The definition of a Theory of Everything is that it should completely define the physical properties of OUR universe.

Before we begin, we should first determine how we what to do that.  In other words, do we want find a universal equation to quantify what we observe or explain why we observe it or BOTH.

For example, quantum mechanics ONLY quantifies observations of environment it defines in terms of the mathematically properties of a wave function.  It was developed by using the numerical value of observations to define the wave function that predicts those values

Einstein took a different approach when developing Relativity.  First, he sought to understand and explain how and why the speed of light is constant despite the relative motion of an observer in terms of how things in OUR universe would interact if that were true.  He then developed the math to quantify his explanation.

Both of these theories can be part of a theory of everything however that is only possible if they both define the universe we occupy.

For example, one can use mathematics to determine why we observe 4 apples on a table by assuming that originally there were 2 on it and 2 were added or there were 6 and 2 were taken away but only one defines how and why they actually got there.

However, there is no way using math alone to determine how many apples existed before they were observed on the table. Putting it another way one CANNOT use only mathematical solutions confirm the assumption they are based on.

As was mentioned earlier quantum mechanics ONLY quantifies observations of environment it defines in terms of the mathematically properties of a wave function. This means it may define a universe that we do not live even though it can accurately quantify it. This is because, as with the apples a mathematical solution cannot confirm its assumption the wavefunction defines the quantum universe.

However, if one does as Einstein did first try to explain how and why we observed what we do in terms of how things to interact in OUR universe and then derive the math to it one can be sure the solutions it defines are an observable aspect of it.

This suggests if one takes approach the Einstein did in developing Relativity and apply it to the fact that energy is quantized one may be able to derive a Theory of Everything in OUR universe that not only explains why it is but also quantifies it in terms of the interactions of the observable properties of OUR universe.

As was mentioned earlier quantum mechanics developed its mathematical solutions on the assumption the particle properties of energy ARE fundamental. However, before the development of its theoretical structure no one attempted to determine if it was a secondary outcome of an interaction between an observable component of OUR universe.

For example, in “OUR universe” observations, the science of wave mechanics and Relativity tells us an electromagnetic wave moves continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from moving through space by someone or something interacting with it. This would result in it being confined to specific volume of three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional “walls” of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause the energy of an electromagnetic wave to be concentrated at the point in space were a particle would be found. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency that the wave function associates with a particle.  Putting it another way one does not have to assume that the mathematics of quantum mechanics is the only reason why energy in “OUR universe” is observed to be quantized.

This shows even though we cannot observe what goes on in a quantum environment we CAN derive the math we use to describe its properties in terms of observable properties of our universe.

As was just shown there MAY BE solutions to why energy is quantized; other than the one provided for by quantum mechanics which MAY give the same quantifiable results.

However, this suggests we may be able to use the observable properties of our universe to find a Theory of Everything if, we not only attempt to mathematically quantize what we observe but attempt to understand and explain why we observe it based on how its components interact.

For example, as was just shown we can use the observations of how wave energy moves through a macroscopic environment to derive its quantized properties in a microscopic one.

This suggests ONE of the reasons it is so difficult to create a Theory of Everything may be because physicists are focusing too much on mathematically quantifying what we observe and not enough time trying to understand how its components interact to create those observations.

In his formulation of electromagnetism Maxwell described light as a propagating electromagnetic wave created by the interaction of its electric and magnetic fields.

However, in Quantum mechanics electric and magnetic fields are NOT propagated by a wave but the particle called a photon.

Therefore, to fully define their observable properties in terms of space-time one must first show how and why they interact with it to create an electromagnetic wave and then explain its photonic or particle ones in terms of the quantum mechanical definition of a particle. Einstein in his General Theory of Relativity defined the forces associated with gravity in terms of a geometric curvature in space-time whose line of action is static and perpendicular to one of the axes of three-dimensional space. Therefore one could connect the forces associated with electromagnetic wave to those of gravity if one could define both in terms of that geometry.

