M-theory, (-1) information asymmetry

[JGNLBCA]

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.

 

 

 

[Mordred]

Not everything comes in pairs for starters, the strong and weak force both have three charges as one example. 

 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.

In physics a dimension is a mathematical term meaning an independent variable or other mathematical object such as a group or tensor. In particle physics it often related to an effective degree of freedom.

Edited October 6, 2019 by Mordred

[Sensei]

3 hours ago, Mordred said:

In physics a dimension is a mathematical term meaning an independent variable or other mathematical object such as a group or tensor. In particle physics it often related to an effective degree of freedom.

Maybe you should make article and make it sticky what dimension means in physics.. so they won't confuse it with sci-fi vision of other dimensions..

 

[Mordred]

2 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Maybe you should make article and make it sticky what dimension means in physics.. so they won't confuse it with sci-fi vision of other dimensions..

 

Good idea which forum would you recommend for the sticky ?

[JGNLBCA]

On 10/5/2019 at 7:17 PM, Mordred said:

Not everything comes in pairs for starters, the strong and weak force both have three charges as one example. 

 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.

In physics a dimension is a mathematical term meaning an independent variable or other mathematical object such as a group or tensor. In particle physics it often related to an effective degree of freedom.

 

 

"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.

 

 

[Mordred]

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.

 GR was never designed to predict the SM of particles. It is designed to handle field treatments of relative measurements with a variable time. 

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.

 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.

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.

Not to mention that you would require the mathematics to make testable predictions which is completely lacking.

Edited October 7, 2019 by Mordred

[JGNLBCA]

“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.

Edited October 8, 2019 by JGNLBCA

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, JGNLBCA said:

 

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.

I have probably heard every excuse under the Sun for why math isn't presented when applying a speculative model. The simple fact is it is a requirement that is mentioned in the forum rules. 

It is also required to validate any physics theory so I suggest you start that nerd speak as you put it.

You can start by writing out the thermodynamic treatment for an a diabetic expansion which is how our universe is modeled. As your model doesn't conform to that you need to show the changes as it applies to the first law if thermodynamics.

Secondly you should study the meaning of a closed system. As your claims are wrong according to thermodynamics.

You are making claims not compatible with mainstream physics so you are required to provide those Nerdspeak mathematical details. 

I can easily mathematically prove that the only way to ensure a homogenous and isotropic accelerated expansion is with a uniform scalar field that is also homogeneous and isotropic as per the cosmological constant (DE) 

I can also mathematically prove that spacetime curvature isn't space being bent but refers to the Woldlines  (geodesics) of particle transport and is dependency on the potential and kinetic energy terms. (Path of least resistance ). 

I can also prove your statement concerning mass is wrong in your OP.

Mass is simply resistance to inertia change and it is unified accordingly via the 18 parameter coupling constants of the standard model of physics.

On 10/5/2019 at 8:44 PM, JGNLBCA said:

. And lacks a unified theory for mass. 

Just a side note energy is simply the ability to perform work.

Potential energy is energy due to an objects location compared to another location. (Ie field potentials )

Kinetic energy is energy due to particle motion.

The FLRW metric already correlates the pressure terms and mass energy in the equation.

[math]w=\frac{p}{\rho}[/math] the FLRW uses this to define the fluid equations via the equations of state.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology)

It is your responsibility to prove these wrong accordingly to your model proposal.

Just as it would be required to prove this wrong for the SM model.

[math]\mathcal{G}=SU(3)_c\otimes SU(2)_L\otimes U(1)_Y[/math]

Color, weak isospin, abelion Hypercharge groups.

Couplings in sequence [math]g_s, g, \acute{g}[/math]

[math]\mathcal{L}_{gauge}=-\frac{1}{2}Tr{G^{\mu\nu}G_{\mu\nu}}-\frac{1}{2}Tr {W^{\mu\nu}W_{\mu\nu}}-\frac{1}{4}B^{\mu\nu}B_{\mu\nu}[/math]

Field strengths in sequence in last G W B tensors for SU(3),SU(2) and U(1)

Leads to covariant derivative

[math]D_\mu=\partial_\mu+ig_s\frac{\lambda_i}{2}G^i_\mu+ig\frac{\sigma_i}{2}W^i_\mu+igQ_YB_\mu[/math]

Corresponds to

[math]G_{\mu\nu}=-\frac{i}{g_s}[D_\mu,D_\nu][/math]

[math]W_-\frac{I}{g}[D_{\mu\nu}D_{\mu,\nu}][/math]

[math]B_{\mu\nu}-\frac{I}{\acute{g}}[D_\mu,D_\nu][/math]

I haven't added the Higgs field to this portion. However the mass terms except the Higgs contributions are contained within those equations.

The thread myself and Orion are looking at these equations is here.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/117992-the-lagrangian-equation/

 

Edited October 8, 2019 by Mordred

[Eise]

3 hours ago, JGNLBCA said:

Both Einstein and Hawking near death thought that TTOE would be found in m-theory.

Uh? 

Quote

M-theory is a theory in physics that unifies all consistent versions of superstring theory. The existence of such a theory was first conjectured by Edward Witten at a string theory conference at the University of Southern California in the Spring of 1995.

Einstein died 18 April 1955.

[JGNLBCA]

 

15 hours ago, Eise said:

Uh? 

Einstein died 18 April 1955.

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

[JGNLBCA]

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." 

[Mordred]

Take your time, Feymann is an excellent mathematician we still use a great deal of his work in terms of Feymann path integrals. He is a good example to follow. 

 Every equation I posted involve those integrals in so far as those equations describe the gauge groups and symmetries of the integrals. None of the above involve string theory.  Though you would have quite the exercise deriving the derivatives from the above.

Edited October 8, 2019 by Mordred