EXTREME (XP) PHYSICS

Physics at the End of Space & Time
             existence equation     physical law   universe super-set   requirements of physical reality
             beginning of universe & time
             


           There is quantum physics for the Very Small. Might there be a physics for the Very Big, for when
           the universe is extremely stretched in space & in time? Then, perhaps, quantum effects will visibly
           apply to objects of our experience when their extreme isolation in time & in space renders them akin
           to atoms or nuclear particles.
           What might the laws of physics at that age and place of the universe look like?

           a) Quantization or almost quantization of objects of our experience (macro-objects).
               Quantization of some properties that are not quantized in the QM of the Very Small?

           b) Quantization in QM occurs for bound particles, eg, electrons in an atom.
               What are bound states in XP?
              At the extreme when the universe is strectched out so space & time begin to look infinite
              and meaningless within numerical thought, then QM relaxes its hold and no longer applies
              accurately to the mechanics of atomic or nuclear events.
              Any so-called natural law or equation which does not explicitely deal with the possible extremes
              of reality is incomplete. How does the law/equation, apply when things are very small or when
              things are very big, when things are adrift at the negative and positive ends of essential infinity?
              Do die roll the same way when the universe is so streched away that, in fact, the die constitutes
              a universe of its own?
              Notice that when there is no gravitation of the earth to act on the die, to make it tumble in
              apparently random directions, then there is no probability. It is within the field of gravitation
              that the calculations of probability apply.
              Question: Within what field does the calculations of QM apply?
              The probabalistic feature of QM works withing the context, or boundaries, of the fields that exist
              in QM. The fields would be the fields whose existence are shown by interactions between electrons,
              and other nucleons, and perhaps quarks
              In other words, it is the field that provides the context within which the electron behaves in a manner
              whose mathematical description requires the pertsistence of probabilistics functions.Without the field
              there is no probabilty.
              What is making the electron behave in such a way that its behavior is described by Schrodinger's equation?

              Let us look again at the example of the die:
              Imagine I am standing at the center of a squar flloor. I toss a pair of dice so they fall about
              my feet. I can assign a probability that they both come up Heads. I continually toss the dice in
              the same manner, simply a bit up so they fall about my feet. What is the probability that they
              both come up Tails at a far corner of the square? A probabilty can be assigned in the usual
               way, when we think abstractly of calculating the probability which is without refernce to where
              the dice are or how they are tossed. But, in the particular physical case, the probabilty is
              zero, because I will never toss the dice at that far corner of the square floor.
              So, although 'theoretically' every point of the floor has an associated probability value, the
              truth is that a probability value exists only about my feet.
              If the probability function truley decribes the 'existence', or the presence, of the dice beyond
              a region about my feet, then I must toss the dice in a more vigorous, more random
              manner, so the dice may actually scatter about the entire region of the square floor.
              That is, the 'force' has to change in order to make the probabilities real associated with the dice.
              Real - not simply figments of a mathematical calculation taking place in imagination unrelated to
              any actual, scatter, or tumble of dice.
              QM studies the effect of the field on a particle. It describes how a particle moves on the ocean
              of the field.
              There is nothing about the mere fact of being small that forces an object to behave in an uncertain
              manner. Something must be going on that makes its influence more apparent when an object of a
              certain size, or dimension, enters its context.
              Imagine a solid piece of macro-sized material that is not composed of atoms. Imagine it is possibel
              to subdivide, cut, the material indefinitely. Cut it until a piece the size of an electron appears. Does
              the piece, then, because of its size begin to behave uncertainly? The material is imaginary, the electron-
              size piece is not an electron and size alone does not turn it into an electron or something that will behave
              like an electron. But a real piece of macro-size matter cut to the suze of an lectron will, most likely, be
              an electron. The universe, as we experience it through the precision of the appliances of our senses,
              i.e., our measuring instruments, is not structured from the big to the small, but rather from the small
              to the big. Thre apple did not come first, the electron did.
              However, at/during the moment of the birth of the universe or some moments after, the differentiation
              of size does not exist. When only one particle exists, there is no ordering of small and smaller. Even if
              there are many particles of the same kind, eg, electrons, the question of ordering is meaningless.
              In other words, at/during the birth of the universe or some moments after, there is no small, no big.