As was just mentioned gravity’s line of action is static and perpendicular to one of the axes of three-dimensional space. However, that does NOT mean the other two axis of three dimensional space cannot contribute to energy content of space.

IT CAN AND WILL BE SHOWN THE ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC COMPONENT OF AN ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE ARE CAUSED BY FORCES WHICH ARE PERPENDICULAR TO THE LINE OF ACTION OF GRAVITY CAUSED BY THE PEAKS AND VALLEYS OF ITS WAVE MOTION

One can understand the mechanism responsible by using the analogy of how a wave on the two-dimensional surface of water causes a point on that surface to become displaced or rise above or below the equilibrium point that existed before the wave was present. The science of wave mechanics tells us a force would be developed by these displacements which will result in the elevated and depressed portions of the water moving towards or becoming “attracted” to each other and the surface of the water.

Similarly, an energy wave on the “surface” of the two spatial dimensions that are perpendicular to the axis of gravitational forces would cause a point on that “surface” to become displaced or rise above and below the equilibrium point that existed before the wave was present.

Therefore, classical wave mechanics, if extrapolated to the properties of two of the three spatial dimensions tells us a force will be developed by the differential displacements caused by an energy wave on it which will result in its elevated and depressed portions moving towards or become “attracted” to each other as the wave moves through space.

This defines the causality of the attractive electrical fields associated with an electromagnetic wave that Maxwell used to described light in terms of a force caused by the alternating displacements of a wave moving with respect to time on a “surface” of the two spatial dimensions that are perpendicular to the axis of gravitational forces

However, it also provides a classical mechanism for understanding why similar electrical fields of an electromagnetic wave repel each other. This is because observations of waves show there is a direct relationship between the magnitude of a displacement in its “surface” to the magnitude of the force resisting that displacement.

Similarly, the magnitude of a displacement in a “surface” of the two spatial dimensions that are perpendicular to line of action of gravitational forces by two similar electrical fields will be greater than that caused by a single one. Therefore, they will repel each other because the magnitude of the force resisting the displacement will be greater for them than it would be for a single one.

One can also derive the magnetic component of an electromagnetic wave in terms of the horizontal force developed along the axis that is perpendicular to the displacement caused by its peaks and troughs associated with the electric fields. This would be analogous to how the perpendicular displacement of a mountain generates a horizontal force on the surface of the earth, which pulls matter horizontally towards the apex of that displacement.

THIS ALSO EXPLAINS WHY THE ELECTRICAL AND MAGNETIC FIELDS OF AN ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE ARE IN PHASE OR MAXIMUM AT THE SAME TIME AND PLACE.

As was shown above the science of wave mechanics allows one to explain the how the electric and magnetic forces interact to form an electromagnetic wave by assuming it is moving through time on the two dimensional “surface” of space-time that is perpendicular to the line of action of gravitational forces.

THIS SHOWS THAT ONE CAN DERIVE BOTH THE FORCES ASSOCIATED WITH AND ELECTROMAGNET WAVE AND GRAVITY IN TERMS OF THE GEOMETRY OF SPACE-TIME.

However, to understand how and why an electromagnetic wave evolves into photon in a quantum environment one must connect its evolution to that environment.

One way of doing this is to use the fact that evolution of energy in both a quantum and space-time environment are in part defined by waves. For example, Relativity defines evolution in space-time in terms of the energy propagated by an electromagnetic wave while Quantum Mechanics defines it in terms of the mathematical evolution of the wave function. Additionally it define the existence of the particle properties of the wave function in terms of its interaction with an observer or its external environment.

This suggests the wave function that governs the evolution of a quantum environment may be a mathematical representation of an electromagnetic wave that defines evolution in space time. If true one should be able to derive the existence of the particle or photonic properties of an electromagnetic wave terms its interaction with space-time.

Again one can accomplish this by using the science of wave mechanics and the properties of space-time as define by Einstein.

