# Theory of Everything.

Isn't it funny that two of the most important terms in science are "time" and "energy"?
Neither concept has any actual measurable physical properties, but everyone knows that time and energy are connected to every physical object or function.
Disagree - energy is measurable as to how much work can be performed

Agree - time has no properties hence does not exist

Disagree - energy is measurable as to how much work can be performed
Well time can be measured by "duration" of something that requires time
Agree - time has no properties hence does not exist.........
MO, it exist as a property of physical change.

But pure energy cannot be measured. Defined energy can be measured. You have to specify what type of energy you are measuring.

Just the same as saying we measure work-place time as a duration from "nine to five" .

You cannot measure time itself. On that we totally agree. And so it is with energy.
joule, n. Abbr. J or j
1.
The International System unit of electrical, mechanical, and thermal energy.
2.
a.
A unit of electrical energy equal to the work done when a current of one ampere is passed through aresistance of one ohm for one second.
b. A unit of energy equal to the work done when a force of one newton acts through a distance of one meter.
J - Joule. Conversion Chart
Natural units
In physics, natural units are physical units of measurement based only on universal physical constants. The origin of their definition comes only from properties of nature and not from any human construct.

Planck energy (L²MT⁻²)...............=...........
0.0000000005112 joules
https://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/energy/joule.html?u=joule&v=1

IMO, there is no measurable free (pure) energy, it is always a property of a defined system, just like time.
https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/different-energy-sources.php

Last edited:
Well time can be measured by "duration" of something that requires time
"duration" AGE which is merely a arbitrary measurement between points on a arbitrary scale

MO, it exist as a property of physical change.

Don't think so so agree to disagree

defined system, just like

Sounds like a circular argument

But pure energy cannot be measured. Defined energy can be measured. You have to specify what type of energy you are measuring.
Well I would say pure energy is a no-no.
But using a defined unit of energy can be compared between the different types of energy

Not sure if can claim any same same of types of time ? ? ?

Well I would say pure energy is a no-no.
But using a defined unit of energy can be compared between the different types of energy
As I said a specific energetic phenomenon associated with various types of energy generating actions.
Not sure if can claim any same same of types of time ? ? ?
Well I gave you a list.
Then also; office hours from 9 to five, a minute as 1/60 of an hour, an hour as an arbitrary standard of time, a week, month, year, century.
All measurements of arbitrary but specific time blocks (measurements) associated with duration of a specific change.

J - Joule. Conversion Chart
Natural units
In physics, natural units are physical units of measurement based only on universal physical constants. The origin of their definition comes only from properties of nature and not from any human construct.
Planck energy(L²MT⁻²)...............=...........
0.0000000005112 joules
Then also; office hours from 9 to five, a minute as 1/60 of an hour, an hour as an arbitrary standard of time, a week, month, year, century.
So where are "Natural units
In physics, natural units are physical units of measurement based only on universal physical constants
" for TIME so I can convert "9 to five" to "Natural units "

In physics, natural units are physical units of measurement based only on universal physical constants" for TIME so I can convert "9 to five" to "Natural units "
If you can tell me the shortest period of change, we can identify the associated time constant.
Perhaps quantum change is the shortest possible period of change. But that is still only by observation. And do we have a fundamental "time unit"? What is a fundamental time unit? It does not exist.
Hume submits that we get the idea of time by perceiving change
https://aeon.co/essays/what-albert-einstein-owes-to-david-humes-notion-of-time .....
Yes, exactly as I visualized it. Time emerges as a by-product of change.
No absolute time,
Two centuries before Einstein, Hume recognised that universal time, independent of an observer’s viewpoint, doesn’t exist
Time emerges from observing specific change and has been given "arbitrary" values associated with the type of change.

What is a fundamental "natural unit of energy" based on the universal constant property of energy"? Seems to me that the "natural unit of energy" has been given a range of arbitrary mathematical (symbolic) values. Energy emerges from observing specific change and has been given "arbitrary values" associated with the type of energetic change.
In physics, natural units are physical units of measurement based only on universal physical constants.
For example, the elementary
charge e
is a natural unit of
electric charge, and the speed of light c is a natural unit of speed.
A purely natural system of units has all of its units defined in this way, and usually such that the numerical values of the selected physical constants in terms of these units are exactly 1.[/quote]
These constants are then typically omitted from mathematical expressions of physical laws, and while this has the apparent advantage of simplicity, it may entail a loss of clarity due to the loss of information for
It precludes the interpretation of an expression in terms of fundamental physical constants, such as e and c, unless it is
known which units (in dimensionful units) the expression is supposed to have. In this case, the reinsertion of the correct powers of e, c, etc., can be uniquely determined
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units

I never thought I'd be on the opposite side of the human arbitrary symbolic mathematical value vs universal values and functions based on universal physical constants as is often argued against the notion that mathematical values and functions are a properties of the Universe.

But I believe that I am consistent in my view that while the unverse functions in a mathematical fashion, human mathematics are purely symbolic and the values are arbitrarily chosen for human convenience.

Last edited:
But I believe that I am consistent in my view that while the universe functions in a mathematical fashion, human mathematics are purely symbolic and the values are arbitrarily chosen for human convenience.

Disagree

Any mathematical function is the result or consequence of physical things doing what they do . Without physical things no mathematical functions would exist .

Disagree
Any mathematical function is the result or consequence of physical things doing what they do . Without physical things no mathematical functions would exist .
I agree. You may want to read my post a little closer.

I make a distinction between universal mathematics which consist of "unnamed" relative physical values and functions.
Human mathematics are the symbolic translation and representation of these universal values and functions.

But I agree, without universal mathematics there would be no human mathematics.

p.s. I lean toward Tegmark's "Mathematical Universe".

I agree. You may want to read my post a little closer.

I make a distinction between universal mathematics which consist of "unnamed" relative physical values and functions.
Human mathematics are the symbolic translation and representation of these universal values and functions.

But I agree, without universal mathematics there would be no human mathematics.

p.s. I lean toward Tegmark's "Mathematical Universe".

What post in particular ? To your first statement .

Tegmark , interesting .

What is his theory ?

What post in particular ? To your first statement .
Here:
But I believe that I am consistent in my view that while the universe functions in a mathematical fashion, human mathematics are purely symbolic and the values are arbitrarily chosen for human convenience.
Tegmark , interesting .
Yes indeed.
"Some people say that the universe has some mathematical properties, I submit that the universe has only mathematical properties", Max Tegmark
What is his theory ?
In short, he believes that all of reality consist of mathematical patterns formed by relative physical values (wave-lengths) of strings and that only density of the pattern determines its properties as light, sound, gas, fluid, or solid, in reality.

I can identify with the concept that when you get small enough (i.e.Planck scale) objects are no longer physical except as energetic quanta with relative mathematical values, which form mathematical patterns (elements) and these patterns interact to form ever more complex and denser patterns, eventually becoming expressed as physical stuff.
Graphene is an atomic-scale hexagonal lattice made of carbon atoms.
Isn't this an exquisite pattern which self-assembles into these incredible graphene sheets?
(now being considered for use in computers) for its transmission speed and stability.

Last edited:
Here:
Yes indeed. In short, he believes that all of reality consist of mathematical patterns formed by relative physical values of particles and that only density of the pattern detemines its properties as a gas, fluid, or solid in reality.

Why " relative physical values " ? What does this mean ?

No hurry , I'll be signing off now , I've been here for hours .

I'll be back in a three or four days .

river

Last edited:
Why " relative physical values " ? What does this mean ?
Compare it to the difference between (universal) algebraic and (human) numerical mathematics.

First, I see a "universal value" as the sum potential contained in the object. This gives the object a value relative to the values of other objects with different inherent potentials.

The greater the mass of a star the greater it's relative "value" (description of the value) of gravitational impact on the spacetime fabric.
And it is well established that matter behaves in accordance to relative environmental influences and in relation to each other. It is the common denominator found in GR.

The universe does not "know" mathematics. It functions by responding to natural causalities of all sorts, each with their own value relative to values of all other things and their mathematical interactions. These relative values are derived by the constituent physical values of the parts of the object.

IMO, in all human descriptions of universal values and functions, "relativity" is a fundamental part of all equations.
OTOH, QM does not bother with relativity because it is a discreet quantum function, which yields a result.

I believe this difference in QM and GR is still an unresolved problem in the current science.

But it is undeniable that the universe has mathematically measurable physical qualities (values), which are observable as constants and common denominators of the way the universe works.

Humans recognized these constant natural functions and gave them names and symbolic representations and "human maths" is indeed a correct symbolic representation of what the universe does naturally without knowledge of human given "names" and arbitrary "numerics" as a result of specific causalities and effects.
(interestingly, many universal physical functional constants were first identified as gods, i.e. Thor, etc.)

Our symbolic mathematics allow us to predict future events. The production of a Higgs boson is proof of the accuracy of human mathematics describing the mathematical aspects of universal actions and change.

IMO, the concept of a mathematical universe is simply elegant and I suspect that such a perspective would solve many outstanding scientific questions to which the answers are not immediately physically observable.
Hope I have permission from the mods. I have posted this several more times before, but I believe that for the layman this is an informative, entertaining video, which really makes you think and gain new respect for the elegant beauty of universal mathematical physical patterns.

Last edited:
Compare it to the difference between (universal) algebraic and (human) numerical mathematics.

First, I see a "universal value" as the sum potential contained in the object. This gives the object a value relative to the values of other objects with different inherent potentials.

The greater the mass of a star the greater it's relative "value" (description of the value) of gravitational impact on the spacetime fabric.
And it is well established that matter behaves in accordance to relative environmental influences and in relation to each other. It is the common denominator found in GR.

The universe does not "know" mathematics. It functions by responding to natural causalities of all sorts, each with their own value relative to values of all other things and their mathematical interactions. These relative values are derived by the constituent physical values of the parts of the object.

IMO, in all human descriptions of universal values and functions, "relativity" is a fundamental part of all equations.
OTOH, QM does not bother with relativity because it is a discreet quantum function, which yields a result.

I believe this difference in QM and GR is still an unresolved problem in the current science.

But it is undeniable that the universe has mathematically measurable physical qualities (values), which are observable as constants and common denominators of the way the universe works.

Humans recognized these constant natural functions and gave them names and symbolic representations and "human maths" is indeed a correct symbolic representation of what the universe does naturally without knowledge of human given "names" and arbitrary "numerics" as a result of specific causalities and effects.
(interestingly, many universal physical functional constants were first identified as gods, i.e. Thor, etc.)

Our symbolic mathematics allow us to predict future events. The production of a Higgs boson is proof of the accuracy of human mathematics describing the mathematical aspects of universal actions and change.

IMO, the concept of a mathematical universe is simply elegant and I suspect that such a perspective would solve many outstanding scientific questions to which the answers are not immediately physically observable.
Hope I have permission from the mods. I have posted this several more times before, but I believe that for the layman this is an informative, entertaining video, which really makes you think and gain new respect for the elegant beauty of universal mathematical physical patterns.

All mathematics is based, fundamentally , on the physical material objects . Higgs Boson included .

All mathematics is based, fundamentally , on the physical material objects . Higgs Boson included .

river said:
All mathematics is based, fundamentally , on the physical material objects . Higgs Boson included .