A Theory of Everything Physics Solution using a Two-Step Integrated Physics/Mathematics Methodology

Authors: Antonio A. Colella

Two astrophysics issue resolution methodologies are: the prevailing Hawking single primarily mathematics step and a two-step integrated physics/mathematics consisting of a conceptual physics step and a mathematics step. The Hawking methodology provided most of the spectacularly successful astrophysics achievements over the last century for single constituent theories such as Higgs forces and stellar black holes. However, it provided near zero results for multiple constituent theories such as a Theory of Everything (TOE), in contrast to the second methodology. The conceptual physics step of the two-step integrated TOE had three goals: to define “Everything”, to answer all key outstanding TOE physics questions, and to provide correct inputs to the second mathematics step. First, “Everything” was defined as 20 amplified and integrated (New Physics) constituent theories; superstring, particle creation, inflation, Higgs forces, spontaneous symmetry breaking, superpartner and Standard Model decays, neutrino oscillations, dark matter, universe expansions, dark energy, messenger particles, relative strengths of forces, Super Universe, stellar black holes, black hole entropy, arrow of time, cosmological constant problem, black hole information paradox, baryogenesis, and quantum gravity. Second, all 19 key outstanding TOE physics questions were answered including: what are Higgs forces and stellar black holes; what is dark energy and dark matter; and what caused the start of our universe. Third, correct inputs were provided for the two part second mathematics step which followed, a Beyond the Standard Model solution for particles and an amplified N-body simulation for cosmology.

Comments: 77 Pages.

Download: PDF

Submission history

[v1] 2020-01-02 05:32:23

Unique-IP document downloads: 10 times 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. 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.

comments powered by Disqus