The Theory of Everything: TOE


T.O.E. stands for The Theory of Everything.

In the 17th century, natural philosophers believed that all forces/force-fields in the universe sprung from all forces transmitted in similar fashions (for example, the direct contact of energy packets (like atoms that existed as solids, contacting other solids). We now know that all energy packets in the highest energy force fields (electromagnetic (EM) atomics, and the subatomic fields of strong and weak nuclear) appear to have exterior boundaries that attract or repel one another with electromagnetic fields. However, solids are agglomerations of atoms that generate their own surface physics (for example, van der Waal forces/tensions). We know these surface forces generated by subsystems of our universe (across their boundaries with other subsystems in the rest of the universe) as possessing surface, or interfacial tensions. Yet, until today, there has been no explanation of how surface, or interfacial tension, can characterize the non-electromagnetic gravitational field.

Newton believed he could put represent a universal law of gravitation by putting together what Galileo and Kepler discovered about the cosmos:

In the late 17th century, Isaac Newton‘s description of the long-distance force of gravity implied that not all forces in nature result from things coming into contact. Newton’s work in his Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy dealt with this in a further example of unification, in this case unifying Galileo‘s work on terrestrial gravity, Kepler‘s laws of planetary motion and the phenomenon of tides by explaining these apparent actions at a distance under one single law: the law of universal gravitation.[17]

In 1814, building on these results, Laplace famously suggested that a sufficiently powerful intellect could, if it knew the position and velocity of every particle at a given time, along with the laws of nature, calculate the position of any particle at any other time:[18]: ch 7 

 Laplace, a French scholar, whose ideas form the foundations of physics, thought that TOE meant there could be one equation that if fed to a very intelligent human (or perhaps to an AI) could come up with complete predictions for every physical behavior in our universe. Then Quantum Mechanics and Uncertainty thought came into being. It seems there were situations that could not exactly return only one outcome/solution, because at such high energies such behaviors became statistical.

Laplace thus envisaged a combination of gravitation and mechanics as a theory of everything. Modern quantum mechanics implies that uncertainty is inescapable, and thus that Laplace’s vision has to be amended: a theory of everything must include gravitation and quantum mechanics. Even ignoring quantum mechanics, chaos theory is sufficient to guarantee that the future of any sufficiently complex mechanical or astronomical system is unpredictable.

Quantum mechanics, Uncertainty, and Chaos Theory pulls the rug out from under the idea that we can use one equation to predict all of the behavior of our universe breaks down.

Where many explanations of the history of thought on the models of physical behaviors breaks down is it only follows particle physics through the 19th century. Early on, a French fluid dynamics researcher, Navier, came up with an equation that was later called the Navier-Stokes equation. The equation can easily morph into the pre-statistical, lower energy equation, analogous for all three EM forces across an expanding boundary. This is the equation I used to show how a quantum phenomenon arises as any boundary expands radially. So, why am I thinking it’s much easier to show how there can be a theory of everything (or maybe a limited theory of everything) not through a flow chart of ideas in particle physics, but one grounded in cosmological curvature?

In the elasticity analog of The General Energy Equation (GEE) (that was already tapped by Maxwell for the prediction of EM behavior):

  1. Quantum Number/Frequency A dependency on time equaling a dependency on space will give a nondimensional number = the frequency of instability across the cg for a fluid system.
  2. The GEE uses the curvature times the interfacial tension of the expanding boundary to equal any force crossing such a boundary.
  3. All force fields are also tensile fields. The problem with the historical models so far is that the lack of recognition of such. If all force fields are tensile fields (F/distance along the boundary), then there needs to be something like two poles resisting one another to make that tension. [In a gravitational field, I propose that universal expansion and the resistance of such are the two poles. Unlike EM tensile fields, gravitational tensile fields vary depending on the resistance of bodies/density-distributions that have lost their energetic energy packets (made up mostly of subatomic particles (outer space))]
  4. Now we must see how our TOE is corrupted. Because we understand that curvature changes in a radial field given by the GEE. Number 1, above, talks about an oscillatory frequency of a system. When oscillation about a system’s cg (in our experiments, the singularity source) becomes offset from the average centroid of flow—then a sine wave impinges on the boundary/expanding-boundary (as seen from the radial amplitude).

[It seems as if we now have two parts of a system doing different things but both with their own curvature: there is the trough representing negative amplitude (it represents kinetic energy loss (a locality (meaning mostly centered on the system’s cg (or crossing the average centroid in small amounts)). In fluids, there is flow around the trough and then outward to expand the crest boundaries.

But in a gravitational force/tensile field, the crest represents the unconstrained part of the flow (the Uncertain, statistical, high-energy quantum mechanical, and chaotic part).]

  • 5. Something extremely important about the unconstrained crests (with diffusing energy packets coming in and out of existence (reproduced in high-energy colliders)) is that there is a simple equation that characterizes both the spectrum of regions including both trough localities and crest nonlocalities. The Square-Cube Law tells us that really large solid volumes have very small surface area to volume ratios as compared to regions of very small mass. So the smaller the particle, the faster it moves and interacts with more degrees of freedom than the larger solids do (perspectives change (experimental setups change) depending if we watch physical behaviors as nonlocalities (moving) or localities (static as a point location).
  • 6. Dark Matter: Other kinds of curvature arising in the expansion and decrease of spacetime (besides troughs and crests, there are inflection points with their own curvature signature. Black hole, including metastable troughs all have their own characteristic curvature opposite to regular mass/matter. Einstein’s equivalency of special relativity with general relativity discusses how they can be mistaken for one another (how the special relativity in accelerated motion (dark matter?) can mimic general relativity (regular matter).
  • 7. Hawking Radiation: Gives a maximally curved surface for the most massive black hole(s) that sports a force across the shrinking boundary that overcomes the attraction of the smallest energy packets making it up (J.A. Wheeler’s geons).
  • Continuous vs Discontinuous Mathematics [Will appear in TOE II]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: