MONOWEB 2020 B 2
- Publication date
- Classical Field Theory, General Relativity, Geometry, Classical Mechanics, Structural stability, Beta decay, Electron, Muon, Tauon, W-boson, Neutrino, Proton, Neutron, Fermi constant, Cosmology
WHAT’S IT ALL ABOUT…..OR…
....what images come to mind when you think about A Theory of Nothingness?
DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS (the use of synonyms and other “words” to help form cerebral "understanding"(mental pictures))
NOTHING; no thing, nonentity
NOTHINGNESS; oblivion, nothing, emptiness, void, vacuum,
ENERGY (physics) (from Academic Press, Dictionary of Science and
Technology); A QUANTITY THAT DESCRIBES THE CAPACITY TO DO
WORK. Commonly divided into three major classifications; kinetic
(dynamic) energy, potential (static) energy and radiant
DISTORTED (INDISTINCT); twisted, warped, vague, fuzzy, imprecise,
“geometrically NOT FLAT”
UNIVERSE; cosmos, space, creation
”THE”; Definite grammatical article that implies necessarily that an entity it
articulates is presupposed
”A”; “indefinite article”
I prefer (subjective) to "mentally model", in this “physics realm”, in terms of ENERGY; mental modeling is all about visual image production within the grey matter. Subsequent transmission or communication of that “grey matter visual image” is called language. FORCES and FIELDS are other physics-created "labels" used to communicate physical processes and phenomena; both are derivable from an ENERGY model.
Another DEFINITION; the absence of ENERGY is NOTHINGNESS. Given (an assumed hypothesis, or definition in mathematics or logic) these starting concepts, one can then "mentally model" space-time as “NOTHINGNESS and ENERGY”(?). But having said that, can you please "draw a picture" i.e. show me the mental model? Hard, huh?
Now, if I say that the UNIVERSE consists of some NOTHINGNESS and some SOMETHING, what does the SOMETHING look like and what does the NOTHINGNESS look like? A "black void" is usually the "nothingness picture" and the "something picture" takes on various forms, stars, galaxies, elephants, politicians and electrons, the “MATTER model” of SOMETHING.
At the "most fundamental level", we try to "picture" the substance of MATTER, leaving the NOTHINGNESS modeling to the "black void" matter-emptiness "picture". But the MATTER models at this fundamental level are "attribute-like" descriptions; it "quacks" (like a duck), it "walks" (like a duck), it "smells" (like a duck) but actually, NO internal "structural" descriptor is forthcoming. In fact the external structural descriptor (a geometric description of the forces (gravity, electromagnetism..) or energy-distributions surrounding the "fundamental mathematically abstracted" ingredient) is UNSATISFACTORY in that it leads to geometric-infinities (nothing in the physical universe is "infinite"); “mathematical renormalization” techniques to handle singularities (infinities) notwithstanding. Even for the modern-mathematically-abstracted Quantum mechanics modeling, one should understand Feynman's (the Nobel Laureate) quote about it, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands Quantum mechanics".
Now, let's consider the "effect" of the "something" on the "nothingness". If the "nothingness" is really "nothing", then there is NO effect, but if the 4-dimensional "nothingness" is "something" then the "matter something" will displace the "space nothingness" and cause a "space curvature (a geometric descriptor)" in the region of the matter. This curvature or distension of space, caused by the star-matter, has actually been physically (astronomically) measured. So the "black void" mental picture of "space nothingness" is not quite right and although the ENERGY content of the space can be zero (also called a FLAT-SPACE), it can also be non-zero (according to the concept of DISTORTED SPACE); all regions of space, distorted or not, are mathematically describable by Riemann's geometric equations (general relativity). When one "distorts" something, it requires ENERGY and that ENERGY is put into that something. Therefore, any distorted region of the space-time manifold, matter-caused or NOT, becomes SOMETHING, a DISTORTED SPACE with ENERGY, and is presently described by “THE DISTORTED UNIVERSE” or the THEORY OF NOTHINGNESS model, (as opposed to The Theory of Everything [a]); the “distorted geometry model” can be understood as the “source” of MATTER.
For the “currently described distortions”, there is actually exhibited another concept difficult to "mentally and otherwise" grasp, a NEGATIVE ENERGY DENSITY in the "core" region. The illustrations in Figures 1.9a and 1.9b of Chapter 1 of this manuscript display the ENERGY DENSITY attribute of the "geometric distortion" in a 2-dimensional (rotated-radius) presentation. ENERGY DENSITY however is also really “pressure” (a physics term) (Joules per meter3 = Newtons per meter2) and perhaps is a more intuitively resonant language (word) for mental modeling; consider therefore this language-translation possibility in the following manuscript. Furthermore, with structure, a “distortion morphing” between shapes can be created (video in Chapter 1).
A solution to the “model’s” resultant nonlinear coupled differential equations must be forthcoming; such a solution has been found. Furthermore this solution, where physical parameters arise from geometric parameters, exhibits strong physically-positive features:
1. It produces mass-energy.
2. It produces a core and envelope energy-density distribution (physical fields) as a finite sum of r-n components, the core function being 0 at r = 0, (no math singularity) (see Figures 1.9a and 1.9b).
3. It produces a geometry-based Fermi constant.
4. And it produces, with composite coupling, both EM and gravitational fields and masses (holes, dark structures etc.)
Allowing for a space-time manifold itself with substantive character also suggests the possibility of an “absorptive-universe”, a feature which has been explored earlier  and reproduced here in chapter 5. Analysis of such a manifold-attribute results in an alternative explanation for the classical “Hubble-data interpreted as universe expansion” model.
The "philosophical" question arises, not in the environment of “distortion producing” energy sources already in place such as stellar and galactic interiors and high-energy accelerators, but "in the FIRST environment of creation (an anthropomorphic concept)”, as to what was (is) the source of the CREATION ENERGY? ....is this question answerable by the human mind? Additionally, is the question, "what was (is) the source of the CREATED GEOMETRIC MANIFOLD?" answerable?[a] Ellis, John (1986). "The Superstring: Theory of Everything, or of Nothing?” Nature 323 (6089): 595-598.
- 2021-10-03 19:54:04
- tesseract 5.0.0-beta-20210815
- -l eng
- Internet Archive HTML5 Uploader 1.6.4
Uploaded by Distorted Universe on