              Why is size, or scale, important?
              Is the universe ruled by small numbers or large numbers?
              In the beginning there was a small number - One - then as time flowed there was more than
              one, count two, then three, . . .The flow of time ran parallel to the increase of number.
              Time is somehow intimately linked with/to number. Given one particle - the first - the second
              particle signals the appearance/process of time.
              There has to be a fundamental relationship - in mathematical numerical or logical variables
              or connectors - linking something that we can call time, space (dimension), energy/matter,
              the production of rules/laws of the universe, dynamics, mometum . . . .
              the Existence Equation
              has to be a generaliztion of mathematical equations, it must operate on different kinds of
              variables/quantities and - hopefully - be able to produce results that are somewhat/somehow
              verifiable, somewhat/somehow measurable; that is, its range may consists of probabilities, sets,
              intervals, logic connectives or sentences, true or false conclusions/values.
              the engineer uses numeral valued equations to build a rocket, the universe uses relations,
              probabilties,sets of logico-numerical principles/structires or guides, to build a unique, or non-unique,
              universe.
              The human mind uses time to organize events, to be able to calculate/asceratin succession, to be able to
              think since human thinking is done in steps, step A to step B to step C.
              But does the universe need time in order to come into existnce?
              If the answer is No, and here I assume the more or less spontaneous production of other universes,
              say at least one other universe, what is the situation where for universe A there is No Time, a condition
              called 0-Time, and for universe B there is Time, a condition called 1-Time? What interaction is there,
              if any, between universe A and universe B?

              What Is a Physical Law?
              By experiment we identify and measure certain properties/qualities of an object experiencing a certain
              context and, using the numerical measures and/or theoretical contructs, we try to derive a mathematical
              expression linking the numerical meausres of the meaured properties of the object and of the context in
              which the object is embedded, eg, a moving particle in a gravitational field. 
             The mathematical expression is the mathematical expression of the physical law constraining
              the interaction between the particle and the context..
              In the Absolute Universe (AbU) within which other possible (?) universes come into existence - can a
              definte dimension be assigned? That is, is the AbU a  4-, 10-, 26-, 31-dimensional, or -dimensional
              universe?
              I think the AbU is

              The AbU is like a Mind that is capable of imagining almost anything, as a human mind may
              imagine a 3-dimensional object and then 'imagine' a 7-dimensional object although imagining
              them in different ways: the 3-dimensional object, say a ball, the human mind can actually visualize,
              or see, but the 7-dimensional object the human mind can imagine only as a set of mathematical
              relationships.The volume of the ball and the volume of the 7-dimensional object both can be
              calculated. So in the AbU different dimensional objects - universes - may exist: a 4-dimensional
              universe and others. The AbU itself has no definite dimenion, no number, that be assigned to it.
              It is more like a super-set, the set of all sets.
             
              Although, mathematically, the distance between two sets may be undefined, that is, the concept
              may be non-existent, it is possible arbitrarily to define a metric. Can we ask, Is there a distance
              between any two universes in the AbU? Can we say in some sense that the two universe are
              separate from each far, near or far from each other?
              What are the requirements, that when fulfilled of an object, that object may be said to partake
              in some way of a physical reality?

              I consider a dream of a human mind to be physically real.
              There are two aspects of the occurence of a dream:
              (1) the electrical/chemical activity associated with the dream/event in the brain
              (2) the dream as expressed by the mind, brain, in trying to communicate the dream to another mind
                   or to itself, that is, the dream as seen by the mind in images, sounds, smells, feelings communicable
                   or ineffable.
              A person blind from birth, lacking the sense of smell from birth, lacking the sense of hearing
              from person from birth - those images (the image of sight, audition, etc) presumably would
              not appear in his dream, but some image that wou;ld constitute an interaction with the person
              would appear in order for him to experience his dream.
              To be able to answer the qusetion of whether a thing is real or not, to make the question itself
              meaningful, requires a context:
              To ask a question implies a consciousness. I can ask whether a stone I hold in my hand or that
              I see on the ground is real or not real. The stone in my hand or on the ground can not ask whether
              it is real or not? A stone in an animation can ask the question, but that stone is not the stone that
              appears my context. Let us say that to me the stone is real. I see it, I touch it, smell it, taste it.
              But to the stone, its reality is meaningless.Less than meaningless. The question, to the stone
              the very context of the question is a death of context, beyond meaninglessness. Yet the stone
              can hurt me, can kill me, can cause me severe indigestion if I mistake it for a cherry and swallow it.
              So what is the meaning of reality? Reality requires context.
              A thing can be real and unreal at the same time.


              To identify for us exactly the existence of the dream as exprienced by the dreamer, the dreamer not us,
              we must obtain the measurements associated with (1) and the visual/sensual event as expressed in (2).
              The first requirement is relatively easy, the second requirement is not easy.



              Periodic Time:  A context in which does not really progress beyond a certain point (in space-time).
              For example, motion in a circle. Time is, in a sense, aa series of reference points/ticks/ of a progress
              of an object, say a circular motion of an object. After theobject has gone through one complete cycle,
              keeping track of it using a time, or time-like variable, does not produce/reveal any new state of the
              object so, in fact, after the measurement of time through the one cycle time stops going forward and
              repeats itself endlessly, the body continues its circular motion but with no new information.


              idea: multiplication is more important/productice than addition because multiplication
              can combine /operate only onquantities of the same kind.
              Eg, force times distance

             

              time and space are linked to the capacity to have motion. time can be thought of as merely
              counting, the enumeration of objects, instances of a thing . . . .yet, it seems/feels that to
              maintain the continuity of the existence of an object, say electron, would require all the energy
              in the universe, a requirement maximally unproductive, so by a kind of variational max/min
              principle the whole enegy of the universe is fractured or split in order the maiantain the existence,
              but not the continuous existence, of its objects. That is, the electron does not exist continuously,
              but intermittantly. It is at point A then at poiun B. In the space/time from A to B there is no electron.
              But then where does the electron go? What happend to it? If it is converted to energy in a usual
              way, the energy would be measurable. Nothing, so far, is measured. What happens to the
              elecrton?
              What is the most efficient way for the universe to distribute its energy in order to maintain the
              existence and physics of its objects?
              Idea: There exists only one electron, the other electrons are merely instances of the one electron.
              Each particle is wrapped
              In order to have mass - the quality we tend to call 'mass' -


              
              Question: are all the 'interaction' equations linear like Schrodinger's?
              A 'derivation' of Schrodinger's equation involves assumptions like Plank's equation and DeBroglie's.

           Imagination & Reality 9/24/01
           Can I touch what I dream?
           Can what I do not dream of touch me?
           Can what I do not dream of touch my dream?

           The distinction we try to make between what is imagined & what is out there, what we think of as being
            independent of us, as being part of objective reality, & what occurs within our brain as imagination, is in
            the final analysis illusory.
           This qualication "in the final analysis" is of course import because although a bullet made of lead can kill
           us immediately, an imagined bullet made of imagined lead will with the greatest certainty - but not with
           absolute certainty - not kill us.

           The imagine bullet will not kill us because
            (a) The domain of imagination - ie, the domain of things that are secondary constructions of reality of
                  which what is imagine is a member of - and the domain of so-called objective realty, the primary
                  constructions of reality, are dimensionally disjoint ( ? )

           They do not directly affect each other

           sets & its subsets 9/24/01
           what are 'subsets' of a set that are not really subsets of the set but whose construct make them into a set
            altogether different from its parent set . . . . . ???





           c) For XP to be, the laws of physics must change with time & space.
                Space & time then must have a quality, a sense, an effect that slowy changes the laws of physics.

           Are the changes effected through terms in the equations that at present we dont know, have no suspicion of,
           because at the present their effects on numerical results are invisible - but in an octillion years the effect becomes
            paramount.

