© Copyright 1990-2008 by 45 Mike Anderson
Choose one of the following:
a. Nothing
b. Something
If you choose Something, then what happened “before” Something?
The answer of course is Nothing!
This starts with Nothing.
(I will use the term “xor” throughout this discussion. Xor is a logical operand that means, “exclusive or”. The reason I use xor instead of or is for logical clarity. Of two choices, one may be true, but not both. The term “or” means, of the two choices one may be true and both may be true.)
Before time starts, what are the odds of one xor the other of the only possible choices?
The probability is 50% of either choice. Similar to tossing a coin, either choice has equal probability of occurring.
Notice that this particular, unique circumstance, involves a contradiction. Because of the contradiction this line of reasoning has been abandoned before being developed further. I noticed however that if I accept that the contradiction exists, as a special case, and ignore it, then using probability analysis allows further development.
The contradiction can be illustrated by examining the following three question/statement sets;
1.Based on the fact that events affect things, what is the probability of “Nothing”? The answer is ZERO. (Because without a thing, there is no event. Without an event, probability is zero.)
2.Based on the fact that before “Something” existed, there was necessarily, “Nothing”, what is the probability of “Nothing”? The answer is ONE. (Absolute certainty, no other possibility exists.)
3.Based on the fact that only two possibilities exist, “Nothing” xor “Something”, what is the possibility of “Nothing”? The answer is ½, (coin toss, maybe).
The rules of mathematics tells us that a fact cannot be both true and false. A fact MUST be true xor false. In this unique circumstance however, the fact is not only true and false, it is also maybe!
Let’s agree that the contradiction exists for this special case, note it, ignore it, and move on.
From our viewpoint, here/now, it is obvious that “Something” came into existence. We can also now say that time began when that thing came into existence. Based on that observation, we can define a “time Quanta” or tiQ as the length of time an event affects a thing.
Now we need a thing. It is unreasonable to assume that out of “Nothing” we mysteriously had an electron appear, or an elephant. However we know that there was, at that first tiQ, some “least” thing. We know this because we have “things” now, and things are made of smaller things.
That is the missing information, this “least” thing. What is it?
The least possible thing is simply a location. A location has no mass, no energy. The existence of a location however is the minimum necessary component of mass or energy. With this understanding, we can now state:
Without a location, Nothing is certain.
That is the definition of a location. The ONLY definition that is valid from a viewpoint of before time started AND after time started. (Euclid started with a single point, I’m starting with a location, so, “Get over it!” [besides, at least I defined it, he didn’t])
From here, we can now state the two possible events that can affect a location. The ONLY two events possible from the moment that first location came into existence.
Let’s look at these events in some detail.
1.Deletion – a location may cease to exist.
2.Duplication – a location may exist simultaneously in coincidental existence xor non-coincidental existence to an existing location.
Deletion seems reasonable, if a location can pop into existence, then it can pop out, just as well.
Duplication, however does not seem so obvious. We know that duplication occurs, because there currently are multiple locations. The duplication of a location results in two distinct possibilities.
Coincidental existence is the basis of mass.
Non-coincidental existence is the basis of energy.
Think of coinciding locations as stacked if you’d like, however that analogy is not accurate. The accurate view is that when locations coincide, there is simply more of a single location.
We see another contradiction rearing it’s ugly head, we can view this coincidence in the following way.
If a location has no mass, then adding a location to the original location is adding zero to zero, which results in zero. With that firmly in mind, how can adding however many locations you’d like, possibly result in any mass at all?
The correct way to view a coincidence is that yes, a single location has zero mass, but duplicating a coincidental location is adding ONE to zero. The result is one, not zero. We now define the mass of a coincidental location as one M.
(Get used to it, at this level of existence things are really weird!)
Notice that a location does not move. In fact that is where the basis of mass becomes evident, each non-coincedental location exhibits a property of tension between itself, and other locations surrounding it. As locations are duplicated coincedentally, that tension increases. It is that tension that we call “mass”.
Non-coincidental locations are in some ways easier to wrap understanding around, however things are strange here also. If two locations exist that are not coincidental, then there is a length between them.
(length and distance are NOT the same in this system.)
Now we can define a unit of length. The length between any two locations that have no location(s) between them is defined as one L.
Distance is defined as number of lengths between any two locations.
If we look at the tiQ following the existence of that first location, we see that now there are 3 possibilities, instead of 2;
1.dx – location deleted, back to zero, time stops, end game. Reboot!
2.cx – (coincidental), proto mass exists
3.nx – (non-coincidental), length exists
The probability of “Nothing” just dropped from 1/2 to 1/3 !
We’ll see the probability of “nothing” steadily approaching zero with each passing tiQ, however that probability never is zero again, unless each and every location deletes, and time stops, end game, reboot. Then of course we see that probability is once again, one AND zero AND maybe. The original contradiction.
For the purpose of discussion, let’s confine ourselves to a sequence of events that involve only nx duplication. I said earlier that nx duplication is the basis of energy, and we’ll see why as we progress from the single location at the first tiQ.
Once the first location duplicates non-coincidentaly, the system has length of L.
The next tiQ might involve nx duplication of one or both locations, let’s assume for simplicity that only one location duplicates, and again it is an nx duplication.
