Infinite Symmetry in Spacetime as a Fundamental Principle to Unite Modern Physics

Oct 17, 2020
47
0
50
Some of this is certainly information of which many of you are aware, I tried to be concise and I promise it is all relevant to my central point.
105 years ago, Albert Einstein published his theory of General Relativity, one of the most beautiful artifacts in the history of human science. General Relativity has held up under spectacular strain, and made unfathomable predictions about the nature of reality. Quantum mechanics seemingly threw a wrench into that way of seeing things. "God does not play dice with the Universe", Einstein said. As it turns out, he was right. If he were alive today, capable of absorbing the extraordinary bevy of unfathomable information our world of physics continuously offers up to us, I sincerely believe he would already have figured out exactly what I am about to say.

Firstly by necessity any "theory of everything" must incorporate infinity as a basic concept. This is only logical. Secondly, space and time really are inseperable. They exist infinitely in perfect symmetry, contextualized in an infinity of finite states of observation as dictated by the underlying perpetuating force of infinity. Oxford American Dictionary of 1980 defines "infinite" as follows: adj. 1. having no limit, endless. 2. too great or too many to be measured or counted. "Infinity" is defined as follows: n. an infinite number or extent or time or space. To my mind, a question arises: just what happens when you have an infinity of time and space, together? That is what I aim to explore.

Allow me to explain.

To say there is no proof of infinity is just not accurate. The finite could not exist without the infinite, any more than the infinite could exist with nothing. People who are still looking for proof of infinity wouldn't find it even if they lived forever, because their existence would still be perpetually finite. We can use logic and established evidence to understand the fundamental nature of the universe, which is exactly what I endeavor to accomplish.

Let's start with General Relativity. General Relativity is essentially an understanding of the universe in which the speed of light is the cosmic speed limit (speed limit being a key characteristic of a finite existence), setting the parameters of our biological existence because our eyes work based on interactions of light with our environment in terms of its spectrum i.e. wave function, thereby anchoring our finite existence to an infinite reality. It is not a coincidence that all life in our human lineage had a biological mechanism for sensing light. Our experience of light is as a biological system that interprets information about interactions of light with our environment in terms of its spectrum. Light moves so fast we don't realize it, but light is a wave just like the waves in the ocean. When you see a red rose, that rose has absorbed all of the high energy light in the visible spectrum, and reflected the low-energy red light. Wavelength corresponds inversely to frequency. I.e. higher wavelength means lower energy, and higher frequency means more energy. My understanding is that wavelength refers to the length of each wave, whereas frequency refers of course to the frequency of repetitions. Our biology takes physical information about the intensity and spectrum of light and interprets it as an experience of color and brightness. Note that in the double slit experiment, human observation can not alter the quantum state of light by directly observing the light, but a sensor under controlled circumstances can. Human Visual System as a Double-Slit Single Photon Interference Sensor: A Comparison between Modellistic and Biophysical Tests

Rita Pizzi, Rui Wang, and Danilo Rossetti, ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4729532/ ) appears to demonstrate that human eyes do not alter the wave characteristics of light just by observing it. That is where we connect to quantum mechanics.

Arguably the most famous experiment in quantum physics is the aforementioned double slit experiment. If you are unfamiliar, essentially light is projected on a screen with two slits in it, with detectors behind the screen to determine the pattern formed by the light. The light initially forms an interference pattern, characteristic of a wave. However, when a sensor is placed by the slit to register which slit the light passes through, the light forms a cluster pattern. This is characteristic of a particle. This experiment was the first inkling of something we now know to be a fundamental principle of reality: wave-particle duality.

Every particle in the universe, it turns out, exists in the form of both a particle and a wave of probability simultaneously.

Wave-particle duality is not counterintuitive, it is a reflection of the perpetually symmetrical infinite state of every particle in fundamental spacetime. The double slit experiment forces light into two choices, therefore the experiment itself is a construct of our finite reality. The reason the light at first appears as a wave is that our biological experience of light is an experience of its spectrum, i.e. its wave function. The sensor observes a single slit and alters the quantum state of light, by deducing information directly about one of the two available paths. The double slit experiment works precisely because our eyes do not alter the wave function of light by directly observing the light itself in our normal biological existence. This is what reveals the true nature of observational effect, humans cannot force the light to "choose" under normal circumstances of observation, but the human made sensor under controlled circumstances can. This viewpoint is consistent with existing experimentation.

