One way to explain the Universe

[mv]

Hello,

 

My opinion about our Universe is presented in a short article here:

http://searchwarp.com/swa562857-One-Way-To-Explain-The-Universe.htm

 

Quotation:

 

<<<

The creation and evolution of our Universe, including its accelerated expansion, can be explained through the following logical reasoning:

 

The photons, resulted after Big Bang, each of them having a kind of "graviton" with it (in other words, the smallest gravity unit being associated with a photon), have started to join each other, when they were "close enough" to each other, so that the smallest elementary particle can be considered the one formed by joining two photons, which were "close enough" to "connect" each other.

 

Next, this first elementary particle, was coming in contact with other photon and formed the second type of elementary particle, also two first elementary particles joined together have formed the third type of elementary particle and so on ... in time ... all the today's known elementary particles have been formed.

 

Therefore, by forming the particles of matter as mentioned above, the resultant of the joined "smallest gravity units", around each particle, have generated the gravity as we know it today (more elementary particles are in a celestial body, bigger/stronger gravity field is around it).

 

[...] electrons behave like "tornadoes rotating in one sense" and protons like "tornadoes rotating in the opposite sense" having possible their attraction, until a specific distance, because their rotating gravitational fields are interacting in the same direction when combine each other, but for the same charges case, their combined gravitational fields are interacting in opposite directions, repelling each other.

 

As a conclusion, all forces known in our Universe (including all forms of matter manifestations) are results of these elementary particles behavior/interactions, function of their type (how many photons are containing), their rotation around themselves (including their gravitational field rotation in the same sense) and their position in space (how close they are one from each other), having the initial moving, given by the Big Bang, influenced (changed) continuously.

 

[...]

 

The accelerated expansion of the Universe can be due to the "gravitational glue" becoming weaker while the distances between galaxies increase, and some possible huge black holes from other "close enough" Universes around our Universe, attract the matter from the margins (along the borders) of our Universe (therefore we may not need any "dark energy" to explain the accelerated expansion of our Universe, like the today's astrophysicists are supposing).

 

The ending of each Universe can be a huge black hole, which, if its mass is big enough, in time may produce a new Big Bang, giving birth in this way to a new Universe.

 

Author

Mihail Vrapcea

Romania, Europe

 

P.S. One of the most important results from my theory is that any subatomic particle has its own gravity field, rotating at very high speed in the same sense with the particle's rotation, so that ALL other forces/interactions, electromagnetism, strong interaction and weak interaction, are generated by these high speed rotating gravity fields interactions (obtaining the "Grand Unified Theory" or the so called "Theory of Everything").

>>>

Edited October 31, 2010 by mv

[mv]

More related info (discussions about it) can be found here:

http://www.space.com/common/forums/viewtopic.php?t=25146

 

Sincerely yours,

Mihail Vrapcea

Edited November 9, 2010 by mv

[Skaffen]

Are you saying everything is related?

 

If so, you have reached the basic principle that has underpinned science for the past 100 years. Although this would put you at the start of the quest for deeper understanding...not at the end.

[Klaynos]

So what predictions does your idea make?

[mv]

So what predictions does your idea make?

 

I am not sure what are you referring (what "predictions" do you expect).

 

However, like Jules Verne, I can predict that, in the future, having more and more powerful computers and following the tendency to solve any problem "from the root", from the atomic level (as nanotechnology is working at the molecular level), it will be possible to synthesize any substance, actually anything (any object) by starting only with Hydrogen and using some very thin laser fascicles, emitted from different positions (angles) to "push" and arrange in space the atoms (nuclei and electrons), one by one, in the corresponding positions, following the default matrix stored in a database, corresponding to what substance/object we want to create (the arranging "one by one" will be possible with less/convenient energy consumption).

 

In this way, using for the lasers, let us say, the free energy obtained by using the Gravitational Isolator, as discussed in my other related topic on this forum, we will be able to create anything very conveniently, any object "made from scratch" (like a "copy and paste" process): food, cars, etc. so that all people will be rich, having anything they want. Unfortunately, only then all people will consider more important the knowledge/education (useful information) than the material things.

 

Sincerely yours,

Mihail Vrapcea

Edited November 24, 2010 by mv

[ajb]

One of the most important results from my theory is that any subatomic particle has its own gravity field, rotating at very high speed in the same sense with the particle's rotation...