           As a particle approaches the speed of light, time slows down & at exact light speed, the flow of time stops -
            perhaps in the sense that time has come back to its beginning, like time is a flow in 'circular' orbits, it starts
            but when an object gos towar light speed the otherwise open time-orbit closes on itself & so the time has no
            where to go, become locked in an endless repeating cycle & so no longer exists in the universe.
           so perhaps it is not that time stands still, not that time is zero, but that time becomes meaningless, undefined,
            does not exits within the context of light speed. so it is not a simple multiplaction by a zero factor that makes
            the time for the speeding object zero also- for time to be absolutely zero, according to QM, is not physically
            possible as infinite energy would be required by the unceratinty principle.


           QM: what is it about an electron that it exhibits quantum properties?
           Very small.
           It is identical with other electrons, but also of course this electron is not exactly that electron because, for one
            thing, they occupy different space coordinates & there is a non-zero distance(metric) between them. so this
            electron must have a different 'name' from that other electron, & we cay say this electron has the name
           e-(x1,y1,z1,t) while that electron has the name e-(x2,y2,z2,t).

           When 2 electron collide with sufficient high energy, what happens? what appears?
           Why is a 'sufficient high energy' needed in order to get an effect? Energy in the form of, or given in the form,
            or expressed as, a high velocity of the electron, or rather, a high momentum of the electron, momentum
            because velocity in itself has no meaning until it is attached to a mass, a particle, hence mass times velocity or
            momentum.

           Why is high energy always needed in order to get an effect?
           A again, in order to get an effect, we need extremes, a very high number or a very small number - a very small
            number giving rise to quantum effects & a very big number giving rise to effects in the normal human-size world
            context & a bigger number then giving rise to cosmological effects.
           Tthe order of magnitude between the worlds seems to be 1070.
           Tthat there is a numerical reason for this seems evident & ordinary, simply as the solution of equations or the
            eigenvalues derived, but what I am after is a non-numerical reason, a reason that is expressed as a statement
            About numbers, About the structure of relationships with-in or with-out the universe.

           Why are (some) big numbers different from (some) small numbers?
           Why/How does biggness or smallness have an effect in the universe?
           Obviously, in the beginning there was neither. There was no small number or big number when there exitsed
           only one particle that then evolved into the Big Bang.

           There are some possibilities:
           1]
           
 There was evolution from the One. The One particle remained One particle. Forever.
            The One Particle Universe (TOPU).
            TOPU is the trivial universe. The native equations within this universe are trivial in the sense that they generate
            no evolutions, no consequnce. There are no inequalities in the universe. There is no space for more than one.
            The basic equation within this universe is X = 0.
           Of course, then, there is no space, there is no time. The existence of space-time implies there is room for a
            Two, but in TOPU there is only One.

            Within the compexes of universes, where might TOPU be?
            For simplicity & uniqueness, I will say that in fact TOPU is the main universe, it is the universe at the top of the
            pyramid (of course, there is no pyramid). TOPU contains all the universes. We are within TOPU.
            We are contained in The Trivial Universe.
            Mathematically, this is like saying that one is comprised of an uncountable set of fractions, that the unit interval
             is comprised of an uncountable set of points
                                   


           2]
            The One particle evolved into the Big Bang and the One paricle evolved into Many particles.
            The Many Particle Universe (MPU).
            So when the one was only one, there was neither small nor big. When one became one and one, or one &
            another, the moment was, inexpressibly, sublimely, shattering. The origin of all symmetry-breakings.
            If the One was Energy, then the other must have been Matter - unless there is another form of energy, a
            positive & a negative energy, or more generally an alpha-energy & a beta-energy & the two need not always
            add up to zero, some-times they might & some-times they might not, just as an alternating series may add up
            to any number one wants, depending on the way the terms of the series are arranged. That is, at some time
            one energy may be in excess of the other.
            This "excess" - which is a notion taken from the viewpoint of a creature meausring quantities - is really not an
            excess in the context of the original One, becaues the original One includes everything, all, all that is.
            There will always be in the measurement of the One by sentient spacio-temporal creatures a discrepancy
            because the measurement is being attempted on an Infinity, on some thing that is in fact unmeasurable,
            immeasurable in the context of an insuing world that is mired in the finite, that is in fact a kind of Dream that
            exists by virtue of a kind of Error that was involved in the evolution of the One into the Other One and so
            created the universe we know.

