@WhiteMountain It's a very interesting post ! As
@JGeropoulas has invited me to do, I'm going to respond to the various messages so as to
amplify the networking and bring out questions that could be put to the Cs at future sessions, or even at the next Q&A that
@SoFloJayC would like to set up with
@Laura and the Crew.
In view of the information given by the Cs on this subject, we can say that
working towards the UFT necessarily involves awakening consciousness : it's true that this leads to questions about the UFT. Even if Einstein didn't officially find it, the Cs let us know that UFT has been obtained through the work of various teams and, who knows, perhaps also thanks to the intervention of ETs. One immediate question would be
whether it's possible to access the UFT with a 3D consciousness? Can such a consciousness do anything with it? Or
does obtaining the UFT require a certain awakening of consciousness and so one possible pathway would be the intervention of forces "external" to Earth in order to go beyond terrestrial 3D consciousness? Or has
the UFT been obtained on Earth without the people working on it being fully aware that they have the UFT in their hands? Don't forget that UFT allows us to understand how Gravity and Consciousness mirror each other.
Does this mean that,
for these beings, the UFT would remain a technology, whereas for beings who have awakened and modified their consciousness, the UFT would be an everyday reality that they would have to live with? It would no longer be an external theory but an internal practice. Thanks to a change in their state of consciousness, they would be able to free themselves from gravity, to play with the laws of terrestrial or other physics, and even to be in several places in one or more realities consciously.
Another facet of the UFT that would be interesting to study is
the "intellectual" way of accessing it : since we're talking about a unified field theory,
we should be able, through it, to access all possible mathematics and laws of physics. In other words, we find ourselves
at the heart of a living multi-dimensional physics because taking into account several dimensions, at the same time, and therefore
several laws of physics other than terrestrial ones, simultaneously, must certainly translate into a variable, and therefore living, physics. We can see how, almost immediately, consciousness comes to the fore, because life, whether universal or not, means consciousness, more or less asleep. The question is :
from the mathematics and physics of the Dimension to which the scientific researchers in question belong, what is the simplest way to obtain the UFT?
It's easy to understand
how relative this answer is, since researchers from different dimensions and dimensional realities will inevitably have a different mathematical reference base.
As far as the 3D terrestrial path is concerned, the one we're most interested in following from our current conscious incarnation,
this question can be translated as follows : is it simpler to access the UFT from Maxwell's equations themselves or from the search for a reconciliation between its two childrens (general relativity and quantum mechanics)? For me, the question deserves to be asked, as we quickly realize that the mathematical level is not the same between Maxwell's 4 equations and what has since been derived from them. Of course, this type of questioning is related to the way we look at reality, if that way of looking is more or less disconnected from observed reality. In other words,
is the observer's perception, more or less conscious, linked to his or her state of consciousness?
Here we come back to what you mentioned at the beginning of your answer:
the Kaluza-Klein geometry. As it happens, this approach, called "flawed" by the Cs, is
based on a quest for unification between gravity and electromagnetism, without realizing, of course, that the fact that gravity IS electromagnetism was never envisaged by the researchers of the time. It was a separate, isolated view of reality that initiated such a process of unification,
resulting in the emergence of a new dimension external to space, a 5th dimension. The approach was all the more biased in that it was also based on the consideration of time as the 4th dimension of space... which is not the case, as the Cs have repeatedly pointed out.
So, rather than looking for new, external dimensions to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics, another possible path would be to
pursue the idea, or awareness, that gravity IS electromagnetism. Even if, at this level, we're not yet talking about multidimensional Gravity and Electromagnetism but simply 3D (at the level 3).
This could then be translated into the highlighting of dimensions residing within the 3 dimensions of reference space as resonant modes of vibration. In this way, the 4th dimension of space would not be time, but another way of looking at 3D outer space, the container, taking into account an internal dimension, specific to the 3 external dimensions, which would translate into variability, into an internal dynamic within the 3D container hitherto considered as static and constant.
This would enable us to take into account the 3D container (exterior) and the 4D content (interior) at the same time, through the body's own resonant frequency (a frequency we could identify with a 4th dimension of space). In this sense, we would be
joining the various clues provided by the Cs on the true nature of the 4th dimension of space... And this view is one of unity, unified because we would be addressing all states of matter within a single reference space.
Thanks for your message, which gave me the opportunity to reply to you with these few words.
Hoping to have helped lift the veil.
That's all for tonight :)
You know I thought about this subject a long time last night, and had some very interesting insights (including realizing one of the diagrams in my college E&M texts was basically wrong, and that is probably all over textbooks explaining how the magnetic field works). Probably would be a massive post to put up in detail, but one of the conclusions I came to was WE DEFINITELY DO NEED TO START FROM SCRATCH and WEED NEED TO TREAT THE EM AND GRAVITY similarly as you suggest. A lot of these ideas are probably not new, I just have not heard them elucidated like I am going to. There have been plenty of attempts to quantize gravity for instance. But I am just talking about how E and G fields really should mirror each other a lot.
For example, one thought experiment I had was what if you have a big positively charged body in space orbited by a smaller negatively charged body, so you get similar situation as the moon around the earth, etc. (you might have to put them at great distances since the E force is so strong, but that distance can also be attenuated by the sizes of the charge; leave aside for the moment if a stable orbit is possible due to photon emissions from the rotating body). In a macroscopic sense, gravity behaves just like electromagnetism in that it is an inverse square law. The only difference is the charge differences which can result in attraction or repulsion that complicates things. But if you just examine a system, of a positively charged macroscopic object and a negatively charged macroscopic object, the mathematics becomes identical except for the constant, with the electric force being a hell of a lot more powerful, and it will overwhelm any gravitational effect.
If you look at how Einstein actually derived general relativity via the equivalence principle, do not the EXACT SAME PRINCIPLES APPLY TO THE ABOVE THOUGHT EXPERIMENT? Am I missing anything? You will get a metric tensor, and the prediction that the electromagnetic charges in the thought experiment WARP SPACE TIME. Or maybe we call it electrospace time and the gravitational tensor gravitational space time. And if that is the case you should theoretically be able to build an Einstein Rosen Bridge aka wormhole (assuming that is even possible....just using as an example) much easier with electricity than with gravity assuming you have the technology to actually accumulate very large charge differentials in real life (that is also hard, but so is it with gravity).
Obviously, formulating a metric tensor with oppositely charged particles is more complex and you cannot just lay it on Einsteinian space time. But you could create a base space time the forms the net potential that determines how a particle moves and space folds in general and then overlay a series of two extradimensional (outside typical 3D) topologies (the reason I use the terms gravitational space time and electrospace time), or fields, etc....some mathematical representations of the physics that interact to form the actual space time potential gradient that determines the motion of particles that we see in real life. You have to start from scratch to do that.
Maybe it is even interesting to consider the idea Einstein worked hard at that matter itself was not separate from the potential, thus warping the potential, but that the warp in the space time potential was matter itself. To me that would be a very appealing model, but not sure how it works in reality.
No one thinks of the above because no one thinks of EM in a macroscopic way. But the GUT you have should account for it and provide some symmetry.
Now lets look at quantum mechanics. Again assume you have isolated space with a neutron being orbited by a neutrino. There is no electrostatic interaction between the two neutral particles, only the gravitational force would apply. This is a small particle interaction and if you try to develop it like was done with the hydrogen atom, you literally are going to take the Langrangian with the kinetic energy on one side and the potential on the other, quantize it and you should get something that basically looks like the Schrodinger Equation with a different constant, because the field strength is different. I think this one is pretty obvious to physicists.
Now lets look at the gravitational field itself. As stated, we currently understand and electric charge in motion generates a break in its propagating electric field, at right angles, which we perceive as the magnetic field - and an electromagnetic wave. If gravity proceeds as field lines as EM does, at least in a more quantum field theory description, then moving a gravitational mass should by the same mechanism generate a right angle field, all it a transverse gravitational field (gravity analogy to the magnetic field), along with a gravitational wave. I know scientists believe in gravitational waves, so this transverse gravitational field might be part of their theory. I just have never heard of it before. But if it exists there should be a set of Maxwell like equations describing gravity! Including scalar and transverse gravitational waves and this transverse gravitational field. That should be included in an GUT.
Then how do planets have stable orbits? A positive and negative charge orbiting each other should decay theoretically because they release electromagnetic waves as they change direction, which should reduce their kinetic energy if energy is conserved, meaning the the charges eventually collide in a macro setting I described above. This is actually one of the problems that people wrestled with to create quantum mechanics when looking at the hydrogen atom which should not exit if this principle is true. So if planetary bodies are generating such gravitational waves, how are orbits stable? Well for one thing it could be the gravitational wave energy is really really low and orbits will decay over a very very long time. Or what if, we are completely wrong about this concept?
I started to think last night, how would I compute the energy of a gravitational or EM wave from a given orbit. It would probably be proportional to the frequency, but what is the frequency? From a macroscopic perspective, there really is no frequency, because it is a noncoherent movement. We can generate radio signals in wires, but we are consciously moving the electrons back and forth at a desired frequency. Not so with orbits. With quantum mechanics, frequency gets weird. The frequency is determined by the energy level change experienced by an orbital electron according to planks law. So an isolated photon can have a frequency in this matter. But this is sort of a special quantum case (well not so special as this process is responsible for much of the light we see :)).
What if at a macro level, if you have a noncoherent pulse in the EM wave, without a defined frequency - call it more a pulse than a wave - the EM pulse/wave has no energy. It is basically a random perturbation in the electric field that cannot be absorbed by an atom or otherwise perceived, except to the extent you have this magnetic / transverse gravitational field interaction - and that is just a consequence of the existing electric/gravitational field. To carry energy, in other words, the disturbance must carry frequency (quantum or macroscopic) or INFORMATION. I think I have seen similar concepts in physics in situations where causality is apparently violated in certain thought experiments but it is believed it is possible since you could only send random signals that carry information. By the way, this would also explain PRACTICALLY why an electron that is moving it its orbit within its energy level does not actually emit a photon. QM sort of just magically assume you solve the problem by creating the energy levels and hand waves the issue.
And if the gravitational field produces a transverse gravitational field, theoretically that could be measured (might be really really hard) and you could come up with your ACTUAL propagation speed for gravitational waves. Sure it could be c, but I strongly believe it probably it is not given gravity is a much weaker force. You would have to find the equivalent constant to the permeability of free space for transverse gravity to tell, but unless that is substantially lower than the number we know for EM fields, they actually probably travel slower than c. Or it could be they travel at c, and this is one way of deriving that much lower number. And it is even possible, but unlikely, the waves travel faster than c...oops! Then again, from what I understand scalar waves are supposed to travel at c^2 and I was never convinced that c was a speed limit on the universe (another discussion).
Anyway if you start to look at all these similarities and just start from scratch treating E and G as the same, except for the charge, you might get a more interesting theory. And what if....you had a charge in gravity, except like attracts like and opposites repel? Maybe dark matter, if it exists, is completely separated from most galaxies because it is an opposite flavor or gravitational "charge." And since the electroweak force derives from the EM field, you might come up with a W particle that is involved with gravity. Who the hell knows what is going on with the strong force - it is weird and is prone to infinities that have to be renormalized out :)
Yeah, I probably wrote too much on that subject; more than intended.
As to a GUT in general, I am guessing there are several GUTs. What do I mean? We are constantly refining our theories over time. You can have a general GUT that actually describes your known universe, what you can observe, but does not provide all the specifics. Those get introduced in later and later GUTs - all of which can be correct yet incomplete because the experimental data does not exist to fill in the holes. So if we have a valid GUT now it could be valid, but not as detailed as what is available in 4D where they can carry out more meaningful experiments. 5D will have more refined equations. 6D will be even more defined. And 7D and maybe the end of 6D existance on the journy to 7D - well you get the final chapter.
Most physical phenomenon, even dimensions we do not perceive probably can be described mathematically. Consciousness could be incorporated in a valid model at this level - with less specificity - as some sort of mathematical plug (sort of like Einstein's cosmological constant he just threw in there). You might not UNDERSTAND consciousness, certainly at 3D and maybe not even until 7D, but you can put in a vector, tensor, function or whatever that explain its interaction with the world. And as your understanding of consciousness increases your GUT gets more specific. Consciousness itself is pretty abstract, and I absolutely would not be surprised if you do not get a true grasp until 7D. Hell conscious literally could be the hypothetical perturbations in the gravitational potential (or more complex potential system I described above) itself that Einstein hypothesized - in which case an electron (or any matter) in zero time could be referring to that field itself, quantized as a graviton. That is the closest I could make sense of that statement. Does not completely make sense though since gravitons will propagate outward from the electron/mass. But that could be a clue lost in translation as maybe they were trying to say something without just giving away the game.
Finally I think if we are going to get a quantum theory, departments at academic institutions need to collaborate more because the same subject can be viewed QUITE differently. For example, I literally took Complex Analysis in the Mathematics Department and Advanced Engineering Mathematics from the Applied Mathematics Department. I am probably the only person who took both because it is basically the same subject (not entirely but close). But completely different experience, and I am really glad I did it. The former was all about the theory and properly deriving the math. The latter was about actually using. I sat in class watching the Applied Mathematics professor "derive" stokes theorem in a lecture (something that took around 3+ lectures in the other course), and me and my roommate were literally commenting to each other in real time how everything he was saying was completely wrong (and he did not even take the other class). On the other hand I remember on the final exam in Complex analysis they literally gave us some easy problems from Applied Math (we had not really done REAL applications in class) and a lot of people probably had no idea what to do with those questions. Perspective helps. My Quantum Chemistry (Chemistry) and Quantum Physics (Physics) class literally used completely different notations for the Schroedinger equation and the content and presentation was meaningfully different so you get very unique insight from seeing both.
For example, one of the questions I would want to ask the C's is "Why is it that an atom prefers to have its electron shell filled up to the full p level (i.e. octet for outer shell for small atoms except hydrogen, basically entire energy level filled) and will go out of its way to do this?" Chemists use this basic principle all the the time, but I have never actually heard a really compelling theoretical explanation. It sort of just is. Is any physicist who might be better equipped to answer this question in constructing a quantum model theoretically even asking this question? Maybe there is one or an explanation, I am just not familiar with it. But constructing a model that actually answers that question, might further the purpose of building a GUT because you have unique insights.
Another question, "What EXACTLY is electron/particle spin?" We mathematically add this to our theories as a property of a quantum particle, but I have never seen a really compelling explanation of how this works. I think you have to dig deeper on this with creative thinking to get a compelling GUT. We are sort of the like Applied Mathematician that uses this in our mathematics, without a really good understanding of how it works. It is related in any way to the rotational mass reduction theorized in the hyperdimensional physics mentioned before. Is the rotation of the electron mass actually reduced by the spin? Is that important for the theory? For that matter does that same principle influence the relationship between the two main constants of Maxwell's equations since the B field is at a right angle could be an element of rotational motion (I don't really believe so for reasons stated above, but it is possible)?