Sorry dat het in het Engels is, ik wil hetzelfde verhaal op buitenlandse fora posten for feedback. :-( Ik heb wel geprobeerd om het zo simpel mogelijk te schrijven. Zou dit een verklaring kunnen zijn hoe het heelal is gecreerd?
Bedankt voor al het (positieve) kritiek!
Introduction
Universe creation from a single quantum fluctuation without the need of a creator (neither God nor simulation. However, it does not exclude them either). At the beginning there was LESS complexity and the smaller you go (quantum scale) the less particles you have to worry about and should therefore be LESS complex than the macroscopic world. It makes no sense that the smaller you go the more elemental particles you end op with. Additionally, where do all the constants come from. How do you add multiple constants from (creation out of) nothing? Nothing means no ingredients and therefore no constants either. “Dirac’s Large Number Hypothesis” points in the direction of all constants being related to the number 1042 with one or two geometric transformations applied to this constant. The age of the universe is 1062 Planck seconds. This number to the 0.707th power (which is the root of 2 = geometric transformation = allowed in the theory of everything). The age of the universe starts with “1” then becomes “2”, then “3” and now “1062”. This is the only “constant” that is allowed to become a (very) large (or small) number and become a “constant”. This seems to be geometrical related and that can only means the shape and size of the universe are the determinants of all constants in the universe. When one shrinks, another must grow at the same. Everything always in perfect balance no matter how weird it sounds. No one has found this deceptively simple theory yet because it makes no sense to turn everything around. I’m a bit crazy and always try to think outside the box. Usually so far away I don’t even recognize the box anymore. This time it resulted in something useful I hope.
Fundamental particles (all of them)
Anti-particle Charged particles Quarks Anti-quarks
Higgs particle Positive particle Blue quark Yellow quark (anti blue)
Negative particle Green quark Magenta quark (anti-green)
Red quark Cyan quark (anti red)
Energy
Moving particles (kinetic energy only)
Fundamental forces
Higgs force
Particles bend spacetime and therefore “generate” their own force. The Higgs particle generates the Higgs force, it has only one “non-spatial direction” therefore all Higgs particles repel each other
Charged particles have 2 non-spatial directions and 12 spatial 3-dimensional directions. Positive and negative and they generate the electromagnetic force and spin (the 3-dimensional spatial direction (dodecahedron, d12 of the electromagnetic force). A positive charge points in the same non-spatial direction as other positive charges so they will repel. The same for negative charges, however opposites charges point in the opposite direction so they attract.
Quarks
Quarks generate the quark force, also known as the strong force (and perhaps the weak force? I never understood that one). The quark force operates in 6 non-spatial directions. Colors that combine to white (“blue + green + red” or “blue + anti-blue”) attracts, everything else repels.
Combined particles
A free Higgs particle repels everything (a bit) so it probably forms an ultra-low dense gas between the galaxies adding the “bubbles” to the sponge like macro structure of the universe.
A free charged particle is a photon
A free quark, dark matter traveling at lightspeed?
Higgs particles add mass to the combined particle (no lightspeed traveling, it has no relation to gravity) and repels other particles with mass at short range. Charged particles adds the electromagnetic force but also spin, either positive or negative. Three quarks combine and orbit each other at very close distance and enormous speeds (conservation of rotational movement in a very small volume). They add 99% of the mass gravity to the combined particle.
1 Higgs particle = Higgs particle
1 positive particle = photon
1 negative particle = photon
1 pos + 1 neg particle = photon
1 quark = dark matter traveling at lightspeed?
1 Higgs particle + 1 positive charge = positron
1 Higgs particle + 1 negative charge = electron
1 Higgs particle + 1 pos + 1 neg = neutrino
1 Higgs + 3 quarks = naked neutron?
1 Higgs + 1 positive charge + 3 quarks = proton
1 Higgs + 1 negative charge + 3 quarks = anti-proton
1 Higgs + 1 pos + 1 neg + 3 quarks = neutron
Having 6 quarks instead of three adds a pseudo-electromagnetic force. The three vectors don’t line up and form a pseudoforce in the non-spatial direction of the electromagnetic field. It explains why nuclear particles want to stay together in protons and neutron and such, I think, no way to test any of this.
Energy/gravity
Moving particles “drag along” spacetime, exactly like how Einstein envisioned curved spacetime. This also explain gravity waves. Einstein was right about everything but he had no reason to assume that time is the real constant, instead of lightspeed (only an insane person would go there…). Formulas still work of course, no one doubted those with modern GPS-technology evidence. I’ve never understood any of those formulas, not even in high school and only learned about the underlying mechanisms. However, I do not regret my formulae-dyslexia anymore and can still claim to be as stupid as everybody else after publishing this stuff. Win/win. Quarks spin around each other really fast and the other particles move at high speed too. This generates gravity, not the particles themselves. Energy is gravity. 24,965,421,632 kWh is exactly 1 kg of “mass/gravity”, obviously…
Energy and temperature
Electrons and protons repel each other at short range due to the 4D Higgs force but attract each other at long range due to the 3D electromagnetic force. They always drift to a sweet spot distance which is the radius of an hydrogen atom. They do not have a speed on their own but energy (temperature) will increase the speed of the electrons bumping and dragging around whole atoms and molecules. I would guess that nuclear fusion efficiency would drastically increase at low temperatures and high pressures to force the protons together without the electrons preventing that. Helium forms a liquid crystal like pattern when you slow down the electrons enough (super fluid). An Einstein-Bose condensate is the state where the electrons are moving so slow that it allows atomic nucleases to clump up together, add some pressure and it should heat up through cold fusion. This warms up your condensate so fusion stops immediately. How about you try room temperature, high pressure nuclear fusion next? Sounds more practical too, even for safe use at home and no patents needed (drop a weight in a tube…). I have no idea how to calculate those things though. Please help me and let’s make that autistic girl shut up about her CO2-shit! Love you.
Universe geometry
The smallest unit of space is the Planck-sphere. These spheres/dodecahedrons are arranged as oranges in the supermarket. Every Planck-sphere touches 12 other Planck spheres in dodecahedral shape. These 12 directions are also the 12 spin directions (not just up and down, 12 directions for the positive charge and 12 for the negative charge). Light travels exactly 1 Planck-sphere per 1 Planck second. Lightspeed is 1. All other values or forces are 1 too, except for the current age of the universe or when you add multiple particles to your system.
Planck-sphere creation
When an Planck-sphere is created it will create 1 Higgs particle, this is the anti-mass/energy particle but behaves like a normal particle. A positive particle creates a negative particle using this energy. The same for quarks. Leftover energy turns into kinetic energy of the new particles. Mathematically there is NO creation ever and there are no in between steps. A universe created out of nothing will always be exactly balanced. You simply cannot create positive without negative and anti. Only an outside force could introduce an asymmetry to our universe. An asymmetry (cosmological constant anyone?) would be direct evidence of God, it just cannot exist out of nothing. And why would anyone use a super mega computer to simulate an universe that evolves itself once ignited? It is easier to just create a new universe and watch than it is to create a simulation of one.
Big Bang
One single quantum fluctuation whenever, wherever, however, whatever activated the first Planck-sphere. 1 Higgs particle, 1 positive charge and 1 negative charge were created. They probably combined to one ordinary neutrino but that doesn’t matter. Then at timepoint 2 (Big bang is timepoint 1 Planck second), the 12 surrounding Planck-sphere’s got activated and had a chance to spawn new particles and energy. At time point 3 another layer is added. This continues at lightspeed forever and never changes. The universe has a radius of 13.77 billion light years, not 46 billion light years. No weird stuff in the theory of everything. The “Big” bang is one single neutrino popping into existence whenever it felt like doing that, literally the smallest thing that can ever happen in our universe. But I have to admit that it was the biggest explosion that had ever happened until then so… how about meeting in the middle and call time point 1 the “Big Bang” and time point 2+ the “Cute Ripple” (het Lieve Golfje)? How about calling a single Planck-sphere unit an “einstein” (it means “one stone” in Austrian and reminds me of one of the heroes who started this theory).
The strength of the forces
Name Type Range Starting value Strength
Higgs force 4D 1/R3 Starting value 4D-sphere Root(1/1042)*
Quark force 4D 1/R3 Starting value 4D-sphere Root(1/1042)*
Electromagnetic force 3D 1/R2 Starting value 3D-sphere 1/1042
Gravity 3D 1/R2 Starting value 3D-sphere 1/1042
[* = age] = The number of Planck seconds to the reciprocal of the power of square root 2. Or simply: [Age of the universe]0.707 . *: I lost my excel sheet on my previous laptop, it was something like this.
Black holes
Black holes are balls of extremely dense but mundane “black matter”. Any density with enough mass will form a Schwarzschild radius (the black hole event horizon). This one has truly baffled me since a child and now I’m finally going to say something about this! Who came up with the idea that all mass is compressed into a single point with no dimensions? How is that supposed to work? When particles are next to each other you can’t compress them further. Why would it compress any further after that and how? How would that work and how can a math formula come up with such a conclusion?
The particle zoo of fundamental particles
I’m sure it’s just like binding energy in chemistry reactions, but a lot simpler because there just aren’t that many fundamental particles.
125.100 MeV is probably the Higgs particle
80.390 MeV (W-Boson, charged) a quark + 1 charged particle?
91.190 MeV (Z-Boson, neutral) a quark + 2 charged particles (positive and negative)?
All the low electron Volt values are probably rearranging energies of elemental particles just like in chemistry but at a lower less complicated level. Particles cannot be destroyed or created I think, Planck-sphere creation does that, so it must be rearranging energies.
(Double) slit experiment and (x-ray) light diffraction
Space is stacked like oranges with each Planck-sphere touching 12 other spheres. A dodecahedron or 12-sided die from the game “dungeons and dragons” provides the perfect visualization. The opposites of a 12-side die will always add up to 13 (1+12, 2+11, 3+10) just like a 1+6=7 on a normal die. To avoid confusion that these are directions instead of values, I will call them: 1p to 12p (positive) and 1n to 12n (negative). All stable configurations are: 13pp, 13pn and 13nn (so direct opposites). Same charges will repel and opposite attract when they are not 13 combined (they overlap). One simple picture will make it clear. Spin is a magnetic monopole (positive/negative, north/south) with 1 of 12 directions. When the particle’s spin interacts with a particle around the slit, it is “allowed” to make one change of direction following the pattern of the dodecahedron and the particle itself will deflect by this angle.
Only one slit matters and the best setup allows exactly one magnetic interaction during its travel through the slit. Assuming only 1 interaction takes place then there are 12 (spin directions) times 5 (one dodecahedron step) equals 60 possible deflection angles with an “interference pattern” between the angles. Most will overlap. If you use the same spin direction for all particles (let’s say up) only 5 deflections angles are possible resulting in mostly one single band. I’ll propose to use a pinhole instead of a slit. After optimizing for only 1 interaction per passing, all particles with the same spin direction will create 5 spots in the shape of a pentagon (dodecahedron). Random spin will generate 12 pentagons probably overlapping a bit. These pentagons are the rearrangement of space itself. Never seen a physics experiment set up in my own real life so I have no means to test this myself.
Red shift
The wavelength (color) of light is determined by energy divided by the Planck’s constant. Low values give red light and high values give blue light. Planck’s constant becomes lower as the fundamental forces become weaker in a larger older universe. Planck’s constant was 2x higher 7 billion years ago, 10x higher 12 billion years ago and 1000x higher when the universe was 13.77 million years old. Light was actually more red in the past and didn’t change color during its journey. The fundamental forces become weaker over time so new light produced requires less energy to become blue. Everything is always perfectly balanced and symmetrical, no energy creation of destruction. It simply cannot be any other way when creating something out of nothing. When one thing gets bigger, another thing gets smaller.
Time
Time is the only constant (ironically) and directly relates to the size and shape of the universe (expansion at lightspeed, always). The laws of special relativity (high speed, high gravity, weird time distortions) slows down the speed of light itself (information transfer, not just light). Clocks themselves just tick slower because everything is slowed down inside the clock, not just light. Time directly relates to the size of the universe and therefore the strength of the fundamental forces. No matter what weird time paradox has happened to your best friends grandfather twin, when you measure any constant of the universe you can calculate the exact age of the universe and reset your own weird “paradoxed-clock”. No time paradoxes in the theory of anything, the universe has its own internal clock.
Nuclear fusion and radioactive decay
They’re just balls spinning around other balls. Eye-balling where the particles would go to if you put them together allowed me to start from fundamental particles forming atoms, fusing together, forming heavier elements, then chemical reactions and simple organic chemistry (my field). It all made sense and it is easy to see why helium becomes weird at low temperatures, it forms a liquid crystal lattice, super fluid. The balls spinning around other balls just don’t fit very nicely together in unstable isotopes. Simple geometry but I hope that some computer nerd will just make a simulation program capable of simulating multiple balls moving around each other being affected by 4 forces that work the same but at different ranges and gradients. A classical multi-body system but you don’t even have to calculate anything to see what structures will form. Precise calculations are for half-life value determinations.
Magnetism
An electron is a negative magnetic monopole, no idea if it is north or south. A proton is a positive magnetic monopole. Line them up and you can easily see where ferro-ferri-dia-para- and the other magnetisms/electricity come from. There is just space for balls to line up. Could be useful when designing room temperature super conductors or meta-materials I think, but we’ll need a computer to simulate those things for that (it took me a month just to install an anonymous version of MS words (after leaving my credit card details and paying 70 euro’s every year, of words on a new 1200 euro laptop with windows, fucking assholes! I want office 2010 back!). The more particles you can simulate at the same time, the more complex elements or (bio)chemistry you can simulate/calculate. Atoms don’t have that many particles.
New system of units
The fundamental constants used today are not constants in time so every SI-unit that is attached to another unit will eventually be wrong. Constants slowly drift apart that’s why quantum mechanics and string theory can go on forever. Every breakthrough will be a more precise calculation of the exact distance between two points slowly drifting apart. More precise and timed experiments will eventually find it, but turning the whole theory upside down is something no respected scientist will ever consider. Thank you for that.
Using the elemental calculated values of the forces gives us a system of units where everything except time will have the value of 1. No calculation steps required between converting any units from time to distance to space permittivity. I’ve never understood why most formulas contain “c2” (or lightspeed square). What has lightspeed got to do with these systems? Nothing, but it was always required to neutralize the units used for all the other constants. With light speed set to 1 (like all other values) most terms from quantum mechanics and string theory will just turn to 1’s and can easily be removed from these formulas. Only the age of the universe, geometric values like pi and the reciprocal square root to the exponentiation power items remain. All high school math that even I could attempt.
The middle of this vast universe
The center of the universe is 13.77 billion years old, the rest is younger. Intelligent life evolving in only 13.77 billion years is statistically just completely Ludacris, there just aren’t that many stars in the universe, less than the number of water molecules in 10 milliliter of water. Yes, when you convert to grains of sand it looks like a lot more. But it is just not that many compared to the numbers you get when multiplying the countless rare events that had to happen together in sequence at the right time. However, close to the center of the universe at least we had some time and a chance (and obviously succeeded). The rest of the universe is even younger (same fundamental force strength so their clock starts at our time value when created, time is the same everywhere, always, well not always I guess…), so it makes sense to me that the Milky way is somewhere close to the middle of this vast universe. Judging the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) map containing an axes of evil (one side has more spots than the other side instead of an even distribution), I would guess the true center of the universe is just a bit north of the Milky way. No idea how to calculate those things though. It just makes sense to me that if we weren’t exactly in the middle then one side of the CMBR would be a little bit brighter or fainter and that is what the CMBR-map is showing us. I don’t understand mathematical formulas, this is how I argue…
Grey goo (scary replicating nanobots)
No. Grey goo doesn’t make sense at all. Microscopic duplicating robots suffer the same limitations as duplicating organic robots (life). They require enormous amounts of energy to process raw materials (rock) into whatever they are made of. There is no space to store much energy either so you will always need an external power source like sunlight. Even with near infinite energy, well let me tell you, micro-organisms just don’t grow very fast. We can probably do better, but chemical reactions will always be the limitation and life is already pretty efficient. The bigger the robots are, the easier to find and destroy them. The smaller they are, the easier it is to melt them. Flame torches sterilizes nanobots too. It takes a really long time to destroy something with grey goo, so if it does end up munching something to extinction, then you probably won’t miss it that much. Also, we’ve build them, they won’t be hard to find. Uses? Equip solar cells, drop them in the asteroid belt and harvest whenever they produced some crap. Just harvest some robots or their “waste” products and melt them.
Ik ga hier geen artikel zitten reviewen. Misschien als je betaalt. 
Ermmm, dit is de samenvatting van het hele universum. De Big Bang en alle natuurwetten uitgelegd in 2 posts vind ik toch best al een samenvatting....quote:
Op quote:Universe creation from a single quantum fluctuation without the need of a creator (neither God nor simulation. However, it does not exclude them either). At the beginning there was LESS complexity and the smaller you go (quantum scale) the less particles you have to worry about and should therefore be LESS complex than the macroscopic world. It makes no sense that the smaller you go the more elemental particles you end op with. Additionally, where do all the constants come from. How do you add multiple constants from (creation out of) nothing? Nothing means no ingredients and therefore no constants either. “Dirac’s Large Number Hypothesis” points in the direction of all constants being related to the number 1042 with one or two geometric transformations applied to this constant. The age of the universe is 1062 Planck seconds. This number to the 0.707th power (which is the root of 2 = geometric transformation = allowed in the theory of everything). The age of the universe starts with “1” then becomes “2”, then “3” and now “1062”. This is the only “constant” that is allowed to become a (very) large (or small) number and become a “constant”. This seems to be geometrical related and that can only means the shape and size of the universe are the determinants of all constants in the universe. When one shrinks, another must grow at the same. Everything always in perfect balance no matter how weird it sounds. No one has found this deceptively simple theory yet because it makes no sense to turn everything around. I’m a bit crazy and always try to think outside the box. Usually so far away I don’t even recognize the box anymore. This time it resulted in something useful I hope.
En in je eigen woorden?quote:Op donderdag 18 februari 2021 16:17 schreef Dally het volgende:
[..]
Ermmm, dit is de samenvatting van het hele universum. De Big Bang en alle natuurwetten uitgelegd in 2 posts vind ik toch best al een samenvatting....
[..]
Het universum begon als 1 "pixel" en werd/wordt vervolgens groter met de snelheid van het licht (altijd dezelfde snelheid). Alle nieuwe "pixels" die gecreeerd worden (het heelal wordt groter) "produceren" massa/antimassa en enrgie/anti-energie. Geen grote knal maar een rustig golfje van creatie. Een universum altijd in balans. Alle redenatie staat hierboven uitgelegd.quote:
en daarnaast snap ik er sowieso niets van,
Dank je wel! Daarom post ik deze theory hier. Ik hoop dat een aantal wetenschaps"nerds" de waarde ervan inzien. Verder wil ik het zo simpel mogelijk uitleggen zodat iedereen het kan begrijpen.quote:Op donderdag 18 februari 2021 16:24 schreef manny het volgende:
Voor zinnen als de volgende "They probably combined to one ordinary neutrino but that doesn’t matter." dragen niet bij aan de duidelijkheid.
en daarnaast snap ik er sowieso niets van,
Ik schreef: "They probably combine... but that doesn't matter."
Puur om aan te geven aan "normale" mensen dat er het er gewoon niet zoveel toe doet wat voor deeltje het is. Wetenschappers willen dit weten ("ah, een neutrino, natuurlijk!). Normale mensen boeit dat niet en ik heb eerlijk gezegd gewoon geen idee wat er precies gebeurt. Daarom deel ik mijn ideeen, in de hoop dat andere mensen de ontbrekende kennis kunnen toevoegen. Het is echt NIET alleen MIJN theory of EVERYTHING.
Dank je, ik zal kijken of ik die zin makkelijker kan maken, maar ik vind hem eerlijk gezegd best goed! Bedankt voor de feedback!
[ Bericht 0% gewijzigd door Dally op 18-02-2021 16:37:50 ]
Wat heeft b.v. de wortel van 2 met een "meetkundige transformatie" te maken? Waarom wordt Greta Thunberg erbij gesleept?
Voor mij is dit volkomen wartaal, eerlijk gezegd.
Dat komt omdat er geen wiskunde is gebruikt... natuurwetenschap zonder wiskunde is zowiezo onbegrijpbaar.quote:
Voor zinnen als de volgende "They probably combined to one ordinary neutrino but that doesn’t matter." dragen niet bij aan de duidelijkheid.
en daarnaast snap ik er sowieso niets van,
Als je wiskunde als de norm die definieert gebruikt wel.quote:
[..]
Dat komt omdat er geen wiskunde is gebruikt... natuurwetenschap zonder wiskunde is zowiezo onbegrijpbaar.
Het is echt veels en veel te veel tekst. En dan ook nog allemaal in het buitenlands. Doe gewoon iets van een zin of 3 in het Nederlands. En ook niet over zo een ingewikkeld onderwerp.quote:
[..]
Ermmm, dit is de samenvatting van het hele universum. De Big Bang en alle natuurwetten uitgelegd in 2 posts vind ik toch best al een samenvatting....
[..]