The origin of the universe will grow upon us

If you search the internet for answers to the question - how did the universe begin, you will end up with a myriad of answers. Many will be contradicting each other. I have always found it strange that so many brilliant thinkers, having worked the problem for so many years, are still far from telling us a coherent and believable story. As soon as one prominent professor suggests an answer, two of his/her peers disagree, and everyone can back up arguments with scientific data. Everyone seems to be just as right and wrong.

That leads me to the conclusion that all theories probably share a common flaw. Imagine a building with a slightly skewed foundation. Everything you add upon it will have this basic skewedness, no matter what you build or how you decorate it, as long as it rests on a fundamental flaw it will be flawed. It’s not that you cannot utilize the rooms built, or that they are flawed in and of themselves. They may be fully functional and “correct”, while some are more pleasant than others, some are in disarray while other are tidy. No matter how different, they will all share a common property - there is something wrong with them. Any part of the building you visit, there is a slight lack of stability. It’s very weird because all rooms seem to be ok, and yet, something is wrong. Thing is, to discover what’s wrong, you must leave the building and look at it from the outside. You must abandon the comfort of staying inside, in your favorite room, trying to find the answer from inside.

That’s the way I picture theories of the universe, and physics in general. They are rooms in our tower of knowledge, and they are all a few degrees from being straight. That is why the professor who discovers a new room immediately is pushed out of balance, and is shown to be skewed, just as all the other roomies. So what is the fundamental flaw that makes a stable Theory of Everything seemingly impossible to build?

I suggest it is failing to recognize that the universe grows. What we believe to be expansion of a finite amount of energy might in reality be energy in increasing amounts. I suggest the universe grows in and by itself, and that this growth is the effect caused by force interaction. You might say this is a extraordinary stupid idea since not one single scientist would agree with a self generating universe. Everyone knows that energy and momentum are conserved at best, and no way is there anything supporting the idea that energy and momentum are globally increasing properties of the universe. Fair enough, I say that is good news for my idea.

If all existing theories indeed share a common flaw, it has to be found in a very basic premise made by all of them. Whatever this failed assumption turns out to be, if you find it and put it on the table, all of todays experts must dismiss it as irrelevant, foolish and flat out wrong. They must also have a wealth of well established arguments to back up their position. If not, there would probably be a ToE out there already. Whatever the share flaw is, it prevents them all from getting it straight.

Now, proposing energy to be continuously generated as to globally increase is very much a statement about universal fundamentals. It doesn’t get more basic that that. And since it violates some of the more well established truths in science, it is naturally rejected or ignored by everyone working the problem. Therefore, it might possibly be true. Being refuted and ignored is no guarantee for a statement to be correct, but neither does it prove the statement to be false. All I’m doing is to create some space for creativity to play in. To reach higher, we must get rid of whatever is holding us down.

We do not need more time to crack this. We need to realize "more time" is the answer. 

When it comes to explaining the origin of our universe, the initial state of affairs pre Big Bang, I doubt we’re making any significant progress.  I think we’re going sideways. Or rather, we’re building more stories upon a skewed foundation, and the higher we build the more off target we end up.

I believe the universe to be way simpler than usually expected. I’m pretty sure that whatever principle is guiding the process, it can be observed right here and now. If there is such a chief principle, it must be observable everywhere and all the time. There cannot be a local exception to such a universal law, so no matter how far or close you look, it has to manifest right there, right here. And what will appear an exception or anamoly will, when zooming in/out, fit perfectly in the overall process. 

Wherever and wherever I look, all I see is growth. I see energy grow into particular forms, and then they deform to energy which then reforms. All I see is generation of reality, but never degeneration. I see creation, but I have never seen a creator. I have never seen neither time, nor space. All my observations are of energetic forms changing internally and in relation to other forms. You will object that "growth" is just displacement as energy flows and charges. I say the flow is contraction in time and expansion in space. I say it is particle and wave doing the inside job of creation. I say we will never see that because it is concealed inside the discrete quanta of reality. I say that this is the qualia of quamta, to create energy. And then, we are that, and that is all we can ever experience. Experience/consciousness is of that. 

Assuming force interaction generates surplus energy for global growth, the Theory of Everything seems less mysterious and far fetched. Let the universe grow and most of the quantum weirdness of reality dissolves.

The quantum of action is a seed.  It grows time and space by generating new energy. Celebrate the leap year as the manifestation of increased time, increased frequency of energy emission.

Leap year – a big leap for mind

So why do we consistently add time to our calendars and clocks? As with everything real, this is a one way deal where nothing is lost, nothing subtracted. When looking for an answer, all I get is references to earths rotation and orbit around the sun and what affects that. I kind of get that, but a questionable mind wants to know why all the variables consistently end up producing more time. There’s nothing random or unpredictable about this, but a persistent and reliable pattern of time addition based on observable physical facts.
Finding no answer to my question why, I’ll provide my own answer. Having a simple Theory of Everything helps a lot, and luckily for me – I have just that!

ToE basics: Reality is the energy caused by interaction of forces contraction and expansion. Forces are within quantum systems of wave/particle duality where wavelength is wave quality and frequency is particle quality. Wave quality is expanding/radiation and thus space. Particle quality is contracting/gravity and thus time. In a quantum system of wave/particle there is energy produced for the formation (contraction) and distribution (radiation) of mass. The ”inflation” and increased ”complexity” of the universe is actually universal growth. The growth factor is within the energy surplus produced in force interactions. As energy increases, time and space follows naturally.
Ergo, time and space are caused by energy, and energy is caused by force. The ultimate cause as being pure force cannot be measured in itself. Measurement can only be of and by effected energy.

Now, the continous addition of time is caused by the continous addition of surplus energy from force interaction in the universal system as a whole. Increased time indicates an increase of universal frequency, and frequency is from rate of energy emission. As energy increases, in time, space will of course seem to expand, as if inflated. But there is no space apart from the increasing amount of energy. Universe does not expand/grow ”within” space, but space expands in time with energy.

The specifics of the forced generation of energy/mass are beyond me, but I guess they will be confirmed somewhere in the works of Szilard, Casimir and van der Waal, and the study of energy as in-formation changing by principles of least action.

Happy New Years

Many One

There is either one universe or many universities. It's all a matter of perspective. Both are equally true. 

But when you have one, many are impossible. If you have many, one is impossible. That's a common mistake causing profound confusion. 

There cannot be separation and controlled variables in a universe. 

There cannot be variation and interaction in many universities. 

This is irrelevant from a pragmatic point of view, because there "relatively" true is good enough. To understand the universal fundamentals, it is the most important point of all points. 

Determined to experience free will

The never ending debate on free will is one of many in which a consensus is impossible to reach as long as we are not aware of our identity and place within existence as a whole. Opponents will forever be stuck in arguments pro or con the existence of free will, because they cannot conceive the fact that the supposed “agent” exercising this will is not a self made man. Were they ever to realize this, the whole debate would appear in all its confusion.
Whatever position you choose to take, you will find evidence for it to be true. If this was not so, the question would have been settled ages ago. To get around this, let’s restate the initial question so that both positions are equally correct.

Is the experience of having alternative options obligatory or optional?

Those who advocate free will might say it is obligatory, while those who deny free will can agree. As far as I know, there is no argument saying free will is something we can freely choose to have or not have. That would be a contradiction, right?
But if we are determined to experience free will as a antecedent to action, both determinism and free will are equally true. Free will can be defined as actually true, while being determined to have it is also true.
If we cannot realize this, the hydra of sub-categories will keep producing offspring. That is because human intelligence is determined to create a subjective, alternative reality attached to the one that objectively is there as it is. We are determined to freely interpret reality as we see fit, and if you do not know this, there will never be a definite answer to any of your questions.

