# My new big TOE

I’m so bummed. I’ve got this new big TOE (not the body part!) that is very exciting to me, but I want to share it with the rest of the world. I’ve tried going into physics forums, but the concepts that I go into are too mind-bending and philosophical for them. I don’t want to put any pressure on myself or anybody else to try to understand it, so I’ll just keep it here. I want to start it out very simply…

Imagine a one-dimensional, empty universe. We can represent this very easily as a straight line.

Are you with me so far?

I’m interested in hearing your theory, but I’m already confused…so if your objective is to explain it so a layman can understand it…well, your wish is coming true.

I can only imagine emptiness in a 3D universe…the term doesn’t seem applicable to a straight line…is this important or am I splitting hairs?

The point that I want to make is that the line is completely “featureless,” just like empty 3D space is. There is nothing going on, everything is just “still”. It’s not really a big deal at this point.

So now, let us get something happening. We’ll imagine that we “pluck” the line, causing a wave to start moving. This is just like a single wave of energy. We can also imagine that many waves are all moving to and fro. They are not impeding each other’s progress. That is, when two waves cross paths, their combined states are superimposed upon each other, but they are still able to move freely the way they were initially going. This is nothing other than the law of conservation of energy.

We can think of this as a one-dimensional, energy-only system.

Wax Socratic. Don’t just dump everything in one post.

This is like Flash Gordon on Saturday morning. A cliffhanger. It differs only in that Flash was interesting, and had a girlfriend.

Speed it up Mr. P. Add a little kinetic to all that potential.

I’ve tried it the “quick way.” Trust me, you don’t want to go there.

Oh, okay, here it is in one fell swoop:

Self-contained three-dimensional standing-waves – resonance structures – are bounded by objective four-dimensional “containers” that are subjectively experience as “time.” This simply means that “lifetime” is a positive, constitutive characteristic of all forms of matter rather than a negative, destructive one. By thinking of the “nuclear elements” (eg protons) in these terms, we can understand the idea of “half-life” (atomic decay) as being the result of a necessary 4-dimensional structure rather than an spontaneous, random “happening.” We can think of atoms as being stable resonance formations – or, “nuclear molecules” – just as we can think of chemical molecules as being stable inter-atomic resonance formations. Going up the ladder, the totality of any massive body’s various resonances will form an ultra-mundane, composite resonance that all other material bodies will respond to in the form of gravity.

Was that fast enough? Or should I back up a little bit?

no

because a one dimensional , empty universe couldn’t exist in the first place

since for instance it lacks the other dimensions breadth and depth physically

inorder for the universe too exist

With you kinda. The “standing wave persistant through time” bit is a fair description of things. Not sure about the usefulness of a “container” concept - the thing itself would really be its own container or rather the physical properties of its locale and current energy state. Even then, this container would be flexible - put enough energy into that system and watch the states jump between multiples of h.

Well, each [possible] form of matter has an [average] lifespan dependent on its innate probability of continuing to exist in its current state from one instant to the next. I would hesitate to attach things like positive and negative to this situation, except in a strict “electrical charge” meaning of the word.

Sure. But the concept of “necessity” is again, one that is not strictly applicable usefully in physics.

Sure.

Which will have its ‘own’ gravity, as any body does. But essentially I’m with you.