Everett's Hypothesis

[Everett A]

My name is Everett, and I have a hypothesis I’d like to share with you. By you, I mean everyone who I can possibly reach. I intend to send this message out to a wide array of different forums and individuals. My hypothesis consists of a new idea regarding the relationship between space-time and matter. It first occurred to me several years ago, when I was watching a video documentary about black holes. I was considering the popular mystery of what happens to matter when it is drawn into the incredible gravitational conditions of a singularity. I was approaching this question in a very casual and simplistic way, so I thought of it like this: Gravity tends to crush things together. Things crushed together tend to condense. Gases condense into liquids. Liquids condense into solids. So what does matter condense into when its gravitational attraction grows to such phenomenal levels as it does in a black hole? Is there another state of matter beyond solid?

 

Suddenly I recalled a piece of information I had once read in a book called “The Holographic Universe.” It mentioned a peculiar incident in which an expert mathematician had attempted to calculate how much energy was contained within the substance of space itself. Surprisingly, the mathematical equations resulted in a calculation predicting that there was more energy contained within a single cubic inch of empty space than there was in all the atomic matter of the entire Milky Way Galaxy. This was generally assumed at the time to be some kind of bizarre and extreme miscalculation, and was therefore ignored. However I found myself linking the results of this strange mathematical incident to my ponderings about possible alternative states of matter and almost instantly I was struck by a fascinating idea.

 

Now bear with me for a moment. What if the substance of space-time is actually super-condensed matter? I considered this for a moment before running into the obvious question: If space-time were actually a phase of highly condensed matter, then how could less-condensed states of matter exist within it? In response to this, I found myself thinking about how water can move through certain kinds of rock and how forms of energy like heat and sound are regularly conducted through even solid materials. I then considered the possibility that all atomic matter in the universe might actually be in a process of being conducted through the intensely condensed substance of space-time.

 

This concept was obviously a bit overwhelming at first because of how radically counterintuitive it seemed, but the more I thought about it, the more it seemed to make sense. I began to consider that the force of gravity might actually be some kind of counterbalancing interaction between dimensional materials and atomic matter, like water meeting resistance while passing through a mildly permeable rock, or electromagnetic energy causing structural changes to a form of metal while conducting through it. There are many other thoughts and ideas which have spun off in my head from this hypothesis about space-time and matter, but I won’t go into any more of that. I just figured it was about time I shared this main idea through some kind of widely distributed format. I’ve been keeping it to myself all this time because I’m not a professional physicist, and I just assumed for a long time that no one would listen to me. Nowadays I don’t care as much about such things, so I decided that I might as well try to make some kind of contribution to the world if at all possible. It may be that this hypothesis of mine doesn’t actually work and that I’ve only succeeded in wasting a lot of time, but I won’t deny that I hope someone out there with the technical skills to test my idea will take a genuine interest in it and that I’ll someday soon be informed that “Everett’s Hypothesis” has emerged through critical trials as “Everett’s Theory.”

[ajb]

...I’ll someday soon be informed that “Everett’s Hypothesis” has emerged through critical trials as “Everett’s Theory.”

You would need to have some mathematical model here before anyone will really take this seriously. In fact, without a proper mathematical model it is hard to understand what you are trying to claim could be a good description of nature.

[Endercreeper01]

Are you able to describe it mathematically?

If not, it can't become a theory, since you would need mathematics for it to become a theory. You also need scientific evidence for a theory.

[Everett A]

As a note for anyone who may stumble upon this post in the future:

This is something I wrote when I really didn't understand much about science and I was also ignorant about a lot of other things. Unfortunately its one of the things that first pops up when I search my name, and its honestly really embarrassing that this exists out there, but unfortunately this forum doesn't delete posts, so all I can do is attach a comment to express my discontent with my silly past self.