for it, and I am spending a lot of time each day researching and writing posts for this forum, and so I will explain everything in detail given due time, but frankly I am only one man and simply do not have enough time in the day to explain every detail of this expansive theory right away. If you guys would like slower, more methodical posts, then that's what I will do. I will provide one such post this evening addressing your and swansont's questions more thoroughly. Anyway, that's seems a bit bullying. Now I feel pressured to write up that forum post for you despite the fact that all I want to do is try to figure out a better model for probability. Please be patient and understanding.

I reworked my solutions to parity to get both even and odd and also to actually put the waveparticle (my version of the x eigenfunction) in the well by having it grow in the negative and positive directions to reach the boundaries. In so doing I discovered something fascinating. The location of the particles happened to be where the peaks in amplitude were highest. This is not because I wanted to place them there, but rather because I had to place them at one of the peaks in order to have real parts that were zero at the boundaries. The question then becomes why the probability would ever be anything but 100% that the particle will be at one of the peaks. One answer that connects to my explanation of the Pauli exclusion principle is that it may have to do with shifting the location of a particle by adding a flat initial time value or perhaps an evolving time value to its omega overbar t. The probability of such a shift might decrease proportionally to the amount of ti or te (initial or evolving time) required. This may cause a shift in position in the particle but decrease in likelihood proportionate to the square of the initial and/or evolving time required. I’ve included graphs that show some of the allowable x eigenfunctions (or waveparticles) juxtaposed to their parent eigenfunctions. Perhaps my notation is non-traditional or incorrect. I am going to write up a post on the mechanics of the equation and I think that should also clarify my notation and the work of each symbol. The interpretation I like best is that the initial time contracts. To me this evokes the Higgs field because it has to do with certain particles existing in a “thicker” substance abstractly speaking. I talked about this in more depth on page three of the forum, but initial time is all the inputs the function has before each of those inputs starts to change all together due to the addition or subtraction of evolving time. Thank you all for your insightful comments and questions. My article needs a transformative revision and that’s because of this forum.

I think you mean that none of them have odd parity. And that's because I messed up the second equation and not because the equation's messed up. I think I would have to use a different type of component to get the phases to align correctly for k bar=1 vs k bar=9.

I’ve included graphs of a particle in a well. In the mathematica notebook, they are just beta components, but if they were moving images, they would have to multiply omega so that they rotated. So first off this is an even parity. Now I have to include one image of the waveparticle (the equation of which is in the wavefunction) to show that the eigenvalue has grown from a value of 1 to 6 meaning the length of the well is 5 of these units because by definition the position of the waverfunction is determined by the eigenvalue of its waveparticle. And here I include odd parity, which has also grown 5 units such that it exists in the same square well but has gone through 9 times as many cycles because it has a k bar value that is nine times higher than the first. Baloney. A lot of your often sarcastic criticisms seem to involve you not taking the time to read the explanations on the forum, much less the article, and then criticizing me based on your confusion and ignorance. But you’re right—delta, epsilon and iota could use a more detailed explanation. When I use plus or minus signs I expressly don’t mean that you substitute that plus or minus sign into the equation. In all cases you either substitute in a positive one or a negative one, or a positive i or a negative i. Now with lowercase betas, for example, that would mean there would be four different versions. One would substitute delta=i and epsilon=i OR delta=-i and epsilon=i OR delta=-i, and epsilon=-i OR delta=i and epsilon=-i. Any of these four combinations would result in what I call a lowercase beta component which is a part of the larger category of what I call gamma components and also a part of the category of what I call lowercase gamma components. Each of these four combinations is going to have one of two chiralities (see image). Each chirality has two versions each of a different curvature (and I’ll get around to making a Mathematica notebook concerning curvature soon). I’m inserting an image of a screen shot I took a long time ago. It’s of a few Mathematica notebooks and on the top left hand side I put the delta value as either i or -i and next to it is an fi (or fraction of i) that gives the epsilon value. Parity Mathematica Notebook.nb It's not even because the eigenvalue of the waveparticle determines the position. I think this is illustrated more clearly in the above example with parity.