If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Previous Contests

**What Is “Fundamental”**

*October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018*

*Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation*

read/discuss • winners

**Wandering Towards a Goal**

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

*December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017*

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

**Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics**

*Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation*

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

**How Should Humanity Steer the Future?**

*January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014*

*Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Questioning the Foundations**

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

*May 24 - August 31, 2012*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Previous Contests

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

*Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.*

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Scott Gordon**: *on* 2/27/18 at 3:00am UTC, wrote Hi Sue, I appreciate your comments and I will try to answer the questions...

**Sue Lingo**: *on* 2/26/18 at 4:49am UTC, wrote Hi Scott... Mathematical physics that preserves "Scientific method" by...

**Scott Gordon**: *on* 2/25/18 at 19:24pm UTC, wrote Hi Adel, I see where you would have some affinity to my work after reading...

**Scott Gordon**: *on* 2/25/18 at 19:01pm UTC, wrote Your comments are appreciated. Just for clarity... It is very difficult...

**adel sadeq**: *on* 2/25/18 at 18:28pm UTC, wrote Gorden, Not Bad try at all. better than most here. Some similarity with...

**John Merryman**: *on* 2/18/18 at 3:35am UTC, wrote Dr. Gorden, A couple of thoughts to consider; What if time is not so...

**James Hoover**: *on* 2/17/18 at 0:12am UTC, wrote Scott, Time grows short so I am revisiting those I have commented on to...

**Scott Gordon**: *on* 2/13/18 at 3:18am UTC, wrote Hi Jim, It is very difficult for the novice being introduced to my theory...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Robert McEachern**: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..."
*in* Review of "Foundations of...

**Joe Fisher**: "Dear Steve Agnew, Naturally provided VISIBLE realty am not a silly humanly..."
*in* Can Time Be Saved From...

**James Putnam**: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..."
*in* Black Hole Photographed...

**Steve Agnew**: "Stringy and loop quantum are the two big contenders, but neither has a..."
*in* Can Time Be Saved From...

**Robert McEachern**: "Lorenzo, The nature of "information" is well understood outside of..."
*in* Review of "Foundations of...

**Georgina Woodward**: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..."
*in* The Nature of Time

**Steve Agnew**: "Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and..."
*in* The Nature of Time

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**Can Time Be Saved From Physics?**

Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

**Thermo-Demonics**

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

**Gravity's Residue**

An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

**Could Mind Forge the Universe?**

Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

**Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes**

The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

FQXi FORUM

May 20, 2019

CATEGORY:
FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017
[back]

TOPIC: The Day After the “Nightmare Scenario” by Scott S Gordon [refresh]

TOPIC: The Day After the “Nightmare Scenario” by Scott S Gordon [refresh]

The “Nightmare Scenario” as stated by Sabine Hossenfelder in her article, “Could No New Particles at the LHC Be Exactly What Physics Needs?” is upon us where “we’d finally have to admit the truth: we’re completely lost.” Given the current impasse of theoretical physics, it is time to expunge ourselves of preconceived notions of what we think we know about time and space. In essence we need to "go back to the drawing board". Since we have no idea where the current impasse is rooted, everything we think we know about time and space needs to be questioned. In other words, the drawing board needs to be a clean slate, a "Tabula Rasa." Consider a thought experiment that does just that. Imagine the origin of the universe. The universe as it existed before the Big Bang, before there was light, before there was matter and most certainly before there was a written equation that the universe somehow needed to be configured to or conformed with. Now imagine this thought experiment which begins with only one structural component and energy that is used to derive everything that is currently known about Quantum theory and Relativity as well as everything that is otherwise not yet known about Dark Energy, Dark matter and Gravity. This fundamental theory exists and is presented. Another preconceived notion that needs to be expunged is the thought that such a theory would arise from within the physics academic community.

Scott S Gordon was born and raised in Brooklyn. After earning a Master’s in Biomedical Engineering, he worked his way through his medical education as a keyboard musician. Scott married Dianne Zullow, MD and raised three wonderful children. He has been a practicing orthopedic surgeon for the past 30 years.

First you say create a new paradigm, then you say keep the Big Bang model and all that goes with it. There are other models such as the continuous creation or steady state or cyclic universe concepts that could be further explored. I suggest mine - the Scalar theory of everything that corresponds to both GR and Qm and solves some problems and has made predictions and has performed a diffraction experiment that rejects all wave models of light.

report post as inappropriate

attachments: The_GOD_Equation_bold_with_trademark_r.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Hi John... It is not that I wanted to keep or not keep a "Big Bang" in my theory. The new paradigm is finding a starting point that only includes one ingredient and energy for its initial alignment. I really have no control of where my theory brings me after the initial conditions. I know about the other ideas of continous creation or steady state or cyclic universe but there is a specific...

view entire post

view entire post

attachments: The_GOD_Equation_bold_with_trademark_r.jpg

Hi again Scott,

I read your essay and now realize we have a great deal in common. We have alternative “theories of everything”. You are a young surgeon and I am old “inventor” R&D engineer but we both decided to “help” science. I know that you would never be convinced to think along the lines I do and visa versa. Philip Gibbs wrote about this in his essay. It explains in general why science doesn’t converge. I suspect you enjoy working on this; I certainly do. We would probably agree that others should read our work, comment and adopt our perspective. For example, like you I publish on Academia.edu and vixra.org. People read the work but seldom say anything. This robs us of feedback we need to improve our work or present it in a more appealing way. We both realize that we are outsiders in a field dominated by university physicists and funded government projects. They never see our work because they operate in different circles with different access to information. I sometimes think this is sinister. Would solving some of the problems in science curtail their funding? How would they justify the next huge space exploration device or high energy collider if they admitted that would only extend their thinking a small amount? But it is their thinking that counts…not ours.

