The Theory of Enigmatic Stuff – Technical Summary

The Basic Idea Behind TES

The theory of enigmatic stuff assumes that the universe that we perceive and perception itself are the resulting behaviours of interactions of some kind of, ‘stuff’. Another way of looking at this is to think of everything as a pattern of stuff.

Because we are behaviours within the stuff we can never comprehend the true nature of this, ‘enigmatic stuff’ and its existence is independent of any consciousness.

The only major assumption is that the dynamics of the stuff must be complex, as high level order would not give rise to our perceived complex universe.

To gain an understanding of how our universe emerged from the stuff we need to apply the general characteristics of complex systems and their behaviours to the stuff. This would enable us to find out if such known aspects of complex systems could give rise to us and the universe that we perceive.

For the stuff, time does not exist; there is only continual interaction throughout it that maintains continual state change.

We cannot apply mathematics or physics to the stuff as these are constructs born of it, and through behaviour within it that we term, ‘measurement’ and ‘consciousness’.

The stuff and the, ‘stuff-space’ in which it exists may be very different to our perception of space and our universal physical characteristics.

There are immediate consequences resulting from this approach.

  • Consciousness (if it exists) must be a type of behaviour within the stuff.
  • EVERYTHING is interaction. We are bounded and quasi-stable sets of interactions within the stuff. Measurement is an interaction. A perceived measurement is an interaction between patterns of Stuff. This means that, for example, measured matter or charge represent a specific set of specific interactions of states within the stuff.
  • We can define two distinct, ‘realities’:
    • Perceived physical reality; the reality we perceive through interaction of stuff.
    • Objective Stuff reality; the actual stuff and its complex behaviour, neither of which we can perceive.
    • Objective stuff reality gives rise to our perceived physical reality.

The Stuff as a Complex System.

Even for basic analysis we need to map some of our constructs of complex systems to the stuff.

  • The system of stuff must have inherent characteristics that influence and in some ways limit its dynamics. If this was not the case then the stuff would likely be truly random (different to chaotic) in its nature and not able to support a structure such as our universe. We cannot know the nature of these characteristics.
  • There are different types of stuff and one type of stuff may interact with another type of stuff through an, ‘inter-stuff interaction’. Envisage the stuff as a mixture of liquids.
  • We can break the stuff down into smaller components and these components interact with each other to create the overall dynamic.
  • Two components of the same type of stuff interact through an, ‘intra-stuff interaction’.
    Components of stuff can occupy the same location in stuff-space.

Now we can explore how the stuff could have given rise to our universe and the consequent perception of relativistic and quantum effects.

The Creation of the Universe and the fallacy of the, ‘Big Bang’

Imagine that in a region of stuff evolution the initial conditions were such that spontaneous self-organisation occurred resulting in the emergence of a natural fractal structure that I term, ‘the Mesh’.

This mesh consists of boundary regions in which the density of the ‘mesh stuff’ is high. As this is akin to a natural fractal the internal structure of the boundaries is no longer fractal.

The boundaries bound regions called, ‘voids’ of very low density of the Mesh stuff.

One can imagine that a couple of the liquids in a mixture reach their freezing point and create a frozen structure through which the other liquids may pass or become trapped.

Spontaneous self-organisation is a decentralised phenomenon so the Mesh would have appeared everywhere almost instantaneously and all the other types of stuff in this region would be coincident with the Mesh.

It is likely that all the other stuff had to have a specific initial condition to cause the emergence of the Mesh. It may be that the stuff states that lead to interactions perceived as matter had to be far more influential than those that would be perceived as anti-matter. This explains the matter, anti-matter asymmetry. This symmetry breaking is not a consequence of a, ‘Big Bang’.

Before the Mesh there was no, ‘measurable space’ (or beings to measure it), but there was still stuff and stuff-space. We may construe this, ‘pre-mesh stage’ as an infinitesimal point, or singularity. Therefore an extrapolation to a point prior to the emergence of the Mesh could lead to a, ‘big bang’ concept.

TES has no need to invent an, ‘inflationary period’ as required by the Big Bang approach. All of measurable space emerged at once.

The dimensions of neighbouring voids vary in a consistent manner (this is known as the magnification factor of the fractal). If this magnification factor is very small then from a measurment perspective in certain regions of the Mesh the void sizes within this region can be considered constant.

It will be seen later that it is the Mesh that leads to many of the measurable Relativistic and quantum behaviours. Given that our physics is highly consistent over location in time and space (Isotropic) it would suggest that our solar system occupies a region of the Mesh where there is a reasonably consistent boundary and void size.

Our, ‘perceptible universe’ is created from the interactions of the other stuff and its interaction with the Mesh itself. This gives the region within the Mesh a different phase space to a region of stuff without the Mesh, or other stuff within a void of the Mesh.

The Mesh and Interaction

Before moving on we now need to consider some of the general characteristics of a fractal Mesh and introduce a couple of assumptions regarding the types of Stuff and their interactions.
A simple analysis shows that the ratio of total boundary and total void changes in a fractal as an encompassed region expands. As a region at a point in the fractal increases the proportion of void to boundary also increases. This can be seen in the graph below for a simple fractal.

Assume that there are two types of interaction of the other types of stuff (non-Mesh stuff) with the Mesh:

  • Matter-Like (ML) interactions. In this case the matter-like stuff within boundaries interacts as normal but the boundaries quell the ability of the matter-like stuff within to interact with the other stuff in the voids. The exception to this is at the interface between the boundary and the void.
  • Light-like (LL) interactions. In this case the light-like stuff is not (or greatly) affected by the Mesh boundary, In essence the LL stuff does not, ‘see’ the Mesh.

The Fallacy of an Expanding Universe

I believe that the inconsistent view of the rate of the expansion of the universe is proof that our measurable space originates from a fractal mesh structure. The outline of my argument is given below.

Measured Light (or more precisely electromagnetic radiation) is a propagating pattern of LL stuff. This LL stuff has a weak interaction with the Mesh. The interaction has two effects:

  • The boundaries reduce the rate of propagation of the LL pattern through the mesh.
  • The boundaries may cause a deformation of the stuff pattern resulting in a measured deflection of the light.

Light from far away in the mesh primarily propagates through vast Voids and hence has maximal propagation rate. As it enters our region of the universe the more frequent boundaries increase and the propagation rate reduces and this will change the measurable wavelength. This may be perceived as the red shift. The observed red shift is not due to the universe expanding, but due to the fractal nature of the mesh.

The absolute rate of propagation of light in deep space is greater than in our localised region because it propagates through very large scale voids (few boundaries to slow it down). However this is true of all stuff and interactions so there would be no difference in the locally measured speed of light.

Measurable space appears less deformed at cosmological distances. The greater seeming deformation at local regions is due to increase in the number of boundaries and this may deflect the LL stuff pattern causing light to bend.

If the measured red shift is indicating that the rate of expansion is increasing this would suggest that the mesh (our Universe) is actually contracting.

It is also possible that the overall shape of the mesh fluctuates due to the balance of internal and external influences. This could lead to variable measurements of the expansion rate of the universe. However the fractal nature of the mesh would mean that it would always appear to be expanding.

Measurement; Perceiving the Universe and Constructing Physics

Measurement is a chain of interactions within the stuff starting with the interaction of a target pattern with a sensor pattern and culminating in perception of an encoding of the interaction that we term a measured value.

At some point in the measurement chain there is an accumulation process that is classical in its nature. The resulting state of the accumulator is representative of a perceived numerical value and a function of the initial target and sensor interaction.

All measurements require a matter-like sensor and due to the quelling of interactions within the boundary, the ML stuff within the boundaries cannot be perceived (un-measurable). Therefore our, ‘measurable space’ is a concatenation of the voids within the region of measurement interaction (measurement cross section) of stuff-space.

A proportion (possibly very large) of matter-like stuff is always, ‘hiding’ (not measurable) in the boundaries of the Mesh.

We can see that through the interface between boundaries and voids the stuff in boundaries can influence the state of the stuff in the voids. This may be construed as missing (unmeasurable) matter or dark matter.

Measured constructs are not fundamental structures in themselves, but identify a set of stuff interactions, so for example, matter represents an set of distinct interactions of stuff, not an inherent property of it.

What we measure and hence how we construct physics is dependent upon the scale of the sensor relative to the void and boundary ratio in the measurement cross section. We can imagine increasing the size of a region of the Mesh and each time we calculate the total region of void and boundary. What we can find is that for small regions (or sensors) in our location in the mesh the proportion of boundary dominates, whereas for much larger sensors the proportion of voids dominates.

Intuitively we can argue that an interaction between a small sensor and target will reduce the potentially measurable states due to the boundaries. Whereas the measurement using a relatively larger sensor and target will have a larger and more continuous state space from which measurements may result. Therefore small scale sensors and target may lead to measured jumps in value (quantisation) whereas large scale sensors and targets give rise to greater continuity in measured values (classical).

Measurable Relativistic Effects

A perturbation at a point in the stuff will propagate through the stuff. It can be seen that the rate of propagation of an ML pattern will be reduced by the boundaries, whereas the rate of propagation of LL patterns will always be greater and potentially constant. This may explain a constant and maximal speed of light.

Through simple dynamic analysis of ML stuff components within a void and its encompassing boundaries it has been shown that:

  • The Mesh has localised deformation dependent upon the ratio of ML stuff in the voids and boundaries as well as the influence of neighbouring stuff. This effect changes the measured geometry of space.
  • It is possible to generate a flow of stuff through the mesh such that the measurable mass in the voids changes and in fact increases with increased velocity. Therefore the rate of transfer of measurable objects and the scale of measurable space can be seen to vary.
  • The change of ML stuff across voids and boundaries can cause the scale of boundaries to increase at the expense of the scale of voids. This can lead to measurable spatial contraction and it can be argued that measurable physical processes including that of time can slow down in accordance with general relativity theory.
  • A different region of the Mesh (inertial frame of reference) will have a different Mesh deformation and that observation between frames will lead to observed relativistic effects.

I have considered that the Mesh may turn out to be the, ‘Ether’ that has hounded the theories of relativity and quantum physics.

Quantum Physics

TES can explain the origins of our construction of quantum mechanics and observable quantum effects.

I created many simulations of varying sized cellular automata interacting within a simulated Mesh. The measurement process involved accumulating all of the states bounded by the sensor for each row and letting this represent the measured value. The relative size of sensor, target and boundary were varied. A sample result is shown below.



The conclusions of such simulations are given below:

  • There is a range of sensor size relative to boundary size in which we see quantised measurements (a non-contiguous set of values). In the above example, these are sensor size 66% to 133% of boundary (for all levels of sensor quantum variation). Sensor size 66% to 200% of boundary for large quantum variation in sensor.
  • Outside of this range we get a contiguous set of measurements (classical physics).
  • As quantum variation of the sensor increases the quantisation effect upon measurements and this can increase the range of scales at which quantum measurements are generated.
  • These experiments support the idea that whether we see a quantised or classical world is dependent upon the relative scales of the target and sensor with that of the Mesh boundaries and the level of quantum variation in sensor position.
  • Therefore TES may explain why we see quantum and classical effects and why the transition between these characteristics is, ‘fuzzy’.

We can define the, ‘quantum scale’ as the scale at which the total region of boundary is greater than that of void as this leads to the fragmentation of potentially measurable states (measurable quantisation).

At some scale of sensor the quantum variation in the sensor itself is dominant and all we detect is a codification of the highly complex (possible chaotic) dynamics of the measurement system. We cannot associate any physical laws at these scales and all of our theories collapse. This is the, ‘Plank Scale’.

Every measurement is a complex process and as such the exact state that is ‘measured’ cannot be known as there are so many varying aspects of the system (variation in boundary and measurement interaction cross section). Therefore TES explains why an individual measurement is a ‘random’ selection from the instantaneous state space of the system.

The simple reasoning for this quantisation effect is that at any instant in a measurement event the sensor may either, span a void and boundary, span only a void or span only a boundary. The resulting contribution to the accumulation process (final measured value) may then be fully or partially representative of the interaction or give no contribution at all.

There is a practical limit to the scale at which we can create coherent sensors.

A sensor structure is sensitive to influence from specific types of stuff. The more, ‘tuned’ a sensor is, the fewer perturbations influence the measured value (noise).

From the perspective of quantum physics a, ‘particle’ may be measurable anywhere within the bounds of its evolving stuff pattern, whether at a specific point in time and space it is measured depends upon the nature of the pattern and that of the MCS . This may lead to a probabilistic likelihood of detecting the particle.

It could be said that the potentially measurable particle exists at many locations simultaneously. The actual measurement is then an interaction that conforms to a probability distribution dependent upon the nature of the MCS (measurement cross-section).

TES justifies why the idea of wave function collapse had to be introduced into the mathematical foundations of quantum theory. The mathematical formulation of the quantum mechanics of measurement deals with instantaneous single measurements (interactions). The wave function collapse represents the completion of a measurement interaction and that the mathematical formulation needs to be reset (as does the Sensor) to represent a future measurement interaction with different initial conditions. The wave function collapse has no meaning in the objective reality of the stuff.

The evolution of the target pattern and the effect of back action can be modelled through a perturbative Schrodinger equation.

QM may also tell us something (but not much) about the taxonomy of stuff patterns that give rise to our constructs and the relationship between some of the stuff properties. However QM can tell us very little about the true nature of the stuff and therefore nothing about the objective reality of Stuff.

We can say that there is a minimum measurable uncertainty in space that is equal to a single unitary void. The actual scale of a void depends upon the dynamics of the void boundary interface as described earlier and so it would seem that the actual minimum depends upon the dynamics (measured mass and velocity) of stuff through the void. One could see that there may be an uncertainty relationship of the following form:

Change in measured momentum x change in measured position >= single unitary void

This may be the origin of the Uncertainty Principle. It may be that Plank’s constant is telling us something about the smallest scales of unitary voids.

Early attempts to describe the sensor and target patterns as a set of infinitesimal instantaneous states, combined with the linear accumulation process show that TES may enable a derivation of a, ‘quantum algebra’ similar, if not identical, to the current algebraic and matrix formulations.

From the perspective of TES, quantum mechanics is a theory of measurement, or interaction between specific stuff (target and sensor) and the Mesh. It is not a theory that tells us anything intrinsic about the stuff (objective stuff reality). If our universe could have evolved purely within a cosmologically scaled void then our measurements would show NO QUANTUM BEHAVIOUR and there would be NO QUANTUM THEORY.

By comparing results of measurement sets between differing sensors and targets we can infer physical characteristics to sets of interactions and transfer functions (physical laws) between them.

Other Conclusions

TES can explain the conservation and duality of mass and energy. From the stuff perspective an unmeasured interaction within a pattern of stuff is a potential measurement of, for example, mass and this is what we may term ‘potential energy field’. When we make a measurement then we measure a mass but in some manner our measurement interaction is a human realisation of part of the entire (potential) interaction space within the stuff. Therefore it seems reasonable that we may consider that ‘some energy’ has been converted to matter as both concepts represent the entirety of the unmeasured interaction.

Some experiments that I have been running to understand the complexity of pattern interactions also suggest that we can view a, ‘gravitational energy field’ as the low density outer region of patterns of ML stuff in which we interact with high density regions to perceive matter. In essence gravitational energy is just part of the ‘matter pattern’ within the stuff and this approach can be extended to other physical properties such as charge and electromagnetic fields. This approach reflects (and explains) the basis of quantum field theory.

Energy is our way of assessing the potential for matter (of any physical characteristic) to exist. If we measure it then it is mass and if we don’t then the pattern of stuff still exists but we term it energy (gravitational potential energy). Both of these constructs are different aspects of a single interaction and therefore it is not surprising that for a region of our space their combination represents the entirety of the interaction and in essence matter and energy are conserved.

TES suggests that we exist in a specific region of the Mesh where the boundary and void scales are relatively constant and this may be a requirement for generating dynamics that can lead to complex conscious patterns such as ourselves. This would suggest that what we perceive as cosmological distances have relatively massive scale voids in which such complex dynamics cannot occur. There may be specific locations within the Mesh where intelligent patterns can emerge and these may be far beyond what we consider to be the edge of the observable universe, although well within the region of the Mesh.

%d bloggers like this: