A Universal Equation: On Non-Zero Energy Totals

R

Reiku

Banned
Banned
(I know Alhpanumeric hates it when i state a universal equation, because he thinks its bigheaded. In the words of Alphanumeric, ''he is an attention seeking whore.'' Oh, well, at least i have him on ignore. Never had to do it, but its been working well... anyway...)

I can work out that there is a non-zero total described a minority group of scientists, which are mainly string theorists...
but it is a value that we are in fact constructed of

Consider the following:

(R- M)=(D=M/v)=(v- R³)=(D- M-²)

So, this is a clear line of reasoning, for the mathematical attributes for the universe as a whole.

And take as the total mass and as total energy and let:

then, $$E=Mc^2_{+E}$$

And if ‘’c’’ is not equal to zero, which we know it isn’t, then we find through algebra that:

$$[Mc^2=0]$$

This can be found to be true about this universe. All matter comes to zero when added with the energy in the vacuum:

$$(E=Mc^2)+(E=-Mc^2)=0$$

So the converse can be accumulated:

$$M=E/c^2{_+M}$$

Then all energy comes to zero as well:

$$E/c^2=0$$

And in another way,

$$E=M_{t,a}_{+M_{t,a’}}$$

$$0=M_{a}+M_{-a}=E$$

Conclusion

We have our concepts of cosmological addition wrong. The process, to remove the complicatin of magnitudes of ~122 of error, is to say the negative enegy and the positive energy when added together, have a non-zero total, which we are observing. Not the other way around, and this seems the most logical assumption to solve the paradox of current math.

Now, could the conclusion be wrong, and if it is, can you help explain why?
 
Last edited:
Well I happen to have taken an introductory course in String Theory (which covered quite a fair bit of complicated math and even included the basics of quantum field theory and Feynman diagrams), and I don't see in any way how what you've said corresponds to any of what I learned.

Unless it's an extremely popular equation like $$E=Mc^2$$, you need to specify the meaning of every single one of your symbols. For instance, what's $$R$$ supposed to be? The Ricci scalar? Which unit system are you working in, are you setting $$c=\hbar=1$$? Once I even know what your first line says, then I can try to understand your logic in the following steps.

In general, not many believe there is a balance between regular matter and vacuum energy. The expansion of the universe is accelerating, meaning the ratio of vaccum energy to regular matter is increasing, if vacuum energy is indeed the cause of this inflation. Cosmological inflation also suggests that there's no balance between the mass/energy of the universe and gravitational potential, i.e. on the whole there's no evidence that the total mass of the universe is 0, since the universal expansion is accelerating, not decelerating.
 
Last edited:
''Well I happen to have taken an introductory course in String Theory ''

Really? I admire that. The study of string theory has helped quantum mechanics, but personally, the equations makes my eyes water, and then sponetaneously combust :)

All i can say, is that the general conception of string theorists, i can qoute a name, but i'll need to go through my work to find it, was that the growing confusion with the math right now, is that there is seems to be more energy, than we can calculate already in the universe, and this is obviously disturbing the general physicists working within this area.

''Unless it's an extremely popular equation like , you need to specify the meaning of every single one of your symbols. For instance, what's supposed to be? The Ricci scalar? Which unit system are you working in, are you setting ? Once I even know what your first line says, then I can try to understand your logic in the following steps.''

I apologize. I shall define them in my next thread::::: SORRY :-(

''In general, not many believe there is a balance between regular matter and vacuum energy. The expansion of the universe is expanding, meaning the ratio of vaccum energy to regular matter is increasing, if vacuum energy is indeed the cause of this inflation. Cosmological inflation also suggests that there's no balance between the mass/energy of the universe and gravitational potential, i.e. on the whole there's no evidence that the total mass of the universe is 0, since the universal expansion is accelerating, not decelerating.''

Unfortunately, i know, and this is why there is that superfluous energy consistant within the equations. But as i postulate, perhaps we have done this back-to-front...

''We have our concepts of cosmological addition wrong. The process, to remove the complicatin of magnitudes of ~122 of error, is to say the negative enegy and the positive energy when added together, have a non-zero total, which we are observing. Not the other way around, and this seems the most logical assumption to solve the paradox of current math.''
 
CptBork said:
For instance, what's $$R$$ supposed to be? The Ricci scalar? Which unit system are you working in, are you setting $$c=\hbar=1$$? Once I even know what your first line says, then I can try to understand your logic in the following steps.
Click to expand...
Reiku doesn't know anything about any of those things. His education in physics is at or below that of a bad high school student. It's just that he's using words he's read in pop science books.

He likes to think 'relativity is his best area' but ask him anything beyond putting numbers in $$E=mc^{2}$$ and you'll find he will avoid answering. He doesn't even use $$E^{2} = m^{2} + p^{2}$$, never mind know it's the square of the 4-momentum.

Nor does he know such things play an essential role when you're computing total amounts of energy in a region of space-time because it's not a well defined quantity since you can boost to a different frame and the total energy in a region changes. It's all frame dependent.

And so stuff like the Komar mass integral, as used in the Positive Energy Theorem of GR is completely beyond him for about 30 different reasons. You give him much much MUCH more credit than he deserves by even assuming he knows what the Ricci scalar is (though I'm sure he's just Googled/Wiki'd it!).

He has posted essays which claim that $$(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3})$$ is a 6 dimensional Lorentzian metric. Enough said...
Reiku said:
Really? I admire that. The study of string theory has helped quantum mechanics, but personally, the equations makes my eyes water, and then sponetaneously combust
Click to expand...
See Cpt, he's being nice to you. He doesn't like Ben or myself, despite us both being string theory PhD students because he knows we both see through his BS. He's made comments like "that's just string theory BS", even when it was in response to a post of mine explaining the difference between the Higgs mechanism and the Higgs boson.
 
And this (R- M)=(D=M/v)=(v- R³)=(D- M-²) describes any system like an entire universe, to a black hole. There is even some theories suggesting the universe could be a black hole.
 
Anyway, the above ''string equation'', and the conclusions of the non-zero total, actually lead to a single equation:

$$G_{t}(GM_{t}/c)+(G-M_{t}/R)=0$$

Where G is the gravitatonal Constant, $$M_{t}$$ is total mass, and R is radius. In this equation, if i have it right, gives a non-zero total, in assurance that the equation is correctly notated.
 
However, continuing from post 8,

c must be a non-zero total, whilst in compaired to GM_t, results in a non-zero total. So the correct expression is:

$$G_{t}(GM_{t}/c)+(G-M_{t})=x$$

where x has a real value which is non-zero.
 
AlphaNumeric said:
You give him much much MUCH more credit than he deserves by even assuming he knows what the Ricci scalar is (though I'm sure he's just Googled/Wiki'd it!).
Click to expand...

Not really, I'm just trying to gauge whether he even knows what he's talking about on this subject, to see if it's worth further discussion. Googling something won't help, I think I can sniff someone out pretty good when they don't have the underlying background.

Reiku said:
And this (R- M)=(D=M/v)=(v- R³)=(D- M-²) describes any system like an entire universe, to a black hole. There is even some theories suggesting the universe could be a black hole.
Click to expand...

These equations don't make any sense. You can't subtract mass from radius, anymore than you can subtract a football score from the seconds on a clock. The units don't match up, and even if you work in Planck units to make all your units match up, there's still no logical meaning behind most of these equations.
 
''Not really, I'm just trying to gauge whether he even knows what he's talking about on this subject, to see if it's worth further discussion. Googling something won't help, I think I can sniff someone out pretty good when they don't have the underlying background.''

maybe i had you wrong. I am sorry about my past discresions with you. I thought you simply based thoughts influenced by others.

Thanks :0
 
''These equations don't make any sense. You can't subtract mass from radius, anymore than you can subtract a football score from the seconds on a clock. The units don't match up, and even if you work in Planck units to make all your units match up, there's still no logical meaning behind most of these equations.''

Sorry, let me explain further... stupid me assumes people just know what i am talking about, when bad notation is introduced...
 
I mentioned earlier, that:

''And this (R- M)=(D=M/v)=(v- R³)=(D- M-²) describes any system like an entire universe, to a black hole. There is even some theories suggesting the universe could be a black hole.''
A thing like a black hole, or even an entire universe, since both are fundamentally, mathematically, cosmologically and physically identical, the radius of such a system, is found to be proportional to its mass. However the density of such a ''thing'' is found to be equal to its mass divided by its volume. Since the volume is proportional to the radius of the general system raised to the power of three, the density is then found to be inversely proportional to the mass, raised to the negative power of two.

So in effect, this string represents actual mathematical certainties of the universe as a whole, and can be described through the state vector |Ø>.
 
Reiku said:
maybe i had you wrong. I am sorry about my past discresions with you. I thought you simply based thoughts influenced by others.

Thanks :0
Click to expand...

Look, I'm here to help people gain understanding and to get some understanding myself. You might not like what Alphanumeric tells you, but I personally believe he knows a s---load more about this stuff than both of us combined. His advice and arguments have been sound as far as I'm concerned, the only objection I might have would be his presentation, but the negative tones of his posts might have something to do with something you said to him in the past.

I try my best to be nice and accomodating to everyone here, expert or newcomer, but I'm not going to hold back and not criticize someone when I think they're making assertions that go well beyond their level of knowledge. My advice to you is that you have a lot of background to cover in both the maths and the actual physics of the classical era, and that one can't possibly have a proper or even partial understanding of modern physics until this is done.
 
As far as radius of the universe is concerned, there is none that we know of. The only relevant radius we have is the radius of the visible universe, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with the radius of the universe itself. For all we know, the universe is infinite, like an infinite grid, with an infinite number of stars and planets spread about this grid. As you go backward in time, this grid compresses and the density of the universe increases, but there's still an infinite amount of space and matter present. Rewind all the way back to the big bang, and every point on the grid is identical, but our theories break down before that point anyhow.

As far as criticisms of your proposals go, the basic message we're trying to deliver is that you can't keep putting the cart in front of the horse. At least show us that you're spending some time learning the classical theories of physics and working through the maths, calculus, linear algebra, differential equations etc., that way you show genuine commitment to gain a proper understanding of the concepts you're discussing.
 
For the universe to be infinite, and i guess you mean ''static'' here, the proposal would need to be that spacetime doesn't move matter, but matter moves spacetime, and on top of that, matter moves through static spacetime, which would indicate movement and time and even space are not invariant. I like that idea.

''As far as criticisms of your proposals go, the basic message we're trying to deliver is that you can't keep putting the cart in front of the horse. At least show us that you're spending some time learning the classical theories of physics and working through the maths, calculus, linear algebra, differential equations etc., that way you show genuine commitment to gain a proper understanding of the concepts you're discussing.''

What do you want me to do? Display some equations of investigation, right here, right noe, as fat boy slim said?
 
Reiku said:
I do beleive there is an estimated Hubble radius giving 10^26m.
Click to expand...

Are you certain that's not just a measured estimate of the minimal size the universe must be? As far as I've heard, noone to date has been able to place an upper bound on the size of the universe. None of the tested theories we have to date say anything about such a limit.

Reiku said:
For the universe to be infinite, and i guess you mean ''static'' here,
Click to expand...

No I don't mean static. This is one of the reasons you need to know these theories in detail before you speculate about them.

Reiku said:
the proposal would need to be that spacetime doesn't move matter, but matter moves spacetime, and on top of that, matter moves through static spacetime, which would indicate movement and time and even space are not invariant. I like that idea.
Click to expand...

Wrong, spacetime can be infinite and stretching at the same time. It means you can have an infinite grid, but the very measure of distance itself between any two points on the grid changes with time. That's pretty much a standard feature of Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metrics, which are the basis for our Big Bang models. Reference: Sean Carroll, "Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity". Of course you'll need to know tensor calculus first before you can understand the relevant part, but you should know this stuff before you speculate about it.

Reiku said:
What do you want me to do? Display some equations of investigation, right here, right noe, as fat boy slim said?
Click to expand...

Show us that either you have a complete and detailed understanding of all the concepts you're discussing, including the mathematics or references to established physics journals to support it, and the original basis for these concepts. If you don't have such an understanding, we expect that you will seek to gain it before you discuss such matters. This is a forum for serious physics, and like it or not, that's how serious physics is done. You can't just toss things out there and say "take it or leave it", that's not what we're here for.
 
CptBork said:
Look, I'm here to help people gain understanding and to get some understanding myself. You might not like what Alphanumeric tells you, but I personally believe he knows a s---load more about this stuff than both of us combined. His advice and arguments have been sound as far as I'm concerned, the only objection I might have would be his presentation, but the negative tones of his posts might have something to do with something you said to him in the past.

I try my best to be nice and accomodating to everyone here, expert or newcomer, but I'm not going to hold back and not criticize someone when I think they're making assertions that go well beyond their level of knowledge. My advice to you is that you have a lot of background to cover in both the maths and the actual physics of the classical era, and that one can't possibly have a proper or even partial understanding of modern physics until this is done.
Click to expand...

By the way, just to let the unbeknown, he was the first guy who had an attitude with me. I am generally a nice person.
 
''Are you certain that's not just a measured estimate of the minimal size the universe must be? As far as I've heard, noone to date has been able to place an upper bound on the size of the universe. None of the tested theories we have to date say anything about such a limit.''

On the dot mate. Yes, that is exactly what it is, and since we know the universe is around 15,000 million years old, it is, i would say, a mainstream.

''No I don't mean static. This is one of the reasons you need to know these theories in detail before you speculate about them.''

No sweatheart, i have a form of autism that reduces my ability sometimes to undertsand what people mean. I do now though

''Wrong, spacetime can be infinite and stretching at the same time. It means you can have an infinite grid, but the very measure of distance itself between any two points on the grid changes with time. That's pretty much a standard feature of Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metrics, which are the basis for our Big Bang models. Reference: Sean Carroll, "Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity". Of course you'll need to know tensor calculus first before you can understand the relevant part, but you should know this stuff before you speculate about it.''

I know this is wrong. It was a pure mad speculation on my part, for instance, and a very quick one at that, is that spacetime drags matter. I was concluding the error of my understandment of your previous statement.

''Show us that either you have a complete and detailed understanding of all the concepts you're discussing, including the mathematics or references to established physics journals to support it, and the original basis for these concepts. If you don't have such an understanding, we expect that you will seek to gain it before you discuss such matters. This is a forum for serious physics, and like it or not, that's how serious physics is done. You can't just toss things out there and say "take it or leave it", that's not what we're here for.''
AAAhhhh... i thought you meant general physics i have learned in my college studies. Well, i don't have any of the kind you require yet, i am developing them though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top