THE CONCEPTUAL THEORY OF EVERYTHING
Again, this supports the notion that the concept is the overlying factor that guides every equation. String theory, to date, requires eleven dimensions (seven of which are balled up in extraordinarily small loops so that we can’t experience them), and even predicts sometimes that clashing branes can lead to the formation of multiple Big Bangs and parallel universes. Parallel universes were also conjectured by quantum physics long before the emergence of string theory, as some believe that the famous laser slit experiment all physicists are familiar with actually occurs because of an infinite number of interacting cosmoses. Since no one can claim that the future, or even the past, is governed by the laws most physicists accept, and that anything beyond what is observed is real, it is not completely ludicrous to assert that all the possibilities of the limitless multiverse can be conjured up at the whim of a dream. What is a dream but the perception of another universe? What is perception but the creation of reality and the force that binds the two faces of the celestial sea? Perhaps chaos theory’s underlying concept is that disorder is an inherent part of the cosmos that exists as a result of the multiverse.
By Kenneth C. Eng
The very name of the “Theory of Everything” strikes interest in the minds of most people, from the doltish to the brilliant. However, the vast majority of the human population does not truly understand the mathematics behind supersymmetry, superstring theory, quantum mechanics and general relativity. How then, would this discovery be accessible and/or demonstrable to the masses without the use of countless lectures on differential equations and linear algebra? For that matter, why should the ultimate truth behind everything be represented wholly in terms of numerical equations?
Why can’t the Theory of Everything be manifested in the form of a non-mathematical concept?
Quantum mechanics and relativity are currently the dominant paradigms that scientists use to describe the universe. Much to their despair, unfortunately, these two models are completely disparate, what with relativity being applicable only to the macrocosm and quantum mechanics being solely relevant to the microcosm. When one tries to unite the mathematical laws of these two fields, they clash, rendering physical calculations and established formulae meaningless in tides of abhorred infinities and zeroes. These discrepancies are fatal to an understanding of a Theory of Everything, for there can only exist one paradigm in the end.
Perhaps it is the nature of man to seek exactitude, or the fact that so many previous unifications in the world of physics were crafted by math (James Clerk Maxwell’s electromagnetism and the Schrodinger Wave Equation, to name two) that drives so many physicists define their cosmos in terms of numbers and equalities. One must keep in mind, however, that some of the greatest advances in physics were brought about by conceptual thought as opposed to sheer numerical analyzing. Richard Feynman, for instance, constructed quantum electrodynamics by twiddling with tinker toys and doodles. The Theory of Relativity was first sparked when Albert Einstein pondered about travelling at light speed. Even the most basic of rules, Newton’s theories of motion, were spawned from their creator’s reflections on falling objects and the appearance of the moon in the sky. Clearly, the most strategic aspects of mathematics lie in its applications to the real world.
So why do so many physicists labor at their differential equations when they should be asking Ð do the physical rules we know of necessarily portray our world at all times? By the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, it is completely illogical to declare that the future macrocosm will behave exactly as the laws of relativity dictate. In fact, it is absolutely silly to assume that the premises of conventional relativity theory are true and that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe. No one can say for certain that the speed of light will not suddenly drop from 3*108 m/s to 5 mph by the time you finish reading this sentence. Furthermore, since observation sculpts reality at the quantum level, no one can state that atoms exist when we are not examining them. For all a man can know, every subatomic particle might transform into dancing microscopic chess pieces while we are not directly studying them.
As absurd as these possibilities sound, they are just as silly as the assumptions that one cannot travel faster than light or that “e” will always equal “mc2”. Most would respond by pointing out that experiments and inductive reasoning verify scientific beliefs, but that answer does not solve anything with 100% certainty. Induction, the use of past occurrences to predict the probability of future occurrences, is an unfounded assumption in itself, as it actually relies on induction to be proven. Such circular reasoning does not hold in the realm of reasoning and certainly should not hold in the world of science. An experiment can only take us so far, for it cannot with utter certitude assure that the cosmos will always act as it did in one particular moment in spacetime. Thus, one must seriously consider why physicists should labor so arduously on equations that are based on unwarranted constants and assumptions that if disproved or altered at any point could spell doom for hundreds of years of observational research.