That said, I enjoyed your essay and your graphics were well done. Actually, I can see similarities between our theories. I am curious about the motivating force for the big bang. I view consciousness as a structure that supported transition from information to reality. We develop consciousness and hope it is, in the end, inclusive. As a TOE Doc, what are your thoughts?

report post as inappropriate

I read your essay and now realize we have a great deal in common. We have alternative “theories of everything”. You are a young surgeon and I am old “inventor” R&D engineer but we both decided to “help” science. I know that you would never be convinced to think along the lines I do and visa versa. Philip Gibbs wrote about this in his essay. It explains in general why science doesn’t converge. I suspect you enjoy working on this; I certainly do. We would probably agree that others should read our work, comment and adopt our perspective. For example, like you I publish on Academia.edu and vixra.org. People read the work but seldom say anything. This robs us of feedback we need to improve our work or present it in a more appealing way. We both realize that we are outsiders in a field dominated by university physicists and funded government projects. They never see our work because they operate in different circles with different access to information. I sometimes think this is sinister. Would solving some of the problems in science curtail their funding? How would they justify the next huge space exploration device or high energy collider if they admitted that would only extend their thinking a small amount? But it is their thinking that counts…not ours.

That said, I enjoyed your essay and your graphics were well done. Actually, I can see similarities between our theories. I am curious about the motivating force for the big bang. I view consciousness as a structure that supported transition from information to reality. We develop consciousness and hope it is, in the end, inclusive. As a TOE Doc, what are your thoughts?

report post as inappropriate

You are so right Gene that we will not convince each other of our theories but that is not necessary - what is important is that we have the opportunity to see what other's have done and have these collegial chats.

My theory is a physical model (not mathematical one) where the math of the model must come from the model and progression of the model must follow the rules of mathematics.

The difference in my theory is the hierarchy of energy and if it is correct would literally be the last extension of and completion of Einstein's work. We know of two energy states where one is E = mc^2 (by Einstein) and E = hv (By Einstein and Planck). However hidden from us is the base energy state where all the energy of the universe existed in this form before the big bang... That was the energy associated with the entities that collectively contruct spacetime and this energy is proportional to c^0. Plrease read my response to John Hodge where I explain this a little better and where I answered your question about "the motivating force" or what I would call the conditions that existed to create the Big Bang. All the best!!!

My theory is a physical model (not mathematical one) where the math of the model must come from the model and progression of the model must follow the rules of mathematics.

The difference in my theory is the hierarchy of energy and if it is correct would literally be the last extension of and completion of Einstein's work. We know of two energy states where one is E = mc^2 (by Einstein) and E = hv (By Einstein and Planck). However hidden from us is the base energy state where all the energy of the universe existed in this form before the big bang... That was the energy associated with the entities that collectively contruct spacetime and this energy is proportional to c^0. Plrease read my response to John Hodge where I explain this a little better and where I answered your question about "the motivating force" or what I would call the conditions that existed to create the Big Bang. All the best!!!

Gene is right about the difficulty of getting feedback. When the WWW first appeared there were fewer of us publishing ideas in this way and I found I did get some comments, but now the FQXi essay contests are one of the few places where this seems possible. Some authors get feedback on viXra but it is the exception rather than the rule.

I think anyone in this game has to accept that they will be their own greatest fan and will probably have to work alone and largely unappreciated to take the ideas as far as they can. If someone seems to get some inspiration from what I write I am happy about it, even if I don't get any credit. The joy for me is the development of my own ideas and the inspiration I get from others. Any appreciation is just a nice bonus.

report post as inappropriate

I think anyone in this game has to accept that they will be their own greatest fan and will probably have to work alone and largely unappreciated to take the ideas as far as they can. If someone seems to get some inspiration from what I write I am happy about it, even if I don't get any credit. The joy for me is the development of my own ideas and the inspiration I get from others. Any appreciation is just a nice bonus.

report post as inappropriate

Gene - You a noble man - But what if you found the actual solution to the theory of everything by way of re-building the entire field of physics from a new, true, solid foundation? I am sure you would want the credit... and why not - YOU would deserve it.

I totally agree with you that this essay contest is an excellent way to get some ideas out from the non-professionals and hopefully to the people in physics academia. But I wonder if they would consider referencing any work published here?

I totally agree with you that this essay contest is an excellent way to get some ideas out from the non-professionals and hopefully to the people in physics academia. But I wonder if they would consider referencing any work published here?

Dear Scott,

I read your paper and it has some good understandings and concepts, such as the understanding that we must question everything that we know about time and space and I would add that we must also question everything that we know about the structure of the fields, energy photons, and matter particles that exist in that space and the concept that space could be composed of zero...

view entire post

I read your paper and it has some good understandings and concepts, such as the understanding that we must question everything that we know about time and space and I would add that we must also question everything that we know about the structure of the fields, energy photons, and matter particles that exist in that space and the concept that space could be composed of zero...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hi Paul –

I have to say you have very diligent in reading my paper – You have made some very important points and I will address the best I can in a post.

You state, “your paper is much like many others that I have seen that fall short of being actually workable because it attributes characteristics to some things that they don’t actually possess in reality.”

When...

view entire post

I have to say you have very diligent in reading my paper – You have made some very important points and I will address the best I can in a post.

You state, “your paper is much like many others that I have seen that fall short of being actually workable because it attributes characteristics to some things that they don’t actually possess in reality.”

When...

view entire post

Dear Scott,

You are right that I am using my current knowledge, but I am not really trying to apply it to space-time because my current knowledge goes beyond the concept of space-time so that concept is no longer required to explain the structure and functioning of the universe. You are right that we will never be able to directly see, experiment on, or show the entities of space-time in...

view entire post

You are right that I am using my current knowledge, but I am not really trying to apply it to space-time because my current knowledge goes beyond the concept of space-time so that concept is no longer required to explain the structure and functioning of the universe. You are right that we will never be able to directly see, experiment on, or show the entities of space-time in...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hi Paul,

You have a lot of questions for me to answer... I can't post my entire book... I can refer you to this paper which gives a brief manner in which particle contain energy proportional to c^2.

https://www.academia.edu/27987699/_Why_Cant_the_LHC_Find_New

_Math_

I can also tell you that the energy of spacetime is real and it is important. The energy field of particles are created by the interaction of E1/E2 energy with the E0 energy of spacetime. In addition gradients in the E0 energy of spacetime is responsible for the outward force on all matter, so in this regard the energy is real.

There is no constant creation of New energy - the displacement of GOD entities in the examples I gave were purely "what if's" and cannot happen in actuality. These examples were given to derive mathematics of E0 energy being proportional to c^0.

In addition you throw around the term "dimension" as if you are physicist thinking that you know what a dimensions is and how a dimension is created... You should read this paper on dimensions:

https://www.academia.edu/30755282/Hidden_Dimensions_..._Not_

So_Hidden_After_All

All the best!

Scott

You have a lot of questions for me to answer... I can't post my entire book... I can refer you to this paper which gives a brief manner in which particle contain energy proportional to c^2.

https://www.academia.edu/27987699/_Why_Cant_the_LHC_Find_New

_Math_

I can also tell you that the energy of spacetime is real and it is important. The energy field of particles are created by the interaction of E1/E2 energy with the E0 energy of spacetime. In addition gradients in the E0 energy of spacetime is responsible for the outward force on all matter, so in this regard the energy is real.

There is no constant creation of New energy - the displacement of GOD entities in the examples I gave were purely "what if's" and cannot happen in actuality. These examples were given to derive mathematics of E0 energy being proportional to c^0.

In addition you throw around the term "dimension" as if you are physicist thinking that you know what a dimensions is and how a dimension is created... You should read this paper on dimensions:

https://www.academia.edu/30755282/Hidden_Dimensions_..._Not_

So_Hidden_After_All

All the best!

Scott

Scott, I have a question.

Is the approach you gave in your essay able to make a testable prediction that could be falsified and if yes, what prediction would this be?

I do not want to know that, eventually in the future, your approach would be able to make a prediction or something like that, I ask for whether or not it actually does or does not, as it stands right now.

report post as inappropriate

Is the approach you gave in your essay able to make a testable prediction that could be falsified and if yes, what prediction would this be?

I do not want to know that, eventually in the future, your approach would be able to make a prediction or something like that, I ask for whether or not it actually does or does not, as it stands right now.

report post as inappropriate

My theory does predict something that physicists are planning in a future experiment. They predict that neutrino/anti-neutrino interactions will result in annihilation. That will not happen. The mass found in neutrino does not have the same structure of mass found in particle made of E2 energy. (See the hierarchy of energy). Neutrinos are composed of E1 energy. Annihilation occurs when particles containing E2 energy has their energy jump down to the E1 energy state. Neutrinos are already in the E1 energy state, so the neutrino/anti-neutrino interactions will NOT result in annihilation.

Thanks for your answer.

I have some further questions.

Do you think that such a future experiment is feasible *in principle* due to the laws of physics?

If yes, then would you agree that until such an experiment is made in the future and the results of it are known, your model is just that, a model, although it may refer in some way or the other to all the hitherto known physical laws?

If no, then would you agree that your model may be elegant and consistent, but cannot prove that logic is *more* fundamental than nothing (the latter in the sense of the absolute non-existence of everything, including space, time, quantum fluctuations, imagination, logic and even your two primordial postulates in your model)?

report post as inappropriate

I have some further questions.

Do you think that such a future experiment is feasible *in principle* due to the laws of physics?

If yes, then would you agree that until such an experiment is made in the future and the results of it are known, your model is just that, a model, although it may refer in some way or the other to all the hitherto known physical laws?

If no, then would you agree that your model may be elegant and consistent, but cannot prove that logic is *more* fundamental than nothing (the latter in the sense of the absolute non-existence of everything, including space, time, quantum fluctuations, imagination, logic and even your two primordial postulates in your model)?

report post as inappropriate

I do think that a future experiment is possible to support my theory (such as the neutrino/anti-neutrino annihilation experiment planned). And since I answered yes let me address your next question...

One of the very necessary aspects of a new model for a theory of everything is that it is in total agreement with all theories that have not yet been disproven. This is not an easy task to...

view entire post

One of the very necessary aspects of a new model for a theory of everything is that it is in total agreement with all theories that have not yet been disproven. This is not an easy task to...

view entire post

Scott,

I agree that a new form of mathematics is needed to resolve the problems in Physics. However, I do not necessarily think this means that everything must be discarded. After all, both QM and GR work.

It seems to me that you are recreating Euclidian Geometry. Euclid begins with a point, then a line, then a plane, then a 3-D space. You begin with a point that is spinning. But for the point to spin, there must be time. There must also be some way to determine that it is spinning. So, you have not really gotten around space-time. BTW, a point can be viewed as the limit of a sphere where the radius tends to zero. A hyper-sphere could also be used with the limit being an infinitesimal piece of space-time.

I was not able to follow the rest of your argument. That does not make it wrong. It just means I could not follow it.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

I agree that a new form of mathematics is needed to resolve the problems in Physics. However, I do not necessarily think this means that everything must be discarded. After all, both QM and GR work.

It seems to me that you are recreating Euclidian Geometry. Euclid begins with a point, then a line, then a plane, then a 3-D space. You begin with a point that is spinning. But for the point to spin, there must be time. There must also be some way to determine that it is spinning. So, you have not really gotten around space-time. BTW, a point can be viewed as the limit of a sphere where the radius tends to zero. A hyper-sphere could also be used with the limit being an infinitesimal piece of space-time.

I was not able to follow the rest of your argument. That does not make it wrong. It just means I could not follow it.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Oh I forgot to respond to this Gary...

"I agree that a new form of mathematics is needed to resolve the problems in Physics. However, I do not necessarily think this means that everything must be discarded. After all, both QM and GR work."

You will find that the math I provide in my theory leads to ALL the math we know and to the math that expresses the postulates of GR and QM. In that regard it fulfills the requirement that what we know is correct but needs adjustment when all the pieces of the puzzle are taken into account. (such as dark energy) - This paper may lay some of you concerns to rest:

https://www.academia.edu/34884714/Dark_Energys_Role_in_

Gravity

Again all the best!

"I agree that a new form of mathematics is needed to resolve the problems in Physics. However, I do not necessarily think this means that everything must be discarded. After all, both QM and GR work."

You will find that the math I provide in my theory leads to ALL the math we know and to the math that expresses the postulates of GR and QM. In that regard it fulfills the requirement that what we know is correct but needs adjustment when all the pieces of the puzzle are taken into account. (such as dark energy) - This paper may lay some of you concerns to rest:

https://www.academia.edu/34884714/Dark_Energys_Role_in_

Gravity

Again all the best!

Thank you Gary for so elegantly making my point. Don't worry you are no the only one in this situation. The reason why the theory of everything has not been found is because no one can get through "The Ruby Slipper Conundrum". Even though I addressed in my essay what you are questioning in my last post - it is difficult to register. The problem may stem from the question of what is a true...

view entire post

view entire post

Hi Scott I like the presentation of your essay as a day of creation of the universe. the times of day breaks it up into readable sections and I think it is an attractive literary tool, making it more than just information. Like some of your other readers I do wonder why after sweeping the board clean, you choose to keep certain theoretical pieces. For me, it is spacetime that needs putting to rest. I think you must consider it indispensable and yet it was Einstein (who is said to have) said-"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." Nevertheless you have presented your own model in a nice way and I appreciate the thought that has gone into it. Kind regards Georgina

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for the kind words Georgina. I do not write academic papers - I am not in academia but I did co-write the National Lampoon movie RoboDoc.

Anyway - I know it seems like I swept things away and then re-introduced them... But here is what really happened. I wanted to know why the speed of light was measured the same in all reference frames. We know the properties of light and...

view entire post

Anyway - I know it seems like I swept things away and then re-introduced them... But here is what really happened. I wanted to know why the speed of light was measured the same in all reference frames. We know the properties of light and...

view entire post

Dear Dr. Scott S. Gordon,

You wrote: “The new math starts by expressing the properties of a component building block ingredient. This ingredient along with energy is the only ingredient required to build our universe and everything in it, starting with the building of spacetime itself. The new math must be simple because the universe starts with one basic ingredient which builds in complexity. The more complex the structures in the universe become, the more complex the math required to describe it.”

My research has concluded that Nature must have devised the only permanent structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

You wrote: “The new math starts by expressing the properties of a component building block ingredient. This ingredient along with energy is the only ingredient required to build our universe and everything in it, starting with the building of spacetime itself. The new math must be simple because the universe starts with one basic ingredient which builds in complexity. The more complex the structures in the universe become, the more complex the math required to describe it.”

My research has concluded that Nature must have devised the only permanent structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

Hi Joe,

Your research has one aspect similar to mine that being the primordial ingredient that existed long before even our 3 spatial dimensional spacetime. However everyone including physicists have fallen into a certain way of thinking which prevents them from getting to the primodial building block entity.

There are two aspects missing in current theory:

1) The ruby slipper conundrum - where we cannot use our known math to describe the mathematical properties of the building block component entity (I say entity and not particle because we know particles as they co-exist within spacetime as opposed to the entity which exists "as" spacetime)

2) The Hierarchy of energy where physicists know two out of the three Gordon energy states (physicists know the energy of light and the energy of mass but not the energy of spacetime itself).

The reason why the theory of everything has not been found is because there is no way to derive it from our current math. (Our math must be derived from the math of the theory of everything) The other reason is because there is no experiment that will reveal the energy of spacetime and the fact that it is proportional to c^0.

Wishing you the best of luck on your theory.