Circles within a circle

This is one simple way in which to imagine the microscopic quantum perspective. Every single quantum state is both particle and wave, but they will display which depending on current context of states. Here, some are particular as to form a circle structure. If we were to measure them, we would find there is wave-nature in these particles. If we measure the wave states that are not circle, we would find particles there. All quantum states are both particle and wave. It is the ratio P/W that differs between discrete states. 

Note that all we have here is a quantum ocean of frequencies. There is no actual "circle" there, only frequencies propagated through this ocean of single states to finally make up the apperance of circle. That is also a configuration of state frequencies. 

Also note that these states are quantum sized. A grain of salt consists of approx 1.2x10^18 single states, all of both particle and wave quality. 

So you see that having quantum rotation in numerous single states making up the distinct shape of a circle is not a problem. You will never detect the quantum "leaps" between single states. They are simply too small, too many, and will therefore appear as a distinct line/curve. 

Quantum leaps without legs

When trying to make sense of quantum lingo, one thing is really bugging me. On the one hand, everyone agrees that quantum states are discrete and seems to flip from this to that without any continuous, seamless "going there". On the other hand, all I read about is how particles/waves are sent in directions, reflectors, detectors and whatnot. 

I do not geddit!

It's like we treat these quantum states as if they were tiny dwarfes walking the room. As if it had legs or a little propeller attached to it. 

All I can see is billions of quantum states, transfering in-formation of quanta and qualia, asking and telling "what and how much"? Knowing that, they interact and pass it on. I can't see them carry the info from here to there. Never the less, that's how most books/articles have it. 

No wonder things like entanglement and inference stays mysteries. 

Frankly speaking

Todays feeble attempt at enforcing some light on physics was a note to Frank Wilczek. The reason he was spammed was just that there was a contact form on his site. Perhaps he will read my "whatever it is" before deleting? Probably it is in the virtual bin at "I need someone...", but I thought that plea for falsification was better than begging for confirmation. I dunno, maybe I should really make an effort to forget about the whole thing and go back to Spotify and a cool beer...
_________________________________________________________________

Dear Frank, I need someone to falsify my ideas asap, but where is that guy/gal? However I try to express them, out comes everything that is not what I mean i.e. rambling rants and crackpottery. Where can I find someone who, just to have a good laugh, would take a brief look at my wierd world? I am completely alone and it is not that fun. Trust me, I really want to be convincingly outargued so I can kill this pet theory, because it is growing into a monster. Very poetic, very "take your med's bro"-ish, I know that all too well.

I don't have the right words, I can hardly do math and therefore it comes out like:

- Wave/particle duality can be expressed as alpha stable distubution, where light appears at the crest, when p on one side and w on the other have reached max system energy and thus collapse.

- Force is angular and orbital momentum, and these two make up the duality.

- You can only measure one side (p or w) of the dual system, but the other is there until the point of measure.

- Measuring one momentum will freeze it, so naturally the other half of the interactive system goes invisible.

- Freezing orbital momentum makes angular disappear as wave. Freezing angular makes orbital a little black hole.

- When this happens, energy is gone but force conserved (as always).

- With energy gone, no wave-ness is there to make detection possible.

- Energy is caused by the above interaction between a/o momentum, and thus a variable dependent on rate/magnitude of force interaction.

- Orbital spin/momentum causes time.

- Angular spin/momentum causes space.

- etc

I won't elaborate on how I have come to these, perhaps, useful ideas. It's a zen thing. But ultimately, if I'm correct, the universe has a very bright future indeed. Evolution is geared towards wave collapses as a means for generating energy -> mass -> complexity and obviously, more force interaction. There's a guy at MIT, J. England, that is close to connecting the physic dot with the bio dot.

As for me, my network of particle dots and wave connections have me tangled up so much I'd rather be untangled and go back to "normal". I'd like someone to put the above into the existing equations and accepted frameworks. I don't think anything new has to be calculated, because I've invented nothing. I just realized that everything is indeed a matter of enforced energy, including human consciousness.

Please kill my pet.

Sorry for the rant ;)