What then, can be known with fundamental definiteness? Logic is an apparent element that must always exist, for it simply cannot be disproved. Space and time are surely constants, as the universe would not have a reason to be without volumetric substance to move in and temporal parameters for causal events to take place. Thus, the macrocosm must always be a part of reality, since size would always be relative to a conscious observer, and there would always be a large-scale realm in which he/she lives. Along with the large-scale space, there must be a small-scale space composed of infinitely tiny, immeasurable points. Because nothing outside of direct observation is certain, these miniscule points would contain uncertain and limitless possibilities. Thus, they would comprise the microcosm.
The macrocosm, in addition, would also be as uncertain as the microcosm, as it too is built of these boundlessly minute zero-dimensional points. Since both of them are essentially occupying the same space and time, they are in fact united just by their spatial and temporal placements. It is possible that the large-scale universe could be warped in any conceivable way, and by the indefiniteness of the microcosm, it is also possible that the small-scale universe could be changed in innumerable fashions.
Yet, there must be a catalyst to alter the fabric of this simplified version of the cosmos. That catalyst would then be the only other element that must always exist Ð consciousness. Nothing outside of consciousness can be real, as the ability to experience the universe is what defines the entities that one can truly classify as extant. Therefore, awareness must be the factor that shapes the moldable substance of the macrocosm and microcosm united, acting as both an observer and creator.
In essence, the macrocosm and microcosm are analogous to relativity and quantum mechanics, respectively. Amidst the laws of the universe that most assume to be true, relativity still shows that space and time are changeable according to one’s physical state and that one’s perception of passing moments may not always be the same as those of another observer. Similarly, quantum mechanics exhibits that subatomic particles and waves only exist when observed and that the mere act of perceiving them changes their state. Since both the quantum and relativistic realms occupy the same cosmos, they are indeed two faces of the same whole, and they are united in the fact that quantum mechanics and relativity rely on perception to create reality.
While this appears to have nothing to do with the workings of strings or the collisions of membranes, it does offer possible implications for what the mathematical Theory of Everything might ultimately describe. After all, for what purpose would mathematics exist if not to extrapolate meaning and convey ideas for conscious beings? Chaos theory frequently tries to discover why events occur as they do, but it fails to incorporate the idea that perhaps the ultimate force that drives all things in the cosmos is the will of an organism to perceive a desired reality.
Further, research on the Theory of Everything detests the usage of infinities and zeroes, which are considered mathematical abominations that only disrupt the order of an otherwise harmonious equation. Most physicists tend to work these difficult values out of their theories by creating new paradigms that are free of them. However, as it may be convenient just to shovel anomalies under the carpet, this strategy might be hindering the progress of finding the perfect equation by blinding physicists from the potentiality of zero and infinity to be essential to our comprehension of the cosmos. Infinity, whether one likes it or not, does in fact exist, and is even the value for the number of universes that can potentially exist in a limitlessly changeable reality. Zero is also a real numeral that is innate to the idea of an ideal vacuum (zero particles or waves). Yet, while physicists slap on constants to their formulae that may or may not have an effect on the future universe if it suddenly decides to mutate, they refuse to acknowledge that maybe unification will not reveal itself in the form of numerals until we figure out how to live with the simple truth that INFINITY AND ZERO DO EXIST. QUIT TRYING TO GET RID OF THEM.
One problem with the conceptualization of infinity that disturbs many is that of Zeno’s paradox. This paradox states that if an object, let’s say a sword, were cast into the air, it should never be able to come back to the ground. The reasoning is that there are an infinite amount of divisions of distance between it and the ground, resulting in an endless amount of space and its inability to move through the air at all. The riddle has other perturbing implications, like the conclusion that since the universe and every object within it is composed of an unlimited amount of points, nothing should be distinguishable, time should not move forward, and existence should not even exist amid the fog of duality. Indeed, these thoughts are rather maddening, as swords still fall to the ground, clocks still tick, humans can be separated from chess pieces, and the universe remains real. The reason why the cosmic machine keeps turning is because we have merely misunderstood infinity.
