I think the probability as a basic cosmic dimension theory is going to blow apart and blow away nonsense like sting theory and similar cosmology because it completely destroys any need for analogies in the science and the need to study the universe as a large collection of interplaying particles. I really had no idea that where this was going was to an understanding that symmetries in the univer...se are based on probability equations. I stare at all of those Hubble telescope photographs and my eye goes directly to the symmetries every time.
I look at the model of atoms, molecules and sub atomic particles and there again my eye goes to the symmetries and asymmetries too. Cold verses Hot in the universe is an asymmetry. Then I look to see if what seem to be cold regions of the visual universe have more or less symmetry than areas where it is necessarily hotter or at least where there is more radiation and more gravity. I am not seeing the universe as a computer binary data stream or a pixel stream as string theorists and others believe they see in analogy but rather as a topography of statistical multi variable probability. An atom seems to be solid just because electrons spin around it forming a shell in the predominant theory.
It is the probability of where the electrons are likely to be that help us detect which one is which so we can perform chemistry experiments on them. I can then take quantum physics and chart it so that all causation is just probability. I discovered with the radiometer proof that gravity is all about the probability of energy flow earlier but never realized that maybe there is some universal law of probability that regulates all of dimensions and that the states of mater from one state to another , from plasma, to gas , to liquid , to solid to super high density or crystalized or bonded as molecules is all regulated by a basic probability motif. It might be sort of like binary computer behavior except there is no evidence that that leads to the regular symmetries as observed though out the cosmos. I am no believer in Entropy because at all light year zones the same symmetries are apparent whether it be a few light years away or in our solar system or here in the lab on earth or millions to billions of light years away. Same symmetries same probabilities. That means the universe models itself and even extrapolates itself without any human need to comprehend it or model and extrapolate it the way other theories like string theory works. Scientist make predictions in a hypothesis and then set out to see if they predictions are correct or not. The universe already has a visual record of what it extrapolated and predicted then because the same patterns of order exist here and then so very far away. That is a whole different way to look at the cosmos than to seek proof that it is expanding or contracting because of a big bang or dark mater or what ever else that can't ever be proven. I only want to look at what we actually see or seem to see or think we see to and then try to figure out not the meaning or the why but the how the same patterns generate and regenerate over and over again. There are rules and exceptions to the rules. If the patterns seen are rules then other patterns have other rules.
I look at the model of atoms, molecules and sub atomic particles and there again my eye goes to the symmetries and asymmetries too. Cold verses Hot in the universe is an asymmetry. Then I look to see if what seem to be cold regions of the visual universe have more or less symmetry than areas where it is necessarily hotter or at least where there is more radiation and more gravity. I am not seeing the universe as a computer binary data stream or a pixel stream as string theorists and others believe they see in analogy but rather as a topography of statistical multi variable probability. An atom seems to be solid just because electrons spin around it forming a shell in the predominant theory.
It is the probability of where the electrons are likely to be that help us detect which one is which so we can perform chemistry experiments on them. I can then take quantum physics and chart it so that all causation is just probability. I discovered with the radiometer proof that gravity is all about the probability of energy flow earlier but never realized that maybe there is some universal law of probability that regulates all of dimensions and that the states of mater from one state to another , from plasma, to gas , to liquid , to solid to super high density or crystalized or bonded as molecules is all regulated by a basic probability motif. It might be sort of like binary computer behavior except there is no evidence that that leads to the regular symmetries as observed though out the cosmos. I am no believer in Entropy because at all light year zones the same symmetries are apparent whether it be a few light years away or in our solar system or here in the lab on earth or millions to billions of light years away. Same symmetries same probabilities. That means the universe models itself and even extrapolates itself without any human need to comprehend it or model and extrapolate it the way other theories like string theory works. Scientist make predictions in a hypothesis and then set out to see if they predictions are correct or not. The universe already has a visual record of what it extrapolated and predicted then because the same patterns of order exist here and then so very far away. That is a whole different way to look at the cosmos than to seek proof that it is expanding or contracting because of a big bang or dark mater or what ever else that can't ever be proven. I only want to look at what we actually see or seem to see or think we see to and then try to figure out not the meaning or the why but the how the same patterns generate and regenerate over and over again. There are rules and exceptions to the rules. If the patterns seen are rules then other patterns have other rules.
