Julie F. Kadas - Unified Field Theory

An email from a friend dated April 21, 2006 asked (after seeing the formula):

"Hello
Is that a time machine of sorts?
I'm curious. Let me know.

Thanks."

My response:

"Not quite. It explains the relationship between the passage of time and the ever increasing effects of gravity. It also explains the relationship between Pi and Time, Energy and Mass, Energy and the passage of Time, Energy and Gravity, etc. I believe it further shows that energy falls into mass, mass falls into time and time goes through the singularity (which is absolute zero providing no resistance whatsoever) and becomes...

There is (in further explanation to my 'not quite' response) an explanation within the equation as to how one could build a singularity. However, we would need a computer the size of at least a galaxy in order to calculate the potential outcome over several trillion tries. As we are completely inept at forecasting the weather only 1 week out, we will be wholly unsuccessful at the aforementioned calculations (which would predict the size and location of our singularity among many other things) and we could only guess where would might turn up in the universe if we could further calculate (separate calculation altogether) the "time traveler's" disposition before, during and after passage through the wormhole.

Time always moves in a forward direction. However, I am of the belief (as are some others) that ALL realities exist simultaneously and the singularity or "wormhole" one might create with the assistance of the formula I have described would potentially permit the traveller to jump from one reality to another - but not back in time. You can, of course, travel very quickly forward in time. However, there is no currently known or accepted way to travel back into time to one's original position.

Since you have asked, I have included my letter to Dr. Hawking for your review. Your comments and suggestions and any discussion is very welcome. I have more detailed explanations beyond the letter, but I did not want to be too wordy for him since I wanted him to read and become interested in my theory enough to write and ask me more about it. I wanted him to inquire and require more complete information and explanations re the formula.

Science is where my heart is. I love this stuff. Thanks for writing and asking. I hope you are not sorry you did!"

:)

His further response (in part) on April 23, 2006:

I DO appreciate the hard work exibited in your theory. For me, I try not to question nature as I'm sure the second I have it figured out a new factor would change the equation. Not to discourage anyone else from figuring things, but personally I use instinct and faith to answer such questions. I used to consider it as mortals insulting to the creator to question or trivialize natures way but have grown to realize also that we ourselves are made in the likeness therefore creators too which means it's all part of it.

Living Loving Laughing and Leaving a Legacy.

Thanks!

My response:

My theory is just that...a theory. I am an atheist, but I am curious and kind and want to understand more about the nature of all things and people. I like the fact that I will never know the answer. It is the quest that keeps me going. I like the way knowledge is updated daily. I like the way it changes and doesn't reveal itself. I don't mind not knowing. My theory also states that if you think you know...give it time. You will see that what you 'know' is only a temporary knowledge of a transient thing. We are incapable of really knowing that in which we are so deeply immersed. It is in trying to understand that we grow. I think both those who have religion and those who do not are still aiming for a more complete understanding of their world. We can all grow as people and as a species and as a global community. We all have much to learn. We all have much to gain from our efforts to understand the world and each other.

Yesterday, I celebrated the only holiday I celebrate all year. (I do not celebrate birthdays or holidays other than that one.) I hope you had a wonderful Earth Day.

Thank you for your kindness,

Julie

March 13, 2006

Dr. Stephen Hawking
[Address]

Re: Unified Field Theory

Dear Dr. Hawking:

My name is Julie F. Kadas. […3 paragraphs of background information on me…]

Of particular interest to me was the Cosmos series put together by Dr. Carl Sagan, his wife, Ann Druyan, and their colleagues. I started seriously pondering all of the ‘facts’ that Dr. Sagan presented in his program. I asked a lot of questions of myself, of my parents (who have always encouraged and supported me in my quest for truth and knowledge) and of the universe itself. I wanted the universe to reveal its true nature to me like so many have before. After many, many, many years of this type of thinking and inquiry, I have come to several conclusions:

Point 1: We are currently traveling near the speed of light.