Implementing limits, which most people learned of in high school, it is easier to fathom why Zeno was wrong. As the majority of the population knows, limits converge the results of sequences/equations into finite numbers that can be more easily handled. Correspondingly, all entities in the cosmos may themselves be drawn to finiteness by viewing them not as measurable objects (everything has a countless number of points and is thus infinite in size), but as impressions. Think of a painting by Claude Monet, littered with ephemeral wisps and blended colors, having none of its objects and visions clearly defined by hard-edged bounds. Perhaps we and all other entities are like the figures in a gestured drawing, appearing only as essences that induce sensations in the eyes and ears of those conscious to experience us. By this reasoning, we are in fact not much different from the numbers we operate with.
Hence, since we are measurable only by essence and not by numerals in exactitude, there should be no denial that infinity must be incorporated into the equations of the Theory of Everything. All finite numbers are irrelevant in describing us, for all that truly and simplistically exists are ghostly gestures that do not have any precise lengths, breadths or widths. The same applies to the speed of light, the force of gravity, the Planck Constant, and any other experimentally derived value.
Zero too, has its predicaments, yet as infinity before it, it can be rid of them. Nothingness in itself is rather hostile to apprehensible logic, as no one really agrees on the output of 2/0. Nor can anyone really determine what 00, 0/0 or log 2 0 = x come out to. Strangely, though, mostly every mathematician agrees that 20 = 1 and that the square root of Ð1 equals the imaginary number “i”. These equalities are, again, merely presuppositions that were designed simply to add convenience to problem solving. Some say that 2/0 is undefined, but why then, would I not say that 20 is also undefined? After all, if 22 = 2*2 = 4 and 21 = 2, then 20 would not have any integer at all, and thus be nil. The imaginary number i does not even make any sense, for the entire purpose of the square root function is to produce two identical factors. If i can be summoned from nowhere, anyone could also state that x/0 = “Sapphira”, 00 = “Dennagon” and 0/0 = “Drekkenoth”. Then we can all write Sapphira = (i(Dennagon)/Drekkenoth)/0, which means absolutely nothing.
While it may sound strange, one of these mathematical oddities can have many answers, but these answers rely on the defining of conceptual attributes. X/0 is an expression that, by itself, does not mean anything. Do we mean that x is divided by an infinite amount of zero-dimensional points? If so, then the solution would clearly be infinity. However, if we mean 0 to represent nothingness, then no entity can be divided by nothing, and thus, the equation would be undefined (much like having a friend call you to ask for your phone number). Apparently, relativity permeates even this mathematical puzzle, for the value of this problem, x/0, is dependent on what the denominator symbolizes. Ergo, zero is merely a substitute, or a poorly named variable that can emblematize many ideas in the real world, but has no real meaning in the world of integers, complex numbers, and differential equations as a whole. When the same logic is applied to infinity, it too is revealed to be in a similar state to zero.
That is not to say that I am contradicting myself and that mathematics should not include these anomalies. What is suggested by these attributes of infinity and zero is that they are links between the numbers on the chalkboard and the physical entities that constitute the universe. Perchance, this could be a sign that physics needs to extend beyond the constants that sightlessly bind theoreticians to shackles of unfounded numerals and embrace the possibility that infinity and zero are both mathematical values and conceptual traits of universal entities simultaneously. Perhaps a greater riddle than the unification of quantum mechanics and relativity would be the unification of logical equations with the physical cosmos.
Indeed, the quest for the Theory of Everything is one led by the valiant humans that are willing to spend their lives searching for the truth. However, as many of them are aware of, it probably will not be the end of their journey, as knowledge is not necessarily an objective in and of itself. As both faces of the cosmos hint that perception is the underlying force that guides the heavenly tides, we must learn to control our perceptions in order to unveil the shadow of mystery that beclouds the secrets we seek. Many who cannot understand the workings of advanced mathematics might be able to at least glimpse the grand scheme of unification’s purport if conceptualization is properly elucidated. Howbeit, lie it in the darkness of the microcosm and macrocosm united or within the depths of infinity or zero unknown, the Theory of Everything is out there to be discovered, and it will be found by conscious beings who are capable enough to envision it. After all, a universe without a purpose is one not worth existing.
Copyright of written pieces remain with the author, who has allowed it to be shown through Scars Publications and Design.Web site © Scars Publications and Design. All rights reserved. No material may be reprinted without express permission from the author.
Problems with this page? Then deal with it...