 

This needs much more explaining. You suggest that the gravitational field couples to the spin of a particle? In doing so you will have to introduce torsion. How does your theory relate to Einstein--Cartan theory and/or teleparallel gravity?

 

As for the cosmology aspect after the big bang does your theory reduce to that of FWR cosmologies? In particular does it look like lambda CDM? Does your theory agree observations of the CMBR? Could you theory be distinguished from other via the CMBR, for instance? (This is what Klaynos was really asking)

[Incendia]

So you are saying that every particle can be ultimately split over and over again until we end up splitting a particle into photons? [Are you saying everything is made of photons?]

And that particle spin is what generates the forces?

 

Sounds interesting...Could use more/better explanation.

Edited November 25, 2010 by ProcuratorIncendia

[mv]

So you are saying that every particle can be ultimately split over and over again until we end up splitting a particle into photons? [Are you saying everything is made of photons?]

And that particle spin is what generates the forces?

 

Sounds interesting...Could use more/better explanation.

 

It is quite well explained into my article how everything is made of photons, and how the very fast rotation of the gravity fields around particles (the resultants of those "smallest gravity units" around the "connected" photons, which form them), besides the "quite usual attraction effect" of these gravitational fields around elementary particles, generate electromagnetism, strong interaction and weak interaction (obtaining the "Theory of everything").

The Large Hadron Collider should be able to test/prove experimentally my theory about the Universe (however, theoretically, its predictions fit with the facts known already).

 

Also, one photon can be an entire Universe if we become small enough to go inside it, and we can go infinitely small (mathematically nothing can stop us). It depends only about the level of size, which can be infinitely small or infinitely big (to see, let us say, lots of Universes like ours forming a kind of "photon" for a much bigger Universe, and so on).

 

Sincerely yours,

Mihail Vrapcea

Edited November 26, 2010 by mv

[Incendia]

Theory of everything would predict and explain literally everything. It would tell us what happen 2000 years ago as long as we had the right information to put into the equations.

Photons are Russian dolls? Sounds crazy... The smallest particle would be split into energy...technically photons are energy as light is energy and photons make up light.

 

This universe being a photon for another sounds like nonsense.

 

The only way to prove it would be to split the quark. If that doesn't split into light we would have to split whatever does come out. And split than if that isn't light...except we can't do this for the following reason:

 

1. Huge electric bill.

2. Other huge costs.

3. This means it may cost billions.

4. Government...it likes to cut things...like funding.

5. The energies may be un-attainable on Earth.

[mv]

Theory of everything would predict and explain literally everything. It would tell us what happen 2000 years ago as long as we had the right information to put into the equations.

Photons are Russian dolls? Sounds crazy... The smallest particle would be split into energy...technically photons are energy as light is energy and photons make up light.

 

This universe being a photon for another sounds like nonsense.

 

The only way to prove it would be to split the quark. If that doesn't split into light we would have to split whatever does come out. And split than if that isn't light...except we can't do this for the following reason:

 

1. Huge electric bill.

2. Other huge costs.

3. This means it may cost billions.

4. Government...it likes to cut things...like funding.

5. The energies may be un-attainable on Earth.

 

Quotation from Wikipedia:

 

"The theory of everything (TOE) is a putative theory of theoretical physics that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena, and, ideally, has predictive power for the outcome of any experiment that could be carried out in principle.

[...] Over time, the term stuck in popularizations of quantum physics to describe a theory that would unify or explain through a single model the theories of all fundamental interactions of nature."

 

My theory about the Universe is doing just that (the dark-blue definition of the theory of everything from the above quotation).

 

Regarding the "Russian dolls" that you mentioned, everything is made of something smaller, not only the photons, and "vice versa" more things together create something bigger and so on (as I said: it depends only about the level of size, which can be infinitely small or infinitely big).

 

Also regarding the smallest particle (a rotating pair of two "connected" photons) being split into energy, is there any problem in understanding the relation between particles (matter) and what we call "energy"?

To make comparisons, it is like the behavior difference at a rugby football between the players running freely around (photons/energy) and the scrum/batch they make when "connecting" each other (particle), or you can consider the difference between a married man, who has created already a "particle" with his wife, and the bachelors looking (energetically search) for partners etc.

 

About the using of the Large Hadron Collider to prove my theory I suppose that it will not cost so much (they did not spend so much money just to look at it, and not to use it because it costs too much to be used).

 

Sincerely yours,

Mihail Vrapcea

Edited November 27, 2010 by mv

[Incendia]

...I prefer the original definition of the TOE...

 

I like the idea but...

1. Don't photons always move in straight lines and at the speed of light? Surely this would cause problems for your idea.
2. How do these photons connect?
3. Why don't the constantly colliding photons around us form particles? We don't we see matter just appearing in space?

[mississippichem]

It is quite well explained into my article how everything is made of photons,

 

Got any math to back that? You're stepping on some conservation laws and you'll need some serious derivations get that by this audience. This is a tuff crowd, we like to see the numbers. Good luck! Judging from his post record, I have a feeling ajb can do laplace transforms in his sleep .

Edited November 27, 2010 by mississippichem

[Bignose]

I am not sure what are you referring (what "predictions" do you expect).

 

Predictions that can show your idea to be substantiated or not.

 

Such as: If a body of mass x rotates at y rpm, the gravity force will be z at w meters away from that object.

 

Or, if a body of mass x is split all the way down, it will create y number of photons at frequency z.

 

Etc.

 

Predictions that if an experiment would be set up, the results of the experiment would either validate or invalidate your idea.

 

Without testable predictions, all you are doing is story telling, like that whole aside about Jules Verne and powerful computers. Without testable predictions, you certainly aren't doing science. Science requires specific predictions to be able to show in an unbiased, objective, unambiguous way that an idea is correct or not.

Edited November 27, 2010 by Bignose

[mv]

Got any math to back that? You're stepping on some conservation laws and you'll need some serious derivations get that by this audience. This is a tuff crowd, we like to see the numbers. Good luck! Judging from his post record, I have a feeling ajb can do laplace transforms in his sleep .

 

Regarding the math behind (for) my theory, this is my main field of study, I am a mathematician (graduated Mathematics with the average 9.09, from maximum 10), but I preferred first to use the common language to make it understandable for all people, not only for the high educated ones.

However, I should be able to present the mathematical model for my theory soon, through a copyrighted article (not on public forums). Then I will place the link to it on all forums where my theory was/is discussed.

 

I like the red sentence (motto) on the ProcuratorIncendia's posts "A Genius is just a madman who turns out to be right.", but in the real life, instead of that "madman", we have a "hardworking (well trained) thinker".

 

Thank you all for your messages related to both: "One way to explain the Universe" and "The Gravitational Isolator"!

 

Sincerely yours,

Mihail Vrapcea

Edited November 28, 2010 by mv

[lemur]

I like this idea. My big question would be under what conditions photons become elementary particles of matter under their own gravitation. Is the requirement that an enormous amount and density of energy be present? Or would it be that no other gravity is present to "straighten" photons into radiating waves? If it is the latter, you would expect matter to be forming in the distant wake of galactic radiation, where gravitation is practically non-existent. If high energy-density is the key, that would be inconvenient since you could claim that the initial conditions of the big bang are no longer present and therefore such matter-forming energy phenomena can no longer be observed.

[Incendia]

Lemur, Photons don't have gravitation...

 

I would like to know what would cause photons to bind together to cause elementary particles. It is an important question you will have to answer. If you don't you will have critics asking why we don't see particles forming around us all the time.

 

Also photons always move at the speed of light. The speed of light is always constant. How does your theory get around this fact? Does it scrap it completely? If it does then you will have to explain what would cause light to slow down.

Edited November 28, 2010 by ProcuratorIncendia

[steevey]

Hello,

 

My opinion about our Universe is presented in a short article here:

http://searchwarp.co...he-Universe.htm

 

Quotation:

 

<<<

The creation and evolution of our Universe, including its accelerated expansion, can be explained through the following logical reasoning:

 

The photons, resulted after Big Bang, each of them having a kind of "graviton" with it (in other words, the smallest gravity unit being associated with a photon), have started to join each other, when they were "close enough" to each other, so that the smallest elementary particle can be considered the one formed by joining two photons, which were "close enough" to "connect" each other.

 

Next, this first elementary particle, was coming in contact with other photon and formed the second type of elementary particle, also two first elementary particles joined together have formed the third type of elementary particle and so on ... in time ... all the today's known elementary particles have been formed.

