The Nature Of SpaceTime

[PrimalMinister]

I don't know if this is the right forum but as I am an amateur physicist this one seems appropriate. My threads, much to my frustration usually get shut down and I don't think it's very much in the spirit of science, especially because it addresses a very serious subject. I may be an amateur but that doesn't stop me from understanding and solving problems within physics. I don't have the math but I do have a simple abstraction that explains numerous things about the laws of the universe.

At present, our current models just assume the laws of the universe kick in at the big bang, there is no explanation for why this happens, it just magically does. You might as well say that an all-powerful God is willing things to be the way they are and at a moment's notice could change it. At present, physicists have got as far as understanding that we have laws, but not 'why' we have laws (this isn't a dig at scientists, I am just stating a fact). And I am not talking about the metaphysical reasons why we have the laws we do, I am talking about the physical reasons why we have the laws we do.

So while my theory doesn't have the math it's an excellent start to a theory because if right it explains the following:

• The origin of the laws of the universe (in space at least, not in time)
• The ubiquity of the laws of the universe (how they get everywhere)
• How the universe is imbuing reality with the laws of the universe
• The physical reasons for why we have the laws we do

Current models have no explanation for the above and are also based on questionable assumptions.

And this is why I think it's worthy of a discussion because it is essentially, if right, a theory of everything. And that's the thing, if I am right, then the human race makes the greatest discovery of all time, the final eternal truth about the universe. That is why I come here, to see if I can inspire someone to look at it closer. I am not sure physicists are asking the right questions of the universe and its laws which is why they are struggling to uncover the secrets of the universe. But the thing is, they are so close, there is not that much to work out. I think physics has stagnated because physicists are no longer interested in the philosophy of physics anymore and are therefore not asking the right questions thus not getting the right answers.

My simple abstraction is called polymorphic spacetime, it takes a principle found in a number of scientific and engineering fields and applies it to the universe on the whole. There is nothing unscientific about it and I think it deserves discussion because it touches on so many interesting topics, like the title of this post.

I mean the origin of the laws of the universe seems so obvious to me now but it is a complete mystery to the billions of other humans on the planet. I think a discussion on the origin of the laws of the universe is a worthy discussion to have, especially when I am offering a simple, reasonable, uncomplicated explanation of the origin.

So what do the moderators think? Can I have one thread so I can join in on the discussion?

[TheVat]

Sigh.

58 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

I may be an amateur but that doesn't stop me from understanding and solving problems within physics. I don't have the math

Sigh, pt. 2.

[PrimalMinister]

Physics isn't some magical thing only people who do maths can participate in. I read about and listen to physicists talk.

If my life had been different I might have the maths, I don't. But existing physicists can't explain the origin of the laws of the universe so it begs an answer. My abstraction polymorphic spacetime is rich and economical, it explains a number of fundamental mysteries about the universe with a simple framework.

Edited December 15 by PrimalMinister

[exchemist]

35 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Physics isn't some magical thing only people who do maths can participate in. I read about and listen to physicists talk.

If my life had been different I might have the maths, I don't. But existing physicists can't explain the origin of the laws of the universe so it begs an answer. My abstraction polymorphic spacetime is rich and economical, it explains a number of fundamental mysteries about the universe with a simple framework.

If you can’t do maths it will be crap. You can get away without much maths in a number of sciences, but in physics it is indispensable. Sorry.

 

But I see you and I discussed this 3 years ago, in a thread now in the Trash Can, and that moderation told you not to bring it up again. So this one is probably heading the same way, I would think.

Edited December 15 by exchemist

[Genady]

27 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Physics isn't some magical thing.

Correct.

28 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Only people who do maths can participate in.

Correct.

[PrimalMinister]

5 minutes ago, exchemist said:

If you can’t do maths it will be crap

Ok, but if I was going to do the maths I would start here, as I get so much from so little. Do you think it is a bad starting point?

[exchemist]

10 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Ok, but if I was going to do the maths I would start here, as I get so much from so little. Do you think it is a bad starting point?

If you can’t do maths, you won’t even understand the laws , or the physical principles, you are trying to talk about. So what hope is there? It will be a case of galloping Dunning-Kruger, won’t it?

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

My threads, much to my frustration usually get shut down and I don't think it's very much in the spirit of science, especially because it addresses a very serious subject. I may be an amateur but that doesn't stop me from understanding and solving problems within physics.

Something is wrong here. You don't think we approach your discussions in the spirit of science because they often get shut down. There's always a reason why speculative threads are closed. You also say being an amateur doesn't stop you from understanding physics. Why don't you understand the reasons given for shutting your threads down? When a thread is closed because it involves too much guesswork and not enough testable science, why don't you understand that? Why do you think it's not in the spirit of science? Do you think the spirit is supposed to encourage you to be less rigorous in your treatments? This is my frustration. If you understand, why can't you support your ideas using decent methodology? Does this make any sense at all to you?