For example, the science of wave mechanics along with the fact that Relatively tells us wave energy moves continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from doing so by it someone or something interacting with it. This would result in its energy being confined to three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional “walls” of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause its wave energy to be concentrated at the point in space were a particle would be found. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system, such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency. This defines how and why the field properties of an electromagnetic wave evolves in quantum environment to create a photon ONLY when observed or when someone or something interacting interacts with it.

Putting another way if an electromagnetic wave is prevented from moving through space-time either by being observed or encountering an object it is reduced or “Collapses” to a form a standing wave that would define the quantized energy quantum mechanics associates with a particle.

This shows one can define a common mechanism for he forces for electromagnetism, gravity and the properties of photons in terms of a common mechanism based on the geometry of space time as defined by Einstein.

Some have suggested the above explanation of Electromagnetism is incorrect because the physical orientation of its wave properties would become distorted or polarized as is passed through a gravitational field. Therefore, all light that passed through a gravitational lens would be polarized because the lateral acceleration of gravity was excluded. They feel the above explanation is falsified because this is not observed. However, because the shift in its orientation as it enters a gravitational lens would be opposite of what it would experience leaving it would cancel and therefore light traveling through one would NOT observe it to be polarized.

According to some physicists we live in a universe made up of fixed blocks of space-time while defining the change brought on by time in terms of our movement through each successive block. However, it is also possible it is not the result of us moving THROUGH but IN them.

But before we can continue, we must first define what time is.

Some define it only in the abstract saying that is an invention of the human consciousness that gives us a sense of order, a before and after so to speak. However, many physicists define it in terms of the physical properties of a space-time dimension.

Yet, the observable properties of time are something that most of us can agree upon.

One of the most persistent is that it is not directly perceived as matter or space but as a physical, chemical, and biological change in physical space. This indicates a unit of time may be measure of sequential ordering of change similar to how a unit of length is measure of the position of an object in space. This is because similar to time, length is perceived only as measurement of where in relation to arbitrary reference point in space an object is located.

However, Einstein defined the energy required for a change in space in terms of a dynamic interaction between space and time.

For example, he defined the change caused by gravity NOT in terms of their rigidity but in terms of a dynamic interaction between them

But in his block universe he did not define change in those terms because according to it each block, with a different spatial configuration already exists and what we perceive as change or the passage of time is caused by our movement THROUGH them.

However, this suggests your birth death and every other moment of your life is out there in space-time waiting for you to arrive.

This also suggests that free will does not exist because your future is etched in a block of space-time waiting for you to move through it and there is nothing you can do to change it.

However, Einstein provided another interpretation for the changes the human consciousness associates with time when he as was mentioned earlier defined gravity in a space-time environment in terms of a dynamic interaction between them. This is because it gives us a physical mechanism for defining the ordering of change.

One can understand why by using an example of two dots “living” on the surface of a balloon. The “surface” of the balloon will represent the “surface” of three-dimensional space and the three-dimensional space outside of it will represent the time dimension in Einstein theories.

For example, if one pushes down on its surface, it will change spatial the configuration of the two dots. The change in its surface would be define not only by the distance it move but by the direction.

As was mentioned earlier, Einstein defined gravity in terms of the dynamic interaction between the space and time dimension. For example, the energy of a rocket will change the configuration of the “surface” of three-dimensional space with respect to the time dimension. This means, similar to the balloon one can define that change NOT in terms of the rigidity of space time but in terms of its dynamic properties.

If true as was also mentioned earlier change is a result of a dynamic interaction between space and time it means the future is the result of an interaction of the past with the present and the decisions we make can and do affect the future.

However, another advantage of assuming that is it is that gives us a way to define why human consciousness perceives it to be irreversible in terms of its spatial properties.

For example, if we removed the pressure on the balloon the two dots would return to their original position. However, that removal causes the dots to move in the opposite direction from were when it was applied. Yet even though their positions are indistinguishable from their original ones the dots “living” on its surface would know they had not moved backwards in time because they can observe the sequential ordering of the changes that brought them there. In other words, it would tell them they had not moved backwards in time even though they occupied same points in space.

Putting it another way the sense of order that tells the human consciousness time always moves forward is a result of the fact that consciousness also gives them the ability to observe the order of the spatial changes take place in our environment.

However, assuming it is a measure of the sequential ordering of change ALSO tells us why the laws of physics are NOT reversible with respect to it even though they appear to be. This is because as was mentioned earlier if it is measured from an arbitrary reference point in space the change caused by their reversal will ALWAYS repeat ALWAYS create a new event (with respect to that point) in the sequence of events that returned it to its original configuration.

Therefore, if one accepts time as being a measure of the sequent ordering of a spatial of change in an environment the future or forward movement of it can NEVER repeat NEVER be reversed.

In other words, if we assume the universe is made up a flexible ball of space-time as Einstein’s definition of gravity suggests instead of rigid blocks one can understand how and why the human consciousness perceives sense of order and why we feel time always moves forward even though the laws of physics it MAY not.

According to Einstein we live in a universe made up of fixed blocks of space-time while defining the change brought on by time in terms of our movement through each successive block. However, it is also possible it is not the result of us moving THROUGH them but IN them.

But before we can continue, we must first define what time is.

Some define it only in the abstract saying that is an invention of the human consciousness that gives us a sense of order, a before and after so to speak. However, many physicists define it in terms of the physical properties of a space-time dimension.

Yet, the observable properties of time are something that most of us can agree upon. One of the most persistent is that it is not directly perceived as matter or space but as a physical, chemical, and biological change in physical space.

One reason why most humans perceive time as only a measure of sequential ordering of change MAY be because similar to length it is perceived only as measurement of where in relation to arbitrary reference point in space an object is located. Putting it another way time MUST be define as measure of when an event occurred with respect to an arbitrary reference point attached to the sequence of the events it is a part of.

As was mentioned earlier Einstein define the passage of time in terms of our movement through successive fixed blocks of space-time.

However, this means your birth death and every other moment of your life is out there in space-time waiting for you to arrive.

This also suggests that free will does not exist because your future is etched in a block of space-time waiting for you to move through it and there is nothing you can do to change it.

Yet, he provided another way to explian

the past, present and future when he derived the energy required for them to occur in terms of a dynamic interaction between space and time. This is because it gives us a way to define how and why change occurs in terms of us moving IN space and time instead of moving thought static ridged blocks of it.

One can understand why by using an example of two dots “living” on the surface of a balloon. The surface of the balloon will represent the “surface” of three dimensional space while the time dimension is represented by the space surrounding its surface.

If one pushes down on its surface, it will cause the two dots to move. But if someone releases the pressure on the balloon the dots would return to their original position. Putting it another way the dynamic interaction of its surface with space is responsible for the movement of the dots

Additionally, if one accepts the definition of time given earlier that it is a measure of the sequential ordering of events one would know that it did not travel back in time because the return to its original position is the next event in a sequence of events.

As was mentioned earlier, Einstein derived gravity in terms of a dynamic interaction between the space and time dimensions. This means, similar to the balloon one can define the energy associated with change NOT in terms of its rigidity but in terms of its dynamic properties.

Putting it another way one can define the changes most humans associated with time in terms of us moving IN a dynamic space-time environment instead of moving THROUGH rigid blocks of it.

However, if one accepts the definition given above that time is a measure of when an event occurred in relation to arbitrary reference point attached to the sequence of the events one can understand why time is irreversible. This is because when one chooses a reference point to define when an event occurred the time required for the next event in a sequence such as returning to its starting point must be added to it.

Putting it another way the reason time MUST always move forward is because to measure it one must anchor it to when the first event took place and returning to the same place would constitute another event in a sequence of events.

However, it also tells us why the laws of physics are perceived to reversible with respect to time even though they are NOT because in most cases they ONLY define the time for change to take place from where they are applied. However, this would not be the case if they were anchored in the first event of the series such as the beginning of the universe.

