## First Draft of a Pseudo Universe in Object Oriented View

Posted: October 21, 2011 in Physics

I have really enjoyed my brain storming with Jacky. I hope to continue my dialog with him. Please go to his sight at http://www.higgs-boson.org/ While he is focusing on the micro aspects of Closed Volumes I think I will give it a go in the Macro world. I have asked him about what I have posted here and he was nice enough to give me the following corrections.

Just a word about volume and mass.
I think that you must separate closed volumes from mass. Here are the mainlines.
In my theory (which needs to be verified), apparent volumes, those we see, are made of:
1/ closed volumes, that deform spacetime. The latter exerts a pressure on the surface and the mass effect can be extracted from that pressure,
2/ Open volumes (a vacuum), that doesn’t deform spacetime and which have no pressure, therefore no mass.
So, the curvature of spacetime is not made by mass but by closed volumes.
On a mathematical point of view, we have two relations:
1/ M = f(closed volumes)
2/ Curvature of spacetime = f(closed volumes)
By association, indeed, we have
Curvature of spacetime = f(mass)
but this assertion is correct only on a mathematical point of view.
To explain phenomena with simple words, you must say:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Curvature of spacetime is fonction of closed volumes <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
(not function of mass, even if on a mathematical point of view this is identical).
So, you must exclude the word “Mass” of your text, but having in mind that the mass is itself function of closed volumes.
We have the same thinking about energy.
Energy comes from a closed volume which diseappears. But since a closed volume has a direct relationship with mass, we could say as Einstein : Mass = energy.
This assertion is correct on a mathematical point of view, and it is also correct in reality, but to explain phenomena, we must proceed in two steps:
1/ Energy = f(closed volumes)
2/ Mass = f(closed volumes)
Here also, by association, you get Mass = f(Energy) but this assertion is correct only from a mathematical point of view and in reality, of course, but to deeply understand phenomena, you must proceed in two steps, as previously explained.
I think you understand what I say, but I can give you a last example:
1/ Extra speed in cars causes accidents
2/ Extra speed causes an increase of fuel consumption
On a mathematical basis, there is a relationship between accidents and fuel consumption, and you can write: accidents = f(fuel consumption), but to understand phenomena, you can’t say
Fuel consumption causes accidents…

Any ideas or comments or assistance would be greatly appreciated. But here is where I would like to go.

I really think that fully understanding black holes and their effect on space-time goes along way to proving closed volumes not mass effects space-time. The current effect of gravitational warping and lensing pushes light away. For the mass to be pulling in the light like it is currently explained with black hole theory in addition to being pushed away like it has been proven with Einstein Lensing is a strange dichotomy. An imploding closed volume makes much more sense to me. So if we can prove closed volumes at the macro level we could then move down to the micro level and see if that fixes what Einstein could not explain. I do agree about the language of the curvature being a function of closed volumes but I think the function needs and can be explained through the proven curvature calculation modified for closed volumes. If this at all pans out I like the idea of scaling it down to particles. And hopefully the fact that particles seem to appear only where they are observed will be a function of the fact that in order to observe, a mass needs to be applied. And at the lowest level it just may be the energy converting to mass due to the observation introducing mass. Which makes the object theory with closed volumes seem theoretically possible.

I really appreciate being able to brain storm with all of you.

So we have a very draft pseudo code for Universal. It is VERY VERY… draft.

public object Universe()
{

private time begin;
private time current;
private SpeedofLight c;
private Gravity G;

public collection[] UniversalStuff[];
public relationship(UniversalStuff[] A,(UniversalStuff[] B);

}

public Object UniversalStuff()
{

private time begin;
private time end;
private object parent;
private object medium;
private gravity g;
private RelationalSpeedofLight c;
private UniversalStuff[] children[];

public UniversalStuff()
{
}
public UniversalStuff(UniversalStuff Parent)
{
parent = Parent;
}

public number Mass(number time)
{
return getMass(time);
}
public number KineticEnergy(number time)
{
return getKineticEnergy(time);
}
{
}
public number PotentialEnergy(number time)
{
return getPotentialEnergy(time);
}
public number Volume(object medium, number time)
{
return getVolume(medium, time);
}
public number Density(object medium,number time)
{
return getMass(time)/getVolume(medium,time);
}
public matrix(x,y,z) Location(number time)
{
return matrix(x,y,z) getLocation(time);
}
public force ClosedVolume(number time)
{
matrix location = getLocation(time);
return getClosedVolume(location, time);
}
public number SpaceTimeCurvature(number time)
{
return functionSTC(getClosedVolume(time));
}

}

1. Laurent says:

Hi Mr Gillespie,

Let me first congratulate you for your very interresting blog. Asking good questions is the key to understanding and discovery, and you do it nicefully.

Concerning the object-oriented view of the universe, I’m perfectly in line with this concept as I’ve been an analyst programmer for many years, so it’s a professional bias to discern structures and operations. It is on this basis that I wrote the following article:

http://www.losangeinformatique.com/physics/ospweb.pdf

In the article, I show that all physic’s standard domains (gravitic, electric, magnetic and thermic) share an identical structure and operations, perfectly compatible with a programming mindset. I thought it could help you in your effort to “code” the universe

Best regards,
Laurent Hollo

• jetsrock says:

Hi Sir,

I look forward to reading your pages. I am currently working on risk models and I am continuing to look into as much about this as I can. I really appreciate your correspondence and I want to wish a great new year and please feel free to contact me anytime.

Best Wishes,
Rick

• jetsrock says:

You my Friend are amazing. Although I didn’t get enough time to go into detail of your paper I found it very enlightening and very professional. I would love to read about how the idea of Minkowski world lines and relativity pertain to the model. Since to me they effect not only time but space. To me most things I have read recently especially from particle physicists focus on the relative nature of time and ignore the relative nature of space. It would be interesting if the concept of location in the model included possibly a relative factor that would allow the location and movement of one object to be compared to that of another.

Best Wishes,
Rick

2. Laurent says:

Hi Mr Gillespie,

It will be a pleasure to talk to you about these subjects.
I’m in the process of “connecting” Jacky Jerome’s work on the nature of mass with my own work (and specially with the mass definition equation M=Q2/L … see paper below).

Concerning the relativity (and also the discretness) of space and time and their relation to dimensions, I suggest that some interresting information can be found in my previous article about dimensions:

http://www.losangeinformatique.com/physics/dimension_of_physical_quantities.htm

In this paper, I demonstrate that [M]=L3T-2 (as Maxwell said) is mathematically impossible. I also think that the presented concepts is an indication of the fractality of spacetime. Once the spacetime matrix concept is understood, building a program to represent the matrix, but also to find all possible equations for a given quantity, is (was) trivial.

Best regards and best wishes for 2013,
Laurent Hollo

3. Hi Mr Gillespie,

It will be a pleasure to talk with you about these subjects.

I’m currently in the process of “connecting” Jacky Jerome’s work about the nature of mass with my own (specially with the mass defining equation M=Q2/L … see paper below)

Concerning the relativity (and discretness) of spacetime, I suggest to read my previous paper on the subject:

http://www.losangeinformatique.com/physics/dimension_of_physical_quantities.htm

In this paper, I demonstrate that [M]=L3T-2 (Maxwell’s assertion) is mathematically impossible. The results of this study are also an indication of the fractality of spacetime.