Your research has one aspect similar to mine that being the primordial ingredient that existed long before even our 3 spatial dimensional spacetime. However everyone including physicists have fallen into a certain way of thinking which prevents them from getting to the primodial building block entity.

There are two aspects missing in current theory:

1) The ruby slipper conundrum - where we cannot use our known math to describe the mathematical properties of the building block component entity (I say entity and not particle because we know particles as they co-exist within spacetime as opposed to the entity which exists "as" spacetime)

2) The Hierarchy of energy where physicists know two out of the three Gordon energy states (physicists know the energy of light and the energy of mass but not the energy of spacetime itself).

The reason why the theory of everything has not been found is because there is no way to derive it from our current math. (Our math must be derived from the math of the theory of everything) The other reason is because there is no experiment that will reveal the energy of spacetime and the fact that it is proportional to c^0.

Wishing you the best of luck on your theory.

Dear Dr. Scott S. Gordon,

My contention that the real Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light am not a theory, it am an easily provable fact. You can only see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed constantly changing flat looking varied colored surfaces no matter in which direction you look. It logically follows that only infinite surface am observable.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

My contention that the real Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light am not a theory, it am an easily provable fact. You can only see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed constantly changing flat looking varied colored surfaces no matter in which direction you look. It logically follows that only infinite surface am observable.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

Hi Joe,

I do not try to get people to who have their own theory of everything to believe in my theory of everything - our job is to convince others of our theory of everything. But it seems you want some feedback on your theory so here it is...

You used words that need to be defined...

Visible (meaning that it can be Seen through some mechanism of experimentation.)

Infinite - Are you referring to an infinite distance on a surface

Surface - what is the surface constructed of?

Dimensions - Is what you are calling a dimension something that was created or just was assumed to exist?

I can't make any sense of the rest of what you wrote about color surfaces, etc...

I wish you luck as I do everyone else but like I said - We need to convince others, not each other...

Scott

I do not try to get people to who have their own theory of everything to believe in my theory of everything - our job is to convince others of our theory of everything. But it seems you want some feedback on your theory so here it is...

You used words that need to be defined...

Visible (meaning that it can be Seen through some mechanism of experimentation.)

Infinite - Are you referring to an infinite distance on a surface

Surface - what is the surface constructed of?

Dimensions - Is what you are calling a dimension something that was created or just was assumed to exist?

I can't make any sense of the rest of what you wrote about color surfaces, etc...

I wish you luck as I do everyone else but like I said - We need to convince others, not each other...

Scott

Dear Scott,

Reality never has to be defined. Only pretentious humanly contrived finite abstract

misinformation about imaginary reality has to be mis-defined. When I use the word “visible” I mean that only surface can ever be seen by any eye, including both of yours, no matter in which direction you are facing. Real vision requires no “mechanism of experimentation.”

There am only one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface, There are no finite distances in infinity.

Although scientists persistently pretend to know about finite matter that is somehow immersed in invisible space, actually, all solid, liquid and vapors have a visible surface. There am no invisible space

Abstract finite separate dimensions of length, width, depth and time cannot ever have existed for one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface for it would have to be infinite in all aspects including duration.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Reality never has to be defined. Only pretentious humanly contrived finite abstract

misinformation about imaginary reality has to be mis-defined. When I use the word “visible” I mean that only surface can ever be seen by any eye, including both of yours, no matter in which direction you are facing. Real vision requires no “mechanism of experimentation.”

There am only one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface, There are no finite distances in infinity.

Although scientists persistently pretend to know about finite matter that is somehow immersed in invisible space, actually, all solid, liquid and vapors have a visible surface. There am no invisible space

Abstract finite separate dimensions of length, width, depth and time cannot ever have existed for one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface for it would have to be infinite in all aspects including duration.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Scott,

You were right to think I'd be fascinated to study another 'bottom up' approach. Our start points match;*"the universe starts with one basic ingredient which builds in complexity".*

You lost me a bit with 'rotating points' as a 'point' has no dimensions so can't rotate, but I agree rotation is key and you quickly reverted to compatibility with 'distinguishability' of...

view entire post

You were right to think I'd be fascinated to study another 'bottom up' approach. Our start points match;

You lost me a bit with 'rotating points' as a 'point' has no dimensions so can't rotate, but I agree rotation is key and you quickly reverted to compatibility with 'distinguishability' of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hi Peter - I think you got the gist of my theory. I lose most people with rotating point but when you think of it - all a rotating point is is a rotating disc taking the parameter of the rotation to the limit of zero. The limit value of the rotation will not be zero. (we are also dealing in a realm where there is no distance, dimensions, time, etc... - the ruby slipper conundrum is a hug...

view entire post

view entire post

Hi, Scott. Your essay was fun to read, but I had problems with it all the way through. At the start, you having spinning points prior to space-time. Spinning is rotation in space, and a point has no extension, so what does that concept mean? At the end, you seem to imply that your theory explains the values of fundamental constants. Do you have any numerical predictions that you can offer as a demonstration? I has comparable questions all the way through.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Hi Gregory,

Happy that you enjoyed my essay. I completely understand the problems you had as you made your way through it, you are not the only one - it is practically required. The model I am presenting is very different than anything ever presented. Let me try to get you on the right track.

The spinning point is not made of anything. It is literally a point in the void...

view entire post

Happy that you enjoyed my essay. I completely understand the problems you had as you made your way through it, you are not the only one - it is practically required. The model I am presenting is very different than anything ever presented. Let me try to get you on the right track.

