Boe Knew Physics

20 januari 2023, draft version 1.
1
•
Examine the ”smallest possible” distinction.

From nothing to something, from continuous to discrete.
3
Prologue.
This book aims to persuade the world to do the proposed physics research.
An opportunity has presented itself. A new model for nature is to be inves-
tigated, a model with only one object, the absolute minimum. The physical
and philosophical reasoning is supported by an analysis of the foundations of
mathematics and physics. This analysis shows some cracks in the foundations
(appendix D). These cracks pave the way to opportunity.
Other words like reality and universe may be used in stead of the word
nature. Every time one is used, we can consider replacing it with one of the
others.
Current physics models are based on all kinds of mechanisms. The new
single object model is based on only machinery. The word machinery is a key
word in the new physics and is described in a special appendix C . Perhaps
get a feel for the restrictive meaning of the word machinery (if not now, then
soon), as used in this book. The questions ”Why is it so?”, ”What is it made
of?” and ”How do concepts interact?” are to be asked at all times. The
reader may sometimes have to fight his or her own beliefs. And some pretty
regular beliefs are going to be questioned. Fasten your seatbelts in discussing
the continuum and infinities in an appendix F for example. The appendices
are used for logical support and background information. There are many.
Two other words besides machinery, that are important to investigate soon
and get a good grip on, are continuity and infinity. In studying them you
will notice that the old definitions do not hold under scrutiny.
Capitals in words like SpaceTime, Time and Space indicate that we are
dealing with full machinery. Reading this you may perhaps not notice the
capitals at first. I would like to stress that SpaceTime in this book is different
from spacetime and that Time is different from time. Words like spacetime
indicate that there is no full machinery yet in the participating mechanisms.
The main conjecture of this project is that nature is a 4-dimensional elastic
object SpaceTime with specific properties. One of the dimensions is the
Time dimension. The three other dimensions represent Space. All of the
current physics knowledge is a human perspective in and on the conjectured
object. SpaceTime is the generator of familiar spacetime and tensorfields.
SpaceTime is the generator of the human perspective. The definition of
4
human perspective can be found at 5. The shape of SpaceTime is all there

is. Explanations will be given for some well-known questions. Can we unite
quantum mechanics and general relativity? What is dark matter and what is
dark energy? What is the place of string theory and quantum gravity? What
is Time and what is time? What is SpaceTime and what is spacetime? Who
or what makes the laws and does nature obey them? Using full machinery in
our descriptions of nature, these questions can be answered relatively easily
as you will see.
There is one more demand on our conjectured descriptions. The expla-

nations of our descriptions should be understandable and trustworthy. This
demand connects and unites mathematics, physics and philosophy, a very
desirable trade.
We are curious creatures. We have many questions. Where are we? What
are we? When did it all start and how does it work? We have been searching
for quite some time now. Our descriptions have become more and more reli-
able as time goes by. We tell our kids that nature abides by laws. Scientists
realise, though, that their models have never been correct. Just better and
better at approximating what we perceive as reality. We keep updating our
models, keep incorporating new, more accurate measurement results. The
standard model, quantum field theory and general relativity are the prime
examples in our quest, using mathematical symmetries and experimental
results to fit formulae with excellent descriptive and predictive properties.
We have started to believe that laws govern the universe, that mathematics
rules. Well, they do not. Mathematics and laws follow. They do not lead.
Nature rules! Nature does what it does because of what it is, not because
of human mathematics or laws. We will find that our look at things using
the scientific method can only bring us so far. Experiment and measurement
results will possibly not show us the machine that is nature. Experiment and
measurement results may only bring us to the edge of our perspective.
Some words may not be clear at first. Words like machinery C and object
B are used frequently, and their meaning is probably essential for under-
standing. The word machinery is defined and used in a very restrictive way,
much more than a standard dictionary allows. In these two cases, there are
references to appendices to explain them. In other cases, an explanation
should be close at hand. If not, let me know, and I will try and correct the
situation. The case of the word machinery is crucial. Newton had a formula
for gravity’s behaviour but did not have any backing machinery. He could
5
not answer why gravity worked. He was aware of that and did not like it.
Einstein came up with some machinery in the form of a spacetime, capable of
bending. Einstein could partly answer why gravity works. However, Einstein
did not have machinery for how energy and spacetime interact. Therefore,
he could not answer why energy and spacetime interact. I suspect he did not
like that. Understanding the concept of machinery is vital for good physics.
Among the concepts presented in this book, one of the most prominent is
the moment of making distinctions. This moment allows for the development
of consciousness and the human perspective. Nature, itself void of distinction,
has a place for distinction in its machinery. Nature allows for local structures,
one of which we will call a carrier topology or carrier ball in this book. It is
a way for discreteness to express itself. Anywhere you read the words human
perspective, it is possible to replace them with the words human ordering.
The human perspective is in the distinctions we perceive and the order we
ascribe to reality. The description of any particular human perspective is a
set of objects with their properties and relations.
As is argued, there is a primary object to construct and research, named

a carrier ball. It is a distortion of the fabric of nature, a shape, a vortex,
an almost spherically symmetric twist that can carry all the higher levels
of complexity we know. It connects to and explains our view on gravity as
global distortions of the fabric of spacetime. It connects to and explains our
perceived quantisation of the microworld and quantum field theory and our
standard model of particle physics. While there are no distinct objects or
fields in nature, they can be inferred from the shape of the fabric of nature
because we can make distinctions. From these distinctions, we can build
mathematical and physical models. To be on the safe side: This is all still
conjectured. That is why this project will be done (I conjecture). At this
moment, I do not expect you to fully get the scope of what I am trying to
say yet. We are previewing what is to come.
From a capability for distinctions comes a capability for creating language,

asking questions, building models, and examining nature. We especially love
it when something unexpected happens, and models tell us something new
that we have never imagined or measured before. These predictions have to
be verified by measurement. Verification increases trust in the models and
mechanisms. Some say they want to describe. I say we want to understand
and trust. There are some problems in our search for truth. In a nutshell:
6
We have not yet recognised the full scope of the consequences of making
distinctions.
There is a problem with the mathematical description of the continuum.
Mathematics does not rule. Laws do not govern the universe.
There is a lack of trustworthy, understandable explanations in physics.
There is a lack of complete machinery in our understanding.
Experiments and the scientific method may not be enough to explore

the machinery of nature fully (unless we consider computer simulations
as experiments). On the other hand, perhaps they are not the only tools
we have to reach agreement.
It is assumed that time does not change for light but light can change.
Math and science are human creations from a human point of view. It is
so easy to believe in the difference between zero and one. However, making
distinctions might be when we lose track of a vital property of nature. Making
distinctions (like between a one and a zero or between measuring apparatus
and environment) is our strength and maybe our weakness. When we can
incorporate our understanding of our inabilities, we might be starting new
physics. Do not get me wrong. Quantum physics is probably still the ultimate
way to describe the universe from a human perspective of distinctions, even
if distinctions do not exist in reality. This book intends to be a guide.
Some new ideas are developed. Here is a summary.
A reevaluation of the limitations of the human perspective. 1
Some new principles are introduced. 2.2.15
A reevaluation of time. 3
A specific complete machinery and its consequences for the very large
and the very small. 4
A specific carrier topology or carrier ball as machinery for fermions 5

and gravitation 6
A relation between the machinery of nature and our quantum mechan-

ical perspective on it. 7
7
A relation between the machinery of nature and our general relativistic

perspective on it. 7
The introduction of a photon paradox. 7.2
A new paradigm is introduced. 8
Why to do the research. 9
The specification of a new project to create new physics. 10
A behavioural sketch. 11
A reevaluation of dark energy 12.2 , dark matter 12.4 and other subjects
such as the big bang and interpreting measurements. So far, in all of
these subjects, a lack of machinery has been a major factor in drawing
what may be the wrong conclusions.
There is a strict relation between causal and teleological reasoning. E
The introduction of the ”in-between” in mathematics, to help admit

that numbers alone are not able to describe the continuum and to
honour the moment of the first distinction. F
A reevaluations of old mathematical proofs. G
Appendices on consciousness P and free will Q are presented as a result

of the analyses of making distinctions.
To accommodate those with no time to dig in, here is a birdseye view of

what will be better. We are going to admit that continuity is beyond math-
ematical reach. It is important to admit this because, if we keep thinking
we have control over continuity using only discrete objects, we come to the
wrong conclusions. The ”in-between” is introduced as an object that is con-
tinuous and partly accessible by numbers. Several mathematical theorems
will have to be revisited because their proofs use dubious reasoning. The
limitations of the human perspective in mathematics, physics theory and ex-
periments are argued. The concept of time is split into a human perspective
time and a (more fundamental) photon perspective Time. Physics needs to
demand full machinery 4 in its explanations. Mathematics, physics (theory
and experiments) and philosophy combined represent our descriptions, ex-
planations, understanding and trust. A SpaceTime (with capitals ”S” and
”T”) is introduced that enables the human perspective, Einstein’s spacetime
and the concept of energy. A specific deformation of SpaceTime is proposed
8
and required. It goes by the name carrier ball or carrier topology. The full
machinery will explain dark matter and dark energy 9.1. Dark matter is
not found in the energy tensor of Einstein’s general relativity field equation.
Dark energy probably is an unnecessary concept.
The key ideas are still conjectures. No conclusive proofs, agreement or

measurement results are available yet. The conjectures are supported by
reasoning and computer simulations. We need more research. This book
exists to express what research has to be done, if not now, then perhaps soon
or almost inevitably someday. Someone will come along and run with it. It
has the value. Have fun.
Nature might not order. It may not need order. Parts of

nature, aka humans, order. They construct math and a scientific
method to understand their perspective. The sea is just lots of
moving water and we see waves. Is the universe like the sea, just
lots of moving space and we see particles?
Contents
I Physics, the old. 17
1 Limitations. 21
1.1 The limitations of mathematical theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1.2 The limitations of physics theories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1.2.1 General Relativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1.2.2 Quantum Field Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1.2.3 String theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1.2.4 Information theoretical descriptions. . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.2.5 Quantised spacetime theories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1.2.6 Merging models into one. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1.2.7 Machinery and change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1.2.8 Distinction breeds probabilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1.2.9 Reality does not read laws. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1.2.10 Coordinate systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1.2.11 Coupling space to time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1.2.12 The principle of least action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1.3 The limitations of experiments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2 Guiding principles. 37
2.1 Evolution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.2 A chronology of physics principles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.2.1 God principles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.2.2 Science principles from the gods. . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.2.3 Modern physics principles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.2.4 Galileo’s principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.2.5 Fermat’s principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.2.6 Huygens principle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.2.7 Newton’s principles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
9
10 CONTENTS
2.2.8 Hamilton’s principle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

2.2.9 Albert Einstein’s principles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.2.10 Emmy Noether’s principle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.2.11 ’Shut up and calculate’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.2.12 Feynman’s remark. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.2.13 Quantum mechanical principles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.2.14 Unifying principles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.2.15 New conjectured principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
II Physics, the new. 49
3 Time. 51
3.1 The arrow of time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.2 Entropy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.3 Are Time and time continuous or discrete? . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.4 New words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.5 Tools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.6 Human perspective. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4 The new model. 63

4.1 The main conjecture of this book. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.2 The continuous model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
4.3 The computer model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
4.4 The representation of SpaceTime. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.4.1 The SpaceTime array . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.4.2 The ‘elastic‘ behaviour of the array . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.4.3 General functionality of the existing software . . . . . . 74
5 The fermionic carrier ball. 79

5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
5.2 A possible solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
5.3 A simple model resonance cavity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
5.4 The search for a spinor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
6 The gravitational carrier ball. 89

6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
6.2 Gravity explained. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
CONTENTS 11
7 Clocks, light and gravitation. 91

7.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
7.2 The photon paradox. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
7.3 How white are black holes? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
7.4 Fabric shape and relativity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
8 A new paradigm. 95
8.1 A paradigm shift. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
8.2 The new paradigm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
8.3 The photon paradox revisited. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
8.4 Fitting elastic resistance to curvature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
III New research. 105
9 Why must we do this research? 107

9.1 Reasons for doing the research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
9.2 Reasons for not doing the research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
10 How to do the research? 117

10.1 The research effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
11 Computer fabric behaviour. 121

11.1 The size of the fabric. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
11.2 The symmetries of the fabric. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
11.3 The elastic connections of the fabric. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
11.4 The behaviour of deformations in the fabric. . . . . . . . . . . 124
IV Consequences and objections. 125
12 Some consequences. 127

12.1 The speed of light . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
12.1.1 Black hole structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
12.2 Redshifts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
12.3 The age of the universe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
12.4 galaxy formation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
12 CONTENTS
13 Possible objections. 135

13.1 Objections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
13.2 The topology of space is too simple. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
13.3 Quantisation is not ensured. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
13.4 Where are dispersion phenomena? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
13.5 The fine structure constant variable? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
13.6 Do not innovate from the outside-in. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
V Appendices. 141
A New definitions. 143
B Objects and relations. 145
C Machinery and mechanisms. 147
D Weaknesses. 153
E Reasoning. 157
E.1 Analogy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
E.2 Cause and effect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
E.3 Goal and means. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
E.4 Probabilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
E.5 Fitting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
E.6 More logical tools, a short overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
F Continuity. 167
F.1 Do the definitions matter? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
F.2 Truths and agreements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
F.3 Symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
F.4 Numbers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
F.4.1 Definitions to make numbers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
F.4.2 Self referencing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
F.4.3 Big numbers and infinity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
F.4.4 Infinitesimals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
F.5 Continuity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
F.5.1 New definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
CONTENTS 13
F.5.2 In-betweens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
G True or fantasy. 181

G.1 A formula of Euler’s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
G.2 Infinitely many prime numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
G.3 Real numbers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
G.4 Cantor’s diagonal argument, infinite infinities. . . . . . . . . . 183
G.5 The continuum hypothesis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
G.6 Do lines and circles meet? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
G.7 The fundamental theorem of algebra. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
H Considerations. 187
H.1 On constructivism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
H.2 1,99999. . . versus 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
H.3 Questions on in-betweens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
H.4 Conclusion on in-betweens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
I Why care about the continuum? 193

I.1 What about the scientific method? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
J Information. 195
J.1 From symbols to information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
J.2 What are the odds? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
K The eather. 201
L Elasticity and elastic resistance. 203
M Symmetry. 205
N On the sociology of physics. 207
O Mathematics: invented or discovered? 209
P Consciousness. 211
14 CONTENTS
Q Free will. 215
R Tricks for navigating the PDF. 217
S Bibliography 219
Index 224
Is a line continuous?
Is a number line discrete?
Is nature ruled by mathematics or
is mathematics enabled by nature?
15
16 CONTENTS
Part I
Physics, the old.
17
Ask not:
”What are the fundamental laws of physics?”
but
”What are the properties of the fabric of nature?”
19
20
Chapter 1
Limitations.
Probabilities can describe behaviour but do not describe struc-

tural properties.
Humans design and build stuff, machines, tools, bridges, houses, particle
accelerators. On paper, the machine does not do anything yet. When built,
it never reads the manual. It does not know its laws of operation. It just is
as it is, made from machine-stuff, from machinery. The machine does what
it does best: it changes.
Physicists describe nature using mathematics, processes, relations, inte-

grals, differential equations, laws and symmetries. Machinery can not use
any of this. Machinery can only use stuff that can change by itself. Laws
and symmetries can be inferred because of the underlying composition of the
machinery. When a theory is not based on machinery alone, something is
always missing, like a reason is missing for a Newtonian gravitational pull.
The model is not complete yet.
We should aspire to describe nature using just machinery. The working

model of reality must behave like reality. It should explain reality and must
be trustworthy. All must be from the machinery, the working parts and
the materials so all properties (structural and interaction properties) can be
deduced.
We have no existing physics theories that describe and rely on complete

machinery A . We have descriptions of mechanisms and laws in manuals
but not a working product. Furthermore, the descriptions are mainly about
the behaviour and not about the structure of the machinery. In cosmology,
for instance, the spectral redshifts of galaxies are interpreted without the
21
22 CHAPTER 1. LIMITATIONS.
underlying knowledge of the complete machinery of the cosmos. That should

make us suspicious. Conclusions from current mechanisms are so counter-
intuitive that we must probably question them. It is possible, for example,
that the conclusion from mechanisms of an accelerated expansion of our
universe is premature, as is conjectured later in this book.
History shows, we are incorporating more and more machinery into our
physics. Newton did not use any machinery. He used mass, force, space and
time without telling what they were made of. Newton is said to have been
aware of this lack of machinery.
We have lots of theories and experiments. They each have their limitations
and sometimes do not go together very well. Here is a quick overview of the
most important ones.
1.1 The limitations of mathematical theory.

The continuum is lost when making distinctions.
The limitations of the human perspective are visible from the moment
we start making distinctions. Even the very foundations of mathematics
are shaky, as we can see in appendices F and G. We have not been able to
incorporate the continuum into mathematics properly. That is not a problem
in itself. However, we have not yet admitted our inability but have introduced
concepts that we cannot control. That is the problem. These concepts go by
the names infinity, infinitesimal and infinite process. We call a number line
continuous, but it is discrete. We mix numbers with symbols. This situation,
along with a lack of machinery, might very well come at a cost.
And then there is the matter of dimensions. We can invent and suggest
all kinds of objects. We talk of many different dimensions. However, here is
a task for us. Show a one-dimensional object in reality. We cannot. In the
reality of the human perspective, there are only three-dimensional (changing)
objects. All the rest is unicorns and elves. You may have noticed a dot on
an empty page at the beginning of the book. It is three dimensional and
changing when we look at the proper scale! It is four-dimensional, if you
will, three space dimensions and one time dimension. Everything is like
that. Mathematical constructions may seem to suggest otherwise, but as we
can see, even mathematics has its limitations. Exhibit and only then believe.
1.2. THE LIMITATIONS OF PHYSICS THEORIES. 23
1.2 The limitations of physics theories.

1.2.1 General Relativity
In general relativity (GR), spacetime and energy are the two relevant objects
that compose reality. spacetime has four dimensions and a shape. Einstein
used spacetime without telling what it was made of. Nowadays, sometimes
the property of elasticity is attributed to spacetime to produce the machinery
for reshaping. Einstein used mass, equating it to energy, but did not tell
what energy or mass was made of. GR has no machinery for energy and
its embedding in spacetime. What energy consists of or why energy shapes
spacetime are unanswered questions. Saying that everything existing is made
of energy does not solve these questions 1 .
GR tells us that energy deforms spacetime and describes the mathematics

of how it does so. It also tells us how energy moves through spacetime. New-
ton could not say how or why attraction between masses was communicated.
Einstein could now answer how the masses influence each other through (in-
complete) machinery. The machinery for how energy and spacetime coexist
and interact is still missing. How is energy embedded in and coupled to
spacetime? Does it push spacetime away, or do they perhaps coexist?
A mechanism describes how energy moves in curved spacetime . In Ein-

stein’s equations of motion, energy-momentum tensors represent energy. The
shape of energy is geometrised (a four by four tensor) to compare it to the
shape of spacetime (a four by four tensor). Now an equal sign can be used in
the equation. Another way of saying basically the same thing is: ”spacetime
is a form of energy which can be described in geometrical terms and makes
itself felt as gravity”. However, the energy is not from some material, and
spacetime is not. These are two huge clues, as we will see!
1.2.2 Quantum Field Theory
The explanation of quantum mechanics lies in the machinery of

reality. The explanation of the machinery of reality does not lie
in quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics needs no interpreta-
tion. It is itself an interpretation. ”Chance is just a calculator.”
1
Saying that it is the other way around so anything existing is made of energy does not
solve any machinery problems and raises the same questions of what is it and why does it
do what it does. And what definition of energy do we use?
In Quantum Field Theory (QFT), the (two) relevant objects are space-
time and fields, made of tensors 2 . QFT has no machinery for how spacetime
and these fields coexist or how the fields interact with spacetime. Nothing
generates the fields. QFT gives no machinery for how or why the fields can
change. QFT only uses mechanisms for how the field is changing in the form
of principles and mathematical rules. Do not ask why. Just calculate. Some
argue that the word Theory is incorrect in QFT. The ”T” should be an ”R”
for Recipe. Any interpretation is debatable, and there is no consensus on the
interpretation. This book argues that there is no need for an interpretation
3
of QFT because QFT is itself the interpretation.
Quantum field theory uses spacetime without telling what it is made of.
QFT uses tensor fields in spacetime, built from numbers to represent physical
systems. In QFT (as in general relativity), continuity is assumed by using real
numbers. Furthermore, since there is a fundamental problem with describing
continuity when using only numbers, QFT does not describe machinery at
all. No machinery for spacetime, no machinery for energy, no machinery for
entanglement and no machinery for coupling energy to spacetime. We can
speak of mechanisms. We can speak of a helpful calculator for the human
perspective.
1.2.3 String theory

String theory introduces machinery. As long as it is not complete machinery,
problems will arise between parts that are machinery, parts that are only in
the manual and parts that are not mentioned at all 4 . For example, a string
is one-dimensional. That may not work like a machine. Nothing, in reality,
seems one-dimensional. A string is a textbook object. It is an object with
resonating qualities. That is a good step, but how does it resonate stably
without collapsing and expanding, in which case no other resonances along
the string are sustainable?
2
Tensors can be numbers, vectors, four by four tensors or other constellations of num-
bers.
3
The ”no need for a QFT interpretation” point of view concurs with the ”shut up and
calculate” interpretation, the Copenhagen interpretation. In the Copenhagen interpreta-
tion, QFT is depicted as a calculator, as a recipe, not as an interpretation.
4
Couplings are often not mentioned. For instance, when we assume a one-dimensional
string in an n-dimensional environment, how does it couple to the environment, the space-
time? Does it push away a one-dimensional part of the environment to fit in, or does it lie
on top, or is claimed that there is no environment, or ..? We can choose to ignore these
questions.
Make it multidimensional (as string theorists do), and we have a potential

building block for machinery. Still, how does it resonate without collapsing
and expanding? Furthermore, what properties allow vibrations in strings.
The string properties must be defined sufficiently to construct the string
stuff (if only on paper). What is it made of? How does it interact with other
objects? How (if at all) is it embedded in spacetime? How does it interact
with spacetime in a conceptual machinery kind of way? When we introduce
more than three spatial dimensions, we have to do some more work to explain
how that works as machinery conceptually. Where is the extra stuff, and how
does it couple to other stuff? What properties are we talking about for each
piece of machinery and its relations? What is in between the building blocks?
String theory needs the supersymmetry property, which needs confirmation
from experiments. Any statistical behaviour needs a machinery explanation
too. Criticism is often directed to the absence of testable predictions. I am
more worried about the absence of complete machinery. I suspect that the
extra dimensions that string theory needs make up for the difference between
what reality is and our perspective on it. As long as we think the human
perspective has the potential to grasp reality by experiment, division and
order, those extra dimensions will pop up.
1.2.4 Information theoretical descriptions.

In Information theoretical descriptions, the objects are bits and dimensions.
spacetime and other objects emerge from bits and dimensions. No machinery
is present at all. Bits do not connect. Bits do not interact. Bits have no
fabric. We can always use information theory J as a tool to describe the
behaviour or shape of systems or whatever is turning up in reality or experi-
ments. That is what probabilities and statistics are born to do. Probabilities
do not explain anything. They just describe behaviour and shape. The
probability distribution entirely depends on the perceived order attributed
to (a part of) reality. A probability distribution determines and restricts
the amount of information that is represented. An additional interpreting
schema (for instance, a computational device) is needed to make sense of bits
that describe shape and behaviour. QFT (spacetime does not emerge but
is part of the description) is such a description because of its probabilistic
nature. In short:
No machinery is present.
An extra computational device is needed for changing and interpreting

the bits.
No explanatory power, only descriptive power is available.
1.2.5 Quantised spacetime theories.

Whenever people say spacetime is quantised, questions should be answered.
What are the properties of a quantum of spacetime? How does the quan-
tum couple to its neighbours? How does it move and change? How does a
quantum of spacetime let go from other quanta, and how does it stretch? If
quanta do not stretch, how does stretch come about macroscopically? What,
if anything, is in between quanta, and what are the properties of what is in
between quanta 5 ?
1.2.6 Merging models into one.

Physicists consider GR and QFT to be candidate models for unification.
Considering these two models as potential candidates for unifying has proved
to be quite a mission. Each model has its strengths and weaknesses. We want
to keep the strengths and get rid of the weaknesses. It takes ingenuity to
accomplish such an endeavour (especially if it is impossible). It brings new
insights and directions. It also takes up human resources. It seems reasonable
to attempt to unify GR and QFT because it brings us string theory, loop
quantum gravity, and other ideas. There has been and will be lots of spin-off
from this research, even if it is not the end game as logic suggests.
At the same time, we should consider that we cannot unify GR and QFT
because the objects representing energy in both theories are too different.
Both theories use spacetime. QFT considers a probability distribution for
describing an energy system in spacetime. GR uses numbers to represent
energy in a tensor format to coexist with curved spacetime. QFT and GR
conceptually have nothing in common in representing energy, other than
maybe the word field. Probably, we need a new description based on just
machinery from which we can infer GR and QFT as human perspectives.
1.2.7 Machinery and change.

For any theory, we need machinery for change as well. It is sometimes argued
that there is a description of the machinery for change in the block universe
5
If the answer is there is nothing in between, but there is separation between quanta,
then what is nothing and ”how much” of it is there? If we mean quantising gravity in
stead of quantising spacetime the same type of questions should be answered.
in relativity by means of its curved geometry. However, only discrete mo-

ments for events in time are mentioned. Mathematically, any continuity in
the block universe is not well supported, and the coupling of moments is
absent. Establishing change is a mystery unless we deny change (as is often
done). Still, the block universe is an excellent calculator for specific prob-
lems. Introducing the concept of an in-between would be a good first step
to save continuity and the possibility of connected machinery in the block
universe.
Forces between machinery parts are not machinery parts. They are mech-
anisms to make the machine change. A complete machinery based model
should therefore not include forces between parts. Depending on what mech-
anisms current theories use, there may be forces involved. Newton had grav-
ity, and Einstein got rid of gravity but still had electromagnetism. QFT has
gravity. String theory and loop quantum gravity seem to need no forces.
None of the above has complete machinery, and all have some undesirable
features. I suggest we also investigate the model from this book. It seems
to have complete machinery, minimal undesirable features, maximal descrip-
tive power, only one object, no forces and experiments seem within striking
distance at almost no cost compared to particle measurement equipment. It
is a model that 6 can be simulated on a computer. Unfortunately, on the
computer, it is discrete machinery. We have to imagine the in-between.
1.2.8 Distinction breeds probabilities.

Physics reasoning always involved making distinctions between objects and
figuring out relations. That has brought us to models where particles or fields
interact. From experiments, we find that particles have strange behaviour if
we look closely. We have to assign wavelike properties to them, and even-
tually, we have to deny the existence of particles or accept the concept of
infinity and the concept of point particle, two mathematically dubious con-
cepts. We end up with the picture that reality is a field of probabilities. A
lack of machinery allows for this kind of reasoning. Probability functions
are not the machinery for reality. Functions of numbers lack coherence, con-
tinuity, and other properties needed for change. Probability functions need
some generator, some machinery to manipulate them and make them change.
”Reality is in a computer” is sometimes preached. A tower of turtles, a nest-
ing of computers, it becomes. Before choosing such a model, we should first
6
All field theories can also be simulated on a computer. This new model should be the
generator of any field or field theory.
try every possible different angle. Probabilities and statistics only describe.
They are useful tools when in doubt. They do not explain anything and are
certainly not trustworthy as an explanation or building block for anything.
But (they will say) that is what the experiments tell us. No, they do not! We
are bad listeners and sometimes unfortunately, the sociology N in physics is
also a relevant influence.
Dice provide a good analogy for our perceived reality. A system of el-
ementary particles behaves analogously to rolling dice (combining a table,
cubes with distinct sides, a preferred direction and gravity). In both cases,
we describe behaviour using probabilities. The explanation of behaviour is
in the structure and properties of the system (in so far as an explanation is
possible), not in the probability distribution. We explain why and how, from
the structure, the preferred direction (up), the moving dice, the table and
gravity. The probability distribution is a consequence of the human ordering
and interpretation of the system, but the probability distribution itself needs
no interpretation. It is a calculator for describing perceived behaviour. The
calculator does suggest symmetries in the underlying structure, however. To
conclude that the dice are made of a probability distribution (or made of
bits, because the shape of the probability function can be described by bits)
is dubious. Nonsense is probably a better word.
1.2.9 Reality does not read laws.

In modelling reality, mathematical strings of symbols, called laws of physics,
are revered in the history of physics. Again, strings on paper do not change or
behave. Reality itself does not need laws. It has properties to be and change.
Laws are descriptive strings of symbols, part of a language for humans to
communicate. Laws and particles and symmetries and fields are concepts
for humans to construct models, communicate, describe, explain and maybe
even understand. reality is the object that allows the possibility of using
words and distinction to discuss reality. Reality may very well be without
division or distinction and may still provide for the properties it seems to
have to us humans.
1.2.10 Coordinate systems.

We use all kinds of coordinate systems (accelerating and non-accelerating)
to describe the behaviour of a specific ordering that we see as relevant. The
most convenient coordinate system is the system that we perceive as the
most straightforward or most convenient to describe the behaviour of our
perceived ordering of objects. The resulting description gives us a tool to

predict the future, the future of the objects. We think we get to understand
how the world works. We do realise that the coordinate system should not
matter. The world will behave the same, no matter how we describe it or
how we divide it. Even if we call a description a law, the world will do its
thing. Perhaps we have hit the nail on the head by finding a trustworthy
law, but the world still does its thing without the law. Reality does not need
our divisions, perceptions, interpretations and laws. We seem to need them.
So, for sure, the world will do its thing without human choices of coordinate
systems. Any will do. Our law will just get a specific look.
Realising this, we can demand of our descriptions that the objects involved
should still have the same properties, regardless of the chosen coordinate
system. Vectors keep their length and direction. Other ensembles of numbers
in their relevant algebra’s keep their relevant properties, no matter what
coordinate system we use to describe them. Vectors, tensors, fields of them
or other constructs of numbers that represent objects in our descriptions
of the natural world should behave the same, even if they look different in
different coordinate systems.
We divide, describe and perceive objects and place them in coordinate

systems. These objects have constituent- and coordinate properties. What
are they, where are they, and how are they described? The world may not be
like we think and still give us the impression that our divisions are correct.
Coordinate systems are made of numbers. As we have seen, continuity or lack
thereof in number systems needs to be on our minds when deciding about
continuity or discreteness in the real world. Numbers are like loose sand.
Coordinate systems are like loose sand beaches. There is a lot in between
that we miss. The constituents of time and space are at stake in this debate,
so let us be careful when we evaluate our tools. It may not be that ”we use
numbers because we think moments in time exist” but it may be that ”it is
because we use numbers that we think moments in time exist”. Moments do
not have to exist for us to have this impression. Logically reasoning, separate
moments can not exist because change cannot happen without continuity or
at least some connection between moments. So ”nature does not jump” even
though it sometimes gives the impression.
1.2.11 Coupling space to time.

Since Einstein, spacetime is the standard. The concept is unchallenged be-
cause all experiments so far justify its use. And rightfully so. However,
acknowledging the coupling of space and time into a spacetime mechanism
from a human perspective can go hand in hand with machinery where Space-
Time is a different beast. All experiments are done and interpreted from a
human perspective. Machinery-Time and relativity-time can be two separate
things, as we will see.
In general relativity, the behaviour of light, or any phenomenon that trav-

els with the same speed, has a special place. In general relativity, light has
no proper time dτ elapsing 7 . Even within relativity theory, there must be a
more fundamental concept to measure change because nowhere is it claimed
that light is never changing. Changes in travel direction, frequency, absorp-
tion and emission certainly seem possible for light (even from its perspective,
whatever that would be).
In a piece of machinery where there is only one possible local speed, both
maximal and minimal speed, human spacetime is irrelevant until a self-
referencing ’slow’ structure emerges on some, more global scale. I suspect
this to be the case in our universe. On larger scales, structures may be iden-
tified, appearing separate from their environment, and moving slower than
the local maximal and minimal speed. For these structures, experiences of
time and its relation to space are what we experience as spacetime, governed
by local slow-moving changing machines called clocks. Our clocks are slowly
changing space-change-measurers. We will come back to this.
1.2.12 The principle of least action

The principle of least action comes in many forms and shapes. It is, for
instance, used when minimising distance, time, energy or the Lagrangian to
understand and get to a system’s behaviour. The principle of least action is
a human way of describing why and how a particular situation evolves into a
new one. Much information can be found about the principle on the internet.
Potential and kinetic energy are distinguished and represent the system (the
situation), when minimising the Lagrangian for example. A goal and some
means are needed. The means are the types of energy in an action from
7
Were we able to travel with the speed of light (which we are not), our internal clock
would stop. There would still be change, though.
begin state to end state. The goal is to minimise the action in an equation
involving the different energies. That results in a description of the system’s
behaviour in space and time from start to end state. An example system
is a moving particle in a force field. What the particle, the force field and
energies are made of is not addressed. The energies are the particle’s kinetic
and potential energy. The action involves these energies in an integral over
time. The minimising of the action says that a tiny change in the path we
integrate should not change the integral outcome. The method suggests that
reality is striving for behaviour (being lazy), using some means (minimising
some action). It invokes some teleological E.3 reasoning.
The same behaviour follows (or should follow by correct reasoning) from
causal connections between the objects in the system and their future selves.
Causal thinking starts from a beginning and some rules for change and calcu-
lates how the end state will be. It is dual to teleological thinking, where the
beginning, the end state and a goal determine the path. Causal reasoning
and teleological reasoning are two sides of the same coin, as we can see in ap-
pendix E.2. Any teleological reasoning can be done causally and vice versa.
They both calculate the behaviour of a system and give the same results for
motion and change if being of the same coin, of course.
The reasoning depends on the modelling of perceived objects and relations.

Nowadays, there is great skill in defining order (objects, processes, fields),
such that it seems to mimic the actual order of reality. What it mimics,
however, is what order we perceive in reality. Our perception (our measuring
apparatus) is getting better and better and ever more detailed. We also
know that none of our perceived orderings has been correct yet, and our
theories have been incomplete. There is no guarantee that perceived order
is actual order. A sensible thing to do seems to build models with no human
perspective, no human distinctions. Build, for instance, a one object model
without (or with a minimum of) human perspective. That is ultimately the
goal of this book, of this project proposal.
We seem separate from our environment, and we model reality in our

image. Since quantum mechanics, we learn that separation is not so real.
We insist on separation and distinction, and reality throws us entanglement.
We are confused and want an interpretation of this quantum mechanics that
seems to describe the behaviour of our distinctions so well. We do not yet
realise that this quantum mechanics is an interpretation itself.
1.3 The limitations of experiments.

Werner Heisenberg: ”What we observe is not nature itself,
but nature exposed to our method of questioning.”
In mathematics, we construct 8 a difference between zero and one. In

physics, we construct a difference between device and environment. To do
experiments, we have to build experiments. We have to build a measurement
device, seemingly separate from its environment. First, model separation of
device and environment on paper and then reshape reality into device and
environment. The reality is that we have not and can not split reality into
anything. Not into a point and the rest. Not into a line and the rest. Not
into a surface and the rest. Not into a volume and the rest. We have not
split reality into a measuring device and the rest. There are consequences to
this perceived order and perceived splitting in mathematics and physics.
In our experiments, we have to deal with limitations. The Heisenberg un-

certainty principle is one. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle limits the
ability to measure certain combinations of perceived properties (like position
and momentum). If we model a photon as a wave packet with a position and
a momentum, the relation between position and momentum can be described
using Fourier analysis. The wider the bandwidth in position is, the narrower
the bandwidth in momentum can be. In other words, the more exact we
know about the photon’s position, the less exact we can know its momen-
tum. Furthermore, in experiments, we talk of approximations and errors
as limitations when specifying measurement results (using rational numbers,
for instance decimal expansions of finite size. Irrational numbers have never
been the outcome of measurement in physics).
New York Times: Scientists and two collegues find Quantum Me-
chanics is not complete even though correct. (They are talking
about Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen on ”spooky action at a dis-
tance”.)
And there is this principle of spooky action at a distance. From a human

perspective there are two possibilities. Either nature is ruled by hiddden
variables or there is non-locality and instantaneous communication because
of quantum mechanical entanglement. But there is a third option that is
8
My personel view on the discussion of whether mathematics is created or discovered.
1.3. THE LIMITATIONS OF EXPERIMENTS. 33
not taken into consideration yet, based on the conjectured machinery of na-
ture. The machinery, the fabric of SpaceTime, generates human perspectives
(quantum mechanics and spacetime). The third explanation is that entan-
glement is naturally embedded in the fabric of SpaceTime because Space-
Time behaves completely predictable but consists of nothing else. As soon
as we distinguish a measurement apparatus in reality and distinguish fields
or particles on paper non-locality pops up. Particles will in this particular
human perspective (by experiment) behave quantum mechanically and can
be entangled and can seemingly instantaneously communicate non-locally
until disturbed by other interference 9 . Bell’s inequality is in this particular
human perspective violated.
There are two more related limitations in experimenting.
There is a limitation on the experimenting system, on the accuracy of

the construction of the measurement device. We do not exactly know
what we have built. The edges are blurry.
There is a limitation on the interaction of the experimenting system

and observed system. We do not exactly know the separation and
entanglement of measuring device and measured object.
Let us look at the famous double-slit experiment where a photon is sent

towards a screen with two slits. The distance between the slits has to have
a specific relation to the photon’s wavelength, to begin with, to make for a
nice interference pattern. The slits should not be too far apart. The width
of the slits has to be a certain size, not too wide and not too small. As long
as we do not have machinery for walls and photons, we cannot tell precisely
how the photon passes through a slit or two slits. Is it a partial bouncing
(of what)? Is it partial tunnelling (of what)? Is it ...? We do not know the
exact edges of the wall or its behaviour and interactions. There seems to
be an entanglement of wall and photon. When does it start? When does
it stop? Are these relevant questions? And then there is the arrival of the
photon at the detector screen. What arrives precisely, and what is needed
for excitation? What is necessary for the bleep or flash to be occurring?
Does it have to be the whole photon? What is a whole photon? Remember,
we have no complete machinery for this occurrence. We know that using
the model of a photon, a wall, and a screen, the mathematics of quantum
9
It is a natural question to ask how entanglement works. Where does it come from? In
other words what machinery is behind this phenomenon of entanglement. This can lead
us to the conjectured SpaceTime.
mechanics describes the behaviour of the perceived objects involved nicely,

using probability amplitudes.
However we model reality, some probability function always seems to fit.

The double-slit experiment is already a beautiful model and maybe the ulti-
mate from a human perspective. Still, the interpretation and generation of
behaviour are in the structure, the machinery of the experiment, not in the
resulting probability function for or statistical outcome of the experiment.
The interpretation and generation of the probability distribution are in the
dice, the table, gravity and the preferred direction. It is not in the statistics
of the resulting numbers. The statistics only suggest the shape of the proba-
bility function, but not why the shape is what it is. Suppose the machinery
is in the form of tensor fields of numbers in spacetime, and we have trouble
interpreting the results. In that case, it might very well be that we may
have to admit that our machinery is incomplete and just not adequate for
interpreting. That model may only be suitable for calculating, as Niels Bohr
suggested. It would be wise to ask what generates these tensor fields. That
may be where the actual machinery can be found 10 .
The phrase ”Experiments have the final say” is not as straightforward as

it seems. Experiments produce blips and flashes and motions and numbers.
The interpretation of experimental results needs to account for all the above-
mentioned limiting factors properly. The ultimate arbiter (the experiment)
of truth from a human perspective is not enough anymore due to making
distinctions. Quantum mechanics may have shown that we cannot get to the
machinery of reality through experiments. Only probability amplitudes are
available, and they do not constitute machinery. We can only get a feel for
the machinery by making it up, simulating it, and comparing it to natural
behaviour. More than an analogy ”by computer experiment” will not be
available. We need to make a quantum computer in the computer. ”But
this cannot be done”, we think (or literature says). The significant shift of
perspective is that the blurriness is not in the fabric of reality but in our
artificially imposed borderlines. In the conventional computer, we will also
create blurriness and the human perspective when artificially pointing out
borderlines of objects in SpaceTime. We will see. Maybe it is too soon to
tell. Not all arguments are on the table yet. Still, experiments and the
scientific method are vital in understanding and trust. They are among our
most important philosophical tools.
10
If there is machinery to be found of course. That is why we need to do the project in
this book.
1.3. THE LIMITATIONS OF EXPERIMENTS. 35
The scientific method is limited by the fact that, in order for

us to compare theory to experiment, we have to introduce dis-
tinctions. We make a distinction between the apparatus and the
rest, and we make distinctions in the concepts of our premisses.
Therefore, the scientific method can only test the human perspec-
tive on reality. Only if reality uses the distinctions that we think
can the human perspective of distinctions be sufficient to describe
reality. Only then is the scientific method not limited by the hu-
man perspective. Quantum mechanics could very well be proof
that reality does not use the distinctions we perceive. All that is
left is probabilities — nature protests. The human perspective is
not enough anymore. So far, we have never been right. That is
why we should do the proposed research.
Chapter 2
Guiding principles.
Nature may not be probabilistic. Our perspective of it is though.

We make distinctions, see objects and order. Those objects behave
quantum mechanically.
2.1 Evolution.
Guiding principles are human-made tools, to help us understand. Evolution
is a guiding principle. The process of evolution is our answer to how we,
our languages and our principles got here. We say we have evolved through
natural selection. The word selection suggests analogies, cause and effect
and goals and means. Analogies, causal (cause and effect) and teleological
relations (goal and means) are human tools for reasoning as we can see in E.
Maybe evolution and natural selection are not the right words to use. After
all, we are describing a process without a direction. However, it is so human
to do so, and nature does not care anyway, so it seems.
In the appendix on reasoning E , we see that causal and teleological reason-

ing are two sides of the same coin. There is a beginning, a road and an end.
Causality calculates the end from a beginning and a road, whereas teleology
calculates the road from beginning and end. One can always be replaced by
the other in explaining the change. Sometimes one is easier to do, sometimes
the other is. We first distinguish objects (see B if in doubt about the mean-
ing of the word object or relation) and then establish causal and teleological
relations between them. Time and space are consistently among the distin-
guished objects. Another type of reasoning involves comparing objects and
relations by analogies. Objects may look or move the same way. What is
perceived through our senses is ordered into objects and relations. We will
37
38 CHAPTER 2. GUIDING PRINCIPLES.
see (we conjecture) that reality has no use for these types of object oriënted
reasoning. There are simply no objects to act on, a surprising result.
The process of perceiving and ordering is done by the body, which pro-
vides external and internal senses. Our external senses, our natural mea-
suring devices: our eyes, ears, skin, mouth and nose. Our internal senses,
our chemistry and electrical wiring: our hormones, brain, and the rest of
the nervous system (including the eyes). If we were to perceive things dif-
ferently, we would probably sort things out differently. Throughout history,
we have built measuring tools to enhance our perceptions. These tools spit
out sounds, traces of light, electrical currents, dial positions and other clues.
We most often try to connect the clues to numbers and errors in numbers, as
best as we can[1]. Distinguishing measurement devices means that at least
two objects seem to be involved, the measuring device and its environment.
We need a better understanding of our devices and measurements.
Perception leads to emotions and sensations. Emotions and sensations lead

to expressions and language. Language leads to questions, and questions lead
to answers. Our internal senses have always guided principles in describing,
explaining and understanding reality. The internal senses register sensations
like pain and emotions like fear, happiness, anger, guilt, shame, curiosity,
beauty. Emotional reasoning leads to motion, behaviour and creation and
these lead after a long evolution to language and logical reasoning. Once
we have language, we can ask questions. Questions like: Why do we exist?
Where are we? What came before us? Can we eat an object? Can it eat
us? Answers come from modelling and understanding a system, objects, and
relations.
It is good to notice that our old way of explaining change (explaining

change using principles, logical reasoning, ordering into objects with relations
and causal or teleological processes) gives us just a perspective, a human
perspective of what is. What is, may not have goals, order or principles at all.
The underlying reason for change may be different from the perceived reason
according to a perceived order. Nature may have no reason or direction.
The scientific community by now seems to agree that it certainly has no
interest in providing for humans. We are just ”lucky” to be here. The
project this book describes investigates if the order we perceive can come from
the absolute minimum of order. One could argue that this is the ultimate
principle, but one could also argue that we should not base foundational
physics on principles (only on objects, properties and relations). Next, we
2.2. A CHRONOLOGY OF PHYSICS PRINCIPLES. 39
will explore what order humans have found.
2.2 A chronology of physics principles.

2.2.1 God principles.
There is a space and time for every object. Not every object is the same, and
order is needed. Furthermore, objects can come from objects. The existence
of all objects is attributed to god objects, often many. Those seemed like
sound principles. The first god object was either always there or came from
nothing. As we began to explore more and more real objects, we seemed to
need fewer and fewer god objects. It is hard to define what precisely a god
object is. Today, the story of the first real object (the universe) ranges from
”It was always there” to ”It is reborn every now and again” to ”It came from
something else” to ”It came from nothing”. There is still no consensus. In
the following, for simplicity, everything is called a principle.
2.2.2 Science principles from the gods.

The big questions were still met with religious arguments, but we meet more
and more questions with earthly tools. Morality, communication and logic
were already highly regarded. Tools like defining, using contradictions, de-
duction, induction and reduction have been developed. We now have what
we call the scientific method at our disposal.
According to Wikipedia, ”the scientific method is an empirical method of

acquiring knowledge that has characterised the development of science since
at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous
scepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can dis-
tort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses,
via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-
based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or
elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are
principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series
of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.”
The history of science is filled with great names from just about every era
since written language and from around the world, Mesopotamians, Sumeri-
ans, Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Indians, Chinese, Byzantine,
Arabic, Western Europeans. We all have this longing for answers to bigger
and bigger questions.
2.2.3 Modern physics principles.

To make exchanging ideas easier and quicker through better communication
is an important organising principle in science (scientific societies, universi-
ties, papers, journals, the internet). Science is the work of humans, though,
so the sociology of physics (or of any other science for that matter) will
interfere with the objective search. Money, power, status, war and moral-
ity will always be factors. More obstacles, like climate change, complexity
and project scale, may also slow down or halt the process. Fortunately, the
scientific method seems a strong principle. In the end, it may prevail.
From here on, the focus will be on physics principles, principles that shape
physics ideas. The idea of objects and their relations with other objects
is ancient. It goes back to antiquity. The philosophers back then did not
address it the way we do in this age of computers with object modelling as
a tool. Nevertheless, objects interacted.
2.2.4 Galileo’s principle

Like Einstein’s principle, Galileo’s principle is also a principle of relativity
and states: It is not possible to mechanically conclude if we are at rest
or moving with constant speed. A reformulation of his principle in more
modern terms would be that the laws of physics are covariant under Galilean
transformations.
2.2.5 Fermat’s principle

In 1662, Fermat formulated ”the principle of least time”. As an example,
light is broken by water (figure 2.1, page 41). The trajectory of the light
ray can be found by assuming that light takes the route that minimises the
time it takes to get from A to B. Through air, light is faster than through
water. The light ”will make sure” to go through more air than glass to
minimise travel time. It is as if light intends to reach its goal as soon as
possible. Of course, the correct formulation of what is necessary (the means
to get to the goal) has to be established to get useful trajectories that coincide
with reality.
Figure 2.1: Fermat’s principle: a light ray, searching for the optimal route, or is it?
2.2.6 Huygens principle.

In 1678, Christiaan Huygens proposed his principle on the propagation of
lightwaves. The principle states that every point on a wavefront acts as a
new emitting source of spherical waves that interfere with all the others. All
sources together determine the upcoming events and the construction of the
new wavefront in propagation and diffraction (figure 2.2, page 42). For
his causal reasoning, Huygens needed a little more detail than Fermat (who
used teleological reasoning) to explain the light’s behaviour. Huygens needed
wavefronts and different lightspeeds to come from A to B. Fermat used only
different lightspeeds.
2.2.7 Newton’s principles.

Physics is all about motion. It was Newton in 1687 who came up with three
laws to describe the motion of objects when particular types of forces act on
them. We could also call the three laws three principles of interaction. The
Figure 2.2: Huygens principle: the speed of a light ray through the medium determines
the distance between the wave fronts. The light ray breaks at the surface where the speed
of propagation changes.
objects of discussion are a mass, capable of motion, and a force.
First law: the motion of a mass does not change when no force acts on
it.
Second law: a force on a mass changes its motion (momentum). f =

m ∗ a.
Third law: When mass A exerts a force on mass B, mass B exerts an

equal but opposing force on mass A (”action = - reaction”).
Newton’s laws follow causal reasoning. A force (cause) acts on a mass, and
its trajectory results (effect).
As we will see throughout the book, a general challenge with objects that
we propose is to answer the question, ”what is it made off?” The answer
leads us to deeper insights. In this case, Newton had no idea about the inner
workings of the gravitational force that he introduced. He was well aware of
that. How can the sun pull on the earth from so far away? He left that to
the reader to contemplate. Neither did he know about atoms and molecules
and E = mc2 and E = hν and much more. It is not very realistic to expect
him to explain what mass is made of.
2.2.8 Hamilton’s principle.

This principle (± 1834) follows teleological reasoning1 . It describes the be-
haviour of a system in terms of goal and means (as opposed to the other side
of the same coin, cause and effect). The scientist assumes that the system
acts to accomplish the goal. The goal is the system’s actual resulting motion
(the trajectory). The scientist reconstructs the path that is followed to reach
the final state . A historical example of this type of reasoning that precedes
the action principle is Fermat’s principle in optics 2.2.5, ”the principle of
least time”.
Principle: A closed system follows the path of stationary, minimal action.

The action is defined as the integral over time of the Lagrangian. The La-
grangian is the difference between the kinetic and potential energy of the
system, and the Lagrangian should be invariant with respect to symmetrical
transformations.
2.2.9 Albert Einstein’s principles.

Einstein based his special theory of relativity (1905) on principle. He assumed
that the speed of light was constant 2 (or invariant as Einstein himself[25]
called it and which is probably more common) in any inertial frame of ref-
erence. A frame of reference can be thought of as a laboratory, a measuring
device or a person. When we measure the speed of light, no matter how fast
we move (while not accelerating), we will always find the same answer, a fi-
nite speed of approximately 300.000.000,00 m/sec (we fixed it at 299.792.458
1
An opposing view can be found in [37]. His conclusion seems to be that teleological
reasoning is not involved in the principle of least action. However, he also concludes the
following (and I quote). ”For the authors, variational principles are a mere reformulation
of the equations of motion, which is physically equivalent to them.”. I agree there, but
for me, teleological and causal reasoning are two sides of the same coin. So, suppose
we can accept causal reasoning in equations of motion. In that case, we should consider
teleological reasoning in its equivalent reformulation. After all, the reformulation involves
the end product (the goal), the initial situation and a calculating mechanism (the means,
the action).
2
Einstein’s principle does not exclude a varying speed of light in time and space. Change
in light speed in a vacuum has never been measured, however. It is also fair to say that
those measurements were only made in earth-like conditions. Special relativity can be
derived without the assumption of a constant speed of light. Assuming that the law of
inertia holds in all frames moving with constant relative velocity is enough. See Nederlands
Tijdschrift voor Natuurkunde 88, Februari 2022. When constructing the special theory
of relativity, one can also assume that the speed of light (constant or variable) is the
maximum speed, the limit speed [32] in a vacuum.
m/sec). We will find that the colour of light, or more precisely the frequency
and wavelength, will differ in different inertial reference frames, a beautiful
and straightforward principle. This principle can also be stated as follows.
The laws of physics that we experience are the same in every inertial frame
of reference. As long as we move with any constant velocity, the laws we con-
clude from experiments in our laboratory should be the same as in any other
laboratory with another constant velocity. A new link between space and
time was found, and from then on, physicists started talking about space-
time.
Einstein’s general theory of relativity (1915) uses another principle. Ein-

stein assumed that an object could not feel the difference between a constant
gravitational field and an accelerating frame of reference. Like before, this
can be restated as: the laws of physics are invariant under any coordinate
transformation. Reality does not change its properties because we are moving
in various ways. So the laws we conclude and write down from our measure-
ments in our strangely moving coordinate system do not have to depend on
our movements.
In his general theory, Einstein used spacetime and energy as objects. He

never specified what they were made of. There is one striking sentence on
page 313 of [25] where Einstein is said to have stated in 1920 during his
inaugural address for a special chair that was created for him in Leiden: ”The
aether of the general theory of relativity is a medium without mechanical and
kinetic properties, but which codetermines mechanical and electromagnetic
events.”. It seems as if he is trying to answer the question, ”What is it
made of?”. After all, his spacetime is dynamic and doing things, so it must
somehow be real. Is another of Einstein’s principles perhaps that there must
be stuff from which objects are made?
2.2.10 Emmy Noether’s principle.

Principle (theorem, 1915): Every differentiable symmetry of the action of a
physical system has a corresponding conservation law. This mathematical
result indicates, for instance, that the law of conservation of energy is a result
of the symmetry of space and time. It does not matter if we experiment
today or tomorrow. That symmetry is underlying our energy conservation
law. It also does not matter where we experiment in space. That translation
symmetry gives us the momentum conservation law. Furthermore, it does
not matter in which direction our laboratory is turned. That rotational
symmetry gives us the angular momentum conservation law.
2.2.11 ’Shut up and calculate’.

Quantum mechanics 3 is a strange theory. Several famous physicists have
stated that no one understands quantum mechanics. We are still debating
its interpretation. Bohr is quoted[26] to have said: ”It is wrong to think that
the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we
can say about nature”. His Copenhagen interpretation seems to be coupled
with a statement attributed to Feynman and Mermin. The statement is not
in Feynman’s famous lectures[16]. ”Shut up and calculate.” I would say that
is a ’principle’.
2.2.12 Feynman’s remark.

Feynman states: ”No one has found any machinery behind the law. No one
can ’explain’ any more than we have just ’explained’. No one will give you
any deeper representation of the situation”. He does so in the third volume
of his lectures (section 1-7 on page 1-10) on quantum mechanics. It seems
that he believes this is a principle. Another striking thing is his mentioning
of the word machinery. He makes it sound like a natural question to ask for
the underlying machinery. I agree that it is a natural question to ask, and to
me, it is a question of the highest principle. machinery will be very relevant
for our project, and his principle is not mine.
2.2.13 Quantum mechanical principles.

