Theory of Everything (From Scratch) Project

A “MATTERON” MADE BY Π (Introduction)

The universe is single. If you think there may be other universes, let’s ask a question. Can we “think” or “suggest” or contact in any way with other universes? If you already think or believe supported by some theory that they exist, then your answer is “yes”. Now if the nature of this contact is physical, they can be thought part of the single universe. If the contact is nonphysical, that leads to the question about the real “humanity nature”. This would be impossible if we are pure physical creation. If we “live” in between physical and some other nonphysical domain, we can argue that physics is only a sub domain in some metaphysics domain. We can think of any number of universes with corresponding “physics”. Now, from our point of view still we have a single universe. However it will be defined over the metaphysical domain we live in.

The universe is dynamic. In everyday life a lot of things may look static as interpreted by our natural senses. However looking broader or deeper or in other words abstracting-in or out nothing is static. General Relativity widely explains how things can be static to some observer. Using precise instruments instead of our senses we can “freeze” things in almost any level to take the measurements. Actually the concept of measurement relies on having some “things” static. Look at measurement units “or standards”. They are all either directly or indirectly based on static “things” in some frame. Actual measurements are ratios. We compare something to another static something. We “humans” as observers need to find static things; otherwise we could have not developed any knowledge. So the physical universe we live in is dynamic.

The universe is expanding. Measurements don’t tell us explicitly that the universe is expanding. It only shows that everything is moving away from us. Far starts and galaxies are moving away from the earth.

The universe started from a single point. Whether you agree with the Big Bang theories or any other theories about the starting of the universe, I don’t think anyone today can deny that the universe started from a single point. If you accept that the universe is single, dynamic and expanding its easy to see that it should have been started from a single point.

If the universe is single, dynamic and started from one point; there should be one “thing” to be preserved. If we think this “thing” is matter, we should define matter somehow. Arguments that suggest the need for some sort of “background” can easily be defeated. This suggested background is either made of “matter” or some other “matter”. Why the need for two different types of foreground and background matter? Actually this implies a lower level where both are made from the same “matter”. The question is: what this lowest level “matter” is? Any attempt to answer this question should consider at least the followings:

1. Matter is neither “Energy” nor “Mass”. It’s the elementary phenomenon that is sometimes express or shows itself as energy and other times as mass.
2. “Physics” is created by matter. While it’s widely accepted that physical laws “or physics in short” should be the same all over the universe and for all observers; the right question here is why? We normally say that a specific phenomenon “obeys” a specific physical low or in other words “follow some physical theory”. Why everything is following “physics”? If matter is the elementary “building block” for everything else it cannot be described by “physics”. What is “physics” anyhow? Physics is a “book” of laws. Those laws describe patterns. Physical laws are ratios just like measurements. A simple way to falsify a “said” physical law is to show “units” inconsistency in its mathematical form or otherwise there should be some equivalency in lower level. So physics in its deepest meaning is a way for comparison. If you have “nothing” or “one thing” you can’t have physics. However if you have so many of this “one thing” you have “physics” that can describe how these “one things” interact, but not how they are created in the first place. If matter “fragments” is all what we have to build the universe, all known and “waiting to be discovered” physics should be created by them.
3. Physics is about numbers and geometry. Mathematics is the language based on numbers. While mathematical theory is complicated in some areas, it’s all build up from numbers. Numbers are building up from “Ones” and a single “Zero”. The number “Tow” is a “One” and another “One”. If you add yet another “One”, you can denote all of them together as “Three”. Physical laws can only be applied when we define some sort of geometry. If we agree that we can’t have physics without numbers “at least” and geometry, we can rephrase this as “physics is made by numbers and geometry”. If you can’t accept this last phrase just take the first phrase in this paragraph. The point here is we can develop the first “matter physics” using numbers and geometry. Any deeper questions about numbers or geometries can be discarded as non physical and thus out of scope for a physical theory.
4. Pi “or π” is the connection point between numbers and geometry. While it’s not mysterious in geometry, it’s so mysterious in “numbers”. If we agree that numbers basically are integers and introducing fraction “or decimal point” is just arbitrary, any “true” or “original” number should be an integer in a numbering system of our choice. Can π be considered a number? I will leave this question open for now. Defining matter should remove this π mystery.
5. Time and space “or spacetime” should be well redefined. While General Relativity works fine with 4 dimensional universe, some modern sub-particle theories requires more dimensions and didn’t succeed in solving all problems. This introduces some mystery into space and time concepts. It’s obvious that we cannot use General Relativity or any other elegant modern physical theory to build an elementary theory about matter. However we can use the deep concepts lay behind them to help. Creating “physics” should define and show how “Time” could be integrated in geometry regardless of mathematical representation. In other words the theory should answer the question: where “Time” comes from?