Forget the physics and let’s start again.
Our perceived universe is generated by the complex behaviour of what I term, ‘enigmatic stuff’. This stuff exists outside of consciousness and in fact as the stuff is everything; all aspects of consciousness must be complex phenomenon of the stuff. We cannot know the true nature of the stuff (hence enigmatic) because our perception is the result of complex chains of interactions within it. This means that, for example ‘mass’ is not a fundamental physical characteristic of our universe but instead defines a specific set of interactions (measurement) within the stuff. From our perspective everything is interaction.
What we can say about the stuff is that it must be a complex system and therefore we can explore its behaviour using our knowledge of complexity science. The first advantage of this approach is that we can now precisely define two specific realities.
Perceived Physical Reality – Our physical reality is born of complex chains of interaction within the stuff that terminate in a complex phenomenon of conscious perception. This is the reality that is modelled by our mathematics and that is interpreted by physics as a set of physically constructed objects and mechanisms. Physics is a classification of types of perceivable interactions within the stuff.
Objective Stuff Reality – The objective stuff reality is the sum total of the physical reality and all interactions that are incapable of terminating in a conscious perception. The objective reality of stuff continues to exist in some unknowable form without the conscious phenomena. Asking questions regarding the material nature of this objective universe are meaningless as looking outside of the stuff has no meaning and ‘looking’ means interacting, which results in the perceived physical reality.
Let us now assume that we can ascribe to the stuff the concepts of sub-systems, components and properties with each property of the stuff having associated interaction characteristics that define the dynamics both between components of that property and dynamics between components of different properties. I call these properties, ‘pure properties’ because we can never know their true nature. We do have an immediate problem and that is that in all our analysis we assume analytical discreteness or continuity. However if the stuff is truly continuous then our science of complexity breaks down. But let’s assume that our understanding of complex systems and their behavioural characteristics can be applied to the stuff.
Like all systems the stuff has pure system characteristics. These characteristics in some manner bound its behaviour and hence its state space. If it had no such bounds then the stuff’s behaviour would be truly random and we would have no perception of cause and effect; in fact given a truly random stuff it is unlikely that any structures would be sustained, including universes like ours.
The stuff exists in, ‘stuff-space’. I have looked at several options for the nature of this stuff-space and have concluded that it is defined by the relationships between components of stuff and their interactions; however we can never know the true nature of these relationships. The space that we perceive is termed, ‘our-space’ and is a different thing and in fact the concept of any space requires a conscious encoding of relationships. Beyond this we cannot associate any physicality to space.
I have also come to the view that the enigmatic stuff does not require stuff-time to enable its dynamics. We have to put aside the construct of the perception of, ‘our-time’ and consider that the stuff is in a feedback loop where instability begets dynamics, which in turn begets instability. We experience our-time because of large scale coherent structures that we interact with that are periodic and that we compare to other periodic interactions to define a time scale. Below these scales there is just instability to which we may theoretically apply fractions of our theoretical measure of our-time, but other than this the construct of time is meaningless.
As there is no stuff-time it has no meaning to ask what came before the stuff. All we can say is the stuff evolves and generated our universe and possibly many other universes during its evolution. Given that the stuff is dynamic but timeless and exists in what I assume is an infinite stuff-space then it is reasonable to suggest that all possible complex phenomena that we know of are likely to happen during the stuff’s evolution.
So now let’s assume that in some region of stuff-space the well understood phenomenon of critical self-organisation occurred in one or more properties of the stuff. This created a fractal structure that I call, ‘The Mesh’. The Mesh consists of voids and boundaries. This is again a problem because our analysis of fractals is based upon those defined by infinite and continuous mathematical functions and if you take these to the limit then the total void space tends to infinity whilst the total boundary space tends to zero. The mesh structure is identical, or at least similar at all scales of stuff-space. I think of this by visualising the stuff as a mixture of liquids in which one or more freezes, trapping or otherwise allowing the other liquids to move through the crystalline structure. Now our understanding of self-organisation would suggest that the mesh would appear throughout a region of stuff-space in a decentralised manner and that it would have robustness to perturbation allowing it to remain a coherent structure. However it may well undergo distortion due to interactions with the other stuff. I suggest that this is how our universe came into being and not by a big bang, but through a big inflation. I break the history of our universe into the following phases;
- Pre universe. The mesh had not evolved and the stuff just did its thing.
