Authors: Rodney Bartlett
This article was rejected by "Physical Review D" because it is "scientifically very far from the current state of knowledge in the field". Why do people (including scientists) avoid anything "scientifically very far from the current state of knowledge in the field"? Being far from the current state does not mean my article is incorrect. Depending on the extent of its accuracy, it offers either large or smaller opportunities for readers to make unanticipated advances in science. When his paper regarding mathematical formulas creating reality was submitted to a scientific journal and rejected as being too speculative, U.S. cosmologist Max Tegmark showed the rejection letter to his friend John Wheeler (1911-2008), a Princeton theoretical physicist. Wheeler rejected the rejection and said, “Extremely speculative? Bah!” Then he reminded Tegmark that some of the original papers on quantum mechanics were also considered extremely speculative. (p.2 of “Is the Universe Actually Made of Math?” By Adam Frank, Monday, June 16, 2008 - http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jul/16-is-the-universe-actually-made-of- math#.UQNDUR2-pFk Remembering Professor Wheeler ... This article begins with a well known astronomer and author saying "It now truly appears that the universe is infinite”. But how can the cosmos be infinite when general relativity says an infinite amount of energy would curve the universe to an infinitely small size, which obviously does not happen! The proposed solution refers to a problem physics had 120 years ago - a blackbody could release an infinite amount of energy, causing experiment and theory to diverge radically in the ultraviolet spectrum. Max Planck's solution of dividing electromagnetic radiation into quanta (photons) is called upon, and the universe's infinity is "broken" into discrete units by suggesting it's composed of electronics' binary digits (since General Relativity taught us that time is curved and warped, the fantastic possibility exists that the 1's and 0's come from the far future of humanity). Whatever their origin, the binary digits are assembled, via references to science and maths, into two-dimensional Möbius strips and then four-dimensional figure-8 Klein bottles. This topological structure is given mass in parts through the coupling of the long-range gravitational and electromagnetic waves. Their interaction substitutes for the Higgs field, according to M. Tanabashi; M. Harada; K. Yamawaki. Nagoya 2006: "The Origin of Mass and Strong Coupling Gauge Theories". International Workshop on Strongly Coupled Gauge Theories. pp. 227–241). The strong and weak nuclear forces may also ultimately result from gravitational - electromagnetic coupling, making the nuclear forces non-fundamental. For a moment, let's allow our imaginations to fly ... while we simultaneously remain grounded in science. Suppose the 1's and 0's really do come from the far future of humanity. Could a future computer simulation of the universe that uses mathematics' boundary-less, so-called Imaginary Time cause the simulation to be eternal, infinite, and indistinguishable from this "real" universe? (The lack of boundaries would also avoid Relativity's breaking down at the scale of quantum mechanics, thus introducing the graviton and the theory of Quantum Gravity.) This outcome involving so-called Imaginary Time (I.T. might be a better name) is plausible. Professor Itzhak Bars of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles says, "one whole dimension of time and another of space have until now gone entirely unnoticed by us".
Comments: 5 Pages.
[v1] 2017-10-14 23:42:47
Unique-IP document downloads: 48 times
Vixra.org is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. Vixra.org will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.
Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.