 

Therefore, by forming the particles of matter as mentioned above, the resultant of the joined "smallest gravity units", around each particle, have generated the gravity as we know it today (more elementary particles are in a celestial body, bigger/stronger gravity field is around it).

 

[...] electrons behave like "tornadoes rotating in one sense" and protons like "tornadoes rotating in the opposite sense" having possible their attraction, until a specific distance, because their rotating gravitational fields are interacting in the same direction when combine each other, but for the same charges case, their combined gravitational fields are interacting in opposite directions, repelling each other.

 

As a conclusion, all forces known in our Universe (including all forms of matter manifestations) are results of these elementary particles behavior/interactions, function of their type (how many photons are containing), their rotation around themselves (including their gravitational field rotation in the same sense) and their position in space (how close they are one from each other), having the initial moving, given by the Big Bang, influenced (changed) continuously.

 

[...]

 

The accelerated expansion of the Universe can be due to the "gravitational glue" becoming weaker while the distances between galaxies increase, and some possible huge black holes from other "close enough" Universes around our Universe, attract the matter from the margins (along the borders) of our Universe (therefore we may not need any "dark energy" to explain the accelerated expansion of our Universe, like the today's astrophysicists are supposing).

 

The ending of each Universe can be a huge black hole, which, if its mass is big enough, in time may produce a new Big Bang, giving birth in this way to a new Universe.

 

Author

Mihail Vrapcea

Romania, Europe

 

P.S. One of the most important results from my theory is that any subatomic particle has its own gravity field, rotating at very high speed in the same sense with the particle's rotation, so that ALL other forces/interactions, electromagnetism, strong interaction and weak interaction, are generated by these high speed rotating gravity fields interactions (obtaining the "Grand Unified Theory" or the so called "Theory of Everything").

>>>

 

On some discovery channel-like TV series, I saw the universe being explained, and one of the reasons the universe couldn't exist today given this circumstance, is if it was all light. Energy does not warp the fabric of space time. When two light particles collide, they do not form matter, all they do is get entangled. Not only that, but it could simply be a matter of that the universe is older than we thought.

A different phenomena which the author could have used is that the universe was incredibly dense at that point in time, so since there was more than light, and a lot of energy, things could get smashed into each other and eventually fuse. Another thing the author could have used is that incredibly small amounts of matter and energy are created out of the seeming nothingness of space, speculated it's sometimes matter-anti-matter pairs. It could just be that some matter and anti-matter didn't get eliminated because the universe was so dense and energetic.

Edited November 29, 2010 by steevey

[Klaynos]

So, it's been a few months now... where's the maths and predictions?

[mv]

So, it's been a few months now... where's the maths and predictions?

My last (previous) message on this forum, when I mentioned the publishing of the math behind my theory, was on 28 November 2010, as you can see above (only almost two months ago).

 

However, I did not have both enough free time and the appropriate conditions here to complete it yet, but I will do it as soon as possible. Thank you for your patience!

 

Sincerely yours,

Mihail Vrapcea

Edited January 27, 2011 by mv

[mv]

In order for you to understand the delay (problems / obstacles) regarding completion of the mathematical model for my theory, I have to inform you about the main cause of my unfortunate situation regarding health and career (general welfare).
In September 2002, here in Romania, I was poisoned, to not to get back in USA with my wife and our child (after June 2000, having to quit both my master program in biostatistics and my job as a programmer, at the date of departure my salary being $ 2400 monthly and since Fall $ 4300 per month; besides the three years F1 visa for Master, it would be added the H1 visa for 5 years provided by the software company where I was working).

At that time, I had prepared very well for the Microsoft Certified Programmer (in Visual FoxPro) exam, but I never got to sustain it because of the poisoning.
I was lucky with my very good health condition at that moment (athletic body, going to the gym / bodybuilding regularly ... without vices, being used to eat healthy food, with more fruit / vegetables, etc..), otherwise I would not be able to survive.
However, I had to struggle for years with very strict diet (e.g. during that year for Christmas I could eat nothing but oranges) and still I haven't fully recovered.

[mv]

Unfortunately, I am still not recovered enough to be able to complete my main projects (in spite of the fact that I am continuing to eat mainly fruits and vegetables), but I try to keep an optimistic attitude to overcome all difficulties.

Edited July 30, 2015 by mv