Unified Field Theory or UE – Finding a different scientific approach

November 27, 2008

Unified Field Theory or UE – Finding a different scientific approach
~James Dunn

The most current work for being able to predict and explain Everything:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=196498

We keep trying to break things down into smaller components so that we can understand the Universe around us as bits and pieces. Like nuclear constructs, currently scientists make larger supercolliders to observe more subatomic particles. This is valid, but we introduce innate inaccuracies because of our mathematic system we use.

From a unified outlook, these subatomic particles are just conditions created to observe certain “properties” of the same energy that we currently have no relatively tangible means of sensing. From a scientific viewpoint this is fine.

Personally, I believe the Universe is composed of an energy that is common amongst most things we can observe and detect; there does not seem to be a conflict, there appears to be a gap. However, what we observe are not unique energies, we simply use instrumentation to get observable results compatible with our senses. Reasonable, but we miss most of the interactions actually taking place. We currently do not have significant control over our own sensory limitations. And the instrumentation that we have developed thus far, for the most part, expresses values compatible with our senses, not that of universal influence.

For instance, light cascades all around us. But we only see light that vectors towards our eyes or interacts directly and specifically with our nervous system. A laser beam of high intensity traveling from right to left in front of our eyes is completely unobservable unless it strikes something in the air to reflect it directly into our eyes. So we only see what impacts us directly. We use most of our brains to represent images graphically. We can not presently conceive of all the interactions that take place in even a very tiny volume of space. We only recognize and understand very specific conditions.

Scientists are likely to find that there is an extremely broad number of conditions which can effect an observable response at the “subatomic level”. While in actuality they are simply influencing a broad category of properties of a common unified energy. Imagine two light beams converging in a dusty room. The property seems to be this bright spot in the room and we might call it SP1; but in actuality it represents a combination of two different sets of properties that converge and are observable in a specific environment; the environment itself being part of the properties involved.

Gravity and Light may be strongly related. Both intensities decrease by the square of the distance from the source, both have no known limit to how far they can travel or have influence. Perhaps the influenced properties of light can similarly influence gravity under certain conditions. Similar to confining a laser beam. If gravity can be collimated, we can create gravitational distortions; but first, what is gravity in UE components?

We explore things by accepting that our minds have significant limitations and at times we step beyond our limitations by using computers and other instrumentation. But our minds presently can not conceive the contents of any finite volume of space beyond some very simple metrics. We have a very long way to go before we will be able to represent such vast information into something we can understand and manipulate with a completely known consequence.

There are no voids in space, something exists everywhere to the extents of all observable galaxies (currently 47 billion light years). At the very minimum there is light and gravity influences in every cubic inch in space.

Is there a better method of researching, understanding, and manipulating the complex interactions of energy? Assuming a unified energy.

I think so. Whenever scientists explore mathematic models of interactions they will attempt to simplify the mathematics to more quickly arrive at a useful relationship. Acting as engineers instead of as scientists. Forcing themselves to find a relationship for publication. They use numbers to quantify a finding, but give little credance to quality.

Scientists and Engineers often use a mathematic series to throw out all but the dominant influences of an equation. The remainder is considered “noise”. I believe the noise contains a great deal of information related to UE.

Consider an equation, such as for wavelength in electromagnetic propagation. Rather than simplify the expression, keep ALL of it’s terms in symbolic format. Do the same for ALL other known equations relating nuclear physics, astrophysics, cosmology, …., but as much as practical keep the symbology unique for a given property.

If it is found that a symbol used deviates at times by even a small amount, then there is an influence that is unaccounted for. This indicates a symbol must be broken up into sub-symbols with each sub-symbol representing relative weight and qualities of the circumstance. A UE symbol is a collection of properties that are observable, then mark that symbol as representing a significant coincidence of properties in our dimensional space.

Do not simplify the equations, expand them to their limits in the form of symbology.

We see the outliers from a manipulation, like Pluto was observed to follow an orbit, but sometimes it deviated. A hypothesis was that another massive body was in its vacinity and therefore that would account for the deviation. This same type of logic can be applied to symbolic math. If something doesn’t fit, put in a dummy variable that has the properties and characteristics that you need to make the symbolic equations work. When deviations are noted, further provide symbolic characteristics to account for the deviations. When everything is working in the symbolic simulation, look for real world counterparts. The idea being, in symbolic math, we do not throw out small variations to make equations work.

Think about it, PI * diameter is equal to the circumference of a circle. But 3.14 * diameter is an approximation. Through empirical study it is found that 3.141592654 is much more accurate. Further developments yielded values of PI out to thousands of places. But, PI will ALWAYS be an approximation when using a numerical system. The value of PI has non-repeating numbers that go virtually on forever. But symbolically, the notation PI is absolutely accurate.

There is a big difference between science and engineering. In science, they need to work with absolute accuracy as much as practical to build knowledge. In engineering, they need to be practical as much as possible to keep costs down and build devices.

As nuclear lepton, spin, and other properties are discovered relating various properties, then include those relationships throughout the entire symbolic set of nuclear/astro physics symbolic representations. When calculations yield inconclusive results, then suspect other influences and build a symbol with the properties that would be needed to represent the observed results.

The desire here is to find conincident relationships that are either hidden or not yet observed because of previous oversimplification.

If a system is known and small influences are made as a collective effort, a major impact can be realized for some desired hidden or observable value. Like a rogue wave out on the ocean, small resonant swells can become coincident and form a wave 100 feet high on a calm and clear day.

Noise isn’t something to throw away, it is useful information.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: