Advancing the Standard Model of physics

A few years ago, when I first started pulling together my ideas for Theory of Thought, I came to the conclusion that a concise model would be the best method for explaining the relationships between my ideas. It needed to be visual, because relationships can be complicated to describe. I could use words in my models, and I would, namely 'symmetry', 'attraction', and 'negation', but it's tedious to explain the depth of ideas using words alone.

'A picture is worth a thousand words'.

In a nutshell, I finally set up the fundamental model as a basic expression of positivity versus negativity. Its a very simplistic and popularized idea of duals. In my model, positivity (symmetry) and negativity (negation) are not exact opposites, but dualistic partners working together in some structured mechanism (called attraction). Attraction is the interactive mechanism between the duals. Because of the existence of attraction, the initial model of a dual evolves into a model of a triad.

I believe this triad of concepts, the inside, outside, and the border between the two, is universally fundamental. So I proceeded to overlay onto the fundamental model, the three families of particles in physics: quarks (hadrons), light (bosons), and electrons (leptons). It produced a very elegant symmetry, that transcends many aspects of the FM. The elegance is achieved when one considers all the meanings, shapes, numbers, and letters associated with the overlaid model. But what the model describes at heart is that quarks and electrons, positivity and negativity, interact together using light. It also says that light is found at the top of the triad, so it is the initial component (bosons) that gives rise to the other two components (hadrons + leptons) thru some evolutionary process of complexity. The FM could be read as 'love gives rise to interacting positivity and negativity'. The order of the fundamental model can be read to explain the nature of the Big Bang, the nature of SpaceTime, and the nature of Human beings, among all other fundamental natures.

This type of model helps interpret and merge physics and philosophy. It doesn't change the laws of physics or philosophy, it just reorganizes them. In my opinion, this is the way physics is meant to be interpreted. To this day, physics lacks a unified, visual approach to what it explores. Instead it uses mathematical equations, that were never systematically codified as visualized geometries. I believe there is a need to visualize the integrity of physics and combine these visuals with philosophical models. I believe the universe is symbolic in nature in that it can be represented with meaning and shapes, because, at the end of the day, it's the only way everybody will be able to understand how it all works and what it all means.

Visualizing the Three Laws of Relationships

I call this model 'the three laws of relationships'. It is one of my most prized models. I love its simplicity, but also that the 'three laws' of the fundamental model emerge as the three distinct components of this model. Put simply, this is a model of two joined sticks - it's perhaps the most ancient of building practices. For example, our ancient ancestors surely used this technique when constructing their first homes.

'Use the whole fish'

From the most fundamental of concepts, fundamental laws emerge. And I believe that these three laws apply to our 'World of Thoughts'. Each of these laws plays a distinct role in connecting the 'multi-dimensional' relationships that exist across the world of thoughts. This particular model describes the three components for constructing complex organization.

In the world of thoughts, complexity is the difference between these two ideas on connecting relationships: 1) using a single straight line and 2) using two angularly connected straight lines to describe an intelligent, complex relationship, that isn't quite linear. In Theory of Thought, ideas are connected together by this angled, relationship-shape, that I call the 'inner-line'; and from this shape, the rules emerge that connect all ideas throughout the world of thoughts.

This shape is connected to the compass tool, square ruler, and construction in general. As it contains a reference to both degrees (negation) and radians (symmetry), it naturally contains relationships to measurement and mathematics.

Rational irrationality: the Fundamental Model

This is the most important model in my theory. It came to me over many years of assembling it piece by piece. It finally culminated in the discovery that phi squared + e squared approximated pi squared IF the irrational decimals of each constant, and the answers, were truncated within the first couple of decimals places. What are the odds of being able to place these three amazing constants into a single equation bound by the Pythagorean theorem? And make sure to consider that the Pythagorean theorem isn't just any equation, it is perhaps the most important, fundamental equation that is used in calculation. It is primarily used to calculate distances in physical space. Almost everything we measure is distance. And I suspect that it can be used to measure abstract distance within the world of thoughts. Abstract distance is found in education, progress, gross domestic product, or some other abstract representation of 'growth' or 'change'. In the end, the pythagorean theorem is a very powerful tool, that should be applied in Thought Theory, in evaluating some complex distance between thoughts in MultiSpace.

The coincidental value of 'phi squared + e squared = pi squared' is even more astounding because the type of right triangle it forms has angles of 30.65°, 59.35°, and 90°. It is amazingly close to the 30°, 60°, 90° triangle which fits beautifully into the Vesica Piscis! The vesica piscis has long been speculated to be the center of our spiritual universe. For example, the Jesus Fish is a vesica piscis. The vesica piscis, or the dyad, has never been incorporated into physics as spirituality and science have deliberately been kept separate. However if there is indeed a mathematical, fundamental connection between mind and nature, I believe that this model is the key to uncovering it. In fact I believe that this is the mathematical medium between mind and matter, within the world of thoughts, that I call MultiSpace.

So the ultimate question arises: is this the end of the line?

Decoding Euler's Identity

If you've never seen Euler's Identity, well, behold because it is one the most beautiful equations in mathematics. What makes it so beautiful is its simplicity, somewhat like E=MC². However there's more. Euler's equation is special because it contains five incredibly important numbers, e, i, pi, 1, and 0, arranged in sums and exponents.  Its diversity is amazing.

I, much like other scientists, want to know what this equation means. Sure we know that its used in quantum physics. And we also know that it is deeply related to the pythagorean theorem. Even more, we know that this equation is describing rotations thru a complex, imaginary plane. 

I'm suggesting to go even further. I believe that it can be dissected and read, according to the meanings of the variables within the equation. FYI, the imaginary number, i, describes rotations. So if I take the square root of both sides of Euler's identity, and reveal an imaginary number on the right side, I see something that can be read.

'The root to growing an imaginary perimeter is imaginary rotation'. I believe this is what's happening in MultiSpace. Euler's identity is describing the fundamental motion of Time and Space in MultiSpace. Space rotates, creating imaginary perimeters of time.

Can e^iπ be considered as a reflection of SpaceTime? Does it represent the OI duality? I'll let you figure that one out, but I'll end with this:

The Pythagorean formula uses 'squares' to describe distances across real, physical planes. In contrast, Euler's formula uses 'rotations' to describe distances across imaginary, abstract planes (that is coincidentally used in quantum mechanics). 

Are you beginning to see the symmetry between the physical world of SpaceTime, and the abstract world of MultiSpace?

Advancing Economics with the Fundamental Model

Have we reached a point in time when society needs better economic forecasting models? Free-markets around the world, from greece, to portugal, to italy, to france are facing tremendously difficult futures. There are regulation problems, debt problems, liquidity problems, and so forth. So it appears that the markets have many problems, but can they be boiled down to just one overall problem? I propose that society's quality of interaction across the fundamental model, reveals an 'economy', which in turn reflects the society's ratio of problems to solutions. I propose that economists should start considering the validity of more robust economic models that address problem solving: for example, instead of addressing an economic cash flow, let's address an economic mental flow.

What is the number one thing that we need to address in economics? Its growth. It turns out that growth is the number one thing that everyone engages in at all walks of life, because relationships crave growth. Relationships also crave change, and economics should also model change. Classical economic models of supply and demand are very much akin to models on growth and change. However, where are the growth and change specific economic models? Can growth and change models render supply and demand models obsolete? So what do growth and change imply?

When anyone builds around the Fundamental Model, they are implying a connection to the flow of energy between relationships. They will naturally describe the growth and change in the flow of energy. And by association to energy, the laws of thermodynamics are intrinsincly associated because they describe the laws of motion and equilibrium of energy through the exchange of heat.

Do businesses and other organizations produce heat? Do they produce friction with other organizations? How do the laws of thermodynamics equate with micro-economics? How does the conservation of energy fit into economics? What about Einstein's mass-energy equivalence principle? I believe that our laws of society should mimic the laws of nature; that's how we can build a balance that is sustainable. Do we really want and need to have an economic recession every tens years? Are recessions and depressions inevitable in our current economic models? If so, let's get rid of them, now.

Where are the models on complexity? Where are the models that address abstract time dilation? Where are the mind-over-matter models? Its not that supply and demand is wrong, its actually quite right, but I believe its incomplete, and its incompleteness causes confusion and contributes to economic problems of all types. For example, supply and demand only addresses two, out of the three laws of relationships - symmetry and attraction; supply and demand fails to translate itself into a thermo-economics model with friction, representing negation that is perhaps caused by government regulation. Simplistic supply and demand models are over 200 years old and they may be nearing their end. Today's free-market is a bit more complicated than a simple supply and demand graph.

I founded my particular economic model on the 'Lune of Hippocrates'. The lune of Hippocrates was formed to 'square the circle'. That means to find a square with the same area as that of a circle. I'll take it to mean 'to transmute energy from one form into another'. Hippocrates never succeeded to square the circle with his model, however it contains several peculiar symmetries. I will go over all the peculiarities of the lune of Hippocrates in a later post - its quite amazing. But the primary objective of my economic model using the lune of Hippocrates is to illustrate the fundamental rollercoaster-like transmutation of complex energy in today's complex societies. In my model, supply and demand aren't static, they evolve and change dynamically every instant. My model extends past consumer products, it applies to all relationship needs. My model goes beyond the supply and demand of matter, because it refers to the growth and change of thought.

People think, and then they buy something while in one of two states: working or playing.

Our minds exists between three states: work, play, and sleep. Every waking day is balanced between two categories of activities: work and play. Work feels like accumulating, while play feels like spending. And by the way, the lines between the two are very blurry. But here's something that I find incredibly fascinating about work: have you ever noticed that it is impossible to get worse at something if you practice it regularly? For example, if one practices the piano every day, after a few weeks, he cannot be worse then when he started; its impossible, it goes against nature. Growth, work and practice, always go up, while change and spending always go down. A person can only decrease their skill at the piano, if they change to another instrument or activity and neglect relationships.

Growth feeds relationships, and change adjusts the complexity of the relationships. In other words, supply feeds relationships, and demand changes the relationships. In turn, demand forces the re-growth of new supplies for the newly evolved relationships. If the growth of new or existing supplies fail, relationships die, and the economies of the related organizations appear to sputter and lose efficiency.

Now as I was saying, about all the problems we have with free-markets: the perceived problems are only reflections of dying organizations. The organizations are being killed off by an unbalance of economic interactions across relationships in MultiSpace.

The lines of economic supply can fail for exactly 2 reasons:

1) The demand is changing too fast
2) There is too little supply

Even economists should think that this sounds logical enough. However, I'm not specifically referencing free-market economics. My metaphor goes beyond corporations and consumers. I'm actually referencing their thoughts on growth vs. change directly. When too many people are thinking about change, while too few are thinking about growth, in all their forms, an unbalance is created in society and it is reflected as problems in the free-markets.

1) When too many people think about change - free-markets appear volatile + rising inflation.
2) When too many people think about growth - free-markets appear slow + rising interest rates.

I love the depth of the layers within in this model - it can unify a great deal of economic and philosophical perspectives. At the end of the day, the economy of our societies depends entirely on the economy of our minds as they transition between states of growth and change across the fundamental model.