In other words, if we assume the universe is made up a dynamic “ball” of space-time as Einstein’s definition of gravity suggests instead of rigid blocks one can understand how and why the human consciousness perceives sense of order and why time MUST always move forward even though the laws of physics tell us it does not have to.

One thing all theoreticians especially physicist should be aware of is the fact there are many ways to predict observations but only one can define the reason why they occur.

History has shown assuming the existence of something based primarily on the predictive powers of mathematics and not on observations of how an environment evolves can be dangerous.

For example, in the Ptolemaic or geocentric system of astronomy, many thought the existence of epicycles, were required to explain the retrograde motion of the Moon, Sun, and planets.

It was not until scientific investigations were stimulated by Copernicus’s publication of his heliocentric theory and Galileo’s observation of the phase of the moons of Jupiter did many European scientists consider the fact that epicycles did not exist.

This is true even though many Greek, Indian and Muslim savants had published heliocentric hypotheses centuries before Copernicus.

However, why did it take almost two thousand years for them to realize their ideas were incorrect?

One reason may have been because the math that used epicycles was able to predict their positions within the observational tolerances of the equipment they used to define them. However, if the scientists who assumed the existence of epicycles had taken the time to observe how objects moved on earth, they would have realized there was a problem because, at least on earth, objects “naturally” did NOT follow the curve path associated with of epicycles. However, because they were still able to make accurate predictions of a planet’s position based on the existence of epicycles, they were able to ignore those observations and suppress the more accurate Greek, Indian and Muslim ideas for almost 2000 years.

Yet they could not ignore the direct observational evidence provided by Galileo Galilei when in 1610 when he observed the evolution of phases of Venus that planets did not revolve around the earth. This caused a paradigm shift in our understanding of the universe.

Putting it another way, the heliocentric concept of our solar system could have become the dominate paradigm long before 1610 if European scientists had not ignored the how of objects moved or evolved on earth.

However, it would still be possible to use the math associated with the geocentric model along a powerful enough computer to predict the position of the planets within the tolerance of our modern instrumentation even though that math does not correctly define the evolution of their movement.

This FACT tells us that it is even more important now that we use observation of how a system evolves as well math to verify our understanding of their environments today. This is because the advance state of mathematics and computing makes it even more likely that models can be made that are within the tolerance of our observing equipment even though they may be based on a false mathematical premise.

For example, the proponents of the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanics assume particles exist in a state of superposition or exist in many different places before observed based solely on mathematical evolution the wave function. But it cannot explain why a particle only appears when it was observed in terms of observations of environment it is defining and therefore cannot be validated as a solution to its evolution.

However, it is possible to validate a mathematical solution in terms of the environment by using its observable properties to define the math instead of using math to define those properties.

For example, the science of wave mechanics and Relativity tells us an electromagnetic wave moves continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from moving through time by someone or something interacting with it. This would result in it being confined to three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional “walls” of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause the energy of an electromagnetic wave to be concentrated at the point in space were a particle would be found. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency that the wave function associates with a particle.

Putting it another way when an electromagnetic wave is prevented from moving through space time either by being observed or encountering an object it is reduced or “Collapses” to a form a standing wave that would define the quantized energy quantum mechanics associates with a particle.

The physicist Richard Feynman is credited with saying “The weird thing about Quantum mechanics is that no one really understands it” in part because it defines reality ONLY in terms mathematical properties a wave function which only collapses to it when it is observed or interacts with something in its environment. However. it cannot explain what causes that to occur.

However, as was shown above one can understand why in terms of the OBSERVABLE properties of our universe if one assumes that it represents an electromagnetic wave in a space-time because as was shown above if it is prevented from evolving through space by an interaction with it, it WILL and MUST present itself as a particle.

Scientists ESPECIALLY physicists should realize math is only a TOOL to define define reality NOT a replacement for it.

« Previous Articles
Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories is based on WordPress platform.