The spinning point is not made of anything. It is literally a point in the void...

view entire post

Dear Scott,

In your approach, I miss the efforts of Garrett Birkhoff and John von Neumann to establish a fundament that emerges into a suitable modeling platform. In their 1936 paper, they introduced a relational structure that they called quantum logic and that mathematicians call an orthomodular lattice. It automatically emerges into a separable Hilbert space, which also introduces a...

view entire post

In your approach, I miss the efforts of Garrett Birkhoff and John von Neumann to establish a fundament that emerges into a suitable modeling platform. In their 1936 paper, they introduced a relational structure that they called quantum logic and that mathematicians call an orthomodular lattice. It automatically emerges into a separable Hilbert space, which also introduces a...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hi Hans,

I read you post with enthusiasm. Please note that I am not physicist or a mathematician. I am an engineer with a good grasp of math and basic physics and then learn more and more physics and then looked at the problem facing physics through the lens of my model.

You have described another model that would be more basic to Hilbert space but there lies the problem... What was presented was more about the math supporting math instead of a physical model from which math emerges.

I am more in tune with physical structure (not mathematical precedence) with the emergence of math from the physical structure - This is what was needed to solve the theory of everything.

Note that just mentioning Hilbert space is startng with known math to express space as a precursor to a theory. I have said this many time, any attempt to solve the theory of everything that starts with known math will fail.

One of the other features of my novel approach is the building block entity is the same entity that creates the primordial photon. So there is a linear progression of events that keeps on building the complexity of the universe which follows (or expresses) by an inevitable course of events.

The key to increasing complexity is the hierarchy of energy.

I appreciate your input - Please keep an eye on my progress in getting this theory out the years to come. It is practically impossible for me as a non-academic and non-physicist to get my work even looked at. Even harder for a physicist to put a review on the record.

Scott

I read you post with enthusiasm. Please note that I am not physicist or a mathematician. I am an engineer with a good grasp of math and basic physics and then learn more and more physics and then looked at the problem facing physics through the lens of my model.

You have described another model that would be more basic to Hilbert space but there lies the problem... What was presented was more about the math supporting math instead of a physical model from which math emerges.

I am more in tune with physical structure (not mathematical precedence) with the emergence of math from the physical structure - This is what was needed to solve the theory of everything.

Note that just mentioning Hilbert space is startng with known math to express space as a precursor to a theory. I have said this many time, any attempt to solve the theory of everything that starts with known math will fail.

One of the other features of my novel approach is the building block entity is the same entity that creates the primordial photon. So there is a linear progression of events that keeps on building the complexity of the universe which follows (or expresses) by an inevitable course of events.

The key to increasing complexity is the hierarchy of energy.

I appreciate your input - Please keep an eye on my progress in getting this theory out the years to come. It is practically impossible for me as a non-academic and non-physicist to get my work even looked at. Even harder for a physicist to put a review on the record.

Scott

Dear S N P Gupta,

Here is my first response in looking at your post and seeing it through the eyes of my theory: (I put my comment next to each line)

No Isotropy ----- True but we would never know any better by experimental findings

-No Homogeneity ----- True but we would never know any better by experimental findings

-No Space-time continuum ------ ...

view entire post

Here is my first response in looking at your post and seeing it through the eyes of my theory: (I put my comment next to each line)

No Isotropy ----- True but we would never know any better by experimental findings

-No Homogeneity ----- True but we would never know any better by experimental findings

-No Space-time continuum ------ ...

view entire post

Greetings Scott...

It is a noble attempt, but it falls short of the bar for such efforts. I would label your theoretical construct as a flawed application of some possibly brilliant insights in Physics. I cite the imposition of a cubic lattice as an ad hoc assumption, for example, and posit that a more natural one would be close packing where a hexagonal lattice is the most dense. But some of your key insights put you in good company.

The opening section sounded very much like the lead-in given by Lee Smolin for Energetic Causal Sets in his talk at GR21. And the section about spinning points being fundamental hearkens back to Lee's work on Spin Foam Networks with Fotini Markopoulou. But there are some possible missteps, or transitional assumptions that need closer examination, and should be adjusted.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

It is a noble attempt, but it falls short of the bar for such efforts. I would label your theoretical construct as a flawed application of some possibly brilliant insights in Physics. I cite the imposition of a cubic lattice as an ad hoc assumption, for example, and posit that a more natural one would be close packing where a hexagonal lattice is the most dense. But some of your key insights put you in good company.

The opening section sounded very much like the lead-in given by Lee Smolin for Energetic Causal Sets in his talk at GR21. And the section about spinning points being fundamental hearkens back to Lee's work on Spin Foam Networks with Fotini Markopoulou. But there are some possible missteps, or transitional assumptions that need closer examination, and should be adjusted.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

I should add this...

Even a naive approximation to a brilliant insight is better food for thought than rehashing the same tired ideas again and again. And you do give your readers a lot of good material to work with.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Even a naive approximation to a brilliant insight is better food for thought than rehashing the same tired ideas again and again. And you do give your readers a lot of good material to work with.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

I appreciate your input Jonathan - And with your last statement in mind you amy want to reconsider your assessment as you take a deeper look into what my theory proposes...

