THEORY OF EVERYTHING If you really needed one... _______________________________ The Theory of Everything tries to explain that all phenomena that we observe and experience are explainable. Whether this is possible or not is a moot point; a lot of people would like to know. Mostly, the answers have come from physicists and mathematicians, although there are others. Simplicity and complexity I suppose a great deal of theories come from a notion that the universe is complex but that is only how we see it on a universal scale on day-to-day observations. I would propose that the universe (however it started) was simple. One could argue that simple things are also complex but then, philosophically, they are not simple or only a degree of simplicity but I don't intend to get into that game here. Complexity is a function of simplicity. Words Words are what we deal with most of the time. This is the level above the non-verbal or direct sensual experiences of our lives. Words are either letters of some alphabet or mathematical symbols used for computation. Words are subdivided into names (nouns), descriptions (adjectives), actions (verbs) and others to join these together for coherency and in a time reference. Grammar is the placing the words in particular orders which render them understandable to others who speak the same language. Words placed in a certain order can create human feelings, from pathos to humour and are indispensable for the human animal if he/she is to communicate in our modern world. Body gestures are also important and retain the essence of other animals for the purpose of communication. Words created by different languages and written in different styles (e.g. Roman letters v. Chinese brush-strokes etc.) can be contradictory and lead to confusion but they remain language. Language can be used, in its 'feelings' sense to be a tool for data (leading to information), or manipulation and control (because of its invoking feelings). A little language can be a dangerous thing! Disciplines Disciplines are what Man has concocted to split data into certain areas, viz. science, biology, art and so forth. These are not natural (in the 'Nature' sense). They are merely a way of studying certain subjects (along with their own languages) to explain certain aspects of our human existence. They are not unified in the sense that they often conflict or whatever with other disciplines and therefore cannot produce a Theory of Everything. I am not interested in politics or vested interests here; one can see that for themselves. They are not relevant to this essay, even though, of course, they exist. Universal Given that the Theory of Everything is universal, it has been up to physicists (et al) to come up with one. Given that disciplines are so strong, anyone else without a mathematics degree is persona non grata.  However, most physics, at least at the theory level, is based on mathematics. Mathematics, in my view (apart from its obvious calculation attributes for ordinary tasks) is, like the branch Statistics, able to determine anything if it so wishes. It a formula doesn't fit the observation, then change the formula so that it does. I believe this is the mathematics behind plagiarist Einstein (this is verifiable, by the way) and others. Analogue v. digital Analogue means a continuous structure with no breaks, thus:______________________ Example: An audio tape Digital means a continuous stream that is broken into small pieces, thus: ---------------------- Example: A compact disc The universe is analogue. Continuum A continuum is a movement from one place to another in an analogue. Everything is a continuum. There is no absolute positive or negative. Everything is between these with no backward or forward beyond a 'point'. Linearity There is no such thing as a straight line. Any line, drawn by any means must have length and breadth no matter how it seems to our senses. The universe is crinkley. This is proven by observation (at whatever level we invent machines for beyond our own eyesight) by closer examination. This does not require much science (the science of chaos) and can be proven by direct observation by any human with eyesight. Scalability I personally love detail in everything I observe. I love it in art, models (even human ones!) and nature itself. Everything is scaleable. It can be reduced and increased in size. If anything were static, then we would not live in our universe.  A universe that is static would not be a continuum and therefore would not exist. Nothing is static (except what is not as static electricity, which it isn't). Connectivity Everything is everything else. Given that any subject (discipline) can be taught from any object in the universe , it surely must follow that everything in the universe is connected to everything else in some way. Thus, there must be some common link between all things. Reduction Reduction is the means by which we tend to look at things as smaller and smaller. We have atoms, electrons, neutrons, protons. We have neutrinos, positrons, quarks and so on. We have also smaller 'particles' that only appear in a flash of time produced by 'particle' accelerators and suchlike. What is the end result? No explanation as to the Theory of Things, let alone the Theory of Everything. How small to we go? What intransient mechanism will explain Everything? Belief and religion These have no place in my essay but need to be broached in a limited way. Religion is a way of life determined by a belief. Religion aims to be static for a particular belief, which is against any expanding data that human animals have of the universe which might affect it. It is a misguided attempt at control that most often works. A belief is a way of interpreting observed data  into a coherent pattern of thoughts (beliefs) that attempt to answer questions for which we have no answer (at a present time). Belief are often turned into a religion by the ignorant. The ignorant are either devoid of data or are willing to ignore data. The last sentence is not a negative statement. Theories of how the universe began There are numerous theories of how the universe began. I will dispense entirely with the concept of an amorphous omniscience (god) because it does not work if we are to be observers of our world in truths that make our life possible other than lack of data individuals. Non-data beliefs or religions cannot explain the universe as it is except on a personal level; and that is important to understand. Enough said. Even supposing that the electromagnetic strong, weak, gravitational models make any sense, they do not conform to the non-linear, continuum, scalability previously discussed. The terms strong, weak, for example do not consider their continuum status. There is no 'start' from weak to strong or vice versa. The current major theory is the 'Big Bang' theory, which in essence is that at a certain period in the past, the universe was a state of matter which was condensed and then 'blew up' and scattered the matter outwards. As it cooled, it began to accrete into the galaxies, stars, planets and so forth that we apparently see today. The planets and stars then condensed and in doing so this caused their cores to become nuclear furnaces. All these heavenly bodies then became orbiters of each other, held together by gravitation. This is the gravitational model. Gravitation is the 'weak' force of physics. The model relies on mathematics (and observation) to explain itself. Unfortunately, as we learn more, the mathematics need to be jiggled to explain what is now observed and new forces invented to explain. Hoyle's view was that the universe may have started as a 'Big Bang' but it is constantly creating new stars, galaxies and so forth. There is also the notion that the universe is in fact an electric/plasma phenomenon. This theory is not widely held by the mainstream. However, in the Theory of Everything, it would seem to be the only answer. One of the advantages of the electric theory is that it is scaleable. That means that it can be observed in a laboratory, something the 'Big Bang' cannot. It would seem obvious to me, that this model should be studied more closely by all observers, rather than stick to archaic notions but at present this is not the case. We are electric Humans are electrochemical beings. Every flora and fauna is electrical. Everything is affected by electricity. Everything reacts to electricity. What electricity actually is, no-one knows. It may be explained, as, for example, water flowing through a tube but this does not tell us what electricity is.  We can sense it but not explain it. An electric universe engages all the elements of scalability, continua, connectivity and so on. It could explain all so-called 'para-normal' phenomena. If you consider that the universe is composed of electrical fields, it explains magnetism, chemical reactions, chemical resonance of biological cells and so on. If you put an iron core in an electrical field, it creates magnetism (electro-magnetism). Since all life (and everything else) is elemental, then everything must react with the electric field. Depending on the strength of the field at any given time and any given circumstance, then it would follow that reactions to it are many and varied. A very powerful electric discharge (e.g. lightning) is a plasma. That is, an ionised gas. Plasmas can be seen in the lamps that you can buy for entertainment. They respond to touch (on the glass sphere) and sound waves. The same phenomena can be observed in the galaxies. They conform to the scalability of an electric universe. So, depending on how you define the Theory of Everything, it would seem, that in some form, electricity is indeed the link that joins everything together.

Return to CONTENTS page