[swansont]

4 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

My threads, much to my frustration usually get shut down and I don't think it's very much in the spirit of science, especially because it addresses a very serious subject. I may be an amateur but that doesn't stop me from understanding and solving problems within physics. I don't have the math but I do have a simple abstraction that explains numerous things about the laws of the universe.

It’s in the spirit of science to present models and evidence that supports your ideas, which you repeatedly fail to do, and what our rules require. Your threads get shut down because you don’t comply with our rules. Not having the math is a fatal flaw, especially in physics, since you can’t quantify anything. If your idea is so vague it can’t be falsified, it’s not science.

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

Physics isn't some magical thing only people who do maths can participate in. I read about and listen to physicists talk.

Listening to and reading about physics is not the same thing as doing physics. If you want to propose an idea, you have to do physics.

[PrimalMinister]

On 12/15/2024 at 10:27 PM, swansont said:

you have to do physics

I would argue that is what I am doing. I am taking a principle from holography (but the same idea is in other fields as well) and applying it to the universe as a whole, and suddenly, I get all this explanatory stuff before I even get to the maths. So I reckon this is a good place to start. And if true it will be self-evident so while supporting evidence is nice it is not required.

[swansont]

51 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

I would argue that is what I am doing. I am taking a principle from holography (but the same idea is in other fields as well) and applying it to the universe as a whole, and suddenly, I get all this explanatory stuff before I even get to the maths. So I reckon this is a good place to start. And if true it will be self-evident so while supporting evidence is nice it is not required.

No equations and no problem solving means you aren’t doing physics. You can’t make any specific (i.e. quantitative) predictions. You’re making an outline of it.

[KJW]

On 12/16/2024 at 7:15 AM, PrimalMinister said:

Physics isn't some magical thing only people who do maths can participate in.

Why do you think that doing maths is some magical thing? Did it ever occur to you that the underlying basis of the laws of physics may be mathematical?

 

[PrimalMinister]

Ok, so I am doing the philosophy of physics.

The laws of the universe are everywhere, work in any orientation, and are relative to the things they are supposedly governing.

Philosophy asks how the universe manages to pull that off, and maths describes how things move.

In the standard model, there is no explanation for how the laws of the universe got everywhere, they just magically do.

This begs the question and needs an answer, my framework, or outline gives a credible answer.

I mean, can you tell me how the laws of the universe got everywhere? You are the specialists.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

In the standard model, there is no explanation for how the laws of the universe got everywhere, they just magically do.

Right, because it’s physics, not philosophy of physics.

Quote

I mean, can you tell me how the laws of the universe got everywhere? You are the specialists.

Not me. I’m a physicist, not a philosopher 

[zapatos]

On 12/15/2024 at 12:19 PM, PrimalMinister said:

I mean the origin of the laws of the universe seems so obvious to me now but it is a complete mystery to the billions of other humans on the planet.

Hubris: a personality trait that describes someone who has extreme pride, arrogance, or dangerous overconfidence. 

[exchemist]

12 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

Ok, so I am doing the philosophy of physics.

The laws of the universe are everywhere, work in any orientation, and are relative to the things they are supposedly governing.

Philosophy asks how the universe manages to pull that off, and maths describes how things move.

In the standard model, there is no explanation for how the laws of the universe got everywhere, they just magically do.

This begs the question and needs an answer, my framework, or outline gives a credible answer.

I mean, can you tell me how the laws of the universe got everywhere? You are the specialists.

Surely, if the laws of physics were not the same throughout the cosmos, that would call for an explanation. I’d have thought it is more natural to assume they would be the same, seeing as modern cosmology has the universe expanding, more or less uniformly, from an initial small state.

So I’d say they “got everywhere” because “everywhere” grew alongside them - and, actually, under their direction - as the universe expanded. 
 

Aren’t you inventing needless problems to solve here?

Edited 10 hours ago by exchemist

[studiot]

6 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

I mean, can you tell me how the laws of the universe got everywhere? You are the specialists

Maybe, but have they got everywhen  ?

[KJW]

On 12/16/2024 at 4:19 AM, PrimalMinister said:

At present, our current models just assume the laws of the universe kick in at the big bang, there is no explanation for why this happens, it just magically does. You might as well say that an all-powerful God is willing things to be the way they are and at a moment's notice could change it. At present, physicists have got as far as understanding that we have laws, but not 'why' we have laws (this isn't a dig at scientists, I am just stating a fact). And I am not talking about the metaphysical reasons why we have the laws we do, I am talking about the physical reasons why we have the laws we do.

I'm inclined to agree with you on this point. There does seem to be the view that the laws of physics are arbitrary as if given to us from above, a view which I personally reject. My own view is that by constructing a description of reality, one now has a mathematical object whose properties can be established by mathematical means. And because of the correspondence between reality and its description, the mathematical properties of the description will correspond to laws of physics.