This means that gravity exists everywhere because zero, as a concept, doesn't exist in nature. Therefore, my U=1 framework would always result in the presence of gravitational influence, indicating a non-zero value for G at all times. This maintains the idea of universal interconnectedness and continuous dynamic equilibrium.
Any assumption about higher dimensions creating chaos and entropy, such as those in string thoery, might be influenced by our current mathematical framework, which heavily relies on zero. If—as my theory inherently suggests—zero doesn't naturally exist, this framework might not accurately describe higher-dimensional realities. By rethinking math without zero, we might find order and coherence where current models only see chaos.
With U=1, where the universe is a unified whole, this complexity might not introduce chaos but rather reflect different facets of the same entity. This unified perspective can offer a coherent framework for understanding these additional dimensions, especially when combined with a mathematical model that respects the principle that zero does not exist in nature.
In terms of my U=1 equation, a human mathematical framework does not seem to exist to explain nature, at least not one that is well understood in modern times. Virtually all of our modern mathematical tools employ the concept of zero as a key point of syntax.
Consider that if zero did exist in nature, I think the concept of counter pressure would not, which appears as an element of gravity as I describe it when quantized spaces stack together and seemingly vanish from the field, pulling everything around inward to make up for the vacancy.
In the U=1 framework, the absence of zero means there's no true void, leading to a universe in constant dynamic equilibrium. This interplay and connectivity among all parts create gravitational effects. The lack of zero is a fundamental reason for gravity's existence in my theory.
So zero really seems like a big hurdle for humanity to overcome in its thinking.
I'm suggesting 10 dimensions, which is the basis for the original string theory, compared to 11 dimensions of M-theory. My guess is that 11 would indeed create disorder within U=1. I think the most simple form of string theory maintains order and coherence in a universal singularity.
My guess is that further forms of string theory were only postulated because of the problem of zero.
As we already know, not all math needs zero. For example, in the ancient world, I think there was a civilization that once better understood the workings of the Universe, as made evident by their concepts of the fabric of the Universe symbolized by the Seed of Life.
It was my simple belief that this seven-ringed Seed of Life was an ancient code that awakened my focus on a 10D string theory. I somehow just knew I had to get to that goal, which after decades has led me here.
Early mathematics in civilizations like Egypt and Babylon got by without a formal concept of zero, and some modern areas of mathematics—like certain kinds of geometry and topological studies—can work without zero, too.
For example, the fact that the math of quantum field theory employs zero may be a reason why it gets so funky with its probabilistic nonsense. Clean up that math and we may see failing theories re-materialize as completed sections of math within the U=1 framework because the value of everything—relativity, string theory, QFT etc—would be part of this whole.
If math is to depict reality I think it must also need to mirror reality precisely. As it is currently designed, it simply doesn't do that.
The implication of U=1 is that zero, as a concept, doesn't exist in the physical universe. From this lack of zero we get all the pressures of the fabric pushing it to fold in on itself wherever a potential zero void might instead have existed.
Instead, we have zero as an abstract mathematical tool used to represent the absence of something in a way that fits human musings, not reality.
However, the reality of energy conservation aligns with my idea—mass and energy transform, but never become nothing. So, in natural terms, "zero" might be more a human construct than a reality.
For example, if a void appears in the fabric because one space has stacked on its neighbouring space, as I postulate, nature might indeed instantly fill it, as in fluid dynamics where pressure differences cause movement to equilibrate. This idea corresponds to fields in physics where forces act to fill absences or gaps, like gravity.
On the other hand, in algebra, zero serves as a pivotal element for equations and for defining null quantities, but this is still an abstraction. Algebra would need modification if zero were not to be a natural value.
If U=1 is to represent everything, current math seemingly needs revising to exclude zero in a natural sense. This could align with fields like topology, where spaces and transformations don't rely on zero in the conventional sense.
In terms of reality-based math, 1 becomes both everything and nothing specific. It encapsulates all but doesn't represent any singular subset within the Universe. This could indeed even make 1 a more abstract or philosophical concept than a practical one.
Imagine if we redefine 1 in reality-based math as the totality. It would shift our numerical foundation, where our math tools need to account for the wholeness of the Universe and not rely on the traditional unit-centric system.