There are two possibilities to consider.
1.The new location is linear to the two existing locations.
2.The new location is non-linear to the existing locations.
In the case of linear duplication, there are two possibilities to consider.
1.The new location lies between the existing locations.
2.The new location lies outside the existing locations.
In the first case, system distance became more dense, as the distance between the first location and second location, was one L, (by definition), now has become two L. (Though neither location moved!)
In the second case, the system distance became less dense, as the length between the first two locations has not changed, but the distance of the system has increased to two L.
Let’s say that we had a way of measuring the length and distance between the locations using a meter as a standard.
If the length between the original and second location was measured as one meter, and the length between the second and third location was measured as two meters, then the system distance is measured as three meters, which seems reasonable. Note however that the length between locations two and three is NOT two L.
This does NOT seem reasonable, but by definition, it is true.
Now lets look at the possibility that the third location is non-linear.
Recall, that by virtue of the second location being non-coincidental to the first location, length exists. The third non-coincidental, non-linear location has necessarily caused area to exist.
Think of this, it’s incredible, but at the end of tiQ 3, “Nothing” has become an area!
Let’s explore one more nx/nl duplication. Location four is non-linear to L1-L2 and to L1-L3 and to L2-L3. (for the sake of discussion, that’s why) With four locations, all of which are non-linear to each pair of locations, volume is necessarily caused to exist.
I’d like to get to the Basis of Energy part of this discussion quickly, so for brevity, let’s allow one more nx/nl duplication and let’s say that location 5 is within the volume that exists at the end of tiQ 4.
Now let’s do one more duplication, we will duplicate location 5. and again location 6 is within the volume described by the original four locations.
RECAP:
The tiQ count is currently 6. There is a volume described by four locations. Within that volume exists two locations, so that we can say that the density of the volume is two.
Let’s move on to tiQ 7, and assume that location 5 deletes.
We knew that the possibility of deletion was available, and pretty much inevitable for any one location.
I’d like to draw your attention to the effect of the last two events on the volume. I mentioned the density was two, and we can easily see that now at the end of tiQ7 the density has decreased to one.
Interesting, yes, but what does that have to do with energy?
The most interesting part of the last two events is not the decrease in density, but the apparent motion of location 5. YES! Location 5 had an apparent motion, the interval was one tiQ! A compound event involving one location, duplicating non-coincidentally, then deleting the original location.
I can hear you saying, “Wait, that was two tiQs, not one!”.
Ahh, look at it again, and recall the definition of a tiQ.
tiQ “the length of time an event affects a thing”.
The deletion of location 5 did not affect location 6. Location 6 experienced one and only one tiQ. Regardless of how you’d like to view the interval of time, the net effect within the system was a motion of location 5 to location 6!
That certainly looks like a basis of energy to me!
Notice that a tiQ is an interval that associates a single event to a single location. Regardless of events that occur to any number of other locations, if no event occurs to a particular location, then no tiQ has occurred. If a location exists at system tiQ 2, then never duplicated, and never deleted, up to this very moment, even though the rest of the universe has experienced billions of years, that location is ONLY one tiQ old.
Some of you may be astute enough to recognize that what I am discussing is essentially the “world ether” that a whole series of experiments have failed to detect. Some have speculated that the failure of those experiments has proven that the “ether” does not exist.
I’d like to point out that of those experiments I’ve read about, each of them make 2 assumptions about the “ether” that I’m not making.
1.The ether is a “fixed” medium. A framework through with mass and energy move.
2.The ether is not the same stuff that mass and energy are.
I am proposing that the ether is not a “fixed” medium, and is exactly the same stuff that mass and energy are.
Now I’d like to discuss coincidental locations. I have described a viewpoint that allows a mathematical handle on mass from a zero mass location to a mass of one M when a coincidental duplication occurs.
From that view, I can also say that;
1.Locations may ONLY coincide via duplication.
2.TiQs for coincidental locations are likely to coincide.
3.Coincidental locations are sticky to each other.
4.Stickiness is proportional to number of coincidental locations involved.
Statement one says that if we have 2 non-coincidental locations, L1 and L2, then L1 can duplicate coincidentally to L3. L2 can duplicate coincidentally to L4. However, if L1 duplicates to a non-coincidental L3 and L2 duplicates non-coincidentally to L4, then L3 and L4 cannot coincide.
Statement two says that if there are coincidental locations, one of which experiences an event, then ALL the other locations coinciding will probably also experience an event at the same instant. (Note that there is no requirement that all the coinciding locations experience the same event!)
Statement three says that coincidental locations will tend to stay coincidental. (Note that this says nothing about stickiness between separate groups of locations, coincidental or not.) So that, if one location in a group of four deletes, then the three that are left may all delete, (not likely), one may duplicate non-coincidentally, two may duplicate coincidentally, leaving a group of 5 locations. More likely is that one other location deletes, and the two remaining will duplicate coincidentally, leaving a group of four.
Statement four says that the tendency of coincidental locations to stay coincidental increases proportional to the number of locations coinciding.
I need to do more work on this but this is a general and non rigorous work. I’m especially interested in coming up with a pattern of cx location events that describe an atomic particle, starting with an electron would be good.