The problem is the theory of everything is a theory where everything is created from one building block component ingredient and energy. There is no way to get readers or students of this theory to get through the Ruby...

view entire post

The problem is the theory of everything is a theory where everything is created from one building block component ingredient and energy. There is no way to get readers or students of this theory to get through the Ruby...

view entire post

Thanks for the thoughtful reply...

I like what you did. Keep plugging away. I wish you luck!

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

I like what you did. Keep plugging away. I wish you luck!

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Scott,

How does space expand faster than the speed of light? From your website: "This little equation explains why light always travels at c^1, because no matter how much energy is contained in the underlying spacetime we occupy, that energy will always be proportional to c^0. Any photon we determine the speed of within our underlying spacetime will always be measured at c^1."

Your ideas are not illogical and in keeping with many who believe that GR and quantum theory cannot be united. Your concepts seem new but what new math will help us unite them?

When E reorganized into 3 dimensions, does this explain the superforce separating into 4 forces?

My essay speaks of ToE being fundamental and keeping an open mind about concepts of fundamental that change with discovery. Your essay makes a contribution to all of us. Hope you can check mine out.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

How does space expand faster than the speed of light? From your website: "This little equation explains why light always travels at c^1, because no matter how much energy is contained in the underlying spacetime we occupy, that energy will always be proportional to c^0. Any photon we determine the speed of within our underlying spacetime will always be measured at c^1."

Your ideas are not illogical and in keeping with many who believe that GR and quantum theory cannot be united. Your concepts seem new but what new math will help us unite them?

When E reorganized into 3 dimensions, does this explain the superforce separating into 4 forces?

My essay speaks of ToE being fundamental and keeping an open mind about concepts of fundamental that change with discovery. Your essay makes a contribution to all of us. Hope you can check mine out.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Hi Jim,

It is very difficult for the novice being introduced to my theory to see all the consequences of the model. The statement is true and it is very logical. The entire theory is contained in a 350 page textbook so you can imagine there is a lot to learn.

Anyway in answer to your concern... When spacetime expands, what is happening is the energy of spacetime is expanding and is "relatively" decreasing in E0 energy concentration. But no matter what level of E0 energy is in the underlying spacetime, light will be measured at c. But light becomes a relative constant - light will relatively move faster when the energy of the E0 energy of the underlying spacetime decreases, but when we measure light while "in" that spacetime, it will still be measured at "c".

In regards to forces... I bring physics back to a more simple model of forces by showing that all forces are a result of energy fields... We know this but my theory reveals exactly how each energy field is created and why certain energy fields are associated with the particles they are associated with.

The paper I submitted is only the tip of the iceberg of a much bigger picture of how everything was created (except the primordial ingredient and its associated energy). I will look at your theory but all theories I look at the try solve the theory of everything fail for the same reasons... They use known math taking existing parameters for granted (ie distance, charge, dimensions, etc...) and they never get through the Ruby Slipper Conundrum, the biggest stumbling block for physicists in finding the theory of everything.

It is very difficult for the novice being introduced to my theory to see all the consequences of the model. The statement is true and it is very logical. The entire theory is contained in a 350 page textbook so you can imagine there is a lot to learn.

Anyway in answer to your concern... When spacetime expands, what is happening is the energy of spacetime is expanding and is "relatively" decreasing in E0 energy concentration. But no matter what level of E0 energy is in the underlying spacetime, light will be measured at c. But light becomes a relative constant - light will relatively move faster when the energy of the E0 energy of the underlying spacetime decreases, but when we measure light while "in" that spacetime, it will still be measured at "c".

In regards to forces... I bring physics back to a more simple model of forces by showing that all forces are a result of energy fields... We know this but my theory reveals exactly how each energy field is created and why certain energy fields are associated with the particles they are associated with.

The paper I submitted is only the tip of the iceberg of a much bigger picture of how everything was created (except the primordial ingredient and its associated energy). I will look at your theory but all theories I look at the try solve the theory of everything fail for the same reasons... They use known math taking existing parameters for granted (ie distance, charge, dimensions, etc...) and they never get through the Ruby Slipper Conundrum, the biggest stumbling block for physicists in finding the theory of everything.

Scott,

Time grows short so I am revisiting those I have commented on to see if I've rated them. I find that I rated yours on 2/12. Hope you have time to check mine out.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Time grows short so I am revisiting those I have commented on to see if I've rated them. I find that I rated yours on 2/12. Hope you have time to check mine out.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Gorden,

A couple of thoughts to consider;

What if time is not so much the point of the present, moving past to future, but change turning future to past, as in tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth turns. So duration is not a dimension, but the state of the present, as events coalesce and dissolve. Time is asymmetric because it is a measure of action and action is...

view entire post

A couple of thoughts to consider;

What if time is not so much the point of the present, moving past to future, but change turning future to past, as in tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth turns. So duration is not a dimension, but the state of the present, as events coalesce and dissolve. Time is asymmetric because it is a measure of action and action is...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Your comments are appreciated.

Just for clarity... It is very difficult for a person to grasp the huge impact of a model that proposes a structure of spacetime built from component building block entities. It requires a lot of time and effort. This theory does address what you brought up as we appear to be in the center of the galaxy... This is because it defines the property of straight.

Straight is defined in Gordon's Theory of Everything a balance of energy on either side of a path. The energy of spacetime is NOT equal everywhere and it is much less at the periphery of the universe showing that what we would consider straight is curved.

IN addition, it does not matter the Gordon energy state of the energy along a path in spacetime... That is why particle that contain E2 energy (mass) which does extend out infinitely bends the light on a path through this energy. Light will slow on the side of the path with greater energy and that is why light bends towards objects containing mass.

