An Investigation into the Mechanics of Gravity and Dark Energy

[David Callahan]

The assumption is that the universe is the physical manifestation of mathematics. If this is true, the universe would have to behave with a mathematical model that is bounded only by itself, and to be able to predict everything about itself, simultaneously.

 

This is my attempt to build such a model.

 

The model is describing a structure that is bounded by 0 and 1, but has the ability to predict every point between 0 and 1 and also including 1. Not only does it have the ability to predict every point between, but also has the ability to predict every point of every point within, approaching 0, simultaneously.

 

The paper is an excerpt from a larger paper, so it maybe a little off.

Callahan Research Paper.pdf

Edited September 27, 2013 by David Callahan

[David Callahan]

Just FYI, my research paper contains the structure that is described in the intitial post. I am just commenting because the views do not commensurate the downloads of the paper. My attempt to create this structure incorporates mechanics that approximate gravity and dark energy. Any comments are welcome and appreciated, especially by the professionals that have a strong background in math and physics that view this website. The research paper was part of a larger project and if it makes references to subjects not included in the paper, this is why.

[David Callahan]

Abstract Science has been describing the behavior of gravity ever since Newton and his Laws of Motion, and then later refined by Einstein with his General Theory of Relativity. The frustration of science is that it has not been able to give a definitive cause for the behavior of gravity. This is not for the lack of effort by some of the most brilliant men who ever walked the Earth.

 

The difficulty lies in physics, every observation must be related to each other. The universe is the universe's most difficult puzzle. This difficulty creates esoteric disciplines that could obscure the vision between science. However, the commonality between these disciplines is mathematics.

 

Mathematics is inherently simpler than physics, consisting of finite mechanics. This mechanical behavior has the ability to describe infinity. Because of this, it is possible and conceivable that a mathematician could literally stumble upon the algorithm that the universe uses without ever studying physics.

 

This paper investigates the mechanics of gravity by examining the potential of mathematics. The following research assumes that mathematics is the universe, the possibilities and restrictions are the same. This paper unfolds with sciences current description of gravity, and then pairs mathematics with gravity to give a possible cause for gravity.

 

Callahan An Investigation into the Mathematical Nature of Gravity.pdf

 

The direct intention of this was not to bump it up, it was a secondary intention. The direct intention is to ascertain the viability of this argument and to gauge the response even though the paper is far from complete.

 

[hoola]

I read your entry with interest, I see evidence that "math is all", however predictability seems less than likely. I say, math is all, but math is an evolutionary process, that it had a beginning, middle and possible end, and what we see is a result of the process as it stands today. Since the "wheel still in spin" is allowing changes to occur, I see a fundamental barrier to predict any future outcome within the universe. Randomness of the quantum will always shade a perfect outcome to becoming a bracketed guestimate. Someone may come along and figure out a precise algorithm and be able to assure compete prediction, which would be a return to classical physics in gross bodies. But what about human beings? We are a manifestation of maths too, if everything else is...with that knowledge combined with free will, we could see what we would be doing in the future. And we could 'mess" with that outcome, doing something opposite of what math would have predicted we do....that is but one example of the impossibilites surrounding predictibility. If mathematics can develop "free will", as through us, then a crude relation can be drawn between the complexities of the human mind and the "3 bodies orbiting" issue. You state that the universe is a mathematical model "bounded only by itself".... If math spontaneously arose, in full complexities, I could see you saying that...but from whence did math come from? One must consider that, if indeed math arose from some less complex format, (logic) then that this pre-formal math must have come from something else (chaos), so there may be many more "players" in the field than a lone mathematical figure, and those other players may still have some direct bearing on the outcome of the game...unseen, but within the sphere of influence....edd

the heading reads "an investigation into the mechanics of gravity and dark energy"....I see a possible relationship between dark matter and gravity.....and see dark energy as a more obvious form of the "wheel in spin"...and how the maths "do work"...while the commonality of gravity forces between dark matter and our universe tends to suggest another universe or universes co-exists with ours, having no (obvious) physical relation to our universe, except that particular feature...edd

Edited January 23, 2014 by hoola

[David Callahan]

Hoola,

 

Thank you for your response. IMO, if mathematics does equal the universe, then mathematics has always existed, it is our intelligence that identifites the relationship. If my argument is correct, and if you can follow my argument, then you will can see that predictability is impossible. You can never reach zero.

 

I am glad that you have identified the lack of free will in my model. There are two conclusions to this. Either there is no free will. Or we can control space within our minds.

 

I do not like the idea of more than one universe, it is nonsensical to me. Maybe there are is a larger organization of matter like galaxies, and maybe we exist in one of those, but it would still be interacting. My model restricts the universe to itself, but where we exsist in this model is infinite. We could exist anywere between zero and one.

 

David

[hoola]

David..I think if we want a true TOE, we have to take mathematics as an occurrence, but only as a required output from the underlying logic. Unless you want to consider something as "eternal" or a steady-state, or given by "god" fully formed, then things such as math and logic, which are so obvious they become the last of the "elephants in the room" to be seen, have to be considered as "things" just as other physical phenomena have been. Identifying the obvious stuff such as masses of particles and the nature of light requires a further "breaking down" of the constituent parts of these phenomena, into the parts themselves, those parts being the maths...and then breaking down the maths.....why consider them sacrosanct, and beyond "the grace of the gods and will of the king" to do so..? If math is the foundation of the all, what is the foundation of maths? I believe there is an answer to the question. Providing a most logical block diagram of a flow chart of how this could have happened, will have to do for now.../.....The idea of more than one universe does take some getting used to, but if that is the truth, seems we have to "like it" as our universe's existence may depend upon the existence of some other universe or universes, in order for any universe to exist. I rebelled at the idea when I first heard about it too...it seems to add complexity to our situation which seems quite complex enough already...who needs another universe to consider in the day-to-day musings on what kind of enviornment this universe really is...but to me, the detection of dark matter was the salient point that eventually swayed my thinking. Now, I like the idea of other universes, but draw the line at a finite number of them...I don't like the idea of a doppelganger doing a repeat of my life in the "infinite universes model"...that seems to indicate a loss of uniqueness to my life. With my ideas on how the universe got started, I see a line of reasoning that there are a finite number of universes, and a finite number of "things" within each universe. The only "infinite" thing I consider is the "chaos" and that is the one special case..../....free will is what defines a conscious being, if you are conscious, you have free will..thinking is the ultimate act of manipulation of data.../....as far as "controlling space with our minds", we do have a limited capacity to do so now. We can move a pile of books from one side of the self to the other....of course, I presume you are describing something a little more outlandish than that, such as the heisenberg principle of observer effects on experiment....In that case. such things such as whether a photon shows up as wave or particle in the 2 slit experiment is good example of how consciousness (or logic) and the observer effect has a real meaning. I think the presence of logic in the experiment, by the observer, is the key, not the fact that the observer was human, or had a pre-set desire to see one particular outcome over the other. I say, this is a reveal that logic itself it a fundamental force, and needs to be further addressed as a thing, with a eye towards seeing if it can be a describable "thing", and that this "thing" described the maths, which describes us...I have a mod on the anthropromorphic model of "the universe couldn't exist without intelligent life in it", with a partial agreement. I say, this or any universe cannot exist without the presence of logic within it....and logic itself is not alive, and certainly not intelligent, but is the foundation of everything including intelligence. We are the icing on the cake, but not required for the cake to exist....edd