With everything you know and feel intuitively about the Universe and modern humanity, do you actually think humans have devised the most true form of the Universal mathematical language to describe reality? It seems a tall order to fill.
Unfortunately for discussions like this, what I'm trying to explain is a radical shift, I know, and I think perhaps we need new math frameworks for a true theory of reality. I think it would be a grave and foolish mistake to attempt this with what we have today because ultimately it would just send us on another wild goose chase.
Instead, I suggest we aim to envision the geometric reality that I'm proposing rather than calculate it. It's very likely the best we can currently do if actual reality is the thing we are looking to define with the tools we have available today.
Here's my response to a comment elsewhere on Quantum Field Theory that is worth sharing here:
I'm fine if you want to call this a hypothesis. Perhaps you can take my work as a map to draft your own "true" mathematically inclined theory of it.
I must confess, my mind is geometrically/visually/spatially inclined, not algebraically. My sense of reality is heightened.
However, in the framework of my theory, I can easily explain and improve upon quantum field theory, which in my terms is perhaps more appropriate to call quantum chain theory.
QFT is fundamentally built on the idea that particles are excitations in fields. If I'm postulating that photons and other particles are not particles at all but some value of stationary quantized spaces within the fabric, I'm suggesting a shift away from QFT's imperfect language and conceptualization.
I'm redefining that what we perceive as particles are actually properties of the fabric of space itself, which fundamentally alters how we understand interactions and forces.
My focus is on fields and inductions, rather than excitations of fields, suggesting a more static, almost geometric conception of how energy and matter interact.
QFT sees particles like photons as excitations in their respective fields. In other words, a photon is an excitation in the electromagnetic field.
My theory proposes that what we consider particles, like photons, are not separate entities but rather stationary quantized spaces within the fabric of spacetime. When energy moves through these spaces, it creates what I call a "stacking" effect—these spaces compress or overlap to create densities.
By this logic, excitations in QFT represent perturbations or disturbances in the field, essentially points where the field's energy spikes.
Stacking quantized spaces could be seen as a form of “excitation,” where overlapping or compressing quantized spaces generate areas of higher energy density.
In both cases, there are localized regions of heightened energy. My theory re-imagines this in a geometric framework rather than a purely probabilistic one. So, while QFT and my theory might use different languages and concepts, there’s a core similarity—both involve concentrated energy in a field, leading to observable phenomena.
As for observable predictions, several have been made or implied by what I've theorized...
1. Quantized Space >>>
Prediction: Space is made up of discrete units that can be compressed or decompressed.
Observation: Matter should appear less translucent as the stacking of quantized spaces occurs in the creation of more dense forms of matter. This is easily observable.
2. Propagation of Light >>>
Prediction: Light moves as a perturbation through quantized spaces, not as individual photons.
Observation: Light as a wave
3. Fifth Dimension (Perspective) >>>
Prediction: Perspective acts as a fifth dimension, influencing the perception of scale from macro to micro.
Observation: Time dilation whereas time moves slower for an observer who is in motion relative to another observer. This was observed in 1971 when physicists flew atomic clocks on commercial airliners and compared them to clocks that remained on the ground.
4. Flower of Life Fabric of Spacetime >>>
Prediction: Quantized spaces expand in a 3D-pattern resembling the Flower of Life, which would allow for light to move in wave form
Observation: The double-slit experiment
5. Stacking of Spaces >>>
Prediction: Injected light energy causes spaces to stack, creating matter and affecting gravitational effects.
Observation #1: Denser material is known to be less translucent.
Observation #2: Gravitational lensing effect
Observation #3: The event horizon of black holes
6. Electromagnetic Manifold >>>
Prediction: The universal manifold of quantized spaces resembles electromagnetic field lines.
Observation: Celestial objects move in orbits according to the apparent gravity of the most densely stacked quantized spaces
7. Unified Universe (U = 1) >>>
Prediction: The universe is a singular, constantly recycling entity.
Observation #1: When chemical reactions occur, the total mass of the reactants equals the total mass of the products.
Observation #2: The behaviour of celestial bodies follows the conservation laws. The total energy of objects in orbit remains constant over time, so long as no external forces are acting on the system.
Shared elsewhere:
If it's anything, zero is gravity.
That equation may look like this:
G≠0G \neq 0
This means that gravity exists everywhere because zero, as a concept, doesn't exist in nature. Therefore, my U=1 framework would always result in the presence of gravitational influence, indicating a non-zero value for G at all times. This maintains the idea of universal interconnectedness and continuous dynamic equilibrium.
Any assumption about higher dimensions creating chaos and entropy, such as those in string thoery, might be influenced by our current mathematical framework, which heavily relies on zero. If—as my theory inherently suggests—zero doesn't naturally exist, this framework might not accurately describe higher-dimensional realities. By rethinking math without zero, we might find order and coherence where current models only see chaos.
With U=1, where the universe is a unified whole, this complexity might not introduce chaos but rather reflect different facets of the same entity. This unified perspective can offer a coherent framework for understanding these additional dimensions, especially when combined with a mathematical model that respects the principle that zero does not exist in nature.
In terms of my U=1 equation, a human mathematical framework does not seem to exist to explain nature, at least not one that is well understood in modern times. Virtually all of our modern mathematical tools employ the concept of zero as a key point of syntax.
Consider that if zero did exist in nature, I think the concept of counter pressure would not, which appears as an element of gravity as I describe it when quantized spaces stack together and seemingly vanish from the field, pulling everything around inward to make up for the vacancy.
In the U=1 framework, the absence of zero means there's no true void, leading to a universe in constant dynamic equilibrium. This interplay and connectivity among all parts create gravitational effects. The lack of zero is a fundamental reason for gravity's existence in my theory.
So zero really seems like a big hurdle for humanity to overcome in its thinking.
I'm suggesting 10 dimensions, which is the basis for the original string theory, compared to 11 dimensions of M-theory. My guess is that 11 would indeed create disorder within U=1. I think the most simple form of string theory maintains order and coherence in a universal singularity.
My guess is that further forms of string theory were only postulated because of the problem of zero.
As we already know, not all math needs zero. For example, in the ancient world, I think there was a civilization that once better understood the workings of the Universe, as made evident by their concepts of the fabric of the Universe symbolized by the Seed of Life.
It was my simple belief that this seven-ringed Seed of Life was an ancient code that awakened my focus on a 10D string theory. I somehow just knew I had to get to that goal, which after decades has led me here.
Early mathematics in civilizations like Egypt and Babylon got by without a formal concept of zero, and some modern areas of mathematics—like certain kinds of geometry and topological studies—can work without zero, too.
For example, the fact that the math of quantum field theory employs zero may be a reason why it gets so funky with its probabilistic nonsense. Clean up that math and we may see failing theories re-materialize as completed sections of math within the U=1 framework because the value of everything—relativity, string theory, QFT etc—would be part of this whole.
If math is to depict reality I think it must also need to mirror reality precisely. As it is currently designed, it simply doesn't do that.
The implication of U=1 is that zero, as a concept, doesn't exist in the physical universe. From this lack of zero we get all the pressures of the fabric pushing it to fold in on itself wherever a potential zero void might instead have existed.
Instead, we have zero as an abstract mathematical tool used to represent the absence of something in a way that fits human musings, not reality.
However, the reality of energy conservation aligns with my idea—mass and energy transform, but never become nothing. So, in natural terms, "zero" might be more a human construct than a reality.
For example, if a void appears in the fabric because one space has stacked on its neighbouring space, as I postulate, nature might indeed instantly fill it, as in fluid dynamics where pressure differences cause movement to equilibrate. This idea corresponds to fields in physics where forces act to fill absences or gaps, like gravity.
On the other hand, in algebra, zero serves as a pivotal element for equations and for defining null quantities, but this is still an abstraction. Algebra would need modification if zero were not to be a natural value.
If U=1 is to represent everything, current math seemingly needs revising to exclude zero in a natural sense. This could align with fields like topology, where spaces and transformations don't rely on zero in the conventional sense.
In terms of reality-based math, 1 becomes both everything and nothing specific. It encapsulates all but doesn't represent any singular subset within the Universe. This could indeed even make 1 a more abstract or philosophical concept than a practical one.
Imagine if we redefine 1 in reality-based math as the totality. It would shift our numerical foundation, where our math tools need to account for the wholeness of the Universe and not rely on the traditional unit-centric system.
With everything you know and feel intuitively about the Universe and modern humanity, do you actually think humans have devised the most true form of the Universal mathematical language to describe reality? It seems a tall order to fill.
Unfortunately for discussions like this, what I'm trying to explain is a radical shift, I know, and I think perhaps we need new math frameworks for a true theory of reality. I think it would be a grave and foolish mistake to attempt this with what we have today because ultimately it would just send us on another wild goose chase.
Instead, I suggest we aim to envision the geometric reality that I'm proposing rather than calculate it. It's very likely the best we can currently do if actual reality is the thing we are looking to define with the tools we have available today.
Here's my response to a comment elsewhere on Quantum Field Theory that is worth sharing here:
I'm fine if you want to call this a hypothesis. Perhaps you can take my work as a map to draft your own "true" mathematically inclined theory of it.
I must confess, my mind is geometrically/visually/spatially inclined, not algebraically. My sense of reality is heightened.
However, in the framework of my theory, I can easily explain and improve upon quantum field theory, which in my terms is perhaps more appropriate to call quantum chain theory.
QFT is fundamentally built on the idea that particles are excitations in fields. If I'm postulating that photons and other particles are not particles at all but some value of stationary quantized spaces within the fabric, I'm suggesting a shift away from QFT's imperfect language and conceptualization.
I'm redefining that what we perceive as particles are actually properties of the fabric of space itself, which fundamentally alters how we understand interactions and forces.
My focus is on fields and inductions, rather than excitations of fields, suggesting a more static, almost geometric conception of how energy and matter interact.
QFT sees particles like photons as excitations in their respective fields. In other words, a photon is an excitation in the electromagnetic field.
My theory proposes that what we consider particles, like photons, are not separate entities but rather stationary quantized spaces within the fabric of spacetime. When energy moves through these spaces, it creates what I call a "stacking" effect—these spaces compress or overlap to create densities.
By this logic, excitations in QFT represent perturbations or disturbances in the field, essentially points where the field's energy spikes.
Stacking quantized spaces could be seen as a form of “excitation,” where overlapping or compressing quantized spaces generate areas of higher energy density.
In both cases, there are localized regions of heightened energy. My theory re-imagines this in a geometric framework rather than a purely probabilistic one. So, while QFT and my theory might use different languages and concepts, there’s a core similarity—both involve concentrated energy in a field, leading to observable phenomena.
As for observable predictions, several have been made or implied by what I've theorized...
1. Quantized Space >>>
Prediction: Space is made up of discrete units that can be compressed or decompressed.
Observation: Matter should appear less translucent as the stacking of quantized spaces occurs in the creation of more dense forms of matter. This is easily observable.
2. Propagation of Light >>>
Prediction: Light moves as a perturbation through quantized spaces, not as individual photons.
Observation: Light as a wave
3. Fifth Dimension (Perspective) >>>
Prediction: Perspective acts as a fifth dimension, influencing the perception of scale from macro to micro.
Observation: Time dilation whereas time moves slower for an observer who is in motion relative to another observer. This was observed in 1971 when physicists flew atomic clocks on commercial airliners and compared them to clocks that remained on the ground.
4. Flower of Life Fabric of Spacetime >>>
Prediction: Quantized spaces expand in a 3D-pattern resembling the Flower of Life, which would allow for light to move in wave form
Observation: The double-slit experiment
5. Stacking of Spaces >>>
Prediction: Injected light energy causes spaces to stack, creating matter and affecting gravitational effects.
Observation #1: Denser material is known to be less translucent.
Observation #2: Gravitational lensing effect
Observation #3: The event horizon of black holes
6. Electromagnetic Manifold >>>
Prediction: The universal manifold of quantized spaces resembles electromagnetic field lines.
Observation: Celestial objects move in orbits according to the apparent gravity of the most densely stacked quantized spaces
7. Unified Universe (U = 1) >>>
Prediction: The universe is a singular, constantly recycling entity.
Observation #1: When chemical reactions occur, the total mass of the reactants equals the total mass of the products.
Observation #2: The behaviour of celestial bodies follows the conservation laws. The total energy of objects in orbit remains constant over time, so long as no external forces are acting on the system.