This is a completely new theory and it will take a long time to catch on but it explains a lot and is completely consistent with GR and QM.

Just for clarity... It is very difficult for a person to grasp the huge impact of a model that proposes a structure of spacetime built from component building block entities. It requires a lot of time and effort. This theory does address what you brought up as we appear to be in the center of the galaxy... This is because it defines the property of straight.

Straight is defined in Gordon's Theory of Everything a balance of energy on either side of a path. The energy of spacetime is NOT equal everywhere and it is much less at the periphery of the universe showing that what we would consider straight is curved.

IN addition, it does not matter the Gordon energy state of the energy along a path in spacetime... That is why particle that contain E2 energy (mass) which does extend out infinitely bends the light on a path through this energy. Light will slow on the side of the path with greater energy and that is why light bends towards objects containing mass.

This is a completely new theory and it will take a long time to catch on but it explains a lot and is completely consistent with GR and QM.

Gorden,

Not Bad try at all. better than most here. Some similarity with Anastasi

Study my essay for a similar setup but with direct results, by thinking of the "points" as numbers.

cheers

report post as inappropriate

Not Bad try at all. better than most here. Some similarity with Anastasi

Study my essay for a similar setup but with direct results, by thinking of the "points" as numbers.

cheers

report post as inappropriate

Hi Adel,

I see where you would have some affinity to my work after reading yours. I never set out to solve what is fundamental or the theory of everything. I wanted to know the answer to the question: Why is the speed of light the same in all reference frames? the postulate used by Einstein to derive special relativity. When I found the answer to this, I realized I stumbled onto the theory of everything.

We have similarities in our approaches... We both claim that the properties of particles and spacetime must have physical reasons for them to exist and we set out to find those reasons. You also realized something that I call "The Concept of Infinite Scales" but where you realize that a parameter must be relative.

I like you comment "Not Bad try at all. better than most here." I don't try to convince other people of my theory who have a theory of their own. But I will address why I used the Spinning point with an infinitely extending relative spin of surrounding points as a consequence.

In one of you papers you found a way to assign a parameter a relative value between two numbers. In my theory, I too have two numbers... The numbers are infinite at point zero and zero infinitely away. This is presented by an inverse function. Where the two parameters equal each other, it has a value of one.

This in itself is not enough to solve the problem presented with the Concept of Infinite scales. One of the key components in my theory is the hierarchy of energy... You say you have found the internal energy structure of particle and how they come to possess charge, spin, mass, etc... I have also advance the math of my theory that reveals what charge is, spin, mass etc...

I applaud your efforts - but I am very certain that the hierarchy of energy is the key to solving all the mysteries.

All the best!

Scott

I see where you would have some affinity to my work after reading yours. I never set out to solve what is fundamental or the theory of everything. I wanted to know the answer to the question: Why is the speed of light the same in all reference frames? the postulate used by Einstein to derive special relativity. When I found the answer to this, I realized I stumbled onto the theory of everything.

We have similarities in our approaches... We both claim that the properties of particles and spacetime must have physical reasons for them to exist and we set out to find those reasons. You also realized something that I call "The Concept of Infinite Scales" but where you realize that a parameter must be relative.

I like you comment "Not Bad try at all. better than most here." I don't try to convince other people of my theory who have a theory of their own. But I will address why I used the Spinning point with an infinitely extending relative spin of surrounding points as a consequence.

In one of you papers you found a way to assign a parameter a relative value between two numbers. In my theory, I too have two numbers... The numbers are infinite at point zero and zero infinitely away. This is presented by an inverse function. Where the two parameters equal each other, it has a value of one.

This in itself is not enough to solve the problem presented with the Concept of Infinite scales. One of the key components in my theory is the hierarchy of energy... You say you have found the internal energy structure of particle and how they come to possess charge, spin, mass, etc... I have also advance the math of my theory that reveals what charge is, spin, mass etc...

I applaud your efforts - but I am very certain that the hierarchy of energy is the key to solving all the mysteries.

All the best!

Scott

Hi Scott...

Mathematical physics that preserves "Scientific method" by providing visually verifiable kinematics, from what we empirically observe, to a single operative/mechanism underlying observation of Universal fundamental unification, "can offer a coherent 'assembly' of the evidence needed to advance understanding that already exists", REF: Richard Kingsley Nixey essay...

view entire post

Mathematical physics that preserves "Scientific method" by providing visually verifiable kinematics, from what we empirically observe, to a single operative/mechanism underlying observation of Universal fundamental unification, "can offer a coherent 'assembly' of the evidence needed to advance understanding that already exists", REF: Richard Kingsley Nixey essay...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hi Sue,

I appreciate your comments and I will try to answer the questions you have posed.

Question #1) In that perception of motion requires Space, how can a point Spin without defining direction... i.e. direction is a Spatial property?

Answer #1) One of the most baffling stunbling blocks to finding a theory of everything is what I call "The Ruby Slipper Conundrum". Your...

view entire post

I appreciate your comments and I will try to answer the questions you have posed.

Question #1) In that perception of motion requires Space, how can a point Spin without defining direction... i.e. direction is a Spatial property?

Answer #1) One of the most baffling stunbling blocks to finding a theory of everything is what I call "The Ruby Slipper Conundrum". Your...

view entire post

Login or create account to post reply or comment.