The key to understanding why we perceive light the way we do, is as follows: In terms of symmetry, any finite reality must contain some asymmetry in order to distinguish it from the infinite. The primary and primordial mechanism for our biological sense of reality is dependant upon observation of light in terms of its wave function at the observed speed limit of approximately 300,000 km/sec in a vacuum. I.e., we evolved through a lineage that all depend on biological observation of light through the medium of physical interactions with the spatial environment. So light is effectively observed in a finite state as a function of time, and contextualizes a finite state of space.

This is supported by the observation of black holes, as well as the observation that the universe "before" the Big Bang appears to be a singularity. I put "before" in quotes, which is necessary for an important reason: since space and time are inseperable, when they exist infinitely in perfect symmetry, descriptions of finite time (i.e. "before" and "after") no longer apply. There is no "before" the Big Bang, because space and time exist infinitely in perfect balance. We can not comprehend an endless existence, i.e. an infinite existence, because doing so would require the capacity to think forever. We can, however, contextualize it. When we observe a black hole, we are also observing a singularity.

When gravity creates a singularity, one way of looking at what has happened is to say that the escape velocity of the gravitational body has exceeded the speed of light (because of how gravity warps spacetime as described by the Scwarzchild Radius and the Kerr equations. Imagine visiting a star that just pushes the gravitational limit described by these equations without crossing it, i.e. a very large neutron star. . Our sense of time relative to the rest of the observable Universe would change, and everything outside of that solar system would appear to be happening much faster. This is because spacetime is more compact due to the huge force of gravity, but our observation of light is still maintained at 300,000 km/sec even in that "higher density" spacetime), hence the famously known fact that even light cannot escape the gravity of a black hole once it crosses the event horizon. Since the speed of light is the defining characteristic of our finite existence, true spacetime reveals itself in the form of an infinite symmetrical spacetime characterized by finite properties of observation. Note that any singularity that forms that we can observe in our universe, would inherently have less mass/energy than our universe relative to its own infinite state. The logical implication arising from this, is that the singularity we appear to observe "before" the Big Bang, exists relative to finite properties of observation in a higher dimension, which would inherently have more mass/energy relative to its infinite state. The total mass/energy of our universe would be a result of this finite property of observation in a higher dimension. So rather than asking what came "before" by my thinking it is more accurate to ask, what lies "beyond"? Logic dictates that there are infinite universes in an infinite number of configurations with infinite variations of complexity, with some unknowable "eternal force" in the background giving rise to all possible things. The physical implication of this would be space and time existing in an infinity of contextualized finite states, which each spawn an infinity of relative infinite states contextualized by finite properties of observation.

This is possible because no finite state is truly finite, it only appears to be because the observers have a finite existence. Our universe, for example, will expand forever, i.e. it is infinite even though from our perspective it appears to be finite. Which brings me around to two more important topics: dark matter and dark energy. Dark matter is an observed gravitational effect in the Cosmos with heretofore no logical explanation in physics theory. I propose that gravitational orbits of massive objects in observed spactime on a cosmological scale, would be consistent with an affect of observed finite property of spin in the higher dimension which gives our universe its observational context. Dark energy is a mysterious force that causes acceleration of the expansion of the universe. This is observed through an effect called "redshifting", in which light loses energy and fades towards the "red" or low-energy end of the visible spectrum ( https://www.space.com/25732-redshift-blueshift.html p.s. redshift-blueshift sounds like a great name for a Dr. Seuss book on Vulcan am I right? 😂). If I am right, I believe the expansion of the universe would be accelerating exponentially relative to the observed finite radius of the singularity observed in the higher dimension (remember that any singularity in our universe has inherently less mass/energy than ours, and it follows logically that any "higher singularity" would contain more mass/energy), in accordance with our finite sense of time. Therefore we should be able to use the hubble constant to deduce information about the physical finite observation contextualizing our potentially infinite human experience. Our physics are not connected with this universe in a way we can easily grasp... what connects us, is the fundamental existence of infinite space and time in perfect symmetry that serves as the backdrop for all finite experience.
 
Oct 17, 2020
47
0
50
The universe will expand forever because general relativity governs our finite observation of infinity. The expansion of spacetime accelerates relative to an externally observed property of radius.
r=(2GM/c^2)^∞
Relative infinity described in terms of Schwarzchild's radius. I understand this is so simple it is hard to believe it has gone overlooked, but I am right.
6*∞=6,12,18,24...∞
6^∞=6,36,216,1296...∞
r=(2GM/c^2)*∞ therefore represents a static universe wherein all mass/energy is distributed equally relative to infinity, which is essentially meaningless to us.
r=(2GM/c^2)^∞ represents a static universe that expands exponentially relative to initially observed properties.
So you see, the accelerating expansion of spacetime can be explained quite simply as a necessary physical property of our universe.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts