Science Chats Forum

This Subject is a little offbeat and should be seen as an open discussion....The science is of a speculative nature .

Ok.... The opening statement is the the universe contains a singular Quanta of energy. And that this quanta is The smallest amount of energy we can detect...In other words All that exist in the universe is about a photon's worth of energy..

Bold statement...!!...Not half..

One reason is our need for three dimensions + time.

Time without Space/motion is nothing and does not/cannot exist.
Space without time/motion is nothing and does not/cannot exist.
motion without Space/time is nothing and does not/cannot exist.

So we are left with a quanta of energy that has none of the above as it's components.

That is either a completed universe or a singular quanta of energy..

To see it , You must "snapshot" the universe and measure what would be there if it suddenly stopped.....I see a singular quanta. The reason is that every measure we are using is reliant on seeing the same thing "over and over"...Much more of a cinematic view

Cheers
Iseason

Let's say the universe is only the four dimesnins that you posit. That makes it topological. F=ma may not always work; it's only what we observe and is already overridden by E=mc^2. Don't confuse mathematics with physics.

Hi Nav
I haven't had a reply from this in a while. It's very difficult to explain in a few short sentences why this works , but i;ll give it a go.
Firstly there are several avenues that science has as 'set in concrete'. In most cases,you can't be taken seriously if you don't see them as fact. However, at the same time ,in many other cases, i've seen serious science ignore them completely because they work in short term ,or longterm maths.

Infinity is a perticular bug for me,and along with that , energy conservation.I've spent a lot of energy argueing with very smart people who believe the universe to be infinite (not as in unmeasurable,but as in forever and ever).These same persons will hold to 'energy cannot be created nor destroyed'. There are a number of other 'strangenesses' better explained by my methodology,like action at a distance,lack of mass and others.
Not really interested in being told i'm wrong,as that is an easy knee jerk reaction.What i'm looking for is a decent discussion about THIS methodology.
It's not that hard. We start with a single energy which is no divisible nor expanding. If we were looking at the smallest or the largest,we are simply seeing that via our relativity. See , I'm not wanting to throw out science, and have a great deal of respect for our ability to measure what we can observe.
My problem is that in every case ,we are using 'ourselves' as a ruler.Because we are trapped in a time cycle,every measurement we make conforms to a time methodlogy. yet,in technology, we can seperate time from process and create excellent programmes and products which work in a time dependant reality.
Specifically ,we create intelligent computing using ONE BIT AT A TIME. It's the process which is important, and that the programme is in a particular order whenever we use it.In the same way,we create the illusion of ordered time when we create cinema and television. we do this at the rate most suitable for us to view. But we also can review the process and change it whenever we want.
The point here is that order is much more suitable than time in looking at how the universe operates.Like the computer and the television, just because we can't see the individual "pixels" doesn't mean that there is so much energy as we think, and because time equals motion of energy through space ONLY, there is no reason not to be able to view it as an order rather than that there is 'a lot of energy there'.
The mechanics are reasonably straight forward as well. If space is only equal divisions occupied by the same energy ,the universe would only ever add up to one. The energy can never occupy the same space at the same "time'. And every pixel of space will be occupied at some stage in a timeline. there is however , no need for the order to conform to any view in regards to motion, except that when we look, we see first the "universal order",meaning that we see the volume of the universe first before we see the pattern it creates.

If I were to take a picture of the sky at night, what i'm actually looking at is the order that light arrives to my lens.If I were honest about the photo, I would say that none of the events happened within the same moment. the only place they belong in the same second is in my picture. Other than that they are unrelated events and my picture is a complete false,false.
Although they arrived at my camera within a timeline view, they happened over billions of years in an ordered view.

So why refer back to time . It doesn't fit the picture

Cheers
Iseason

It doesn't matter whether you view the stars a quadrabillion years old. You confuse observation with fact. Obviously that's due to Einstein, I suppose; and it's what led to quantum mechanics--with which I don't agree.
I really have to admit what you say makes no sense to me--sorry. How can a photon be the sole energy of the universe? Define enrgy--for me it has to do with the slope of the topological universe, What's your take?

Thanks for a reasoned reply.

let me show you some points which seem to me to be most relevant. I View the universe as finite......That is to mean that it "happenned". In saying that , I am not at all referring to time/space and distance. For the sake of discussion , They are results rather than the way things really are.

It's better to go to the main Reasoning before I explian how it fits.

The universe , If viewed as finite, can be viewed as "Whole". This means that everything that has ,can,or will happen is covered by the term "Whole". The term does not try to qualify it's size,shape or purpose.So there is no scale to attatch to it because nothing is relative to it to say,"well the universe is really big or small".

If we can say that the universe is whole, then in not giving it any scale means that it can be as small (from our viewpoint) as a photon/Electron or whatever the smallest point of energy is.

So At this point, I am only discussing the universe via the largest and smallest....I see the two as being the same.

Most of science has no problem understanding that we are made up of collaboration of the smallest "stuff". But there are two key things that tend to be ignored.

1. We are NEVER stationary in space. In other words, No position in space 'holds' as true.
2. We NEVER change from being a collaboration of the smallest stuff. It doesn't matter where or when you look, there is always the basest building block. My view is that we can NEVER be stationary because there are a finite number of "positions" and that EVERY position will have been occupied 'in order'. But only once.

You could make a map with the intention of touching every dot in any order you choose. (that is a simplistic view of what I mean.) Eventually , you will have touched every spot You could choose any number of methodologies to fill in the dots, and each will give you the same result, But if you wanted to follow a balanced approach, You will find the pattern will end up repeating like pathways ,one space further on.

The two dimensional exersize resembles a spirograph. Let's say you choose to do a simple model on your computer. A square moving around the screen. Now you can make the screen repeat over and over and then you would simply re use the same pixels.

Or
You could create it so that it moved around, But Only used new pixels for each square created until every pixel had been used. If you design it right you could have both models appear to be doing the same thing.
Depending on your speed , the movie could be both created and run so as to only ever show one pixel at a time with no loss of visual effect.

This is my arguement. That there is no need for there to be more than one "state" or energy, quanta of energy,Photon/Electron...Or whatever you want to call it. We simply operate in such a way that time/space and motion are obvious ,where the correct order of the smallest parts ...are not.

Please forgive the obvious reference to 'more than one' When I say parts, since it is incredibly difficult to referr to singular when talking about our perceptions.

Cheers
Iseason