            We are able to know the universe in some way because of the Error that is a dynamic of the universe, the
            Error is a reflection in the Parenthesis (see below about parenthesis & Groupings), an incompleteness in the
            Grouping because the Grouping is only one in an infinite sea of possible arrangements, just as there are infinite
            many arrangemenst possible in the alternating series which may sum to any number we want.

            But what is the Process of Summation in the universe?
            The universe consists of Parenthesis, ie, of Groupings. It is the grouping of entities, otherwise non-existent,
            that appears as Reality, as the objects & processes in/of the universe.
            The Groupings are the Field Forces of the universe.
            The original One itself is a grouping. So the Original Energy was equivalent to the original Grouping.
            So Grouping & Energy are inseparable, like space-time, like two faces of a coin.

            Here in the Grouping we have the reason for quantum mechanics.
            Quantum mechanics is a reflection of the original Grouping, the original One. The Grouping is the Boundary
            Condition that gives rise to the eigenvalues of the universe.
            The Grouping is the wall that gives rise to the restriction that generates the eigenvalues in the solution.


            Question/Problem: Solve a bounday value problem where the boundary is a spherical shell.
            The differential equation would be time-independent since there is yet no strict time.
            It would be space-independent too since there is yet no strict space.
            So what might the variables, the parameters, of the equation be?
            Ideas: The equation is fractal.
            Since there is yet no strict space-time, the equivalent of the One must be infinite dimensional, or fractionally
            dimensional, as a fractal may have fractional dimensions.

            Proto-momentum, proto-time, proto-space ??


            How does Time enter into the universe?
            Or rather, space-time. The two are inseparable. One is needed to measure the other. Logically, space & time
            have no separate, unique meaning.

            Let us say the symmetry breaking consisted in the appearance, or rather the splitting of the One energy into
            Positive Energy & Negative Energy.


            Is it possible to fold space?
            So that two particles virtually occupy the space-space at the 'same time?
            That is, fold space for us, for our travel purposes, while the space remains unfolded or others that are not
            travelling. so the folding of space will be, again, a relative, or relativistic, folding of space which has neverthess
            a very real physical consequence, viz, shortening travel distance between two points in the space.
            NOTE: space is already bent as the gravitational effect of a mass object.
            Simple production of energy is not enough, it must be quantized as in a photon that responds to a gravittaional
            field.

            Energy, space, & time are inextricably connected, they are a unit, inextricably linked, like two faces of a coin,
            like the ends of a line segmnet - or like the ends at infinity of a line or the 'ends' of a closed circle (you begin
            drawing the circle, as you draw there is a begining & the ending you are creating as you are drwaing, but then
            when you connect/complete the circle the circle is then closed & then the disticntion bet begin & end
            disappears).
            So the basic physical entity is 5-dimensional (e,x,y,z,t) with certain structure rules, symmetries, that are
            responsible for the expanding, dynamic existence of the universe.

            Where do these rules come from?
            Or are the rules in fact inextricably involved in the (e,x,y,z,t) rule for tranformation
            1) mass-energy
            2) conservation of momentum
            3) constancy of light speed
            4) principle of special relativity
            5) general relativity
            6) schrodinger equation
            7) uncertainty principle

            Can space be 'physically' manipulated?
            For example, can we decrease the distance between two points? yes, by measuring the distance of the points
            in a moving reference frame or while our own refernce frame is moving. i suggest that increasing the energy of
            the particles in a suitable way- their potential energy - results in a decrease of the distance betw the particles
            but these schemes require an enormous amt of energy tending to infinity which renders such schemes impossible.

           Iis there a way to create the conditions of infinite energy without the expenditure of infinite energy?
            I think we must create a black hole, or harness the power of a black hole.
            Perhaps then truly advanced civilizations will be found within the vicinity of a black hole, eg, within the center
            of our milky way.







                                                                                                          top
                                                                                                         
                                                                                                   table of contents
                                                                                                cosmology directory
                                                                                                     main directory
                                                                                                        


        © hph