Principle[16]: The probability of an event in an ideal experiment is given
by the square of the absolute value of a probability amplitude, a complex
number ϕ. Probability P = |ϕ|2 .
Principle: When an event can occur in multiple ways, the probability am-
plitude for the event is the sum of amplitudes for each separate way (inter-
ference). ϕ = ϕ1 + ϕ2 , P = |ϕ1 + ϕ2 |2 .
Principle: When the way, in which the event took place, is known, interfer-
ence is lost. P = P1 + P2 .
The correspondence principle: The behaviour of quantum mechanical sys-

tems reproduces classical physics in the limit of large quantum numbers.
3
Quantum mechanics was constructed at the beginning of the 20’th century by Planck
(1900), Einstein (1905), Bohr (1913), and not much later by Born, Heisenberg, Pauli,
Dirac and others.
The uncertainty principle (Werner Heisenberg): In a measurement, certain

combinations of properties cannot be known with certainty (just to be clear,
we are not talking measurement errors here). For instance, when measuring
the position and the momentum of a particle:
△x△p ≳ h (originally)
σx σp ≥ ℏ2 (modern)
where x is position, p is momentum, △ is the uncertainty (in x or p), σx

is the standard deviation in x, σp is the standard deviation in p, h is Planck’s
h
constant and ℏ is 2π . Other example: △E△t ≳ h, where E is energy and t
is time.
The exclusion principle (Wolfgang Pauli): Two identical fermions can not
occupy the same state. For example, two electrons, both with spin up, for
instance, can not be in the same ’position’ at the same time. Pauli’s exclusion
principle explains stable atoms and the periodic table of elements because
electrons have to occupy different states around the atom’s nucleus. Identical
bosons (the counterpart of fermions, for instance, photons) can occupy the
same state.
The principle of superposition: If a physical system can be found in differ-

ent configurations, then the most general state of the system is a combination
of all these configurations. Each configuration has a probability of occurring
when a measurement is made.
The principle of particle-wave duality: Bosons and fermions can behave

like a wave and like a particle. For instance, photons and electrons can
behave like waves and particles.
The principle of non-locality or spooky action at a distance or violating

Bell’s inequality: Two entangled particles in different locations, no matter
how far apart, seem to influence each other instantaneously. They violate
Bell’s inequality. This inequality should hold if the system is ruled by hid-
den variables (or in other words if the system is completely predictable or
”classic”).
2.2.14 Unifying principles.

Searching for more symmetries in nature is natural, after all the success it
has brought to physics.
Principle Unifying the forces: since we have distinguished four different

forces (electromagnetism, the weak force, the strong force and gravity), we
have succeeded in mathematically bringing the first three under one symme-
try group (U(1) x SU(2) x SU(3)). This success is a good reason to unify the
fourth force by a ”super” symmetry. So far, there has been no success, and
the energies that are theoretically needed to verify unification experimentally
seem unreachable.
After this success, all following attempts have so far failed. Some buzz-
words (see for instance Wiki or [32]): quantum groups, non-commutative
spacetime, conformal symmetry, topological quantum field theory, duality
symmetries and extensions to renormalisation. Here is not the place to dis-
cuss these mechanisms. What can be deduced from the words is that none
of them offers complete machinery. Symmetries are mechanisms but not ma-
chinery. Symmetries are properties of machinery. As a result of the newly
conjectured principles 2.2.15, all forces disappear (the other way to unify
them). Forces are an artefact of the human perspective. Together with sym-
metry, symmetry breaking is an important ingredient. Supersymmetry has
no place in this new physics.
2.2.15 New conjectured principles

For a quick overview of principles, it seems nice to add the new principles
(without further explanation).
principle: Descriptions in physics should be based on complete machinery.
principle: Only one object, with a minimum of properties, is needed as

the machinery to describe nature.
principle: The local speed of light at the smallest of scales is not only
maximal but also minimal and possibly variable.
principle: The human perspective is a result of the machinery of nature.

(The machinery of nature is not a result of the human perspective.)
The object under investigation is the most
unified and still the closest to the human expe-
rience. It is only one object, three elastic spatial
dimensions and one time dimension. If we don’t
investigate it, we will never know the behaviour
of full machinery in its simplest form. It might
be, what we are made of.
48
Part II
Physics, the new.
49
Chapter 3
Time.
Ernst Mach (paraphrased): It is utterly beyond our power to mea-

sure the changes of things by time. Quite the contrary, time is an
abstraction at which we arrive through the changes of things.
Jan-Willem van Holten: At a fundamental level the behaviour of

elementary physical systems is not time-symmetric. The stan-
dard model incorporates different behaviour of particles and anti-
particles, violating time reversal, and necessary to get a universe
filled with matter, not anti-matter.
Physicists seem to have always lectured on time. ”The laws of physics

do not make a distinction between past and future ”[29]. ”The arrow of
time is not embedded into the laws of physics” [7]. ”The laws do not have
an in build directionality of time ”[9]. Others spoke similarly [27] [44] [2] [38].
It seems only very recent in the history of physics that physicists have con-
tested the notion of continuous time. ”There is a discrete number of time
events” [12] and ”time is granular, digital at Planck scale ”[30] are nowadays
just two of frequently heard sentences.
In this book, conjectured Time and time are compared to the concept of
time from general relativity. I would expect a reaction from fellow physicists
to be twofold. One is a response to the statement and motivation that our
physics equations do make a distinction between past and future. The other
is a response to the more speculative suggestions for machinery.
51
52 CHAPTER 3. TIME.
3.1 The arrow of time

Clocks tell time by the change in the geometry of clocks. Change
in the geometry of clocks exists by machinery for Time 1 .
”The laws do not have an in build directionality of time” is just one of

many formulations to say that almost all our fundamental physics equations
do not make the distinction between past, present and future. ”The equations
are symmetric with respect to time”. ”The equations do not mind if the
moon revolves around the earth in one direction or the other”. ”As far as
the equations go, a particle can spin clockwise or anti-clockwise 2 ”. Well-
known physicists on the record have said everything in quotes. My opinion
may differ a little bit as we shall see.
Physicists agree that the second law of thermodynamics distinguishes past,

present, and future. This law is considered an untouchable pillar of physics.
Let us take a look at some of our most fundamental laws.
The Schrödinger equation:
∂ϕ ℏ2 ∂ 2 ϕ
iℏ =− +Vϕ (3.1)
∂t 2m ∂x2
The Klein-Gordon equation:
(∂ µ ∂µ + m2 )ψ(x) = 0. (3.2)
The Dirac equation:
iℏγ µ ∂µ ψ − mcψ = 0 (3.3)

∂
They all have a partial time derivative ( ∂t or ∂0 ) in the formulation. If
it is true that a wave going to the left is a solution, then, in principle, a
wave going to the right will also be a solution to the equation. We use initial
1
This is not a circular statement. The first use of the word time refers to our clocks
as geometric objects whose changes in shape we interpret as measures for time. The
second use of the word Time refers to nature somehow being capable of change, so there
should be machinery responsible for this capability. Some remarks of Fotini Markopoulou-
Kalamara[22][21] are interesting in this context, more or less indicating the possibility of
consensus.
2
Loosely spoken apparently because strictly speaking this is incorrect as pointed out by
van Holten ; a massless neutrino for example can spin only in a left-handed way, whereas
its antineutrino would spin in a right-handed way.
3.1. THE ARROW OF TIME 53
conditions to describe what is going on out there. Is the wave going left, or is
it going right? The description of the specific wave will specify the direction
(left or right) by a sign (plus or minus). That in itself is no reason to conclude
that there is no arrow of time. On the contrary, the time derivative has a
direction, so no space direction is preferred. The time derivative dψ/dt is
the value of ψ at time T1 minus the value of ψ at time T0 divided by the
difference of T1 and T0 (dt = T1 − T0 ), where the difference between T1 and
T0 goes to zero. The direction of the arrow of time is always from sooner
(T0 ) to later (T1 ). Otherwise, we can not interpret a given solution as going
from left to right or as going from right to left. Let me repeat that. If there
were no direction of time built into these equations using ∂0 , we would not
be able to tell moving left from moving right in a mathematical sense.
Another way to look at it is to say that the equation is only half the infor-
mation in getting what is going on. The other half are the initial conditions
of the system. So given that a wave to the left is a solution to an equation
with initial conditions, it might very well be that the wave to the right is not
a solution because of the initial conditions. The directionality of the arrow
of time was never in question. It was always from past to future. Direction-
ality of time is embedded in the machinery for change. Whether a human
can distinguish past from future is a different question 3 (Humans tell the
difference by registering events. While there is only one event, that event is
the first. When there is another event, this new event is later than the first
event.).
Maybe this way of saying it adds to the understanding. When there is

motion, there is differentiation with respect to time in the equation. Dif-
ferentiation implies direction in time hence ”the arrow of time”. To get an
actual result from differentiation, we have to put numbers in, which requires
that we know the starting or initial conditions and that we know which comes
first and what is later. Without the initial conditions, the formulation might
seem independent of an arrow of time. The positive, as well as the negative
of a result, might be a solution. However, in reality, directionality exists.
We cannot go right while we are going left. The equation without initial
3
van Holten: that the notion of time is independent of motion was already realised in
the 18th century. For example, du Châtelet writes: if the sun would periodically become
dark and shine, it would tell time, even if it didn’t move at all. Also we remember the
past, we don’t remember the future. A modern example: a radioactive substance decays;
the intensity of radiation tells time. Of course the observed rate of change depends on the
motion of the observer with respect to the substance.
54 CHAPTER 3. TIME.
conditions is just half the description. It is evident that we have to use ini-
tial conditions when a system increases its entropy (where humans age and
glass breaks), so the arrow of time becomes trivially visible. The direction
of all the motion in space in all its complexity (expressed with time deriva-
tives) is responsible for the second law of thermodynamics. The second law
of thermodynamics is not responsible for the arrow of time. The machinery
is responsible for the arrow of time and allows for a law to be found.
3.2 Entropy.
Augustinus[3]: ”Time is the thing that you know all about

until somebody asks you what it is.”
Why does the second law of thermodynamics make us think it is respon-

sible for the arrow of time? As Ludwig Boltzmann has said, citing Leonard
Suskind[39]: ”Entropy almost always increases.” The arrow of time is in the
direction of increased entropy. The movie, in which a wine glass breaks but
in reality never spontaneously assembles back into a wine glass, illustrates
that we cannot go back into the past. However, the clock is still ticking, while
the system’s entropy is constant and the glass is still on the table. A system
in equilibrium 4 is also changing. Time is still going from past to present.
There is no way even the system in equilibrium is going into the past. The
second law is not responsible for the arrow of time. No human-made physics
law or equation is responsible for the arrow of time. The arrow of time is
in the machinery 5 . We have to figure out what the machinery for time and
change is.
4
equilibrium is a simplified description of the full complexity of a system.
5
The arrow of time does not come from the behaviour of the machinery. The arrow
of time does not come from moving geometry (clocks) and does not come from statistics.
Moving geometry and statistics allow us to get acquainted with the machinery and create
our human perspective. The spacetime interpretation is mixing up changes in time and
space changes. Time is independent of motion.
3.3. ARE TIME AND TIME CONTINUOUS OR DISCRETE? 55
3.3 Are Time and time continuous or dis-

crete?
Time has a duration, not moments. The dimension of Time
is continuous and possibly tiny 6 .
I find nothing wrong in calling reality a machine. The machine may be

composite, may have parts, but I do not think so. I conjecture that it is one
single object, and physics needs a description of that machine as its proper
foundation. The machine can support tools for humans: mathematics, laws,
principles and symmetries. It does not consult them. We will have to build
a look-alike machine to behave precisely like reality. Even humans would in
principle be able to be in the look-alike machine. It is another matter of
whether it is the only possible machine.
Two relevant questions are: what is the machine made of, and what prop-
erties does it have? If the machine is composite (in which case change can
happen to spatial dimensions and in spatial dimensions), many additional
questions arise. What is each part made of? Does it follow the same rules
as the other parts? What is in between the parts? The properties of the
machine make it change. The machine is and the machine can change 7 its
shape. Time facilitates Change in nature (in Changing SpaceTime). Change
with a capital ”C” facilitates perceived change and measurements in nature.
Perceived change facilitates perceived time in spacetime. Therefore it seems
appropriate to reserve at least three Space dimensions for the shape and
reserve a Time dimension for the ability to change shape. That should be
enough. 4 dimensions are required and sufficient.
Let us concentrate on building the Time dimension. There seem to be four

possibilities.
A discrete bounded set of moments with coupling machinery.
A discrete ongoing set of moments with coupling machinery.
A continuous line segment of finite length.

6
Let us speculate some more and build obstacle courses for superfluids that represent
calculators as a continuous flow quantum computer.
7
Time is needed when Change happens. It is the machinery that makes sure that all
states do not happen ”at once” (paraphrasing John Wheeler who said: Time is nature’s
way of preventing everything from happening all at once.).
56 CHAPTER 3. TIME.
A continuous ongoing 8
line segment.
The word coupling expresses a connection between adjacent moments in

Time. Discrete moments have no connection, no binding, so there must be
some extra machinery to calculate the interaction between the different mo-
ments. The coupling interaction machinery can be implicit in the continuum.
The first impulse is to think of spacetime from general relativity. Arguably
the main objection to an ongoing (discrete or continuous) Time dimension
is that there would be so much unnecessary, unused and unreachable Time
dimension left over, a waste of resources.
So how about a bounded Time dimension. When we build a universe on

the computer, we necessarily choose a discrete-Time dimension with coupling
machinery. This Time dimension needs only two discrete moments. The
two states would need to be assisted by a connecting calculating mechanism
that calculates the future from past and present and updates the labels for
the states. The past state gets filled with the future shape and labelled as
the present state. The present state gets labelled as the past state. Three
moments are more convenient than two because the coupling machinery is
easier to build and comprehend. If we had another set of three discrete Time
slices, we could have another parallel universe. So we calculate the next
moment from the two previous ones as discussed in 11.
An essential point of dynamics is, as a result of this, uncovered. A moment

in Time or time can not exist because it holds no information about the direc-
tion and speed of change. Let us repeat this because it seems an unfamiliar
fact. In reality, there can be no moment T0 in Time (while its existence[13]
is suggested all the time). It is essential to recognise the differential notation
in equations to secure the dynamic behaviour and the arrow of time and
of Time. The minimum discrete-Time machinery that can change has to
have two Time moments and extra machinery to couple the two Time-slices.
Motion and the speed of change exist in the differences between the two
Time-slices. The behaviour of the discrete computer models looks natural
and sheds light on phenomena such as entanglement and Time reversibility.
It will be no surprise that my preference is a continuous bounded Time

segment with an implicit interaction mechanism, so moments disappear. In-
finitesimal of length would even be good enough (See figure 3.1 on page 58)
and more than enough to even speculate on many universes. There is no
8
Infinity (implicit in the word line) is purposely avoided here.
3.4. NEW WORDS 57
conclusive evidence for any of the possibilities for what the Time dimension
should look like. If Ernst Mach9 is correct, we might never have access to
evidence for any of the four options.
3.4 New words

The arrow of time is in the machinery, in the fabric of Space-
Time.
Capital letters ”M”, ”S”, ”T” and ”I” are reserved for SpaceTime, Time,
MachineryTime and TimeInterval. The direction of change along the Time-
dimension determines ”the arrow of time”. Moments in time do not exist,
only duration — the past blends in with the present. Time as we, mov-
ing slower than the maximal speed, perceive it comes from the behaviour of
the fabric. The structure has a build-in order and initial conditions. The
fabric of SpaceTime accommodates change and expresses behaviour. The
behaviour of the fabric accommodates our spacetime perspective, the be-
haviour of our clocks, Einsteinian time, the second law of thermodynamics,
stochastic behaviour and the expression of breaking glass never unbreaking.
It accomodates all kinds of perspectives and statements from physicists like:
”Particles moving forward and backward in time in closed loops appear in
Feynman diagrams all the time, and are necessary for the extremely precise
agreement between experiment and theory in the magnetic moment of the
electron and the muon”.
SpaceTime is the machinery of reality. A human being is SpaceTime
fabric (”a wave among the see of waves”). SpaceTime generates the
perspective of spacetime .
The TimeInterval is the machinery for change and is one of the SpaceTime-
dimensions. Space slides with a constant speed along the TimeInterval,
continuously updated in shape at one end (the present) of the interval.
Time, or MachineryTime, is a measure of change in SpaceTime. Time
is not the only measure of change. Distance and elastic resistance are
also measures of change, as we will see.
General relativity time and human time are measures to describe the
rates of change of the locally perceived spacetime structures in the
machinery that is SpaceTime.
9
Ernst Mach (paraphrased by David Albert) on this subject: Clocks measure geometry.
We have no access to what time is.
58 CHAPTER 3. TIME.
Figure 3.1: In this picture, the black lines (three axes) represent a 3-dimensional Space
sliding along a (green) Time dimension (MachineryTime) from right to left. Space slides
along the (possibly ”infinitesimally” small) Time dimension, creating a new form to its
right while the past disappears to the left. We could try to draw a continuous movement
instead of three different moments. Instead of a green line segment, we can draw a circle.
The circular concept is used in a discrete form in our computer simulations. A continuous
circular Time is interesting but is unwanted because of interference between what was and
what will be.
3.5. TOOLS. 59
The TimeInterval is a universal clock, ticking at a steady rate (”slid-

ing speed” along the TimeInterval is arguably constant), supporting change
in the fabric of SpaceTime. Clocks are made of SpaceTime fabric. Their
behaviour is defined as measuring time, supporting the human perspective.
Local clocks are all we got. The only way to escape from our perspective is
to build a copy universe machine and see if we can make it behave, so we
recognise our human perspective of general relativity.
3.5 Tools.
The machinery of nature may be beyond our experimental
grasp.
Mathematics is a primary tool in physics. The art of constructing math-

ematics is the business of mathematicians. They do not tell anyone what the
symbols should mean other than in the context of mathematics itself. Here
is that simple equation again: z = xy 2 .
Physicists have a different business. We try to describe, explain and under-

stand reality (the universe, nature). Mathematics is one of our tools. Other
tools are (other) languages, pictures and devices like machines and lenses
and computers. We look at nature and make distinctions. There are or
seem to be objects. We relate names to those objects. We name light, stars,
planets, apples, measuring apparatuses, molecules, atoms, nuclei, particles,
space, time, speed, force, energy, mass, waves, probability distributions. E
and energy, m and mass, c and the speed of light are all lovely names. Relat-
ing these objects to each other, we write down, for instance, the meaningful
and famous equation E = mc2 . Suddenly there is a whole world behind the
scenes of a few symbols.
To succeed in understanding reality, we need a complete description, in-

cluding a trustworthy explanation of why things are the way they are. Math-
ematics (describing) has to blend in with physics (explaining) and philosophy
(understanding and trusting the explanation). We attain the highest level
of trust when we describe complete machinery. Then the ultimate model of
reality consists of only objects with constitutive and relational properties,
capable of functioning alone. Constitutive here means that the objects have
properties of their own, and relational means that the objects have interac-
tions with the other objects.
60 CHAPTER 3. TIME.
Guiding laws, principles, and symmetries are great, but they come from
somewhere. They follow from structures. Symmetries and symmetry break-
ing should be inferred from the properties and relations of objects. Objects
(dice, particles, strings, space, time) have symmetries by their construction.
The ultimate model, this complete machinery, should move, change and be-
have exactly like reality. We must relate to all known experimental data,
and predictions must be verifiable. The working machinery has to justify
the existence of each contributing part it contains. For example, if space is
quantised, the machinery should explain the fabric of each quantum of space.
What are its properties, and how do the interactions between quanta work?
How are the quanta of space coupled, and what shape do they have? 10 How
do quanta reshape and what is in between are obvious questions that need
an answer.
3.6 Human perspective.

The data from real-world experiments will not bring us beyond
our perspective. They are merely a testament to our ability to
refine our human perspective.
We build equipment to research the quantum realm[40]. The equipment

tells us we have no exact knowledge of the shape of the equipment or the
entanglement with its environment. I conjecture that no subdivision exists
and that there is only one fabric. The fabric (SpaceTime with capital S and
T) generates, for example, our perspective of fields in spacetime.
We need to take a look at ourselves. What is the human perspective in all

this? We seem objects in an environment distinct from our neighbourhood.
We see separation and reduction everywhere. History has shown that the
more we reveal, the fewer constituents are needed to describe our machine.
The current state of affairs uses very few objects. What we have not tried is
building the machine from one piece. I conjecture that this is the ultimate
step we have to take, and in doing so, we lose ourselves. The human per-
spective disappears. If we dare to lose ourselves, we might see that Time can
generate Einstein’s time.
10
A physicist has said: It is new to me that quanta have a shape. They have spin and
charge, shape plays no role in elementary particle physics. I add, this would indeed be
new physics. Let us research.
3.6. HUMAN PERSPECTIVE. 61
More than one type of time is needed to understand time. One type,
Time, is part of the machinery, and other types describe our newfound hu-
man perspective (human time and underlying general relativity time). The
TimeInterval machinery facilitates the elastic spatial potential for change.
The elastic spatial continuum travels through the TimeInterval.
In general relativity, we have separated spacetime from energy. The con-

nection between energy and spacetime enables energy to warp spacetime, but
how? Similarly, Newton’s gravity leaves the mechanism for the communica-
tion of gravity up to the reader’s imagination. The machine in one piece is
just reshaping. Concepts such as energy, GR-time and our familiar human
time emerge as descriptive tools for a specific perspective on reality.
The speed of propagation of the fabric, the speed of light, is the only
relevant speed in the fabric of space. That does not mean that a local shape
of space has to move with the speed of light. We can infer fields from the
SpaceTime and define an excitation of a field as a local ”sub”-shape. We may
experience that the ”sub”-shape has rest mass, but in its internal structure,
the propagation speed of the fabric rules. A collection of ”sub”-shapes can
be called a human. One could say the propagation speed is locally a maximal
and minimal speed. Its constancy can be considered debatable, for the only
data on the elastic resistance of space comes from the neighbourhood of
our small planet. It might very well be that increased stretch comes with
increased propagation speed.
We are used to thinking of time as divided in past, present and future,

somehow continuously connected. If we emphasise the importance of the
word continuous and drop the separations, we could be closer to the truth
— past, present, and future need to become connected. The machine must
have a built-in continuous calculating mechanism. A dimension, called Time,
with enough width to contain at least the most recent past and present in
perfect connection, transforming into new most recent past and new present
(future becomes present, present becomes past, and past disappears) in a
constant rhythm. The words past, present and future do not do justice to
the situation because they suggest Time slices separate from each other. At
the same time, the universe is one whole thing changing its form, its shape,
its configuration, characterised by a duration of Time instead of moments.
For us humans to build a machine within ”the real machine”, we must realise
that we can not achieve this one-ness and duration by building it from our
perspective with building blocks. We can only approximate it as we can only
62 CHAPTER 3. TIME.
approximate continuity with numbers. Fortunately, we have our in-between

to sort of bridge to the machinery.
How to acknowledge the existence of change and measure relative sizes of

change? Everything does not happen at once. One thing that seems un-
avoidable in this working and changing machine is the presence of Time.
Time is an indicator of the speed of change in space. The shape in spatial
directions is an indicator of the size of change. From a human point of view,
time can not be seen separate from space, and we combine it with space into
spacetime. The first human to realise this was Einstein, of course. There
is no point in discussing time in today’s physics without its intricate (Ein-
steinian) relation to space anymore. All experiments on and in the vicinity
of earth lead to the conclusion that mass slows down clocks and mass curves
spacetime, and speeding clocks move slower. We measure slower clocks and
indirectly infer length contractions. For spacetime and general relativity to
function, the speed of light does not need to be constant. It just needs to be
a limit speed.
Spacetime is a playground in which energy and probabilities seem to do

their thing in an attempt to describe behaviour on all possible length scales.
We claim that our experiments give us facts. They give bleeps and light
and symbols on screens or discs or paper. Who decides which interpretation
to take? We are in the game of mutual consent as long as we do not have
the working machine. All the rest is human interpretation. Statements like
”mathematics is the language of nature” and ”gravity is quantised” sound
poetic. We could be wrong. Our mathematical description of continuity is an
approximation at best, yet paradoxically we use continuity all the time in our
reasoning to sometimes conclude that reality is quantised. Our symmetries
are trustworthy, but it is hard to draw the line where symmetry breaking
starts. Einsteinian time has become essential to us humans. Nevertheless,
is it fundamental? No. A timekeeper is conjectured in the structure of the
machinery of reality. There is only one way to find out, build the machinery
that changes and behaves like reality.
It would be interesting to reason that our mathematics is ratio-
nal because our reality is quantised. It would be foolish to reason
that our reality is quantised because our mathematics is rational
11
.
11
Just to be clear, I think reality is not quantised, althoug from a human perspective
it might seem that way. Mathematically, we have to live with the rational numbers in
combination with in-betweens as our best approximation of continuity.
Chapter 4
The new model.
The universe, this most simple of objects, caters to the pos-

sibility of emerging perspectives. In one perspective, there are
mathematicians and physicists. In another, they recognise a par-
ticle.
4.1 The main conjecture of this book.

The main conjecture is that reality is only one object, a 3-dimensional elastic
fabric of Space with variable elastic resistance and the potential for change 1
. The behaviour of reality, our theories, laws and constants are all explained
from its structural properties. Our time returns to just being a measure of
change as a consequence of these properties, and familiar Einsteinian space-
time 3.4 emerges in views on reality. All current theories are views on reality,
when splitting up what is only one single object (See figure 4.1 on page 65).
Again in slightly different words: the conjecture is that reality is a single

object, called SpaceTime, having the following properties that determine its
behaviour:
SpaceTime has a four-dimensional geometry. Three dimensions for

Space and one dimension for Time.
Space is mathematically diffeomorphic, locally and possibly globally,

to Euclidean space 2 .
Space can deform. It can change its shape.