Argument: One of the signs of near light speed travel indicated by Dr. Sagan is the (lensing) effect of objects that are behind the observer being perceived to be in the forward field of view of the observer.

How can I say this is happening? No matter where in spacetime we point our telescopes, we always see back in time. There is no point in spacetime at which we can point our telescopes and say, “That is the future.” Due to the fact that our speed is approaching the speed of light, the whole universe (all of spacetime) appears to be in front of us. If the past is always behind us and the future is always in front (your light cone analogy), then I would argue that we are traveling near the speed of light because no matter where we look, we only see (limited) elements of the past.

Point 2: Black holes are the coldest elements of our universe and all matter is drawn to them (not only because of their massive gravitational attraction, but also) because of their low temperature.

Argument: The laws of thermodynamics state that heat moves toward cold. We can see this in action any day of the week all around us on Earth and in space. I propose that another factor in the movement of matter, mass and energy in, around or near a black hole is the temperature of the material in question. Although the matter around a black hole is (or can be) extremely hot, the black hole itself is absolute zero. The heat and motion of the material entering the event horizon of the black hole is (the closer it gets to the singularity) siphoned away from its parent mass/energy/matter and reverse fractionated off (of its parent) and into the black hole in a fashion reminiscent of the stacking in the game Tetris©.

I refer specifically to the Zeroth Law and the First Law of Thermodynamics for the aforementioned.

[NOTE: If you take away heat, gravity's effects are measurably stronger. The less heat present, the stronger the effects of gravity. The more heat present, the weaker the effects of gravity. The gravity around a yellow star is weaker than that of an object whose mass is equal to that of a yellow star, but is in fact 'dark matter' -- matter which does not generate its own heat or light, like the moon or the atoms in the intervening spaces in the universe between what's lit and what not visible to us yet.]

If it was not the case that the Zeroth Law was true, then all galaxies passing other galaxies would merge. (Really, all matter passing other matter would eventually merge.) Because of the Zeroth Law, you can have two galaxies in thermal equilibrium pass each other due to the fact that one of the conditions for the addition of material to a black hole is not met. Specifically, a difference in temperature which would initiate the movement of heat to cold to gain equilibrium. One cannot make a diamond by throwing carbon atoms together and providing some heat and some pressure. These amounts are specific and must be mixed in the proper ratio. The same goes for a black hole. Just because you have mass and gravity and low temperature does not mean you: a) have a black hole, or b) have a stable black hole. Black holes can be broken by the tiniest fraction of ‘unrefined matter.’ That is to say, matter that has not gone through the specific steps necessary to reverse fractionate it into the black hole. (It has not been properly Tetrised in the black hole.)

The First Law is demonstrated when the heat of the material in the event horizon of a black hole becomes superheated due to its proximity to other systems in the same event horizon whose heat also contributes to the system in question. The interface between the event horizon of the black hole and the black hole itself is (to my way of thinking) a gigantic Peltier with the cold side facing in (if ‘in’ has any meaning here it would be toward the black hole).

[NOTE: If you are still looking for the universe's missing matter, re-read the above argument. Anything: matter, energy, time, whatever you choose will be exponentially more receptive to being in close proximity to another thing as that thing or those things get colder. Heat, by definition, causes matter to move FASTER and FARTHER APART. It is highly unlikely that a black hole would develop from a hot object (the center of a sun, for example) than it would be for that sun to result from the collapse of absolute zero spacetime - what we commonly call 'dark matter' is what should come to mind here... Cold is the key to the universe.]

Point 3: Time is of the essence. Without the inclusion of time in a measurement, the measurement is incorrect by a predefined amount based on the type of time in which (or with which) one is dealing.

Argument: Generally speaking, a measurement will be essentially correct if the unit being measured is in our spacetime. That is to say, in our part of spacetime (E=mc2 -land), a measurement will be correct because the laws of physics as they have been defined work for the short term. But, the more time that passes over which the measurement has been made, the more incorrect the measurement will be. Of course, if one was to apply the measurement from our spacetime to either a quantum unit (less than a Planck length – “little time”) or macro unit (greater than a Planck length – “big time”) [meaning any length of time which is bigger than that which we are able to measure. For example, any wavelength whose frequency = 1 over 16 billion light years. We have incorrectly assumed that since we can only 'see' approximately 15 billion light years out that that must be all there is to the universe. I believe that we have not yet built the machine which will detect the low temperature, fast-moving, dark, fluffy 'matter' of which the universe is chiefly comprised...that which we cannot currently account for. ], the measurement would be obviously incorrect. Time, and the type of time (which kind of time the measurement is being made in or for), is essential to the assignment of the proper meaning of the end result of a calculation or measurement. As we are aware, perspective is very important and thus, so is the type of time referenced in a calculation or measurement.

Point 4: Time and energy are linked and exist in 3 defined states.

Argument: Quanta: Energy is its most active (kinetic energy) and least efficient. Any information that is to be transmitted can only go a minute distance before being lost. The energy/information relationship decays so quickly (and exists in ‘little time’ – a type of time that we struggle to measure accurately) that we only perceive the merest of hints that a transaction took place. The only option this type of energy (and time) have is to “fall” into matter (and our time). Matter is the effluent of energy.

Relativity: As energy becomes matter (sticky energy), time becomes sticky as well, and units of time are therefore apparent and are now measurable. Both energy and matter are apparent. This ratio makes up our spacetime. Though there are many (less than half to begin with, then more than half as time progresses) instances of an increase in energy (one example is the First Law of Thermodynamics), the long term end result is one in which the ratio of matter to energy is ever increasing and eventually matter becomes the predominant entity (a singularity).

Macro or Big Time: Singularity is the “at rest” state of energy. A singularity is absolute zero. All matter (and the energy from which it was born) has been Tetrised and exists as a perfect solid (not Pathagoras’ or Platos’). The information that is carried in this state is now free from the matter that would prevent it from traveling (transmitting) freely, and skates “atop” the hypercooled mass unimpeded. In this state information transmission appears as if it:

a) travels faster than the speed of light (though light itself can not exist here),
b) increases in speed with the passage of time (bearing in mind that time is ‘big’), and
c) transmits its message an infinite distance instantaneously.

Though the three items above are untrue, it appears as if that is what is happening. Here’s why:

Because information, and the transmission thereof, is not dependent on matter, it is free (literally) to cavort with, and be indiscernible from, neighboring information, if I have a message, and you have a message, and we are standing in the same spacetime (it is a singularity after all), and we are not prevented from sharing our information with each other or other information, and there is nothing to prevent us from transmitting each other’s information along with our own (non-sticky land), then it will appear as if all information is being transmitted simultaneously without impedance across an infinite distance in less than the apparent time it takes to create the information being transmitted.* There is no distance in a singularity so all information is everywhere everywhen.

*I refer to this phenomenon as the ‘borrowed energy’ effect, where energy is neither introduced nor lost, but simply acts as if there is more energy than originally existed. (A similar effect happens in our spacetime on a lesser scale. The winds of Neptune fly around the planet ever faster. This happens not because there is more energy being expended to increase the speed of the winds, (which would result in an increase in overall energy which could be measured [First Law again]), but because the resistance to the existing energetic motion is in a state of unbalance (coefficient of friction does not cancel out or overtake the energy expressed by the wind) resulting in faster windspeed. I wonder: If we were observers in quantum spacetime looking at this phenomenon in relativistic spacetime, would we see this increase as a form of perpetual motion and throw away our theories?)

Point 5: Pi is a better measuring stick for the passage (and type) of time than the atom.

Argument: As evidenced by my previous arguments (and as is generally accepted [at least for quantum theory]), atoms cannot exist in either quantum time or big time and are therefore, a poor gauge for the passage of time or the measurement of spacetime.

Pi is, however, a reliable and useful tool in the measurement of spacetime and the passage of time in general. Here’s how:

Going back to my third argument in which I state time is of the essence, and since I firmly believe that all measurements should include a variable (or depending on one’s perspective [that is, in which spacetime one resides] or the goal of the calculation/measurement – a constant) for time, then the currently accepted understanding of Pi must also include a variable for time.

If one is to measure a distance (in this case Pi) then in order to make that measurement one would need to begin the measurement and then end the measurement. A beginning and an end cannot happen simultaneously. One begins the measurement and one ends the measurement. Time of length lp must pass in order for the measurement to be completed. This means that time has passed and spacetime has been created while you were performing your measurements and is affecting the outcome of your calculation. (This is where one must choose for which spacetime the calculation is being performed.)

Even though it currently appears that in our spacetime Pi represents an infinitely long number (the irrationality of which is unimportant to this argument), I propose that Pi represents a number that is finite but ever increasing due to: a) the passage of time, and b) the expansion of spacetime. (How much spacetime has passed (the rate at which Pi is decreasing - as spacetime is being compressed, we will be able to measure completely the value of Pi because our computers are getting faster while the universe is getting closer together and less energetic) is ultimately dependent on which spacetime the observer chooses to perform the calculation and what goal the calculation is to attain.)

We are aware that Pi is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. Unfortunately, time has not been accounted for in this measurement and that leaves a vital clue about the nature of Pi unrepresented. If we think of time using your representation of it as a light cone, then one must conclude that when one measures the diameter of any given circle, there is a beginning to the measurement and an ending to the measurement during which time has passed. This being the case, and knowing that a beginning and an end cannot happen simultaneously, one must conclude that the passage of time has offset the beginning measurement from the end measurement by a length of time represented as lp . This means that the start point and the end point can never meet – they pass each other always by length lp [...because time and space are being created not only while the measurement is taking place, but also after the measurement has taken place. Whatever markers were used to denote 'start' and 'stop' will move away from each other due to the expansion of spacetime.] Thus, the calculation never actually ends, it is merely marked along the way with whatever points we assign it.

If we were to superimpose a dot onto your light cone representing a start point, and then add another dot representing an end point, we would see clearly that these points were offset (if even by the minutest of lengths) and that picture would (if drawn though enough time for an observer to reveal a long term pattern) show a spiral or coil that is indistinguishable from the skin of the light cone which expands (as does the light cone itself) with the passage of time.

The crux of this argument is to say that Pi is representative of an ever expanding coil, the tightness of which is representative of the speed with which time is passing and with which spacetime is growing. (I can draw you a very rudimentary picture if you would like, but for now I will assume you are able to follow along. I plan on creating a graphic representation which will illustrate my point as a clear visual which will capture the elements of this argument.)

Taking this argument to the next step, one must apply (or reapply if in our spacetime) this means of calculating Pi to both quantum time and ‘big time’ for the full scope of this now complete calculation to reveal its true nature.

I do have several other thoughts about the nature of spacetime, irrational numbers, dark matter, faster than light objects, opacity, diffusion and total internal reflection that I would share if you have the time or the inclination to consider more from me, but for now, I am satisfied to have expressed the above to you.

I am aware that you are busy. I do not expect much. I really just wanted to express that perhaps the quest for a beautiful equation has been the thrust of so many for so long that we may have overlooked another possibility which would lend itself to a better understanding of our universe.

I thank you for your time. I ask that you please excuse the informal nature of this letter and the rudimentary manner in which I went about expressing my thoughts and ideas to you. I have no formal mathematical training which would allow me to converse on a level more befitting a man of your intellectual stature.

Lastly, I have included my formula for a Unified Field Theory. I hope it has some merit and will spark some interest in the scientific community. I expect that the idea of a formula as opposed to an equation will raise some eyebrows. My hope is that, even though the numbers may be incorrect, the idea of a formula may move the current school of thought in a direction that may have been overlooked. As a scientist, it would be most rewarding to have assisted in the quest for the answer.

Respectfully,

Julie F. Kadas