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 subsets9/24/01
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 10^{70}.
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.