- Post universe, pre consciousness. The mesh emerged from the stuff but there were no conscious phenomena.
- Post universe post consciousness. At some point consciousness evolved in a way that we can associate to ourselves. At this point we started to interact in the mesh as a pattern within it and we constructed from measurement all of our physical constructs including our-time and our-space. We saw an expanding universe and took this to its limit and assumed wrongly of a big bang.
- Universe breakdown. If the voids in the mesh are expanding in an accelerated way then at some point the mesh may fracture. This may not mean that the stuff that sustains us as a pattern necessarily breaks down and our consciousness may be sustained but our observation of the universe would be very different.
To understand the possible effects of the interaction of sub-systems with a mesh structure I have carried out hundreds of simulations using the interaction of simple cellular automata that also interact with a simple mesh structure. These experiments were purely to stimulate possible ideas and do not support the idea that the stuff may be some computational system. I tried to interpret the resulting patterns from the viewpoint of a one dimensional physicist living in the one dimensional stuff. Below is one such simulated interaction to show that I’m not making this stuff up.
I believe that my observations can supply new insights into some of the, ‘big unknowns’ in physics.
Matter anti-matter asymmetry. The initial condition of our universe was that of the stuff at the point of self-organisation and it just so happened that the potential for interactions that we categorise as matter is far great than that we categorise as anti-matter. This removes the need for this asymmetry to be explained as a consequence of the big bang and the confusions as to how something came from nothing.
The Big Bang and inflation. There was no Big Bang, but instead a big inflation as the Mesh formed. This may explain why we have had to introduce an unsubstantiated inflationary phase into our Big Bang models.
Classical and Quantum Measurements. Interactions with the mesh fragmented the resulting patterns and could be interpreted as leading to a quantised measurement. Measurements without the Mesh led to a continuous and more classical like physics.
Action at a distance and perception of forces. The interactions could lead to a seeming mutual action at a distance and the mesh just changed the characteristic of these perceived forces.
Dark Energy and Dark matter. It is possible to construct a view of dark matter and energy due to stuff that may be hidden in the boundaries of the mesh that shield it from measurement but enable this hidden stuff to still interact with the stuff in the voids through the void/boundary interface.
Increasing Entropy. The mesh causes the information transferred from a target pattern to a probe pattern (basis of measurement) to decline with each measurement and therefore the entropy of each resulting measurement to increase and so, surprise ,surprise, we see a universe where entropy increases. This may not be the case for interactions where the mesh does not play a part and therefore we may also conclude that for certain measurement entropy remains constant.
Matter warping space. If we cannot measure within the Mesh boundaries then certain measurements cause our perception of space to contract relative to those that are not influenced by the Mesh and so for example our measurement of mass may seem to cause space to warp. Note that our-space is still measured and perceived as a continuum.
An increasing rate of expansion of the universe. It may also be possible that there is a net expansion of the voids due to interaction at the void boundaries with other stuff and this may lead to our view of an expanding universe. This expansion may be accelerating as the interactions maintaining the coherence within the mesh start to decline. This may suggest that our universe may end when the mesh literally breaks apart.
Localised Conservation Laws. The mesh may be a regional phenomenon within the stuff and hence is an open system suggesting that our conservation laws are only local.
A Multiverse. It may also be that there have been and still are many such points of critical self-organisation and so universes may come and go within the stuff.
Quantum algebra and Hilbert Space. I have found that some experimental results can be mapped to a basic interaction and pattern algebra and if we investigate the phase/state spaces of the experiments then it may be possible to gain insights into why our quantum mechanics is encoded in the way that it is.
Mass and Energy Constructs and Equivalence. Mass is just one of the sets of interactions of stuff properties that we can perceive through measurement. When we make a measurement in general we are only interacting with a specific region of the associated patterns of stuff. Energy is our way of assessing the potential for a measurement of matter to exist. If we measure it then it is mass and if we don’t then the pattern of stuff that gives rise to the measured mass still exists, but we term it 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 and are equivalent.
Gravity. Given that measured mass is just a region of interaction within an extensive pattern of stuff it may be that gravity is just the interaction of the outer regions of a pattern. We may not be able to measure this region as mass because it is such a weak interaction, but we can measure its attractive interaction on other mass patterns. Once again this outer region of the pattern is associated with the measured region of mass and hence is part of the potential energy of the measured mass. A similar approach may be used for other perceived forces, for example measured charge and the electric or electromagnetic fields. Also if mass is the result of stuff properties that do not interact with the Mesh then the measured our-space would have expanded (warped) relative to measurement of property interactions that do interact with the Mesh).
Heisenberg Quantum Uncertainty. At very small scales we now have the possibility that our measurements are affected by whether we see all of stuff-space or only the stuff-space within the voids of the Mesh. There is a lower limit to the uncertainty in measurements for properties that interact with the mesh. This minimum uncertainty happens for our-space scales defined by two voids as there is a constant region boundary of stuff space between two such voids and hence a limit to the region of the pattern of the property that can be hidden from measurement. This may explain Heisenberg Uncertainty.
Maximal Speed of Light. The propagation of perturbations may be reduced for properties that interact with the mesh. Also there may be properties of stuff that have minimal interaction with other properties and it seems reasonable to assume that if measured they would appear to move through our-space at a maximal speed. My experiments suggest that if such a property did interact with the mesh then its measured space would be reduced and its relative measured velocity would be further maximised.
Quantum Tunnelling and Entanglement. If a target property interacts with another property that does not itself interact with the probe then an identical probe may measure the result of the interaction at another point in space without there being a measurable propagation between the two measurements. This may be construed as having particles or measured behaviours that are entangled. In this case any interaction with the target property will be propagated in an un-measurable way by the hidden property. A similar situation may also explain tunnelling effects. This situation is illustrated in the diagram below.
This has been a brief summary of my research and I will be posting more detail to support the claims that I have made in this article. There are lots of questions that I am investigating including; understanding how such a theory could explain relativistic measurements, understanding more about how observed quantum behaviours can be explained and looking at gravity. Another big area to consider is consciousness. As the stuff is everything then conscious perception must be a phenomenon generated by the complex behaviour of the stuff and I need to describe it within the context of a dynamic system of stuff. Even given all the gaping holes with this idea I believe that the enigmatic stuff paradigm frees us from the restrictions that are imposed by the dogma that surrounds current physics and restricts our creativity. This Enigmatic Stuff approach denounces reductionism and instead focuses on the most fundamental construct that we have and that is complexity. The enigmatic stuff approach also accepts that there are things that we just cannot know and stops us dead in our tracks before we attempt to ascend to the status of all knowing beings, or as they are usually called, ‘physicists’. The compromise we have to make is to accept that we can only have a general description and that abstract mathematics plays second fiddle instead of taking us down ever more abstract and meaningless rabbit holes. There is much work to do and hey! I’ve only been working on this stuff for about thirty-five years! This is new age physics and I see no reason why it cannot merge with the physics based upon perception to become a greater than the sum of the individual parts.
View my Draft Research Paper here The Theory of Enigmatic stuff v1
Analytical Tool for Visualising stuff dynamics
Everything is Interaction
Content from this page and all linked pages should not be copied or otherwise used without the express permission of the author of this website.