1
The potential for change is realised by Space-shape and Time.
2
The shape of Space remains smooth everywhere.
63
64 CHAPTER 4. THE NEW MODEL.
Space deforms perfectly elastically.
Space is deformed. (”Space has potential and kinetic energy.”)
Space has a density.
Space has variable elastic resistance (or in other words variable elastic
modulus).
Variable elastic resistance increases with the increased stretch of the

fabric of Space.
Time cannot deform. Time cannot change shape. 3
Deforming and resonating SpaceTime can locally be perceived as a par-

ticle. SpaceTime changes everywhere and all the time, giving rise to all phe-
nomena we experience. It gives rise to local behavioural properties, mass,
charge, constants and laws. Concepts such as symmetry, symmetry breaking,
entropy (the arrow of time), linearity and non-linearity are woven into the
properties of the fabric of SpaceTime. SpaceTime is the generator of the
fields that we perceive. (See K if you are thinking about eather, which is
something else.)
SpaceTime is the machinery for how energy is deforming spacetime in gen-

eral relativity. Energy is deformed and changing SpaceTime and is deforming
space and time. Variable elastic resistance is the property that determines
the scale of things, including the parameters in our standard model. The
speed of light and Planck’s constant are conjectured to be coupled to vari-
able elastic resistance. The speed of light is variable in a precise way that
incorporates our local experimental experience that it is constant. Planck’s
constant is a result of a limit on the bendability of space, given that there
is a limited amount of available energy in the universe per volume. Given a
certain average available energy in a certain volume and variable elastic resis-
tance of SpaceTime, lasting shapes are limited to some maximum curvature
of SpaceTime, resulting in a scale of things.
3
It is conjectured that elastic resistance is variable and facilitates a variable speed of
light. This is speculative of course. The alternative is that elastic resistance is constant.
The alternative to the conjecture, that Time cannot deform is that it can deform as a
function of changes in the fabric of Space. I find the choices made to be the most intuitive.
Furthermore, SpaceTime might have other unmentioned and unknown properties.
4.2. THE CONTINUOUS MODEL. 65
Figure 4.1: A sketch of nature, represented by a flexible three dimensional elastic Space,
having some properties. We derive our current views from it. From left to right a slice of
reality (a deformed slice of SpaceTime), a derived scalar field and a derived vector field.
SpaceTime is also the machinery for how probability distributions come

to be in quantum mechanics. The debate on the interpretation of quantum
physics is hereby concluded. Quantum physics is just a probabilistic calcula-
tor based on an interpretation of SpaceTime as a system of objects. QM only
describes the behaviour of the system. To make the step from SpaceTime to
QFT and spacetime, the conjectured concept of a (stable) carrier topology is
introduced and necessary (See figure 4.2 on page 66). If a carrier topology
or carrier ball can not be created, my conjecture is wrong.
If we cannot create these carrier topologies, these ball vortices, as dy-

namic objects in our simulated elastic machinery, the project has refuted
the main conjecture. We should not give up too easily. If we can create
carrier topologies, a new branch of physics will be at our doorstep. These
carrier topologies will behave like resonating objects, more or less like cavi-
ties, supporting fermions and quantisation. The machinery also suggests, for
example, new contributions to the spectral redshift of distant galaxies. They
are of importance in our interpretation of the expansion of the universe.
Figure 4.2: Carrier topology sketch. SpaceTime deforms diffeomorphically using Leg-
endre polynomials. Two experiments are illustrated. In both, two spherically symmetric
deformations overlap each other. The picture is a collage from 2002. The graphs depict a
changing energy measure for the whole of SpaceTime as a function of the distance between
the centres of the Legendre polynomials that make up the ball. For now, this is just a
pretty picture.
4.2 The continuous model.

Assuming that the universe exists, the next natural thing to assume is that
the universe is machinery with structural properties that govern its behaviour
and symmetries [24]. Nature checks no list of laws to behave appropriately.
Constants, laws and principles are observed consequences of structural prop-
erties. The speed of light as a constant, for instance, is a behavioural prop-
erty and not a structural property. Its local or global value and constancy
should result from structural properties. Planck’s constant, the gravitational
constant, and the fine structure constant are no different.
In this approach, any theory that uses these constants to describe reality is
a derived perspective, a derived view on reality and not a direct description
of reality. Properties of a steel rod are, for example, its density and elastic
modulus. A constant that we derive from those properties is the propagation
speed of sound through the rod. A model for the rod of steel consists of
pseudo-atoms. The pseudo-atoms relate to each other and behave like the
real atoms in natural steel. The model behaves like steel with a specific elas-
tic modulus, and a wave equation can be derived from it. That wave equation
with the constant for the propagation speed is not the steel model. The wave
equation describes and predicts the behaviour of propagating waves through
the steel model. The description of the universe needs objects, their proper-
ties and relations. Relations between objects can be eliminated when there is
only one single object. When only one single object and its structural prop-
erties are the starting position, any division or behaviour must be explained
by these structural properties. In the case of the speed of light, the elastic
resistance of SpaceTime (about to be introduced) is the structural property
responsible.
Feynmann [16] writes: ”The subject of elasticity deals with the behaviour
of those substances that have the property of recovering their size and shape
when forces producing deformations are removed”. Physics has no tradition
in which space is a material or a substance with properties such as elasticity.
Nevertheless, the word elasticity feels natural and is therefore used in the
context of the fabric of SpaceTime. Other people have done this too (see, for
instance, [23]). The Latin word modulus means measure. Elastic modulus
is a measure for resistance to change and a generic term for some speciali-
sations (Young’s modulus, shear modulus, bulk modulus). It is used almost
exclusively in the material sciences as a constant. However, SpaceTime is
not just any material. I, therefore, propose (and intuitively prefer) the use
of elastic resistance instead of elastic modulus.
Local awareness experiences local ’Einsteinian’-time as a measure of the

change in spacetime. The concept of spacetime emerges from deforming
SpaceTime when reality shapes slow Space-deformations, objects like a local
observer that notice a relative change in other slow objects (rulers and clocks
and particles travelling with speeds below the speed of light). Some complex
’observer ’-wave thinks it sees another separate wave and experiences change
and time locally while only the unity of reshaping SpaceTime exists. In real-
ity, the wave formation shows no beginning and no end. It cannot separate
from another ’entangled’ wave. Global Time is rigid, and we experience lo-
cal time as flexible and elastic. We can speak of a shift in perspective from
a single global SpaceTime object with variable elastic resistance and rigid
Time to local space with rigid elastic resistance (constant speed of light) and
flexible time dimension (spacetime).
The mathematical model for deforming 3-dimensional smooth Space is a

4-dimensional Riemannian manifold. The Time dimension does not change
shape and is a global measure for the rate of change. A global universal
clock is ticking at a constant rate. As we measure it with our local clocks
(our spatial clock-geometries), local time from the concept of spacetime is a
relative measure and a derived concept. Unlike the global Time dimension,
the three Spatial dimensions can change shape described by diffeomorphisms
[20] [17]), which means they can deform and their shape remains smooth.
Answers have already popped up automatically. The machinery behind

relativity theory is that energy deforms spacetime because energy is deform-
ing SpaceTime. Quantum mechanics does not need an interpretation because
it is itself an interpretation of reality. A measurement apparatus and its en-
vironment are derived concepts from the shaping of SpaceTime. There is
no way of saying where the apparatus begins or ends. It is just deforming
SpaceTime that measures deforming SpaceTime. The interpretation can only
be made by ”a piece of” deforming SpaceTime that has developed enough
awareness.
In reality, the apparatus is always completely fused or mixed with its en-
vironment. In quantum mechanical terms: the wavefunctions of apparatus
and environment were entangled all along, so any measurement is nothing
more than the whole, progressing in time and Time. There is no collapsing
of a wave function into an entangled state with the apparatus at the mo-
ment of measurement. The interpretation of the measurement depends on
the imagined experimental setup. What is the particle, and what is not?
What is the slit, and what is not? A measurement result is only part of the
full development of the machine and its environment. We just do not get to
see everything.
Conceptually for small scales, quantum physics shows up when we assume

that separate objects exist. Because these objects do not exist, nature sort of
protests, and we measure only probabilistic behaviour and entanglement due
to splitting up what is one whole thing. The mathematics, best describing the
probabilities of division, uses only two objects, namely a field on a manifold.
Mathematics needs other objects (operators) to calculate the properties of
the perceived parts.
The operator is like the machine (reasoning by analogy E.1) that measures
in reality. The operator works on the field, and the machine works on its
environment. The operator produces probabilities for an outcome, and the
machine produces an outcome with a certain probability, nicely related to
the operators’ probabilities.
We define a measuring device in an experiment as separate from its envi-

ronment, generating specific output also separate from its environment. We
define a particular system on paper and assign a field in spacetime. In other
words, the complete shape of SpaceTime becomes (i) in reality a measuring
device (for example, a particle accelerator) in its environment and (ii) on pa-
per a field of complex numbers in its spacetime with a procedure to quantise
the field.
The predictable behaviour of SpaceTime turns into (i) human percep-

tion (as the probabilistic behaviour of bleeps, dots, stripes and numbers)
as actual output and (ii) human perception (as the probabilistic behaviour
of the system of particles in spacetime) on paper. (i) and (ii) are coupled
by analogy-reasoning. In the new description of reality, we derive fields from
the structure and change of the SpaceTime manifold. The fields represent a
view.
Physicists are tempted to conclude from experiments that reality is quan-

tised because mathematics works so well in predicting realities’ probabilistic
behaviour. In reality, specific distortions, with their specific size and sym-
metry, might locally ”relax” the fabric and become more or less stable. This
is a main goal in our new research. in A subgroup (the highly symmetric
ones) of all possible distortions is represented in our standard model of parti-

cle physics [8] [42] as the known fermions and bosons. That is just a certain
fraction of the total energy in the fabric. In the new paradigm with our newly
conjectured physical understanding, we will try to extend the standard model
and search for the shape, the form, the internal structure of ”particles”.
General relativity is derived from reality when deformed SpaceTime is

interpreted as many (highly deformed, twisted, stretched, compressed) small
scale deformations. These deformations all work together, reshaping a large
scale space deformation. Fermions and bosons are curving space. So the
machinery behind relativity theory is that energy deforms spacetime because
energy is deforming SpaceTime. Historically, curved spacetime was deduced
from the equivalence principle by Einstein.
4.3 The computer model.

At this moment, there is software that simulates a discrete elastic fabric to
simulate the continuous model. A better way of saying this seems: At his
moment, there is software that simulates an elastic in-between to simulate our
continuous reality. The in-between is accessible through a four-dimensional
grid of rational points. When left alone, the fabric seems to behave naturally
because dissipation and interference of energy look very natural. So far, it
has been impossible to control local shapes and behaviour. Energy, in the
form of deformations of the elastic fabric, dissipates (spreads out) over the
total volume of the fabric very naturally, as is to be expected. A stable local
shape has not yet been constructed, but it is intuitively likely, that vortices
of different shapes will exist stably for more extended periods. Some random
shapes that accidentally appear in the fabric exhibit this property already.
This project’s idea is that artificial intelligence is more capable than hu-
mans to cope with the vast amount of numerical data that the rational Space-
Time array contains. Its job will be to get more and more grip on the fabric
in searching and creating these moving shapes through interaction with the
fabric. One particular shape is conjectured to be the holy grail. It is called a
carrier topology, carrier ball, carrier ball topology, carrier ball vortex or any
suitable name that will indicate this ball-shaped twist of SpaceTime, still
diffeomorphic to Euclidean space and time. (Conjectured is that) the carrier
ball will enable specific (resonating) symmetries to exist and behave in the
same way that symmetries behave in nature.
4.4. THE REPRESENTATION OF SPACETIME. 71
4.4 The representation of SpaceTime.

The existing software, including the array, has been constructed using C♯,
.NET and XNA. The array represents four-dimensional SpaceTime, a three-
dimensional Space during three consecutive Time steps. The software uses
two successive previous moments to calculate the next moment. The idea is to
form a discrete frame of points in the computer to represent a mathematical
elastic in-between and a volume of continuous elastic material in reality (see
figure 4.3 on page 72 ).
The fabric will start moving when it is deformed and let go. The elasticity
of the fabric is implemented by considering the distance between a point and
its neighbouring points 4 . The attracting force (F ) between two neighbour-
ing points is related to the distance (D) between the two points. In a formula,
distance and force relate as F = −RD. R is considered a variable (within
limits a constant) called variable elastic resistance of the fabric (In Hooke’s
law, R is a constant called stiffness). The minus sign indicates an attrac-
tive force between the two points. The AI will have to tune the two initial
Time-slices to control the volume’s behaviour. Then Time takes over, and
the following new Time-slice of Space volume follows from the programmed
elastic behaviour and shape of the two previous slices, and so forth.
4.4.1 The SpaceTime array

The numeric fabric is an attempt to mimic reality in the computer. The
model for SpaceTime consists of an array of points (See figure 4.4 on page
73). Each point connects to twelve neighbouring points in the grid. A spring
with constant or variable elastic modulus can describe the connection be-
tween two points. When the length of all springs is equal, the grid has a
Face Centred Cubic structure (See for code figure 4.5 on page 75). Three
versions of moments in Time of this Space-grid are held in memory and re-
late like a Markov chain of second order. That means a new Space-form at
Time T3 is calculated from two older versions at Times T1 and T2 . The next
position of a point at Time T3 is depending on its old position at Time T2 ,
its speed calculated from positions at Times T1 and T2 and on the positions
of the twelve neighbours at T2 .
A three-dimensional cube with opposite sides identified (in other words, a

three-torus) represents a stable structure where all points have twelve neigh-
4
In a discrete network, points can have neighbours.
Figure 4.3: A state of the array is interpreted as a set of points in a frame. The points
influence each other along the lines. As a deeper interpretation, we can see a stringy wave
in a continuous 4-dimensional fabric of SpaceTime.
Figure 4.4: A face centred cubic structure can be constructed from a cubic structure
by leaving all the black points out. The red lines represent springs between neighbouring
points. Each point has twelve equal neighbours so twelve red lines should end on a lattice
point.
bours. We can realise alternative structures fairly easily. Balls have been
constructed from points within a certain radius of a centre. Points on the
surface of these balls have less than twelve neighbours. The balls will os-
cillate, collapse, and expand under potential and kinetic energy. Resonance
cavities of different shapes, where all edges are held fixed in SpaceTime, and
the interior is elastic SpaceTime, are other examples. These face centred
cubic structures (or structures where points are interacting with 4, 6 or 8
neighbours because these structures all behave pretty much the same dy-
namically as expected) and Markov chains in the computer are nothing new.
New is how Artificial Intelligence will have to manage and control these elas-
tic numeric fabrics and their computational abilities. New is also the search
in these fabrics for carrier topologies and particle look-alikes with bosonic
and fermionic(-like) behaviour. New is the view that these fabrics are con-
tinuous in-betweens, mimicking reality as if they were analogue computers
within a discrete computer, made accessible by discrete points.
4.4.2 The ‘elastic‘ behaviour of the array

The array behaves according to an algorithm that simulates elasticity. The
idea is for every digital point in SpaceTime to influence its nearest neighbours.
Each point attracts its neighbouring points according to Hooke’s law. Dis-
tance and force between two neighbouring points are related. Conceptually
the constant in Hooke’s law does not have to be a constant (this variability
of the fabric’s resistance seems meaningful). The elasticity-code is shown in
figure 4.6 on page 76 and in figure 4.7 on page 77. It seems wise to look
for other situations where computers model elasticity. Take, for instance, the
elastic behaviour of crystal lattices. Algorithms from other disciplines were
not yet the object of comparison or research.
4.4.3 General functionality of the existing software

The array and its behaviour have been visualised on the screen for us humans.
The four-dimensional dynamical and graphical nature of the problem has led
to C#, XNA and the .NET environment, which facilitates both dynamics
and graphics. Other more up to date software may be better suited. A
frame of lines or triangles visualises SpaceTime as changing vector fields or
a changing collection of dots.
Several demo examples of pseudo-physics experiments are available. For

example, a black hole is simulated by dragging many points to one point,
using ball symmetry. Elasticity drags in the rest of the environment, and
a more stable framework is achieved by removing energy from the grid. To
investigate the shape of the framework, some manipulations (a camera view)
such as rotations and translations are possible, using a mouse and keyboard.
Measures of potential and kinetic energy are used to get more feel for the
nature of the behaviour of the frame. Single Time step calculations, ongoing
calculations as well as Time reversal are possible. The torus (where all sides
of the elastic cube connect to their opposite sides) can transform into a single
’loose hanging’ cube or ball that moves and oscillates under the influence of
its internal elasticity and added potential and kinetic energy.
Figure 4.5: Here is the code for initialising the computer array representing a face
centred cubic structure.
public float [ , , , ] FormsArray ;
protected i n t numberOfPointsXdirection ;
protected i n t numberOfPointsYdirection ;
protected i n t numberOfPointsZdirection ;
public void I n i t i a l i s e S p a c e ( )
{
// This i n i t i a l i s a t i o n i s f o r when each p o i n t i n t h e g r i d
// has e q u a l d i s t a n c e t o a l l i t s 12 n e i g h b o u r i n g p o i n t s .
// The i n i t i a l i s a t i o n i s t h e same a s f o r a c u b i c g r i d e x c e p t
// i n t h i s c a s e , o n l y h a l f o f t h e p o i n t s a r e r e l e v a n t .
// p o i n t 000 i s i n c o n t a c t with 200 en 020 en 0 0 2 . The
// p o i n t s i n between a r e l e f t out ! These l e f t out p o i n t s
// comply t o ( x + y + z ) % 2 == 1
f o r ( i n t x = 0 ; x < t h i s . n u m b e r O f P o i n t s X d i r e c t i o n ; x++) {
f o r ( i n t y = 0 ; y < t h i s . n u m b e r O f P o i n t s Y d i r e c t i o n ; y++) {
f o r ( i n t z = 0 ; z < t h i s . n u m b e r O f P o i n t s Z d i r e c t i o n ; z++) {
i f ( ( x + y + z ) % 2 == 1 ) c o n t i n u e ;
FormsArray [ x , y, z, 0] = x;
FormsArray [ x , y, z, 1] = y;
FormsArray [ x , y, z, 2] = z;
}}}}
Figure 4.6: Build-in elasticity. Comments (text behind //) in the code are hopefully
sufficient.
p u b l i c o v e r r i d e v o i d C a l c u l a t e 3 T o r u s ( i n t MostRecentForm )
{ int x , y , z ; int t e l l e r = 0;
i f ( t h i s . mostRecentForm == 1 )
{ XT = 3 ; YT = 4 ; ZT = 5 ;
XTmin1 = 0 ; YTmin1 = 1 ; ZTmin1 = 2;
XTmin2 = 6 ; YTmin2 = 7 ; ZTmin2 = 8; }
e l s e i f ( t h i s . mostRecentForm == 2 )
{ XT = 6 ; YT = 7 ; ZT = 8 ;
e l s e i f ( t h i s . mostRecentForm == 3 )
{ XT = 0 ; YT = 1 ; ZT = 2 ;
f o r ( x = 0 ; x < t h i s . NumberOfPointsXdirection ; x++) {

f o r ( y = 0 ; y < t h i s . NumberOfPointsYdirection ; y++) {
f o r ( z = 0 ; z < t h i s . N u m b e r O f P o i n t s Z d i r e c t i o n ; z++) {
t e l l e r += 1 ;
t h i s . DetermineNeighbours ( x , y , z ) ;
FormsArray [ x , y , z , XT] =
t h i s . V e c t o r P o t e n t i a l X ( x , y , z ) + // a c c e l e r a t i o n
+ t h i s . V e c t o r K i n e t i c X ( x , y , z ) // s p e e d
+ FormsArray [ x , y , z , XTmin1 ] ; // p l a c e
FormsArray [ x , y , z , YT]
t h i s . V e c t o r P o t e n t i a l Y ( x , y , z ) + // a c c e l e r a t i o n
+ t h i s . V e c t o r K i n e t i c Y ( x , y , z ) // s p e e d
+ FormsArray [ x , y , z , YTmin1 ] ; // p l a c e
FormsArray [ x , y , z , ZT ] =
t h i s . V e c t o r P o t e n t i a l Z ( x , y , z ) + // a c c e l e r a t i o n
+ t h i s . V e c t o r K i n e t i c Z ( x , y , z ) // s p e e d
+ FormsArray [ x , y , z , ZTmin1 ] ; // p l a c e
}}}}
Figure 4.7: Build in elasticity, vervolg. Comments (text behind //) in the code are
hopefully sufficient.
protected override f l o a t
V e c t o r P o t e n t i a l X ( i n t X, i n t Y, i n t Z )
{// Here t h e a c c e l e r a t i o n i s r e l a t e d t o t h e f o r c e i n t h e
// X d i r e c t i o n t h a t d r i v e s t h e p o i n t back t o t h e c e n t r e
// o f a l l i t s 12 s u r r o u n d i n g p o i n t s ( v i a Hooke ’ s law ) .
return this . stijfheidsParam *
( t h i s . CentrePointOfGravityMeasureXTmin1
= 12 * FormsArray [ X, Y, Z , XTmin1 ] ) ;
}
protected override f l o a t
V e c t o r K i n e t i c X ( i n t X, i n t Y, i n t Z )
{// Here t h e s p e e d i n t h e X d i r e c t i o n i s c a l c u l a t e d a t
// t h e time we s t a r t c a l c u l a t i n g t h e next time frame
// t h a t i s 1 u n i t ahead .
r e t u r n FormsArray [ X, Y, Z , XTmin1 ]
= FormsArray [ X, Y, Z , XTmin2 ] ;
}
// Another code s n i p p e t :
// oaX1 i s t h e X c o o r d i n a t e o f one o f t h e 12 n e i g h b o u r i n g
// p o i n t s , t h e one below and behind t h e p o i n t under
// i n v e s t i g a t i o n . o=below , b=on top , a=behind , v=i n f r o n t ,
// l=l e f t , r=r i g h t . edgeCompensation c o n n e c t s p o i n t s on an
// edge o f t h e cube t o p o i n t ( s ) on t h e o p p o s i n g s i d e t o
// r e a l i s e a Torus .
t h i s . oaX1 = FormsArray [ x , y , z , XTmin1 ] ;

t h i s . CentrePointOfGravityMeasureXTmin1 =
t h i s . edgeCompensationX +
oaX1+baX2+ovX3+bvX4+laX5+raX6+
lvX7+rvX8+loX9+roX10+lbX11+rbX12 ;
Mark Twain: ”Just because you are taught that something is

right and everyone believes it is right doesn’t make it right.”
Chapter 5
The fermionic carrier ball.
5.1 Introduction
Searching for and finding fermionic behaviour in our conjectured fabric of

reality is essential. One question mark concerning the new model has always
occupied my mind. It concerns a remark (in my mind made by Edward
Witten, but I can not find a reference) I find very relevant: ”The topology
of space may be too simple to provide for fermions”. The fabric may, by
this account, only hold spherical harmonics, and these by themselves can
not create the fermionic property of half-integer spin or the Pauli exclusion
principle. Only one structure can save the conjecture. If we cannot make
it work, reality is not this conjectured simple elastic fabric. The carrier
topology or carrier ball is the holy grail. Its shape is still isomorphic to
Euclidean space. Because of its shape and elasticity, combining ball and torus
in one shape, the carrier ball may produce fermionic behaviour. Because of
its shape and elasticity, the ball structure may be stable, represent mass
and explain general relativity. Because of its shape and elasticity, the ball
may hold numerous resonances to explain all sorts of behaviour. Because
of its symmetry breaking, the carrier ball may explain how ”particles” and
”photons” are connected and generate each other and how half-time stability
statistics come up. It seems unnecessary for the carrier ball to be perfectly
round all the time. Its shape may dynamically resonate varying from ball to
ellipsoid to even less symmetrical structures. Again, all of this is speculation,
backed by intuition and logic, and in need of research.
79
80 CHAPTER 5. THE FERMIONIC CARRIER BALL.
Figure 5.1: A simple sketch of the carrier ball on the left. The ball is in black. The
inside torus is in blue. The resonances along the outside of the ball and in the torus are
indicated with green arrows. The special point and line from pole to pole are indicated
in red. We see a computer simulation of two neighbouring Legendre polynomials on the
right, reshaping the fabric.
5.2 A possible solution
A carrier topology or carrier ball has an inside, a boundary, a unique special

point, an axis, torsion and an outside (See figure 5.1 on page 80 and
figure 5.2 on page 81). Symmetry and symmetry breaking play a role.
The resonances of SpaceTime in, on and around the carrier ball will have
no simple behaviour, and phase relations among them could play a role in
generating the half-integer spin property.
Two resonances and their interplay come to mind as the most promising
ones to explain half-integer spin. Resonances are possible on the outside
(between the unique point and opposite pole) and inside the ball. A unique
axis breaks the symmetry inside the carrier ball from pole to pole, where one
of the poles is the unique point that also breaks the spherical symmetry of
the outer sphere. Around this line, we imagine a horn torus shape inside
the ball structure. The torus-like symmetry may support standing waves of
SpaceTime. At the same time, the resonance on the outer sphere (around
the carrier ball) from the unique point to the opposite pole takes place.
5.2. A POSSIBLE SOLUTION 81
Figure 5.2: Another simple sketch of the resonating cavity with perhaps enough sym-
metry and symmetry breaking to behave like a spinor. In this picture, a cavity (the black
network) is created with points on a disc folded as a ball.
The radius of the outside sphere is twice the radius of the inside torus.
Every completed inside wave fits half an outside wave. 1 . One can imagine
that the relation between the resonances provides for the behaviour that is
visualised in [43]. All in all, what we consider an objection and risk for
success (Witten’s remark) might well be a source of new insights.
5.3 A simple model resonance cavity.

Following this reasoning and realising that the next step I have taken is only
an approximate and shallow one, the actual research is yet to begin. This
section describes a somewhat artificial three-dimensional resonance cavity.
It is built using only an elastic fabric and a trick to keep some fabric fixed
and immovable in SpaceTime. In computer reality, a more natural resonance
cavity (a vortex with a particular shape) should be established and stabilised
by locally minimising the potential energy of the tension in the fabric. How
this can be done is still unknown but seems feasible with the help of the
computer (AI).
A simple ball-shaped resonating cavity is built from elastic SpaceTime

fabric. Only the inside of the cavity can move and moves elastically. The
borders are defined by the elastic points that lie on or close to a ”half” cone
and a disc that closes the cone (See figure 5.3 on page 83).
The disc is deformed into a hollow ball (the black network in figure 5.4 on
page 84). The outside edge of the disc identifies with the south pole of the
ball. The centre of the disc identifies with the north pole. All other points
on the disc are (as evenly as possible) sent to places on the ball. Points closer
to the edge remain closer to the south pole. Points closer to the middle are
further from the south pole.
All points on the cone (from figure 5.5 on page 85) identify with the south
pole of the ball.The volume of the cone gets, by elasticity, ”sucked in” by
the points on the ball. All kinetic energy is removed from the elastic fabric
until all cone volume stabilises and sits still inside the ball. The fabric is
now set free for experiments. (See figure 5.6 on page 86). The shape of the
fabric inside the ball differs from the shape of the fabric far from the ball. It
is leaf-shaped versus euclidean. There is a line of symmetry from the south
1
Outside and inside waves travel at the same speed in the medium called SpaceTime.
The properties of the elastic medium determine this speed, the speed of light.
5.3. A SIMPLE MODEL RESONANCE CAVITY. 83
Figure 5.3: The edges of the Half-Cone, visible in its elastic environment. On top the
cone is closed by a disc.
Figure 5.4: The disc of the cone is deformed into a ball. The edge of the disc is sent to
the south pole, the centre of the disc to the north pole.
pole to the north pole. Around this line, space is shaped like tears within
tears. We can imagine a deformed torus shape around the line of symmetry.
Some initial experiments have been done with this shape. It is important
to realise that we are dealing with a discreet approximation of continuous
fabric. A volume can not go through another volume in a continuous elastic,
whereas in this discrete fabric, points can easily move beyond surfaces that
they are not supposed to cross.
Some initial experiments can be considered. We can attempt to induce a

radial heartbeat where the outer tear is uniformly blown up by a tiny amount
and then set free. Another attempt could use the torus like symmetry to
develop tangential resonances. Yet another attempt when setting all points
free so energy can flow freely may show a link between particles and photons.
Resonances in the interior of the ball may go on as freely moving photon-
like packets of energy. The torsion in the fabric can be its mechanism for
inducing photon-like behaviour.
Resonances along the spherical outer shell of the carrier ball will be among
the hardest to create. They require us to have already discovered the ball
as a stable, self-sustaining entity. Still, as part of creating a carrier ball
vortex, we expect a standing wave along the outer sphere from twisted pole
to opposite pole.
5.3. A SIMPLE MODEL RESONANCE CAVITY. 85
Figure 5.5: The cone volume is sucked into the ball and all kinetic energy is removed.
The cone edges are identified with the south pole of the ball.
Figure 5.6: The ball sucks in the cone volume. All kinetic energy is removed. The cone
edges identify with the south pole of the ball. Concentric tear-like shapes appear. The
resonances can move around a torus’s north/south pole line. The distance from north
to south is a reference length. It connects the circumference of the outer ball to the
circumference of the inner torus-like shape around the north-south axis in a 2:1 ratio.
5.4. THE SEARCH FOR A SPINOR. 87
Much more in-depth research seems justified. Let us find serious objec-
tions or otherwise research as a community 2 . Physics seems ready for new
trustworthy, understandable concepts and machinery.
5.4 The search for a spinor.

A few properties of this resonance cavity are striking. The two most im-
portant ones are the ball symmetry and the unique point through which the
space is ”sucked in”, generating two poles and a line symmetry through an
axis from pole to pole in the ball’s interior. Around this axis, one can imagine
standing and travelling waves in a sort of torus like environment. We can,
for instance, imagine the property of spin up and down as waves generating
a directional vector field around the torus axis. The outside radius of the
torus is the same as the outside radius of the carrier ball and twice the torus
shape inner radius. The torus can not physically rotate faster than the speed
of light (or better, than the maximal travelling speed of waves). A particle
rotation or wave propagation over 180 degrees outside the torus at the speed
of light makes for a complete turn inside the torus (travelling only half the
distance). The outside of the particle has turned (minus) 180 degrees rela-
tive to its inside. This phenomenon might be the origin of creating a double
cover of the rotation symmetry SO(3) and the accompanying behaviour of
fermionic particles.
In reality, vortices will have to combine into carrier balls. Mathematically,

through the combination of Legendre polynomials around different centres,
the numeric fabric may be excited to construct carrier balls. This SpaceTime
carrier ball deformation is the support for SpaceTime resonances in and on
it. The structure and resonances will have to express spin, charge, helicity,
chirality, and parity properties. Other standing waves on the outside, inside
and boundary of the carrier ball are candidates for representing fields and
generating properties.
2
I have a hard time imagining individuals like myself capable of covering the vast terrain
of knowledge and the workload that is needed.
Chapter 6
The gravitational carrier ball.
6.1 Introduction
In this chapter, we investigate gravitation. From where does it originate?
The carrier topology or carrier ball, this basic wrinkle in SpaceTime that
supports fermions, is a significant contributor. Its relation to gravity is
straightforward.
6.2 Gravity explained.

SpaceTime distorts into wrinkled SpaceTime, a carrier ball wrinkle when
it pulls in from a neighbourhood towards an approximate centre. Because
SpaceTime is elastic, in principle, this contraction of SpaceTime affects all of
the rest of SpaceTime. The further away from the wrinkle we go, the change
in tension in the fabric of SpaceTime gets smaller.
In SpaceTime, we can define the concept of fabric-density σf or fabric-mass

per fabric-volume (in kgf /m3f or kg/m3 ). Lets say, that in a completely flat
SpaceTime at a certain moment, σf = 1 kg/m3 . If SpaceTime expands,
the density will be smaller. If SpaceTime contracts, the density will be
larger. When a ball-symmetric wrinkle is created, some volume of radius
Rbig gets contracted into a volume with radius Rball . Now, within Rball , σf
3 3
is no longer one, but σf = Rbig /Rball kg/m3 . This volume of radius Rball
3 3 3 3
and mass Rbig (= Rball ∗ Rbig /Rball ) has a direct influence on the structure
of the elastic SpaceTime around it. SpaceTime outside Rball gets sucked in
towards the mass. This is the machinery behind the influence of energy on
spacetime. Because of the new shape of SpaceTime, the movement of the
89
90 CHAPTER 6. THE GRAVITATIONAL CARRIER BALL.
wrinkle through SpaceTime is influenced by other wrinkles in SpaceTime.

This is the machinery behind the influence of spacetime on energy.
It is only a qualitative sketch. For SpaceTime to explain our reality, the

elasticity of SpaceTime has to have the proper behaviour. Is the elastic
resistance constant or variable? At this moment, it seems too soon to decide,
but expect a certain variability (a computer impression in figure 11.1 on page
123. It also makes it more realistic to expect the speed of light to be variable
to a certain degree. Very reasonable, interesting and speculative at the same
time. We have to do lots of quantitative research, but a simple ”impossible”
seems premature for the moment.
Chapter 7
Clocks, light and gravitation.
7.1 Introduction.
All of physics is about movement and change. The old physics is about sepa-
ration, energy curving spacetime, changing clocks, photons of light, gravita-
tion, observers and measuring apparatuses. In the new theory, there is none
of that. There is only curved SpaceTime. SpaceTime allows the viewpoint
of separating energy from spacetime. However, there is no separation.
7.2 The photon paradox.

Clocks in spacetime are ordinary and mysterious objects. From a human
perspective, a clock changes its shape, and we interpret that change as a
measure of changing time. Clocks behave in different ways when changing
their movement or environment. Special relativity describes how the clock be-
haves when moving at different constant speeds. General relativity describes
how the clock behaves under the influence of gravity and acceleration.
Here is a thought experiment and a strange situation. Take three identical

photons on the surface of the earth. Photon 1 remains in position on the
earth’s surface at all times as a reference, and its frequency remains the same.
Photon 2 is a clock. Photons 2 and 3 are going up in the sky.
As humans, we experience the following. Due to Einstein’s gravitational

influence, photon 2, the clock, starts ticking faster as it goes up higher.
Photon 2’s frequency has increased. When photon 3 is measured, we see a
redshift in its frequency. Its frequency has decreased. Our models assume
that light experiences no passing of time. Photons 2 and 3 are supposed to
91
92 CHAPTER 7. CLOCKS, LIGHT AND GRAVITATION.
be identical but behave differently (one gets a higher frequency, the other
gets a lower frequency) when moving to the same higher position. Moreover,
although light can, for instance, be absorbed or reflected (change happens to
a photon), no time elapses from light’s perspective according to the human
perspective.
That calls for an explanation. The old theory (read current theory) pro-
vides for an explanation. It indicates that photons 2 and 3 only begin as
identical photons, but in the process, they become different. One is a clock-
photon, the other is a free photon. Moreover, the old theory also claims that
time does not elapse for photons. Conceptually that might be unjustified
unless you make the distinction between time and Time. Let us look for
another answer, such as the one from the new theory.
Remember that SpaceTime exists, and that spacetime is a human inter-

pretation of SpaceTime. Capital letters count. With the new theory in hand,
the shape of the fabric (= SpaceTime) can be interpreted as two entangled
identical photons from a human perspective. Photons 2 and 3 acquire a
higher frequency while going up in the sky. Both photons ”go up” in Space-
Time, and SpaceTime is the only factor in ”a photon life”. Photons are not
separate from SpaceTime. From a human viewpoint, photon 2 can only be a
clock as a slow object in spacetime. Measurement apparatuses do not move
with the speed of light. The experiment of relating the changing clock-object
to a human concept of time tells us, that photon 3 has lower frequency be-
cause the measuring clock is ticking faster and marks of a longer period of
”human” time (if the speed of light is constant and ν −1 = λ = c∆T and
∆T3,high > ∆T3,low , then ν3,high < ν3,low ).
Adopting the human perspective, we still have to admit that the claim of
time not passing for photons is not rock solid. The argument that change
from a photon’s perspective is relevant is hard to refute. We can save the
interpretation that time does not pass for a photon in the old theory because
the passing of photon time and change is related to the concept of ”universal”
Time (see 3). From our human point of view, us being slow human clocks
with a human perspective, we would indeed see (the eyes and brain calculate)
a redshift in photon 3, for the same reason we would measure a redshift for
photon 3 with a photon 2 clock. In other words: universal photon Time
relates to a coordinate system travelling with the speed of light. Human
time exists in slower coordinate systems.
7.3. HOW WHITE ARE BLACK HOLES? 93
We may only have SpaceTime at our disposal to make clocks and measure
changes. Clocks are SpaceTime, and humans are SpaceTime. Everything is
made of SpaceTime. Clocks indicate a rate of change. The indication on
the clock depends on where the clock is in spacetime, how it moves and how
it moves relative to who reads the clock. The clock’s spacetime stretch and
acceleration speed are relevant for its shape and indication of change. The
clock perspective belongs to general relativity. General relativity seems the
ultimate attainable theory from a human perspective 1 , when distinguishing
two objects (spacetime and energy) to describe reality. That goes for quan-
tum mechanics as well, where the two objects are spacetime and probability
distribution and where operators complete the perspective.
7.3 How white are black holes?

Black holes are strange mathematical things with no hair, no structure, and
infinite mass-density in a singular point. We can not find out about the
non-existing structure of a black hole other than to explore its surface bits.
Furthermore, it has to be quantum mechanical, too, of course. Every time
we try to probe with more energy, we just expand the black hole. We can
even create one if we try to probe too small a volume with too much energy.
All this could sound like the stories the alchemists told the king about gold.
Just reed back about the in-between and see where we are going with this.
According to the main conjecture, the old mathematical black hole could
belong in a fairytale. It would be much nicer to embed the old in something
new and use the name ”black hole” for something more realistic. The black
hole should have structure. The new black hole does have structure. It has
the most complex structure a volume can have, and it contains the maximum
amount of mass per volume possible. It would be poetic to call this internal
structure white noise. However, the black hole’s finite volume restricts the
possible frequencies. Other than that, it will be pretty chaotic in there, from
some distance inside the black hole horizon.
Quantum mechanics and relativity theory resolve the perceived loss of

information (of a particular ordering, say a wallet) in the black hole. A
saving mechanism by radiation is proposed. An example often used is the
wallet falling into a black hole. The machinery of the falling wallet reveals the
1
Remember from 5 , the human perspective is a measuring device, seemingly separate
from its environment.
94 CHAPTER 7. CLOCKS, LIGHT AND GRAVITATION.
complex ordering behind this example. This much more complex description
of the deformed wallet-SpaceTime is also not lost. It is just part of the
machinery. We use the concept of information here to describe the shape of
the wallet-SpaceTime, intertwined with the shape of the black hole ”chaos”.
Information is not as relevant a concept for the machinery as for a mechanism
such as black hole radiation.
Of course, the new black hole will also be a mathematical black hole. There
is room for both stories. As a figure of speech the old black hole is to the
new black hole as Newtonian gravity is to general relativity.
7.4 Fabric shape and relativity.

If we can show that the disturbances in the fabric bend, in the same way light
bends according to general relativity, we can establish a link between the old
and new view. More concretely, we have to fit the elastic resistance and
the stretch of SpaceTime to curved spacetime in general relativity because
general relativity links to our perspective and observations.
In a way, this gives us some room and flexibility in getting the properties
of reality right. The principle of fitting seems no different from fitting pa-
rameters to the standard model of particle physics measurements. Here, we
only have one parameter. This one does all the work. Variable resistance
adapts the behaviour of the fabric of space, but it can only go so far. In an
earth-like environment, the parameter is a constant and the more different
circumstances we encounter, the more restricted the flexibility in the value
may become. We have not encountered very different circumstances yet. We
have only imagined them, like, for instance, black hole gravity. There will be
some but very little room to wiggle.
The speed of light is possibly related to the elastic resistance of deformed

space. Variable elastic resistance would enable a variable speed of light. Can
we find such behaviour of light, for instance near black holes? I would not
be surprised.
Chapter 8
A new paradigm.
8.1 A paradigm shift.

In the new paradigm we distinguish between structural properties and be-
havioural properties. The speed of light is a behavioural property and not
a structural property (figure 8.1 on page 96). Its local or global value and
constancy should follow from structural properties. Planck’s constant, the
gravitational constant, and the fine structure constant are no different. In
this approach, any theory that uses these constants to describe reality is not
a direct one to one description of reality, but a derived perspective, a derived
view on reality. The explanation of the universe needs objects, their proper-
ties and relations. We can eliminate relations between objects when there is
only one single object.
8.2 The new paradigm.

The concept of spacetime emerges from deformed SpaceTime when reality
shapes a local observer or ’local awareness’ that notices a relative change in
locally observed objects. Again, some complex ’observer’-wave sees another
distinct wave and locally experiences a change in spacetime, while only the
unity of reshaping SpaceTime exists. The wave formations are not separated.
We can speak of a shift in perspective (figure 8.2 on page 98) from a single
global Space object with variable elastic resistance and rigid Time dimension
95
96 CHAPTER 8. A NEW PARADIGM.
Figure 8.1: Two types of properties are modelled. On the one hand, the structural
properties are fundamental properties of the fabric of reality. Structural properties give
rise to behaviour and behavioural properties. The speed of light is an example of a
behavioural property expressed by a constant c in equations. The scale of things follows
from structural properties. Planck’s constant is a behavioural property related to the scale
of things. Structural symmetries lead to behavioural conservation laws. The structure
and scale of local shapes lead to behavioural properties such as mass and charge. How
much space is used to form a local structure is related to the gravitational constant, a
behavioural property. The question remains if any behavioural constants are constants or
more complex functions.

8.2. THE NEW PARADIGM. 97
(SpaceTime) to local space with rigid elastic resistance (constant speed of

light) and flexible time dimension (spacetime).
The mathematical model for deforming three-dimensional smooth Space is

a four-dimensional Riemannian manifold. One of these dimensions (the Time
dimension) only allows for the identity map. Every point on the Timeline is
always mapped to itself. The Time dimension does not change shape and is a
global measure for the rate of change, a global universal clock that ticks at a
constant rate. Local time from the concept of spacetime is a derived concept,
which we measure with our local clocks. The three space dimensions can
change shape described by diffeomorphisms 1 . At any particular ”moment”
in Time, a diffeomorphism describes the three-dimensional shape of Space.
The new paradigm for ordering theories to describe reality has two layers
(figure 8.4 on page 101). A layer for describing reality using one single
object (and its fundamental properties, form, and how it changes) and a
layer for theories that interpret the first layer from a human perspective. In
this new paradigm, all the theories of today’s physics belong to the second
layer. Through distinguishing, ordering and relating these objects, theories
represent views on reality. They interpret the first layer (figure 8.3 on page
99), which aims to describe the whole thing in a one to one correspondence
to reality. For example, quantum physics emerges due to this process of
interpreting reality at small scales, where the entanglement of seemingly
existing separate objects starts playing a role. In this new light, quantum
physics needs no interpretation anymore.
The first level of the paradigm is about what nature consists of and how
it works. The second level is about how a human or measuring apparatus
experiences nature locally. The second level is about distinction and the
self-referential potential of SpaceTime itself. The properties of the first level
underly the second level. The second level contains all the different perspec-
tives chosen to describe and measure the physical phenomena we experience.
The first layer incorporates unity and coherence. The second layer incorpo-
rates reduction, distinction, ordering, relations and the particle view.
1
Perhaps these mathematical concepts are new to you. Books such as [20] and [17]
describe the meaning of words like smooth and diffeomorphism well. Diffeomorphism here
means a shape can deform into other shapes. The restriction is that the shape remains
differentiable (smooth) everywhere to high enough order.
Figure 8.2: Space on a global scale may have variable elastic resistance and thus variable
speed of light. Global Time is a rigid measure of change. Locally, when differences in
deformation become negligible, elastic resistance is constant, and thus the speed of light
is constant. As a result of a maximal speed of light and our perspective of locally existing
objects, local time is flexible as we know it from relativity theory. In the earlier not so
stretched universe of a big bang model (remember that elastic resistance is a function of
the deformation of Space), the speed of light would have been, perhaps significantly, lower
than it is here and now.

8.2. THE NEW PARADIGM. 99
Figure 8.3: An ’artists’ impression of a double-slit experiment. On the left, only deform-
ing space is depicted. In the middle and the right picture, the space is interpreted as some
particle generator creating an interference pattern on a screen through (i) distinguishing
apparatus from the environment, (ii) distinguishing the relevant outputs (the ’ticks’ and
’flashes’) and (iii) interpreting the outputs by identifying them with modelled objects and
concepts in theories. Interpreting quantum mechanics: ”what happens when the electron
goes through one or more slits and hits the screen?”.

The rules of change only depend on the properties of the fabric of Space-
Time: smoothness, elasticity and variable elastic resistance 2 . Concepts
that we want to be there, such as matter or particle, come from a chosen
perspective on the form and changes of SpaceTime. All places in SpaceTime
have the same structural potential, but the property of elastic resistance can
vary from place to place and depends on the local deformation of the fabric.
8.3 The photon paradox revisited.

The situation for interpreting change is normally viewed from a human per-
spective. From this general relativity perspective, the photon does not expe-
rience the concept of time or space. There is no passing of time or through
space. Mathematically, from a human perspective, it makes sense to claim
for light, that proper time dτ = 0 (see 8.3). That should strike us as odd
because, at first sight (at least according to my intuition), something changes
for photons over time. What happens when we take the photon’s perspec-
tive? Is there a reason for assuming that things can change for the photon?
The answer seems to be yes because photons can interact with their environ-
ment. Photons can appear and disappear. Photons can collide. Things can
change, and this suggests a notion of photon time. Let us now try to look at
it from the photon’s perspective.
Consider the two identical photons on earth again. One is used in a clock to
tell time, using its frequency. The other is travelling. The mathematics of GR
tells us that the frequency of the traveller photon is going to lower when going
away from earth. The photon gains potential energy in the gravitational field
and drops kinetic energy. hνhigh − hνlow = −(Epotential,high − Epotential,low ).
This lower frequency is measured and is called gravitational redshift.
We bring the clock to a higher altitude in the atmosphere. The clock is

ticking faster than on earth because the fabric of SpaceTime is less stretched,
further away from the mass of the earth. The wavelength of the clock photon
shortens, and the speed of light c is considered constant, so the frequency of
2
Variable elastic resistance probably leads to variable speed of light. It also restricts
the amplitude of deformations, thereby introducing some threshold on deformability when
limited energy is available. That opens the door to introducing the scale of things and
Planck’s constant.
8.3. THE PHOTON PARADOX REVISITED. 101
Figure 8.4: The two-layer paradigm. Reality is a four-dimensional deforming SpaceTime.
The first layer holds the description of reality through a single object, its properties, form,
and the way it changes. All theories that consider more than one single object, like for
example, quantum physics, relativity theory or string theory, are views on reality.
the photon increases and the clock ticks faster. Using the clock’s registered
time interval, we find that its identical brother photon has a longer wave-
length at a higher altitude from our perspective. The photon has a higher
frequency at a higher altitude when it is a clock. Free falling, the traveller
photon has a lower frequency at a higher altitude. That is remarkable.
Humans have come up with an explanation for these measured phenomena.

For photons, time does not pass in GR, and photons experience no travelled
distance. Human time is interwoven with space as spacetime. space stretches
more in the radial direction towards the earth’s centre, and time t ticks slower
(passed time ∆t is smaller nearer the earth) in lower regions. Frequency is
related to ∆t−1 and c is considered constant. Human time is measured using
the frequency of light observed by humans. time in lower regions ticks slower
because the light in lower regions is stretched more and thus has a lower
frequency. So in higher regions, more time-ticks occur on our clocks (more
peaks pass per second). As a result, the calculated wavelength of the photon
outside the clocks is larger than in its lower position. λ = c∆t or λν = c.
Thus, the frequency is lower, so a gravitational redshift has occurred. To
make things mathematically correct, we must assume that no proper time
elapses for light, and no proper space is crossed. dσ and dτ are 0 for light.
The Schwarzschild metric (solution for the Einstein equation in GR) for an
earth-like or black hole-like environment:
−1
2 2GM 2 2 2GM
dr2 + r2 dθ2 + sin2 θdϕ2

dσ = − 1 − 2 c dt + 1 − 2
cr cr
(8.1)
and
dτ 2 = c−2 dσ 2 (8.2)
where t is time as calibrated with a clock, distant from and at inertial

rest to the earth. dτ is proper time and dσ is proper distance. r is a radial
coordinate (effectively the distance from the earth’s centre). θ is the angular
separation from the north pole (in the direction of the equator) in radians.
ϕ is a longitudinal coordinate (around the equator) also given in radians. M
is the mass of the earth or black hole. G is the gravitational constant.
In other words: To measure the wavelength (or frequency) of a photon

of light, we need a time and speed measurement. The wavelength is λ = c∆t
8.4. FITTING ELASTIC RESISTANCE TO CURVATURE. 103
and frequency is ν = ∆t−1 = cλ−1 . To measure ∆t, we need ”the observer

photon” in a clock. When the light has the same frequency at a certain height
as the observed photon, both the observed photon and the observer clock
photon ”shrink” when put into a higher orbit (frequency goes up), further
away from the centre of the earth. Using a clock or any other geometric
object, such as a human eye, the frequency of the observed photon goes
down because the elapsed time goes up. The clock runs faster because the
frequency of the observer photon has gone up. Both observer and observed
photon are the same and behave the same at different heights. The difference
is that one photon is in a clock moving slower than the speed of light. The
clock photon has taken the human perspective.
8.4 Fitting elastic resistance to curvature.

I may not be qualified to solve this problem. This fitting process is part
of the research effort to be undertaken. The dependence of variable elastic
resistance on stretch and the relation to stretched SpaceTime in the human
perspective of general relativity is at stake. Undoubtedly, general relativity
specialists will have to take part in the operation.
Part III
New research.
105
Chapter 9
Why must we do this research?
Until we do this project or find another full machinery, we will

only understand reality from a human or machine perspective.
Everything revolves around the question: When would we be convinced

to do this project? It is saddening to think that the task of persuasion is in
these hands. Here is not the best writer, salesman, or physicist. Hopefully,
the logic is sound.
Why not do it yourself, is a relevant question. I have tried to the full of

my ability and am still not done but, more and more, I have come to realise
three things are in the way, mortality, complexity, and money. The powers
are fading. I am just one old turtle standing on the next turtle, hoping for
another turtle to stand on me.
9.1 Reasons for doing the research.

Paraphrasing Neil deGrasse Tyson paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin:
It seems impossible to predict future benefits from my research, but
I am sure it is going to be taxed.
An intuitive argument, a quest in understanding: From my first

acquaintance with quantum mechanics (QM), I have been wondering if a
probability distribution is a trustworthy object to describe and explain re-
ality. Today, for the time being, the conclusion is that it is a trustworthy
object to describe the behaviour of our (or any other measurement device’s)
perspective on reality. It is the best we can hope to do in describing that
107
108 CHAPTER 9. WHY MUST WE DO THIS RESEARCH?
behaviour. However, QM does nothing to explain the behaviour we observe.

As explained earlier, nature is best approached as a machine. Looking at his-
tory, we can infer that more and more machinery is embedded in our physics.
Enough great scientists have commented on the unfortunate absence of ma-
chinery in their groundbreaking new descriptions, thereby showing that they
took the machinery point of view seriously. That seems supported by the
intuition of many. Engineering culture has educated lots to think about
machinery.
Another intuitive argument: Do we get to see the whole picture from

our perspective? QM seems to be the definitive answer for description. How-
ever, we do not get to see the whole picture. We get no trustworthy complete
explanation and understanding of reality no matter how ingenious our mea-
suring apparatuses will be. Here is where the project comes in and is so
important. What is left is to assume all kinds of underlying machinery.
What behaves like reality? What can do the job of explaining the prob-
abilities? Probabilities cannot themselves be machinery, but still are the
exclusive results of our measurements. The most straightforward machinery
is most likely preferred over more complicated ones. For the first time in
history, conceptually the simplest, yet complete machinery is considered for
construction and experimentation. An essential ingredient must be found
and examined for initial success: a structure that goes by the name carrier
topology or carrier ball.
A spiritual argument: This machinery conceptually unites us all. Physics

concepts (and tangible results like telephones and computers) have always
shaped human culture. When we believe reality consists of small separate
things, people will probably behave differently towards each other than when
we believe that we are all connected and entangled, and we only seem sepa-
rate. The connection could unite us as humans and turn competition as the
main driver into cooperation as the main driver (competition within cooper-
ation instead of cooperation within competition). Building a physics where
mathematics (the describer), physics (the explainer) and philosophy (the
understanding) are all trustworthy is more desirable than the current day’s
situation. Today, mathematics is leading. Physics uses multiple theories with
issues, and philosophy is denied access.
An aesthetic argument: This research could finally complete Einstein’s

vision for general relativity. Einstein was not able to make energy and space-
time become complete machinery. His theory places energy in spacetime
9.1. REASONS FOR DOING THE RESEARCH. 109
but fails to explain what that energy is made of and how it is coupled to
spacetime to make it warp. Ultimately there may be no building blocks, no
particles and no forces. There may be just changing reshaping space (”the
generator of fields”).
Information is like music.

There is no music when the orchestra is to lunch.
A philosopher’s argument: This research could give quantum mechan-

ics its proper place in physics as a calculator without further interpretation.
There is no more need for trying to ”understand” QM. Quantum mechanics is
itself an interpretation of the human perspective on reality. When subdivid-
ing reality into tiny parts, we get probabilities and statistics due to dividing
that which is not divided. In reality, the particles seem to be there, but we
just have not looked close enough. If we look closely, nature only gives us
statistics. The results from experiments can be explained without claiming
that nature is quantum mechanical. We can only conclude from the results
that nature behaves quantum mechanically with the assumed model in mind
(of participating objects in apparatus and environment). What is a parti-
cle, what is apparatus, and what is the environment? No precise separation
exists.
Physics today invokes Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle as if the principle

is a property of nature. We will find that this is incorrect and that Heisen-
berg’s uncertainty principle originates from assuming separations where there
are none. The uncertainty principle is not a property of reality but a creation
of the attempt to divide that, which is not divided. It is a creation of the
human perspective. In that perspective, the uncertainty principle is a neces-
sary mechanism for describing and some understanding. Nature does not use
it because it does not fit into machinery. Nature does not read principles.
Another philosopher’s argument: We have a chance to show why our

current existing descriptions of nature are working well enough within their
domains. We know these descriptions can not be right entirely, but we can
now consider answering what facilitates the descriptions to be helpful.
An economical and physics argument: A whole new area of research

opens up, having to do with the shape and internal structure of local real-
ity, giving form beyond symmetries. The search begins for the shapes that
these symmetries come in. The fundamental constants c (speed of light), G

(gravitational constant) and h (Planck’s constant) get to be based on the
more fundamental property of the elastic resistance 1 of space. We get to
investigate the behaviour of these constants if the elastic resistance of space
is a function of the stretching of space (elastic resistance may, for instance,
increase with a greater stretch of the space fabric). Dimensional analysis
suggests (using √ ker as a symbol for the√ elastic resistance of the fabric of
space) that c ∼ ker , G ∼ ker and h ∼ ker . Such dependencies have tight
restrictions given all existing (yet very local) measurements.
Another physics argument: New explanations are provided for phenom-

ena such as dark matter and dark energy. Many other physics concepts will
be under review, black holes, to name one. Black holes will finally get an
internal structure and a more trustworthy conceptual underpinning. Today
we need to call upon singularities and probabilities (quantum mechanics,
entropy, temperature and information theory). See also table 9.1 for some
other examples. Space is even more dynamic than we give it credit. The
behaviour of the bullet cluster, starting with two clusters colliding where
visible (hot X-ray emitting gas) mass is combining, but invisible energy is
just passing through, seems natural from this new model. The waves (very
long wavelength) that escort the ”wave surfing” masses (short wavelengths)
just go on right through each other, and the surfing masses collide. These
long wavelengths fit within general relativity and influence more local forms
of energy. Information on these (long wavelengths) waves is imprinted in our
picture of the microwave background radiation. Waves of every wavelength
get stretched in the same way as space stretches.
Furthermore, we can put aside the question of uniting forces. In reality,

there are no forces. It is just one shape that changes its shape. We can see
interactions and accompanying forces when local (sub)shapes are identified
with their relative behaviour. When defining tiny small subspaces, quantum
mechanics emerges.
A mathematical argument: The nature of the research involves the na-

ture of the mathematical continuum and its foundational issues. Nature is
either continuous or discrete. As argued, we do not have the mathematical
tools to describe the continuum. We have the obligation and privilege to
1
Another word for resistance would be modulus as in Young’s modulus or shear modulus
or bulk modulus.
9.1. REASONS FOR DOING THE RESEARCH. 111
investigate the consequences of our discrete approximations as well as we

can.
An artificial intelligence argument: Artificial Intelligence will play an

essential role in the search for a carrier topology. Physics will arguably
take AI to a higher level, where AI will do the same to physics. Many
unpredictable results may lie beyond the horizon. Humans will probably not
be able to do this research without AI’s help. Mathematics on paper alone
will just be too hard to start with and will only come in later. AI seems an
inevitable tool.
Another computational argument: Spin-off into AI is expected due to

the complexity of the object under study. Other spin-offs into the field of
computing and maybe even (pseudo?) quantum computing can also be antic-
ipated. We can conceptually regard the moving elastic space in the computer
as a calculating computer itself. We must just learn to program it. Scien-
tists assume that a quantum computer cannot be simulated in an ordinary
computer. Perhaps we can use these digital communicating numbers, emu-
lating an elastic fabric, to do it. The fabric interpretation (seeing local stuff)
should still behave quantum mechanically. As there is no actual separation
between two interpreted particles (remember, it is only one fabric, and the
machinery ensures entanglement), these ”virtual” particles might very well
behave according to quantum mechanics.
A concluding argument: Theories such as quantum physics and relativ-

ity theory become views on reality. They become derived interpretations. A
direct description of reality will only contain
the shape and properties of space.
symmetries and symmetry breaking to characterise, to group and to

relate interpreted shapes.
the process flow of deforming space that enables a global concept of

time.
Local time and Lorentz invariance emerge from locally defining objects sepa-
rate from their environment. Among the challenges will be (i) to mathemati-
cally equip the manifold with elasticity and variable elastic resistance, (ii) to
integrate carrier topologies (holding tensor and spinor fields) into the shape
of the manifold and (iii) to show that variable elastic resistance is enough to
bring scaling into the manifold.
As long as we do not refute the conjectures, all kinds of research results

can be anticipated, from new physics and tools for teaching physics to a
new programming language for a new kind of virtual ’quantum’-computer
based on a numeric elastic fabric. The computational power of numeric elas-
tic fabrics may, for example, become of interest in protecting our economic
infrastructures. Can we afford not to do the research that may advance a
frontier and provide us with the machinery and explanations that make our
current theories such a success?
All in all, this list of pros makes it very important for the list of cons
to be substantial if one concludes that we should not do the research. The
collector of cons is biased to make errors. The list of cons may not match
the list of pros as a result. However, It seems inescapable that this research
will become necessary somewhere in the future when enough other research
comes to a halt.
Did Albert Einstein[6] perhaps coincidentally describe the new

paradigm 8.4 when he said ”The aim of science is, on the one
hand, a comprehension, as complete as possible, of the connec-
tion between the sense experiences in their totality, and, on the
other hand, the accomplishment of this aim by the use of a mini-
mum of primary concepts and relations.”? He elevated the human
perspective (the bottom part of the paradigm), and nature may not
care about the human perspective and might need only one object
for being and its description (the top part).
9.2 Reasons for not doing the research.

A money argument: Research needs funding. We would instead give it
to a more convincing person. Research should be done from the inside, so
the money must go to the established parties.
Another money argument: Careers may be at stake. It will, at first,

be hard to find the right people to do the job. The risk of failure and its
consequences, to the curriculum vitae of a starting AI professional (or a
starting physicist or philosopher for that matter), make it a high risk and
high reward situation to get into this field of research. Many other competing
exciting research fields are possibly less demanding and with greater rewards.
9.2. REASONS FOR NOT DOING THE RESEARCH. 113
Table 9.1: This table shows some situations in current physics and newly conjectured
solutions.
Current physics New physics

Physics is based on mechanisms, prin- Physics is based on machinery, the
ciples, laws and constants. structural properties of an object.
QM needs an interpretation. QM needs no interpretation. QM is it-
self an interpretation.
There is a lack of machinery in general Energy curves space because energy is
relativity. curved space.
Black holes have no significant struc- Black holes have structure. Space be-
ture. haves more like an open resonating cav-
ity.
Dark energy (abandoning the law of New contributions to galaxies spectral
conservation of energy without machin- redshift (variable speed of light, vari-
ery) and accelerated expansion of the able size carrier topology, more dy-
universe are not intuitive. namic space and distance measure-
ments), to come to new conclusions
about the expansion of the universe.
Multiverses, extra dimensions and holo- automatically ruled out.
grams unsatisfactory.
Quantum mechanical vacuum has er- Smallest scales have smooth behaviour.
ratic behaviour, and lack of machinery.
No explanation for the existence of a explained through variability of elastic
preferred scale in nature. resistance of space.
Extreme mechanism of inflation to ex- explained through wavy and dispersive
plain the uniformity of background ra- character of space, using elasticity and
diation variability of elastic resistance.
Dark matter Galaxy is formed and ”surfing” on the
(long wavelength) waves/ripples in the
fabric of space. Space is more dynamic
than we model.
Another money argument (lack of time) and an emotional argu-

ment (pride, authority) : The writer of this book did not win a Nobel
prize. He is not a professor. He is not even in the university system anymore.
Who is he? He could be crazy for all we know. Let us not waste time even
to hear arguments.
Another emotional (physics) argument (fear): A carrier topology

may not exist or be stable. This assumption is the same as saying, ”do
not research as we may fail”.
Another physics argument: SpaceTime may not produce the general

relativistic and quantum mechanical results that we have verified in our lab-
oratories. Again ”do not research as we may fail” 2 .
Another emotional argument (scepticism): It just cannot be accurate.

Someone else would already have thought of it.
Another emotional argument (laziness): I don’t like to read. It takes

too much time. It is easier to ignore than to adress. It can not be that
important.
A technicality argument: It just cannot be valid because it is not pre-

sented according to current standards. Where is the mathematics?
A mathematical argument: The topology of space may be too simple

to provide for fermions. The concept of a carrier topology may only hold
spherical harmonics, and these by themselves can not create the fermionic
property of half-integer spin. 5
All in all, what is considered a risk for success, might very well be a source
of new insights. Please, come up with more arguments. The question has
been around for more than twenty years now. Serious people among engi-
neering physicists, theoretical physicists, mathematicians and philosophers
2
The first response to this argument: this new view on things does not deny our human
perspective or measurement results. It respects the human perspective and measurement
results. Sometimes, however, it questions the interpretation of the measurement results
based on conjectured machinery. In the case of general relativity, we conjecture that
SpaceTime is more dynamical than we have assumed. In the case of quantum mechanics,
the interpreted shapes will result in the known probabilities (table 9.1)
9.2. REASONS FOR NOT DOING THE RESEARCH. 115
were asked to break the arguments. When a mathematician (algebraic ge-

ometry) once was asked, he replied that what I said was obvious. It was
only after the fact that I realised that he probably did not understand what
I meant because he agreed so readily. Maybe he meant it was good intuition.
”Maybe there is no better story yet”. An engineering physicist with a lifelong
career in improving particle accelerators and a good friend said this. Then
again, he is a friend, and his comment is cherished. Maybe this book will
help. Moreover, after all, twenty years is not such a long time from a physics
perspective.
It would be the opposite of smart not to do this research. It

promises so much and costs so little. The nature of research is
that we do not know beforehand whether we will succeed. Let us
not be afraid to make mistakes. We have never been right in
physics before, but we are getting closer.
Chapter 10
How to do the research?
This research project aims to optimise three objects and their interactions.
The objects are a 4-dimensional elastic fabric of SpaceTime (represented by
an array of rational numbers and algorithms for dynamics), an Artificial
Intelligence environment that interacts with the SpaceTime, and an envi-
ronment that facilitates human interaction with the SpaceTime and the AI.
The ultimate goal of the AI is to bring life to SpaceTime or, in other words,
to create dynamically more or less stable local deformations in the fabric
of SpaceTime and simulate physical processes (simulate particles and col-
lisions). However, this elastic SpaceTime, represented in the computer by
an array of interacting rational numbers, is an interesting object in its own
right. Conceptually we can consider it a computer in the computer, and we
just have to find the right way to program it. In other words, how do we
program a problem as the shape of SpaceTime? Then let the array evolve
and interpret its shape as the solution. If we succeed in making quantised
shapes, maybe a discrete quantum computer is hidden in the elastic (as an
actual quantum computer is in reality). Towards these goals, the AI needs
to better and better be able to shape and analyse the behaviour of the ar-
ray. Humans need to manage and hopefully understand SpaceTime and the
AI environment. A more detailed project plan is necessary for students and
other researchers to realise, individually or as part of a team.
10.1 The research effort

The conjectures, consequences, and further sketching are qualitative, and the
step to either quantitative results or refutation will most likely require consid-
erable effort. When the conjectures are correct, it will probably take a multi-
disciplinary effort in which cosmologists, astronomers, theoretical physicists,
117
118 CHAPTER 10. HOW TO DO THE RESEARCH?
mathematicians, computer experts and physics engineers play their parts.
Two types of research are proposed. The effort to research the real world
is finding testable predictions, thinking of ways to test them, and building
the experiments to produce actual results.
The effort to research the abstract world has a theoretical and an engi-
neering side. The theoretical effort is to build geometrical SpaceTimes as
diffeomorphic copies of reality and create operators working on these Space-
Times. There are two types of operators, direct and intermediate operators.
A direct operator can derive properties directly from a SpaceTime such as a
momentum or location of a local distortion1 . Intermediate operators are an
intermediate between the two levels of our paradigm from figure 8.4 on page
101. They are methods to project these SpaceTimes onto other geometrical
spaces. An intermediate operator, for instance, takes a SpaceTime shape
into a probability distribution in a flat 3D space for a specific system. Then
our familiar operators from quantum mechanics take over.
From an engineering point of view, we have to build numeric SpaceTimes

that are digitised copies of parts of our universe 2 . Computer models consist
of collections of numbers. These collections represent SpaceTime, a three-
dimensional Space of a particular shape that can change elastically. The
computer models can represent experiments and are, for instance, interpreted
as particles that collide or as a double-slit particle/wave experiment or, in
principle, any physics experiment possible in the universe.
These computer models could be the first of a new generation of numerical

particle colliders 3 .
1
Think of this as analogous to quantum mechanics where an operator derives momen-
tum from a system’s probability distribution.
2
Here, indeed, it is even better to say that the in-between is the object under investiga-
tion as an analogy to SpaceTime. The in-between is made accessible using the numbers.
3
All network-pictures in this manuscript have been constructed with computer software
(C♯, .NET, XNA) that strives to become a first-generation numerical particle collider. The
problem with the current software is that the shaping of the fabric cannot be controlled
yet with Time passing. Creating stable moving forms is a challenge. The fabric evolves
into interesting shapes, but there is no control over them or insight into stable structures.
Energy in the form of created shapes falls apart, leaks into Space as if evaporating like the
waves from a pebble dropping in a pond instead of the created shape moving around. The
problem is to shape two successive moments in Time so that the next moment in Time,
calculated from these two consecutive moments, still holds the stable shape, and so on to
the next and so forth in a Markov chain of order 2. It is like shaping a cube of elastic
10.1. THE RESEARCH EFFORT 119
Another future challenge is to find the internal structure of the symmetries

in nature (in other words, build the standard model with extra inner struc-
ture, figure 4.2 on page 66 ). How can we shape and control the fabric so
symmetries that represent particles can exist and move in an analogous way
to what we find in the real world? A new field of physics is needed to create
this new level of complexity and new inner structure of known and maybe
unknown objects from our natural world.
The digital particle collider can be seen as a collection of points in elas-

tic connection with their neighbouring points. The collection is an elastic
four-dimensional entity. It can be deformed and vibrates perfectly elastically
guided by its variable elastic resistance. All kinds of tools have to be built
to control SpaceTime, to manipulate and examine the status of the fabric.
The software needs digital microscopes to zoom in on local pieces of Space-
Time. The Space can expand and collapse or behave like a three-torus or a
ball. Think of a double-slit experiment or a wave that bounces off a wall.
In principle, given enough memory and computing power, any real-world ex-
periment comes within reach. It is like creating a particle collider within the
numerical particle collider.
A primary challenge is to create a moving and more or less stable deforma-

tion. How can homemade symmetries live, go from A to B and not dissipate
like the waves from a pebble in a pond? Does variable elastic resistance of
the fabric create scaling of things, and how can fermions be created in this
simple topology?
Parallel to this creative effort, we search for evolutionary ways to find new
stable structures in these flexible Spaces by putting specific energy shapes in
them and letting them go about their business. Will stable resonances with
complex inner structures come to being? This evolutionary path will perhaps
show us the steps in complexity from simple structures to more complex ones
that exhibit other topological features and more complex properties.
A possible spin-off of this numeric fabric and its surrounding technology

for other research fields is considering the numeric fabric as a new type of
computer. We have to learn how to program and interpret the fabric cor-
rectly. Problems, defined as some initial form or shape of the fabric, move
and evolve into answers. Possibly the fabric (i) can support mathematical
material in the real world. The cube will uncontrollably vibrate unless we can find a way
to push it in some particular way to make a stable shape that is travelling around.
120 CHAPTER 10. HOW TO DO THE RESEARCH?
calculations for, i.e. factorisation of large numbers into primes or (ii) is of

use in string theory when extra dimensions are added (figure 4.3 on page
72 ). The numeric fabric may become the analogue of a quantum computer
in the real world.
Numerical experiments may be able to create and test symmetries on dif-

ferent scales. The standard model has three families of particles that be-
have similarly and have different mass scales. Once we establish that carrier
topologies can exist, then for different volumes, new resonating construc-
tions are imaginable, all living in this simple topology. One would expect
bigger and probably more unstable constructions to behave similarly to the
same smaller structures. New creational physics, building structures in the
computer, may test these kinds of speculations.
Numerical experiments may support the search for new particles. Maybe,
we can construct numerical experiments in a new generation of (numeri-
cal) particle colliders that simulate colliding shapes of SpaceTime. The ex-
periments may help create the right circumstances and collide the suitable
particles in the real world. Numerical simulations that manipulate elastic
SpaceTimes can perhaps help if we learn to control those SpaceTimes in
the computer. Control over numerical SpaceTimes comes in two flavours,
(i) designing shapes that take on life in SpaceTime or (ii) the evolutionary
behaviour of SpaceTime where shapes or particles emerge from more noisy
space movement.
Chapter 11
Computer fabric behaviour.
In this chapter, the behaviour of the discrete elastic fabric of SpaceTime from
chapter 4.3 is sketched. The variables involved are the size of the array of
points (or vertices), the connections each vertex has to other vertices, the
symmetries of space (of the discrete mesh of vertices, edges and faces) and
the elastic resistance between the vertices of the mesh. This construction
can be viewed as a continuous 3+1-dimensional in-between that is accessible
(discretised) through numbers.
11.1 The size of the fabric.

On the one hand, we cannot have enough points available to access and study
the in-between. On the flip side, computer memory and computational speed
severely limit the number of points available. In a 3+1 dimensional setting,
a grid of ”just” 1000x1000x1000 points needs 1000.000.000 x 3 time slots x
3 coordinate numbers to start with. Calculating the new coordinates from
the current and past for each point takes significant time. That is a primary
break on researching complex deformations. Size does not affect the local
behaviour of the elastic fabric. Here, local behaviour means the behaviour
of a point relative to its immediate neighbourhood. Size does matter, where
more complex structures are modelled. The finer the grain, the better the
details, the approximations and the simulation.
11.2 The symmetries of the fabric.

To approximate the symmetries of a continuum with a discrete grid of points
has its limitations. The first thing to look for is maximal symmetry. In this
121
122 CHAPTER 11. COMPUTER FABRIC BEHAVIOUR.
case, we strive for optimum symmetry from the viewpoint of each grid point.
The following constructions have been built.
A tetrahedral structure. Every point has four connected neighbours.
A cubic structure. Every point has six connected neighbours.
A body-centred cubic structure. Every point has eight connected neigh-

bours.
A face centred cubic structure. Every point has twelve connected neigh-
bours.
In practice, these fabrics all behave similarly when enough points are
considered to approximate a shape, as instinctively they should. Although
intuition led to using the face centred cubic structure most, the only reason
is a sense of symmetry. For reasons of memory and calculation speed, a
tetrahedral construction is to be preferred.
For Time symmetry, a connection is chosen between one moment T−1 in

the past and one moment T0 as the present. From these two moments, a
discretised Time interval is simulated from which a new discrete moment T1
in the future is calculated. It seems there is no alternative for simulation 3 .
This setup makes for an excellent opportunity to investigate the influence of
Time reversal. By simply swapping T−1 and T0 , the ”movie” is turned back in
time. Simulations immediately clarify that Time reversal is a global property
but not a local property. Even after many cycles (dozens) of evolving before
a moment of Time reversal, the starting position is reached identical to the
naked eye with minor rounding errors in the rational numbers. However, local
Time reversal is immediately ruled out because of interference problems, or in
quantum mechanical terms, because of entanglement problems. One can not
just reverse an initial condition locally. The whole grid has to be involved,
which gives an expected and stunning impression.
11.3 The elastic connections of the fabric.

As is described in 4.4.2 , the connections between neighbouring points are
elastic according to Hooke’s law, where the elastic resistance is constant in
Space and in Time. Constant elastic resistance models a constant speed of
light. Modelling a variable speed of light requires the elastic resistance to be
variable with, for instance, stretch. In our model, this is the only possible
candidate variable (see also an impression in figure 11.1 on page 123).
11.3. THE ELASTIC CONNECTIONS OF THE FABRIC. 123
Figure 11.1: A numerical sketch of slices out of two different spaces containing the same
accumulated mass. The elastic resistance increases more with deformation in the left space
than in the right space. Therefore curvature spreads out more in space. Curvature does
not decrease as fast with increasing distance as 1/r2 , as it does in the case of constant
elastic resistance. The more the elastic resistance of space increases as a function of
deformation, the slower curvature decreases with distance from the black hole. When we
make a screenshot, cut the picture in half, lay the halves on top of each other and toggle
with a software tool between the spaces, the feel for differences becomes quite clear.
124 CHAPTER 11. COMPUTER FABRIC BEHAVIOUR.
11.4 The behaviour of deformations in the

fabric.
Two points are critical. The first is that any implemented deformation is
dissipating, disappearing, spreading over the whole grid. We have no control.
It is very natural behaviour, of course. It also looks natural as it happens.
It is like throwing a pebble in a pond. The waves spread out. We see the
waves move through the grid as if looking at water. Sometimes a shape lasts
for some Time. It has never (by accident) occurred to be a shape with the
looks or the complexity of the elusive carrier ball.
Secondly, we must expect that two very accurately tuned Time slots T−1
and T0 need to be created for a particular shape (read our carrier ball)
to hold its primary properties over some Time. That has so far remained
unattainable. Maybe another human can produce a solution. The temporary
conclusion is that humans alone cannot do it. I would love to be proven
wrong. If at all possible, artificial intelligence has to come to the rescue
somehow. The carrier topology is probably too complex (and possibly even
has stabilising resonances) for an adequate discrete mathematical model to
be composed. ”Trial and error” is the most likely and possibly the only
candidate. Artificial intelligence has the patience, indifference to frustration,
and hopefully, the capability needed. Furthermore, who is to say, maybe even
layers of artificial intelligence are needed, helping each other out, managing,
manipulating and observing the grid?
Part IV
Consequences and objections.
125
Chapter 12
Some consequences.
There are consequences to the conjectures. One would expect these conse-
quences to disqualify the conjectures immediately, and do they? Not for the
moment, but we must try to disprove them. We will discuss some necessary
and possible consequences. In the quest to come to terms with or negate the
conjectures, a new field of research might prosper. There is nothing wrong
with the current path we are walking concerning developing, for instance,
the standard model of particle physics, general relativity or string theory.
That path will remain essential to develop the human perspective. However,
underlying them is and needs to be machinery to explain why they work in
their specific fields of operation.
Below are some sketches of possible consequences. Interestingly, we can

interpret the measurements differently when using different models. While
the measurements remain the same, our conclusions do not. We may have
to revisit many of our measurements for interpretation.
12.1 The speed of light

The variability of the speed of light may be an essential consequence of
the variable elastic resistance of space. The more space gets stretched, the
stiffer it will possibly become. The stiffer space is the faster light travels. Is
there any basis, any evidence, that supports and suggests this variable elas-
tic resistance property? We could take our interpretation that the universe’s
expansion is accelerating as a sign that something is wrong. Our measure-
ments should still be our guide, but we must see them in a new light. The
variability of the speed of light may be one contributing factor.
127
128 CHAPTER 12. SOME CONSEQUENCES.
Figure 12.1: Stretched space. A large mass pulls space toward the centre of the picture.
Further away from the centre, the tension gets smaller. In a static situation, the volume of
space does not move. Forces inside the ball-slice of space balance forces outside the slice.
If not, the volume of space starts to move and deform. The metric of space depends on
how the tension in the fabric stretches space. In the case of Hooke’s law, this dependency
is linear (twice the tension means twice the deformation).
12.1. THE SPEED OF LIGHT 129
Figure 12.2: A sketch to illustrate practically flat space at the smallest and small scales
and in between carrier topologies and space waves of relatively chaotic form.
If we are willing to believe space has elasticity, we can describe the be-
haviour of space displacement resulting from tension by Hooke’s law. In a
static situation, space displacement would behave as 1/r2 when elastic re-
sistance is constant(see also figure 12.1 on page 128 ). The elasticity of
space is a natural thing to assume. For what other material reason would
the metric of space constantly adapt to passing masses?
Computer simulations (figure 11.1 on page 123) that numerically simu-

late this elastic fabric show that when we assume variable elastic resistance,
increasing with displacement, different metrics, different from 1/r2 , can be
produced.
Hopefully, it may still be possible to measure the variable speed of light.

It is doubtful, but maybe, the following experiment has some probability
of succeeding, using two atomic clocks at different heights from the earth’s
surface. Prediction is that the highest clock will go faster than the lower
clock, but just a little less than predicted by general relativity because the
speed of light is just a little slower at a higher altitude (instead of being con-
stant). However, there is no indication of how the elastic resistance of space
behaves over such small distances in such a weak gravitational field. Real-
istically speaking, the difference may very well be unmeasurable for realistic
time-lapses. Probably other measurement errors, specifically in measuring
heights, will destroy any chance of success.
The speed of light may vary from place to place depending on the elastic
resistance of deforming space. This lightspeed variability seems negligible on
earth and practically anywhere else. In the neighbourhood of a black hole,
space distorts significantly, so the speed of light may differ from the speed of
light on the earth.
Tests for the variability of the speed of light are not trivial. Experimental
tests are hard. Maybe even impossible, as Christoph Schiller [32] describes.
He writes ”Since the speed of light enters into our definition of time and
space, it thus enters, even if we do not notice it, into the construction of all
rulers, all measurement standards and all measuring instruments. Therefore
there is no way to detect whether the value will actually vary. No imaginable
experiment could detect a variation of the limit speed, as the limit speed is
the basis for all measurements. That is the irony of progress in physics. The
observer-invariance of the speed of light is counter-intuitive and astonish-
ing when compared to the observer-dependence of everyday Galilean speeds.
But had we taken into account that every speed measurement is, whether we
like it or not, a comparison with the speed of light, we would not have been
astonished by the invariance of the speed of light at all.”
12.1.1 Black hole structure.

The internal structure of what is known as a black hole behaves more like a
resonance cavity than a singularity. The gravitational force counterbalances
the internal outward pressure of wildly moving space. The internal structure
of black holes becomes complicated in the new paradigm. Energy collapsing
into a point is not possible. The black hole is like an absorbing and leaking
resonating cavity filled with ’noise’. The cavity probably modulates the res-
onances in the cavity. It is a chaotically waving, highly deformed volume of
space where both extreme stretch and compression play a role. The speed of
propagation might behave erratically in a black hole.
12.2. REDSHIFTS. 131
12.2 Redshifts.
Current physics assumes one reason (accelerated expansion) for redshift by
space expansion. The new paradigm introduces yet three other reasons.
The first new influence is the variable elastic resistance of SpaceTime and
accompanying variable lightspeed. When the speed of light c is variable, and
space is stretched differently throughout the universe’s evolution, we must
revisit our astronomical data. After all, wavelength λ and frequency ν are
related by λν = c. The second reason is that the expansion of SpaceTime
influences the size of carrier topologies. Atoms will send light with different
frequencies when they have different sizes. The third new influence is the
much more dynamic nature of SpaceTime. Large volumes may be expanded
or contracted and may influence our distance measurements. Depending
on the relative size of the contributions to the interpretation of redshifts,
this could mean that an accelerated expansion of the universe is the wrong
conclusion from the data and that dark energy does not necessarily exist.
We have to discuss our conclusions on the redshifts of stars and models for
the expanding universe. As an example figure 12.3 on page 132 is shown.
12.3 The age of the universe.

The age of the universe from the current calculations might be incorrect. The
speed of propagation increases when space is stretched or, reasoning back in
time, everything slows down. Global Time is still ticking at a steady pace.
Consequently, the universe’s age, as we calculated it, is incorrect. See also
table ?? on page ??. Furthermore, a big crunch scenario would also be
questionable because there will come a Time during the collapse when the
existing Space deformations will give enough counter pressure, more or less
analogous to a collapsing star. In a collapsing star, the gravitational force is
counterbalanced by the body’s internal pressure. The universe does not have
to shrink into a point or come from a point. From big to small and back
may also be a possibility. When we agree upon the machinery, even a more
fluttering universe may be a better alternative model for our universe.
12.4 galaxy formation.

We should consider allowing waves of very large wavelength to exist. These
waves are complex shapes, not just simple ”one frequency” waves. The speeds
at which they travel do not come close to the speed of light. Let us sup-
pose that we are talking wavelength of about a couple of hundred thousand
Figure 12.3: Redshift by SpaceTime expansion has four contributions. One is from
the global expansion of SpaceTime. One is from the dynamics in local expansions and
contractions, influencing our distance measurements. One is from an increasing elastic
resistance of SpaceTime (thus increasing the speed of light with expansion), and one is
from the shrinking of the carrier topology as a resonance cavity with increased stretch. In
a younger universe, atoms are bigger and send larger wavelength photons. These waves
get stretched more during their travel to earth. However, the expansion contribution to
the redshift is considered too large if we do not subtract the effect of changing atom size,
the effect of variable lightspeed and the effect of local expansions and contractions. That
could mean that accelerated expansion is the wrong conclusion from our data.
12.4. GALAXY FORMATION. 133
lightyears. SpaceTime over this length scale is now contracted and stretched.
The maximally stretched SpaceTime will function as an attractor of energy,
just like mass is an attractor of energy. Let us call these attractors troughs.
Galaxies, as a result, are born in the troughs of gravity-wave-like waves.

Waves of all kinds of scales fill the universe. It stands to reason that energy in
the vicinity of the throughs is pulled towards the troughs, where space-fabric
is stretched most (figure 12.4 on page 134 ). The troughs gather energy
as if they are cavities or masses. Like black holes, the troughs behave like
containers. Only the scale is different.
Galaxies travel through the universe on the waves, like surfers. One would
expect this energy to be distributed in a more or less spherical form around
the maximum stretch, around the trough. The excess energy we are getting
familiar with as dark matter may, as a result, be of a character between
gravitational-wave-like and elementary particle like. The dark matter im-
pression, the reshaping of SpaceTime, moves slower than light but is of a
curvature nature and not of a particle nature. We have to look for dark mat-
ter in the (global) curvature of SpaceTime determined by the (local) metric
term gµν of Einstein’s equation for general relativity. Dark matter is not in
the energy term. Dark matter is hidden in the Riemann tensor. Dark matter
doesn’t show up in de Ricci tensor so doesn’t show up in the Einstein field
equation. Dark matter is like gravitational waves but it does not move with
the speed of light. Its shape, its ”wavelength”, stretches over vast areas of
space. We may need an extra term in Einstein’s field equation, ”left” or
”right”, so to speak where Einstein’s field equation is:
Rµν − 21 gµν R + gµν Λ = 8πG

c4
Tµν .
Einstein’s field equation does not seem to represent the full flexibility in
the dynamical possibilities of the fabric of SpaceTime. It is not clear to me,
if at all possible, how to adjust the equation for dark matter. Like carrier
balls, other more global stable structures of a space-shaped character (and
not moving with the speed of light) are not part of physics yet. An extra
term would represent the energy of a curvature nature. The energy is not
electromagnetic or gravitational wave-like in nature and should be moving
slower than the speed of light. The energy is also not fermion-like. Let us
consider adding a term (on the right or left) that represents the energy stored
in the more global shapes of spacetime. The new equation could look like
Rµν − 21 gµν R − Dµν = 8πG

c4
Tµν
Figure 12.4: The gravitational field around an attractor trough A.
or
Rµν − 21 gµν R = 8πG

c4
Tµν + Dµν
The term gµν Λ is now absorbed by Dµν .
At scales of 600 to 900 million lightyears, one finds a structure in the

universe not resembling uniformity. This structure may also be attributed to
travelling waves but now of that order of a billion lightyears. At wavelengths
of this size, again, we would expect energy accumulation in the troughs of
the waves. We would expect voids where SpaceTime is compressed the most.
The concepts of dark matter and dark energy disappear from

physics, each for a different reason.
Chapter 13
Possible objections.
13.1 Objections.
As part of the effort to refute the proposed conjectures, it is necessary to
consider as many relevant objections as possible. These objections, in turn,
need to be investigated with scrutiny and may lead to necessary consequences
for the conjectures to survive.
13.2 The topology of space is too simple.

The objection. The topology of space may be too simple to provide for
fermions.
The response. A new concept needs a new word 5. In this case, the word is
carrier ball or carrier topology. It reflects the idea that, in the simple topology
of diffeomorphisms of Euclidean space, we need structures that mimic other
topologies, enabling local energy resonances. Carrier topologies must be able
to form in the proposed simple topology. It is a necessary consequence.
Locally the tension of space can be relaxed through the formation of carrier
topologies that resemble balls, tubes and possibly even toruses and knotted
tube formations (see an example in figure 4.2 on page 66).
The topology of these carrier topologies is still simple and the same as
the topology of the rest of space. Different topologies would lead to non-
equivalent symmetries. Only one topology exists in the proposed paradigm,
and no topology change is allowed. Symmetry and symmetry breaking both
play a role in carrier topologies’ structure. So balls are not perfect balls,
tubes are not perfect tubes, and toruses are not perfect toruses. They are
135
136 CHAPTER 13. POSSIBLE OBJECTIONS.
open along a small surface. Waves of space can resonate in and on the carrier
topology. It serves as a cavity resonator. Carrier topologies become the bases
for deformations that represent fermions and bosons.
It is tempting to assume that torus-like resonances exist within the carrier-

ball to enable fermion properties. The topology of space is already sufficient
to enable bosons. To produce a basis for fermions, we expect Legendre
polynomials to be helpful mathematical tools. A carrier topology is the
analogue of a string or brane in a way. The complexity of the resonating
form of the cavity contains the information otherwise stored in the extra
dimensions of string theory.
Some progress has been made in constructing carrier balls. Using Legen-
dre polynomials to create spherical symmetries, two mirror images have been
brought together at different distances to shape SpaceTime. At an optimum
distance of the centres of the symmetries, a measure for the total potential en-
ergy of the SpaceTime reaches a minimum, suggesting a stable configuration.
However, no dynamics are involved, so we can not show stability yet. Show-
ing stable dynamic behaviour will be among the most significant challenges
we will face, possibly with a huge pay-off. As a side step, it is interesting to
note that Christoph Schiller ([33], page 55) addresses the same problem and
suggests another solution that makes topology change unnecessary.
13.3 Quantisation is not ensured.

The objection. Restricted deformability by the variability of the elastic re-
sistance of space does not ensure quantisation properties.
The response. The existence of quantisation is explained as follows. Carrier

topologies express quantisation. The size of carrier topologies results from
scaling. Scaling results from the combination of variable elastic resistance
and the availability of only a finite, specific amount of energy in the fabric.
The existence of a preferred scale in nature suggests that (i) the symme-
try in nature is not perfect or that (ii) the universe has a limited size that,
like a resonating cavity, determines the scaling in its interior or (iii) perhaps
some other reason beyond my capabilities. The first explanation seems nat-
ural because the symmetry-breaking mechanism by the variability of elastic
resistance is simple and possibly testable.
13.4. WHERE ARE DISPERSION PHENOMENA? 137
Today’s physics lacks a mechanism for scaling, so the scale of things re-
mains implicit in Planck’s constant. Variable elastic resistance resulting in
limited deformability breaks the symmetry. When flat space contains energy
and is curved, different neighbourhoods can have different properties. In-
creasing elastic resistance counteracts too much deformation of SpaceTime.
The energy will disperse. It will spread out1 . To make a small circle out of
a stiff line takes disproportionately more energy than making a larger cir-
cle. Therefore, the carrier topology needs a particular minimum volume to
become stable.
Quantisation indirectly results from restricted deformability. Space at the

smallest scales is smooth and practically flat instead of chaotically fluctuat-
ing. More chaotic behaviour exists at larger scales. It facilitates the interpre-
tation of a chaotic vacuum that supplies vacuum energy from which particles
can come into short-lived existence constrained by Heisenberg’s uncertainty
principle (figure 12.2 on page 129).
13.4 Where are dispersion phenomena?

The objection. Variable elastic resistance will have consequences for the
superposition principle. Dispersion phenomena should be anticipated, and
why have we not noticed them yet?
The response. This is another opportunity for testing the conjectures.

Have we looked for these effects yet? We may already have noticed them.
Maybe data already exists that supports or rejects the conjectures. It will
probably not be easy to interpret the data in this light. Dispersion through
local variations in the elastic resistance may affect structures and may even be
a driving force behind the concepts of decay and half-life in nuclear processes.
The previously mentioned matter of uniformity in the background radiation
seems supported by this dispersion phenomenon.
1
This behaviour of limited deformability and dispersion will also be instrumental in
explaining the uniformity in the background radiation we measure, as an alternative to
the theory of inflation, and in the mechanism for a soft frequency cut-off (an ultraviolet
limit).
13.5 The fine structure constant variable?

The objection. The fine structure constant
1 e2
α=
4πϵ0 ℏc
(where e is the elementary charge, ℏ = h/2π is the reduced Planck constant, c

is the speed of light in vacuum, and ϵ0 is the electric constant or permittivity
of free space) may not allow for the suggested variation in the speed of light.
The response. The fine structure constant is a result of all the Space-
Time properties (density, bendability and elastic resistance). There are sev-
eral constants in the formula for the fine structure constant. Restricted to
the earth, all data not from considerably deformed space will support their
constancy. There is reasonable doubt about the constancy of, for instance,
Planck’s constant. The scale of things results from the non-constancy of the
elastic resistance of space that restricts the deformability of space. To apply
curvature to space requires more and more power, non linearly growing, for
larger curvature, and the available energy is limited. Think of it as bending
a line into a circle. It gets harder and harder quickly to make the circle
smaller when elastic resistance increases with increasing curvature. Planck’s
constant reflects the scale of things in the universe. The carrier ball (figure
4.2 on page 66 and figure 12.3 on page 132 ) may change size when it moves
from a place with lower elastic resistance to one with higher elastic resistance.
The scale of things changes a little and, so would Planck’s constant.
That does not necessarily mean the change in the speed of light must cancel
the change in Planck’s constant. α and ϵ0 may not be as constant over space
as we have assumed. Furthermore, we assume the speed of light is constant.
It possibly influences our choice of equipment, our measurements and their
interpretation. Other arguments and lines of thought against the objection
may still be out of reach. This objection is relevant but does not disqualify
the proposed conjectures yet. It is an opportunity to hold our current beliefs
against new light in new research and delve into historical experimental data.
Research is also suggested into the experimental data on fine structure

corrections to the hydrogen spectrum and the Lamb shift. It also constitutes
an opportunity for refuting the conjectures, but let us keep in mind the
influence of traditional assumptions such as constant lightspeed. Has the
data ever been interpreted in another setting than the standard one?
13.6. DO NOT INNOVATE FROM THE OUTSIDE-IN. 139
Although the gravitational constant is not in the formula, now may be

the moment to relate it to Planck’s constant. The gravitational constant
originates from the amount of Space necessary to construct local shapes
that, with their specific size and symmetry, locally ”relax” the fabric. The
volume of SpaceTime necessary to construct particle-shapes is pulled away
from surrounding space. The surrounding SpaceTime deforms, setting the
stage for a value for the gravitational constant. Planck’s constant, reflecting
the scale of things, is a building block for the gravitational constant G as G
follows from the scale and amplitudes of deformations.
If we restructure the formula for the fine structure constant 13.5 , relating
charge to ℏ and c, it states:
p
e = F ϵ0 ℏc
Where F is a dimensionless constant involving α, π and four. We could intro-

duce an arbitrary other constant β to make it all even more mysterious. The
fine structure constant is what it is because π is what it is, and four is what
it is. To say that it is fundamental seems an exaggeration. Dimensionless
constants form a bridge between concepts that we humans find in nature. So
the fine structure constant is special, given the way we order nature from our
perspective, but is it fundamental? β, as defined as α/2, is then suddenly
also very fundamental.
Along with the fine structure constant come more than twenty other di-
mensionless constants, relating, for instance, concepts in the standard model.
All these constants are considered fundamental but are they? Where is the
machinery, in which they are fundamental, would be the first question. They
are important in a specific ordering but fundamental?
13.6 Do not innovate from the outside-in.

The objection.Physicists may argue from a philosophical point of view that
it is not wise to work on physics from the outside in and try to establish
contact with current physics somewhere along the line. It is a good point
and reflects the wisdom of those who have researched.
The response. What is there to be afraid of? No result is also a result

and often an important one. It prevents others from taking the same road,
and the process may provide inspiring ideas. Furthermore, another concern
supports the idea to take a step outside the environment. The concern is
that working from the inside out may never get us to where we want to be.
We may always have to cherish our behavioural constants while there may
be reasons behind them. It might be so that the situation requires that we
first have to let go of lots of what we thought we knew and all of that at the
same time.
A candidate for connecting from the inside out to the physics proposed
in this manuscript is the physics of causal dynamical triangulations [4]. It
uses only two constants, the gravitational constant and the cosmological
constant. The way to go is to try to get rid of the constants and introduce
specific structural properties such as elasticity and elastic resistance for the
simplexes used in building the model universes. This step (right or wrong) is
relatively straightforward from the outside in but not trivial from the inside
out. From the inside, the suggestion is to increase the number of constants
if the models were to fail.
There are two other, of probably numerous candidates, to connect to. Both
candidates currently use linear elasticity theory. They are (i) the physics de-
veloping the Elastodynamics of the SpaceTime Continuum (STCED) based
on the analysis of the deformations of the STC within a general relativis-
tic and continuum mechanical framework [23] and (ii) The physics of tube
dislocations in gravity [10].
Part V
Appendices.
141
Appendix A
New definitions.
Newly proposed definitions are collected in this appendix.
The word definition is used in the following sense:

A definition is an object that is constructed with words to make a distinction
between what does comply with the (definition-)object and what does not.
Words are constructed using symbols. In general, a definition looks like this:
An object is a ... that ... .
A human perspective is a perspective that makes distinctions.

A human perspective distinguishes objects such as numbers, measuring ap-
paratuses, coordinate systems, particles and fields.
Machinery is a mechanism that is capable of change.
Full machinery or complete machinery is machinery that is capable of

change by itself.
SpaceTime is machinery that models reality. SpaceTime, using three

Space-dimensions and one Time-dimension, generates the human perspec-
tive of spacetime where spacetime is defined by Einstein in general relativity
theory, using three space-dimensions and one time-dimension.
The TimeInterval is the machinery for change and is one of the SpaceTime-
dimensions.
Time, or MachineryTime, is a measure of change in SpaceTime.
143
144 APPENDIX A. NEW DEFINITIONS.
An in-between is an intuitive continuity.

An in-between is not made of normal points. It is made of very special points,
touching points that have neighbours. An in-between has no distinguished
points. An in-between can have distinguishable points. Distinguished points
specify an in-between but do not belong to the in-between. Touching points
are like unicorns. They do not exist in reality but the concept of the touching
point helps us bridge the gap between numbers and in-betweens. In-betweens
are necessary because we have no other mathematical way to define continuity
properly (without using dubious objects such as infinity and infinitesimals).
We also (through in-betweens) admit that continuity is beyond mathematics
grip as it stands. It would be dubious to give up our intuition that continuity
plays a role in modelling reality. Without in-betweens, we are automatically
doomed to model reality as discrete if we wish to use mathematics as realities
descriptive tool.
touching points are points that can not be separated by inserting another
point.
Using the word touching is the moment where discrete and continuous come
together. It attempts to create the continuous from distinctions, wherein the
continuous nothing is distinguishable. By distinguishing specialised points
(”touching” points), we create the possibility to identify ”some” of them with
numbers.
A distinguishable point is a point that can be distinguished by a number

but that is not distinguished.
A distinguished point is a point that is distinguished by a number.

Appendix B
Objects and relations.
The word object is used in this book, like in object-oriented programming.

An object can be just about anything that can be defined. It is something in
the real world or an abstract entity. An object is, for example, an account,
an order, a point, an animal, a plant or a stone. The concept object is the
most general object. Wikipedia gives us words like a thing, being, or concept
to define it. Other related words: entity, something, something abstract, an
identifiable collection of matter, a goal, target, element”. My attempt: an
object is anything that we can distinguish from ”the rest”. An object has
properties and relations to other objects. An object can, for example, be a
generalisation (an ape is a generalisation of a gorilla) or a specialisation (a
gorilla is a specialisation of an ape). A property of an object can be an object
in some other context. The property colour of the object wood can be red,
and the object colour red has an electromagnetic frequency as its property.
A definition is an object that is constructed with words to make a distinc-

tion between what does comply with the object and what does not. Words
are constructed using symbols. In general, a definition looks like this: An
object is a ... that ... . For instance: a leather ball is a ball that has a leather
outer layer.
A relation between objects is a connection that links objects. It seems

a useless definition but concretised would sound like: A person has a bank
account. An ape eats food. Space harbours energy. Energy deforms space.
An object can be defined by its properties. A property can be defined by

its properties. In a sense, it seems hopeless to completely define everything.
Examples of properties of the owning object are: Apes have skin. A bank
145
146 APPENDIX B. OBJECTS AND RELATIONS.
account has a number. Space has dimensions. Space has elasticity. Time 3
has intervals (time is a difficult one, arguably even the most difficult one).
There is no shame in being confused. It is part of the human perspective

and making distinctions.
Appendix C
Machinery and mechanisms.
Physicists describe nature using mathematics and ideas and concepts. We

give physical descriptions in the language of mathematics. A whole world is
created
q behind symbols E when we introduce physics concepts. An example:
a = cb is a relatively simple mathematical formula. Using different symbols
for introduced concepts, it states E = mc2 , arguably the most famous formula
in physics. Every symbol represents a concept, gets a physical meaning and
is suddenly related to other physically meaningful symbols.
Symbols represent objects. Objects have relations, and behind the rela-
tions hide mechanisms. Energy is related to mass by the square of the speed
of light. In this case, the underlying mechanism is not even known yet.
Dictionaries define the words mechanism and machinery in a way that
is not suited for the level of detail this book needs for distinction. For the
time being, physics is based on concepts like number fields, spacetime and
symmetries in a ”loose sand” manner. SpaceTime, being a single object,
a single machine, can explain these concepts as being a human perspective
from within the machine itself. We use the words in the following manner as
illustrated in figure C.1, on page 148.
Definition 1. A mechanism.
A mechanism is an object that accomplishes a task. Examples are a pro-
cess, technique, integral, differential equation, law, principle, or system of
interacting parts.
A special kind of mechanism is machinery. Machinery is a specialisation
of mechanism. All machinery is a mechanism, but not all mechanisms are
machinery.
Definition 2. Machinery.
Machinery is a mechanism that is a working system consisting of interacting
147
148 APPENDIX C. MACHINERY AND MECHANISMS.
Figure C.1: The relation between the concepts mechanism and machinery. SpaceTime
is full machinery, yet spacetime is not. spacetime is a mechanism (partly machinery).
material parts working collectively (a machine, so to speak, made of fabrics).
Other possible definitions for machinery and full machinery that I like
are
Definition 3. Machinery.
Machinery is a mechanism that is capable of change.
Definition 4. Full machinery.

Full machinery is machinery that is capable of change by itself.
The definition used in this book for machinery is more restrictive than
is indicated by dictionaries in general. We could claim that an integral is
machinery using the general definition. It is not according to the above
definitions (used in this book)!
Assumed is that the words system, interacting, material and part are de-
fined by the general dictionary and are common ground (an often made
assumption). Machinery can not use laws or principles, or integrals. Ma-
chinery can only use objects (with their specific properties) that can change.
Laws and symmetries are properties inferred from the underlying composi-
tion of the machinery. Sometimes, our descriptions and explanations have no
underlying machinery. For instance, the Newtonian gravitational pull has no
underlying machinery. What is doing what, how and why? In this book, we
aspire to describe nature using just full machinery. After all, reality seems to
149
be a complete working system. The working model of reality must behave like
reality, must explain reality, and must be understandable and trustworthy.
We relate integrals, differential equations, principles and laws to machinery.
We infer them from machinery.
Some examples of what is and what is not machinery can be found in table
C.1 .
The words describe, explain, understand, and trust are regularly used.
They are different in the following way. Symbols and words make up a
description, so mathematics describes. An explanation is made by connect-
ing (by analogy) the mathematics to reality with meaningful reasoning E
. Physicists make explanations (using, among other things, mathematics,
words, meaning and experiments as their primary tools). Understanding
and trusting are done by the philosopher in us, who tries to make sense of
the explanations and accepts or rejects them.
It is not enough to describe the behaviour of a system. One needs to

explain the behaviour and make that explanation understandable and trust-
worthy by showing that the explanation works through its understandable
and trustworthy machinery. The description is in the mathematics. The
explanation is in the concepts, the physics, the story, the pictures and the
machinery.
This project is striving for a completely machinery driven explanation for

reality. Millette [23] gives another example. Almost all of Millette’s physics
is machinery driven. The machinery only seems missing in the tearing and
glueing of the fabric of spacetime.
As humans, we should realise that we have never been right about anything
in describing reality in the past. All we did, is construct seemingly better and
better approximations. Working without complete machinery seems to hold
more risk of strange, almost religious artefacts, like the belief in extrapolating
equations into singularities or the belief perhaps in too many dimensions or
too many universes lurking around the corner.
The existence of information lies in the machinery of reality. The

existence of the machinery of reality does not lie in information.
Bits are not the building blocks of reality. Probabilities do not
explain.
Table C.1: This table shows some examples of items that are or are not machinery
according to the proposed definition.
Full machin-
Item Machinery? Why?
ery?
A pen is a complete system and capable of change
A pen Yes No
but not capable of change by itself.
A car is a complete system and capable of change
A car Yes Yes
and capable of change by itself.
Software is not a complete system, not capable of
Software No No
change and not capable of change by itself.
A book is a complete system, not capable of change
A book No No
and not capable of change by itself.
A computer is a complete system and capable of
A computer Yes Yes
change and capable of change by itself.
A mathe- A mathematical law is not a complete system, not
No No
matical law capable of change and not capable of change by itself.
An equation is not a complete system, not capable
An equation No No
of change and not capable of change by itself.
A classic A classic telescope is a complete system and capable
Yes No
telescope of change but not capable of change by itself.
A measuring device is a complete system and capable
A measuring
Yes Maybe of change but it may not be capable of change by
device
itself.
A string A string from string theory can be a complete system
from string Yes Yes and is capable of change and is capable of change by
theory itself.
SpaceTime is a complete system and capable of
SpaceTime Yes Yes
change and capable of change by itself.
spacetime is not a complete system. It is capable of
change and it is only partially capable (think of grav-
spacetime
itational waves) of change by itself. The property
(from Ein-
(or properties) influencing change is(/are) unclear.
stein’s Yes No
spacetime is not a complete system in the parts of
general rela-
spacetime occupied by energy. Energy is responsible
tivity)
(directly or indirectly) for all of the change in space-
time.
151
The main conjecture revolves around the assumption that reality has
properties that make it the way it is and changes. Reality does not have to
read laws. It does not follow laws or orders. Laws are artificial tools to help
us describe and predict changes in nature. Nature changes because of the
way it is, because of its machinery, its structure, and fabric.
Laws are constructs by humans, inferred from reality.
Mathematics is a construct by humans.
Measuring apparatuses are constructs by humans.
Interpretations of experimental results are constructs by humans.
Claims, such as Feynman diagrams, quantum mechanics, general relativ-

ity and the standard model govern everything we experience, have it back-
wards. Everything follows from the underlying machinery. Diagrams and
models follow and result, depending on the chosen perspective. In other
words, there are two different types of physics — the physics of the machin-
ery and the inferred physics of the human perspective on the machinery.
Not acknowledging our limitations in mathematics and physics would be
a loss. It might keep us from doing relevant research.
Appendix D
Weaknesses.
To achieve goals, it is useful to know strengths as well as weak-

nesses.
Let us not dwell long on our weaknesses, but it is best to get them dis-
cussed and out of the way straight away. History has shown, humankind
has adopted some (in hindsight strange) views in the past that we had to
abandon. The typical example is the thought that the earth is flat. From a
human perspective, the thought sounds reasonable at first, but it seems only
very locally true sometimes, and it is nonsense on any scale. We replaced it
with a better notion. I propose we recognise some other fundamental notions
as replaceable. More details are revealed elsewhere in the book on the how
and why.
First of all, we have to examine the consequences of making distinctions.

Never in the history of humankind has that been an issue, but the subject is
now coming into focus.
One notion we have to replace comes from our need to grasp the continuum.
Today we think we have that grip on the continuum. Some would even say
the grip is firm, and there are no problems. They are wrong. That is an
opinion (not mine alone, though). This book proposes a project based on
logic, mathematics, and physics to research a conjecture on nature. Lots will
fall into place, and the people, who still think there are no problems with
our understanding and description of continuity, will have to rethink.
The current grip on continuity is grounded in the belief in infinities and

infinitesimals. Infinities and infinitesimals are like flat earth. We can get
153
154 APPENDIX D. WEAKNESSES.
some exciting results, but ultimately it is nonsense, a fantastic story, a fan-

tasy. It would be a good moment in history when we openly admit this. Let
us separate the useful from the fairytale and replace infinite processes with
ongoing processes . Ongoing processes can take a long time, much space,
and many steps but do not take to infinity. Ongoing, instead of infinite, will
separate the useful from the fantasy in mathematics and physics. We cannot
take processes to infinity. We never have, of course. Challenge your inner
mathematician and prove me wrong. Use all available logic, knowledge and
the scientific method. Social status should not be a decider.
Even more important is the moment we admit that we cannot grasp the
continuum through numbers alone. This book proposes a new mathematical
object that embodies all this admission of inability. The new object holds
all the relevant attributes of continuity. Numbers will only be a tool to
explore this object, access it and address it within reason. The object has
the name in-between. The in-between will be our open acknowledgement of
our limited human perspective and the limits of making distinctions. The
object is a celebration of the beauty of continuity and will prove to be a valid
mathematical object in our study of the universe.
In physics, we have to deal with some weaknesses as well. First is the over-
estimation of the human perspective. History shows, we have often thought
we were right where we were not. Humans are not so different from other
animals, and the earth is not the centre of the universe. The sun does not
revolve around the earth. The measuring apparatus is not separate from its
environment. Moreover, particles or tensor fields do not make the world.
The human perspective and making distinctions are directly related to our
relation to experiments and experimental results and our trust and abilities
in separating measuring apparatus from the environment. We have not con-
sidered enough evaluating nature as an undivided entity yet. Nor have we
taken into account the ”photon perspective”, the perspective that represents
the possibility that nature needs only one operating speed, only one rhythm,
to function. Coordinate systems are tools of the human perspective. The
coordinate system we have not considered enough is the coordinate system
that travels with the photons at the speed of light. In this coordinate system,
things change too.
Another weakness is our tendency to mix machinery with other mecha-

nisms. The universe is complete machinery, having properties, just doing
155
its thing, independent of what we think or see, independent of any laws we

think it obeys. It moves according to its properties. The universe is no slave
to anything. It is nonsense that the universe reads or obeys laws to change.
Only we seem to need laws to understand the universe.
Physicists often label philosophy as unnecessary in the quest for the truth.
We refer to mathematics as the only tool for description. As if we may
only use the numbers in the alphanumeric symbols toolbox. We need to
describe and explain but also understand and trust those explanations. We
are neglecting a powerful tool and taking a position of arrogance. Not the
best situation to be in when dealing with the complexity at hand.
And then there are human sociology and mortality. The scientific method
seems to be an independent mechanism for correcting weaknesses on their
account over time. However, it means that I cannot finish what I started.
”Why don’t you do the project yourself?” The project is too complex for me
alone, and I am too old. Suspicion is that the project is even too complex for
other more intelligent humans without the help of artificial intelligence. It
seems possible to achieve success if we find the right balance between living
and artificial intelligence somewhere in the future.
156 APPENDIX D. WEAKNESSES.
Appendix E
Reasoning.
Maybe, the capability of noticing that we make distinctions is

the capability of consciousness. Maybe, the capability of noticing
the distinction between I and the environment is the capability of
self-consciousness. Consciousness and self-consciousness become
objects in a pretty complex object model, floating as software, rep-
resented by middleware as changing electromagnetism and chem-
istry, on the brain’s hardware. The brain needs to be complex
enough, but it is the temporary software in the hardware struc-
ture that reasons and that is aware and conscious. The software
pushes the hardware into changes.
First, establish some common ground before discussing a foundational

issue in mathematics and new physics. This chapter is a quick summary on
reasoning. In an appendix on consciousness P , speculations can be found
on how the brain is aware, to make distinctions and to reason. Another
appendix on choice and free will Q is also included.
Our ability to distinguish is the necessary foundation that facilitates all

reasoning. Without this ability, we can not recognise objects and can not ask
questions. Evolution brings us the nervous system, including a brain, per-
ception, rudimentary movement, rudimentary thinking, rudimentary sounds,
more playing, more thinking, more complex sounds and vocabulary. Some-
where during this development, we develop and can address our fear of death,
our primary motivator. We develop language, start reasoning, ask questions,
seek answers. We come up with symbols and numbers and build belief sys-
tems. Mathematics comes in as a foundation for understanding nature from
the human perspective. Let us start at the point where we can create num-
bers and examine the available reasoning types. Definitions in this chapter
157
158 APPENDIX E. REASONING.
are from Wikipedia and the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Sometimes,

I have changed things to simplify reading without losing meaning, hopefully.
Quotes are literal copies.
First, we must distinguish between syntactic reasoning (symbolic manip-

ulations) and semantic reasoning. Syntactic or symbolic reasoning involves
manipulating symbols and words (groups of symbols) without meaning or
relation to reality. Computers are particularly good at this. Semantic rea-
soning relates those symbols and words to the real world and gives meaning.
Reasoning can be done purely by symbols according to specific rules. Rea-
soning can also be done concerning the real world, where the symbols get
meaning by analogy reasoning. Physicists reason symbolically on paper with
”enhanced” mathematics C . Enhanced here means that the symbols have
”real life” meaning. E, for instance, often means energy with everything that
the concept of energy stands for. E is related to reality, and lots is hidden
behind the letter symbol.
E.1 Analogy.
The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy[5]:
”Analogy and analogical reasoning:

An analogy is a comparison between two objects, or systems of
objects, that highlights respects in which they are thought to be
similar. Analogical reasoning is any type of thinking that relies
upon an analogy. An analogical argument is an explicit repre-
sentation of a form of analogical reasoning that cites accepted
similarities between two systems to support the conclusion that
some further similarity exists. In general (but not always), such
arguments belon g in the category of ampliative reasoning, since
their conclusions do not follow with certainty but are only sup-
ported with varying degrees of strength. However, the proper
characterisation of analogical arguments is subject to debat.
Analogical reasoning is fundamental to human thought and,
arguably, to some non-human animals as well. Historically, ana-
logical reasoning has played an important, but sometimes mys-
terious, role in a wide range of problem-solving contexts. The
explicit use of analogical arguments, since antiquity, has been a
distinctive feature of scientific, philosophical and legal reasoning.”
E.2. CAUSE AND EFFECT. 159
Analogical thinking is done, for instance, when counting objects. First,

we model or identify a system, a field with cow objects or a forest, and then
count cows or trees using the available number system. First, there must be
the perceiving of cows. Let us start with making distinctions as the first form
of analogical thinking. Worms seem to perceive differences, but I would not
call that reasoning yet. They do not seem to acknowledge the differences.
Let us draw a line here. We might relate a number to a cow or a particular
tree or relate a number to a specific group of cows or trees. There are lots of
opportunities in life for analogical reasoning. Counting is a primary method
of reasoning.
The foundations of mathematics lie in set theory. Set theory seems the
most abstract expression of analogical reasoning. Assuming that things and
groups of things and empty nothing exist is analogical thinking in my book.
Specialising, generalising and comparing sets are all by the grace of analogy.
Drawing a loop (or any Venn diagram), dividing, comparing inside to outside
is thinking with an analogy. Creating a point-like dot on a piece of paper can
be considered the most basic analogical reasoning act, perceiving a difference
and comparing it to its environment. Making a model of something that
should mimic its behaviour is an act of analogical thinking. We will soon see
more about this.
E.2 Cause and effect.

”The metaphysics of causation:

What must a world be like, to host causal relations? When the
cue ball knocks the nine ball into the corner pocket, in virtue of
what is this a case of causation?
Questions about the metaphysics of causation may be use-
fully divided into questions about the causal relata, and questions
about the causal relation. Questions about the causal relata in-
clude the questions of (1.1) whether they are in SpaceTime (im-
manence), (1.2) how fine-grained they are (individuation), and
(1.3) how many there are (adicity). Questions about the causal
relation include the questions of (2.1) how causally related and
causally unrelated sequences differ (connection), (2.2) how se-
quences related as cause to effect differ from those related as
effect to cause or as joint effects of a common cause (direction),
and (2.3) how if at all sequences involving causes differ from those
involving mere background conditions (selection). Philosophers
have, of course, disagreed over all of these questions.”
Causal thinking is done when calculating what will happen when pushing
something. What will happen when two people meet? How will the billiard
ball role? Plenty of opportunities in life for causal reasoning. For physics,
this type of reasoning is demanded and up there with analogical reasoning.
E.3 Goal and means.

”Teleological Theories of Mental Content:
Consider, for example, the thought that blossoms are forming.
On a representational theory of thought, this involves a represen-
tation of blossoms forming. A theory of mental content aims to
tell us, among other things, why this representation has this con-
tent, and so why it is a thought about blossoms forming, rather
than about the sun shining, pigs flying, or nothing at all. In
general, a theory of mental content tries to explain why mental
states, events or processes (or, assuming a representational the-
ory of them, the mental representations involved) count as having
the contents they have.
According to teleological theories, the contents of mental rep-
resentations depend, at least in part, on functions, such as the
functions of the systems that use or produce them. The relevant
notion of function is held to be one used in biology and neu-
robiology in attributing functions to items, as in ”a function of
the pineal gland is secreting melatonin” and ”a function of brain
area MT is processing information about motion”. Proponents of
teleological theories of mental content usually understand these
functions to be what the items with the functions were selected
for, either by phylogenetic natural selection or by some other sim-
ilar process. As discussed below, such functions are characterised
as being in some sense both normative and teleological.”
Teleological thinking is about goals and the means to get there. Read the
word goal instead of the word function in the quotation above. Read means
for the properties of items, items like the pineal gland. Other frequently
used words with the same intention as goal are intention, aim, meaning and
E.3. GOAL AND MEANS. 161
purpose. Other words with the same intention as means are action and effort.
Many texts have been written on teleological reasoning. In Darwin’s theory
of evolution, this type of reasoning is frequently used to explain chains of
events or creatures biological characteristics.
This kind of reasoning is also contested on many occasions. It is arguable

whether goals are sought in nature or if everything happens by chance or
by cause. In that light, goal-seeking seems much more unlikely. As long as
we ignore the connection between causal and teleological reasoning, the two
seem different and opposite. Once you adopt the connection, as is illustrated
in figure E.1, on page 162, the issue disappears. We can always replace
causal reasoning from a beginning to an end with teleological reasoning from
the same beginning to the same end. There is, of course, the matter of
finding the proper actors, their properties and the dynamics involved. In
physics, this happens when you use Hamilton’s principle (2.2.8) or Fermat’s
principle (2.2.5) (both teleological) as compared to, for instance, Newton’s
laws (2.2.7) or Huygens principle (2.2.6, both causal). Each is trying to figure
out what happens to the system from start to finish — energy versus forces,
time versus wavefronts. As we will see from the main conjecture, nature
might not require either concept of reasoning (or chance) and can still be
and change. Just keep on reading.
Even though teleological reasoning and causal reasoning are two sides of
the same coin (the coin representing the model of being and change), it would
seem that we need more details for causal reasoning. Therefore, we would
expect that teleological reasoning will more often than not precede causal
reasoning, in explaining a phenomenon.
Another way of explaining why causal reasoning and teleological reasoning

are two sides of the same coin is as follows. Because we see the same thing
repeatedly happening in the past, we conclude some underlying predictabil-
ity. Because it is predictable, a particular beginning will end up in a specific
end state every time. We have studied begin state, following states and end
state and have modelled our understanding accordingly. Now it does not
matter which two out of three we take. The third will follow with some form
of reasoning. If we take beginning and following states, we can calculate the
end. If we take beginning and end, we can calculate the states in between.
If we take following states and end, we can calculate the beginning.
For each of the three calculations, we need some mechanism for change.
Like forces for causal thinking, energies for teleological thinking, time re-
versal for ”reverse” causality. We can always develop a mechanism thanks
to underlying predictability or underlying machinery of nature or thanks to
a coin. Even the predictability of stochastic processes has underlying ma-
chinery and explaining mechanisms. In the ultimate case of reality, we may
postulate the machinery. Complete machinery seems out of reach for the time
being. We have mechanisms such as words, symbols, procedures, methods,
and formulae to describe concepts such as energy, spacetime, tensor fields
and the vacuum.
Figure E.1: Causal and teleological reasoning, two sides of the same coin of change.
E.4 Probabilities.
”Logic and probability:
Logic and probability theory are two of the main tools in the for-
mal study of reasoning, and have been fruitfully applied in areas
as diverse as philosophy, artificial intelligence, cognitive science
and mathematics. This entry discusses the major proposals to
combine logic and probability theory, and attempts to provide a
classification of the various approaches in this rapidly developing
field.”
We encounter words like probabilistic, statistical, stochastic, chance, and
random in this type of reasoning. Let us discuss these words for a moment
with an experiment. The variables are analysed before we throw a die. The
number on top of the die is a variable. The outcome of one throw is randomly
distributed between 1 and 6, which means that each outcome has a certain
chance of becoming real. The chance of a certain outcome is a number be-
tween zero and one. Random does not necessarily mean all equal chances.
E.5. FITTING. 163
For an ”honest” die, each outcome has the same chance. The process of
throwing is a stochastic process. A variable can be a stochastic variable. In
the die case, the number on top is the stochastic variable. Stochastic is an
adjective. It means the process happens randomly. The variable is a ran-
dom variable. The probability of a particular outcome is the chance of that
outcome. Statistics occur after the experiment has taken place. Statistics
is about the analysis, interpretation, and presentation of data. Probability
theory and statistics are fields of study.
Not enough information may be available about the machinery of a process.

The outcome of change can therefore be experienced as partly or entirely
random. In that case, reasoning based on probability and statistics is a good
way to analyse what is going on.
When measurements are involved, it is rarely the case that the outcome is
discrete and obvious and without an error margin. Almost every experiment
delivers an outcome with a margin of error in every piece of data. The speed
of a bicycle is for instance 10 ± 0, 5 m/s, because your measuring equipment
could not be more precise than within 0,5 m/s. The margin of error is not
an exact measure and has to be estimated.
E.5 Fitting.
Physicists use this type of reasoning all the time. Fitting combines different
types of reasoning. While establishing an analogy, we try to bring the two
similar objects as close together as possible with the goal to make them as
equal as possible, with possibly probabilistic aspects involved.
Figure E.2: Analogy plus teleology/causality is fitting reasoning.

The behaviour of a model for nature should resemble nature’s behaviour

as closely as possible. We often fine-tune the model. We fit the parameters
of the model to the measurements that reality produces.
E.6 More logical tools, a short overview.

Deductive reasoning is reasoning that takes given premises to reach a logical
conclusion. When the truth of all premises involved is assumed, then the log-
ical conclusion is assumed true. The underlying reasoning is causal. ”Where
will the facts take us for certain?”
Inductive reasoning is reasoning that takes given premises to reach a logical

conclusion, where the truth of the premises is not sufficient to reach a logical
conclusion with certainty. The underlying reasoning is fitting. ”Where will
the means/causes probably take us?”. Inductive reasoning is not the same
as induction in mathematical proofs (which uses deductive reasoning with a
certain outcome).
Abductive reasoning is reasoning that takes an already given conclusion

(goal, situation) and seeks the most likely premises to reach that conclu-
sion. The conclusion is not sufficient to reach certainty about the necessary
premises. The underlying reasoning is fitting. ”What are the most likely
facts that have led to the new situation?”. Another way of stating it: ab-
duction is the creation of explanatory hypotheses. Sherlock Holmes seems to
have used this method a lot.
Conditional reasoning is reasoning, limited to the use of conditional state-

ments only (if A is true, then B is true). The underlying reasoning is causal.
Propositional logic is directly related.
Graph theory is the study of graphs; mathematical structures used to model

pairwise relations between objects. A graph comprises vertices (also called
nodes or points) connected by edges (also called links or lines). Graphs are
one of the principal objects of study in discrete mathematics. The underlying
reasoning is fitting. Graphs are used, in correspondence to something else
with the same characteristics, in an analogy. The (bi- or unidirectional)
relations/edges can be causal or analogous or probabilistic, depending on
the intention of the graph.
E.6. MORE LOGICAL TOOLS, A SHORT OVERVIEW. 165
Figure E.3: A graph and a specialised graph, a categorie (a structure of objects and
morphisms).
Category theory[18] is the study of categories. A category is a specialisation

of a graph. The vertices are called objects, and the labelled directed edges
are arrows (or morphisms). The language of category theory is used to
formalise concepts of other high-level abstractions such as sets, rings, and
groups. Informally, category theory is a general theory of functions. The
underlying reasoning is fitting.
”Categorical logic is another mathematical theory. Formal

languages called logics are interpreted in mathematical structures
called categories. Sets, fuzzy sets, probability spaces, and a vast
array of other objects have been studied as categories. Theorems
relating fragments of first and higher-order logics to categories,
which can be used as models, have been developed by the research
community.” [54]
Categorical reasoning is reasoning about categories, groups of objects, with

the use of symbols such as ∨, ∧, ∀, ∃, ¬. A clear definition of the form
”Categorical reasoning is reasoning that ...” is not found. As the element of
chance does not seem ruled out, and the elements analogy and causality are
involved, the underlying reasoning must be fitting. Predicate logic (involving
relations and variables) is from underlying causality and analogy (”Some
cows have numbers”, ”All cows are black”, conclusion: ”Some black cows
have numbers”). However, only true or false statements are considered, with
no uncertainties involved. The reasoning in predicate logic is fitting as well.
(Mathematical) induction is a technique for proving statements (theorems,

corollaries, lemma’s, ...). First, a specific case P(1) is proven. Then the
induction statement P(n) ⇒ P(n+1) is proven, which means ”if P(n) is true,
then P(n+1) is true” . As a result of both proofs, the general statement

P(n) is true for any n ∈ N. P(2) is true because P(1) is true. P(3)is true
because P(2) is true, and so on. In other words: when we can prove that A)
a specific case is true and that B) given that a certain case is true, the next
case is also true, then A) together with B) proofs that all cases (directly or
indirectly following from the beginning case) are true. It is a chain reaction,
so to speak, dominoes falling. The underlying reasoning is causal reasoning
plus analogy with the use of N, so it is fitting.
Reduction reasoning is reasoning about the constituents (the inner more

fundamental parts and their interactions) of a system.
Ontological reductionism: a belief that the whole of reality consists of

a minimal number of parts.
Methodological reductionism: the scientific attempt to explain in terms

of ever-smaller entities.
Theory reductionism: the suggestion that a newer theory does not

replace or absorb an older one but reduces it to more basic terms.
More words that indicate more different reasoning. These words relate to
the word reasoning, words such as backwards .., induction .., critical thinking,
counterfactual .., intuitive .., defeasible .., paraconsistent reasoning.
The computer may perhaps become a reasoning machine someday. De-

pending on the definition, maybe it already is. So far, it is a great help in
assisting reasoning. Until it starts reasoning independently, we will have to
build it and program it according to logical reasoning. Wikipedia: ”Lambda
calculus [18] (also written as λ-calculus) is a formal system in mathematical
logic for expressing computation based on function abstraction and appli-
cation using variable binding and substitution. It is a universal model of
computation that can be used to simulate any Turing machine.” Another
logical model for programming is object and data modelling, an application
of set theory. Quantum computers might be classified as non-human reason-
ing. Non-human reasoning by entangled changing Qbits. Human reasoning
will interpret non-human reasoning. This list is incomplete.
Sloppy reasoning is the ability to reason, such that just about

any outcome can be produced (approximately maybe).
Appendix F
Continuity.
Mathematics can be exact, and it can be approximate. In this chapter, we will

see that infinities belong to approximate mathematics. Infinities postpone
the moment of putting a number to it. Infinities go hand in hand with
symbols that look like numbers but are not. In the sciences and approximate
mathematics, this is perfectly fine. However, it is not okay to claim exactness
while using infinities, as we will see. Before we can claim exactness, we need
to acknowledge our inabilities. We need to be honest and introduce a new
object, called an in-between. In a way, the in-between has always been there
in applying mathematics. It was just hidden well. This new object will
hold all the qualities of the continuum that numbers cannot describe. The
continuum keeps us humble. Enjoy.
F.1 Do the definitions matter?

Why should both mathematicians and physicists care about continuity and
its challenges (see also I)? For mathematicians it should be straight forward.
It is their business. As long as definitions miss out, we look for better ones
because we know there will be a reward if we succeed. What reward will be
another matter. For physicists it is more indirect. We feed of the definitions
of mathematicians. But as long as those definitions are not improved, we
must live with the old ones and their consequences. In this case the physi-
cist might be unjustly overconfident in working with infinities and discrete
objects for modelling and discussing possibly continuous things. Continuous
objects could suffer and our understanding might be mistaken. I suspect,
unfortunately, this is the case. If reality is continuous and we mistakingly
conclude that it is discrete (as some of us do), the definition of mathematical
continuity will almost certainly have a hand in that. After all, what other
167
168 APPENDIX F. CONTINUITY.
useable continuity is there? We talk of Planck scale, quantum behaviour, dis-

crete energies, particles, division and more. All suggesting discreteness where
we should be suspicious, and the existing definition supports this reasoning,
while the new definition does not. Yes, we should care and investigate both
definitions!
F.2 Truths and agreements.

Definition 5. A human perspective is a perspective that makes distinctions.
It distinguishes objects such as numbers, measuring apparatuses, coordinate
systems, particles and fields.
The set of mathematical definitions and axioms seems quite solid today
after thousands of years of evolution. To be sure we are on the same page, we
consider axioms to be ”obvious truths” 1 . Axioms are more tricky than they
may seem, as we will see in the use of the concept of infinity 2 . Definitions
are not absolute either. The system of definitions is a system of agreements
between people. We believe in them until we do not. As the definitions
become more useful for understanding and shaping reality, it becomes easier
to believe them. It is easy to believe in the distinction between zero and
one. It is probably fair to say we believe that particular distinction is true
3
. Mathematics nowadays is pretty trustworthy4 . At this moment in time,
some mathematicians advocate the sole use of definitions in the foundational
structure of mathematics and to avoid perceived truths [45]. This humility
seems appropriate.
F.3 Symbols
Imagine nothing. It is hard. Try to perceive nothing. We perceive distinc-
tions, differences between us and our environment, enabling survival, multi-
plication and awareness. Science is still struggling to define what it is to be
conscious and aware.
1
There is more distinction between levels of certainty among axioms. The reader may
want to look into that. For our purposes, it clouds the issue.
2
Current foundations of mathematics use Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory . One of its
axioms is the axiom of infinity.
3
Later in this book, we will see that nature may not have use for such distinctions and
may still be able to establish the human perspective.
4
Many physicists even say mathematics is the language of nature O , and at least one
even wrote that reality reads its mathematical laws. I find these statements unfortunate.
F.4. NUMBERS. 169
Distinctions are crucial in building languages and mathematics. We notice

objects with their properties and relations. From seeing patterns to ordering
them into objects and building mathematics may seem straightforward now,
but it took much time to get where we are. It took thousands of years, from
collecting sticks and marks on wood to designing symbols and efficiently or-
ganising them. Today we are pretty pleased with our Hindu-Arabic numbers.
The struggle is forgotten. The symbol-string 1234 represents a number and
can be interpreted as one thousand two hundred thirty-four marks or sticks
or ones. These subtle powers of ten in 1234 (= 1∗103 +2∗102 +3∗101 +4∗100 )
seem to nicely suite our senses. Computers facilitate powers of two.
Our symbols come from noises, verbal sounds, verbal language and then
visual symbols. People made more and more agreements, first verbally
and eventually in writing. Agreements on axioms and definitions were con-
structed from agreements on symbol-strings.
F.4 Numbers.
Reading this text has probably been effortless so far. Implicit were many
conventions. They were the same conventions I did not have to think about
while writing. What an extraordinary situation. All these underlying defini-
tions. Meaning from language. Language from words and numbers. Words
and numbers from symbols. What is a symbol? From where do they come?
Let us make some symbols and numbers.
F.4.1 Definitions to make numbers.

It seems a bit too much to create so many definitions for something that seems
obvious. It is good to notice some of what is below the surface, invisible and
only indirectly required. Nevertheless, it is there. Even nothing is required,
and that is quite something!
Definition 6. Nothing.
The definition for nothing is intentionally absent. Words like zero, blank,
void and empty hint at this weird notion. Let us agree on this definition for
the time being.
Definition 7. A point.
A point is a minimal difference from nothing. (A discrete, zero-dimensional
object (and the intuitive opposite of a continuity). Something that is used
in mathematics all the time.)
Definition 8. A symbol.
A symbol is made of points.
Definition 9. A string.
A string is made of symbols.
Definition 10. A label.
A label is made of strings.
Definition 11. A one [50].
A one is a symbol (and a string and a label).
Definition 12. one Add one
One Add one is the string one one, which is named two.
Definition 13. two Add one
Two Add one is the string one one one, which is named three.
Lets us agree upon these definitions for now.
F.4.2 Self referencing.

A definition of a symbol is not in place before we use symbols to define
what nothing is or what a point is. Before we can talk of symbols (or of
defining symbols or making agreements or doing anything for that matter),
the very start is beginning to distinguish. We distinguish between nothing
and something, between zero and one, nothing and point. This first moment
of distinguishing is essential and will have bearings on everything involving
the human perspective and mathematics and physics, as we see throughout
the book.
Here is another one. What is the definition of a definition? A defini-

tion is an agreement between people. So the definition of a definition is an
agreement. The word definition sounds absolute, but it is no more (or less)
than an agreement on usefulness. We need agreements on a vocabulary of
words (strings of symbols) and syntax for sentences and their semantics, their
meaning (the relation to reality). We switch from vocal sounds and spoken
language (implicit agreement) to visual symbols, visual language and explicit
agreement. The definition of the word definition is an implicit agreement,
hidden in the shape of explicit agreements. See also B.
The moment may have arrived that we are confident that symbols are
defined. We now have used symbols to define symbols. We had to perceive
reality first through noticing differences.
F.4. NUMBERS. 171
Our familiar natural numbers seem to appear when continuing the process
of adding one ”into infinity”5 . Fact: we can not express or write down
almost all these so-called natural numbers. They are out of our reach. They
are just too big. We can even doubt their existence or claim they do not
exist. We need lots of care to establish at least consistent foundations of
mathematics. We will see more of this process in the context of infinities
and continuity. This book is about the conjecture that nature might have no
need for distinction between objects and can still provide descriptions and
trustworthy explanations of reality. Reality may not need distinctions and
can still harbour humans, human distinctions and the human perspective.
Symbols, language and pictures are some tools of the human perspective.
Mathematics is also part of the tools. Mathematics may harbour a weakness,
as we will see next.
F.4.3 Big numbers and infinity.

From early childhood, we hear of continuity and infinity. We have become
accustomed to them, and in school, teachers tell us that university will clarify
them. At university, we get told that these matters are supposed to be famil-
iar by now, and they probably are in some sense. After a careful search for
definitions, it becomes clear that continuity and infinity are not adequately
defined. Nowhere! This strange situation is more or less denied or swept
under the rug. Here is a challenge for us. Show a proper definition of either.
We would be the first to succeed! As a result, there is pressure on the real
numbers. Only the rational part seems properly defined up to a point. The
irrational part seems to be a fantasy.
Let us assume we have established a number system with our definitions.

The procedure Add establishes the familiar addition. The suggestion is that
we can do so indefinitely or infinitely often, thereby producing the natural
numbers N. Indefinitely and infinitely seem the same, but they are not.
Indefinitely has its problems but infinitely is impossible. Indefinitely means
we can continue doing so, but this inevitably stops when we are no more.
We will have counted pretty far by that time, but the number we will have
reached is still infinitely far from infinity. Our last number can not even be
called big by a mathematicians standard of a big number. In our whole life,
we will not encounter a single big number 6 . We may encounter relatively
5
The way we define the natural numbers here is just one way of using this ongoing
process of adding, to define the natural numbers.
6
”We will never encounter a big number” would even be an interesting definition of a
big number. Once we encounter a valid number, it can not be big
short strings of symbols, suggesting a big number or infinity (like ∞).
When in the realm of big numbers, adding one means nothing because it is
not clear what we add the one to and how to add it. To argue it is possible ”in
principle” is also not sound. Arithmetic needs a calculator. Mathematics will
not do it for us. The string 20 + 1 = has no answer without us. Mathematics
needs a host (like minds, computers or paper) to become and evolve and
produce. ”Show me the number!”
Other ways of spelling out the problem are:
Almost all natural numbers cannot be expressed, written down or oth-

erwise displayed.
Arithmetic is not possible with almost all natural numbers.
Infinite processes cannot be completed.
Expressible natural numbers (as opposed to big numbers) are made, using
only the symbols 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. No exponentiation or other
manipulations such as including + or * are allowed. There are two interesting
moments in developing other number systems from the (expressible) natural
numbers, where extra symbols are needed. The negative sign ”- ” is needed
when expressing the integers (and defining subtraction). To express the
fractions (and define division), an extra division sign ”/” is needed. So as
a minimum set, the symbols from {0, ”one”, -, /} are sufficient to create
the expressible rational numbers. The decimal point is not necessary but is
helpful. Fromp the rational numbers to the reals extra symbols are needed
(like { +, *, (), π, e, ∞, . . ., }) to describe irrational labels (not numbers!).
None of these irrational labels can be written down as expressible numbers.
It does not mean that the labels can not be helpful. Irrational labels are, in
a way, postponed approximations.
A poetic way of making a difference between expressible numbers and big

numbers is that big numbers do not fit into the known universe. There is
a lack of particles (< 10100 ) to write them down, or there are not enough
Planck-scale cubes to fit the symbols in (if we could write them down).
It would even be justified to distinguish between expressed and potentially
expressible numbers. Potentially expressible numbers are smaller than big
numbers but are unlikely to be expressed in this universe at any time. The
F.4. NUMBERS. 173
numbers in the potentially expressible category will almost certainly never

be expressed because of the work involved. We will see very few numbers in
our lifetime, and they will all be relatively small.
We define infinity with the finite in mind. Following is a standard attempt

to define an infinite set. Conceptually, we find this definition of the infinity
of sets in many analysis books. This particular definition is from page 35 of
[36], just a representative book on mathematical analysis.
Definition 14. Infinity of sets. For each positive integer n, let Nn = {1,
2, . . . , n}. N denotes the set of all positive integers. ∼ means of the same
cardinality. If A is a set, we say:
(a) A is finite if A ∼ Nn for some n, or if A = ϕ (the empty set)

(b) A is infinite if A is not finite.
(c) A is countable if A ∼ N.
(d) A is uncountable if A is neither finite nor countable
In this definition, we assume that infinity is defined but is it? It all

depends on whether we can decide if a set is finite. There is no problem
with the empty set or any set that we specify by a specific number. These
sets are finite. However, in not specifying the number but trusting a symbol
series ”some n” to do the job, the problem of deciding finiteness is shifted
to ”some n” for A to be finite. How can it be known that ”some n” is finite
for any n ∈ N, even for any n that cannot be specified or identified? There
seem to be more n ∈ N that cannot be specified than there are n that can
be, unfortunately (see for example [47]).
So the finiteness of sets cannot be decided using this definition. A new

definition of finiteness is needed. The new definition will not be able to
overcome this fundamental problem of the inability to specify ”too many big
numbers” n in N (numbers like or close to, for instance, a number suggested
by a Big Number-label (or BN-label)).
1010
10 1010
1010
1010
An example BN-label = 10 + 24. Proving the existence of
those big unspecified numbers is a problem. It becomes a matter of belief,
and no arithmetic is possible in that realm. We cannot decide on the infinity
of a set because we cannot decide on the finiteness of a set. When numbers
become huge, they cannot be specified anymore. We cannot write them
down. We cannot even imagine them. We cannot be sure that they are
numbers (after all, we can add numbers).
There is one more thing about infinity and infinities. If one exists, many
exist. If we have one of them, we have infinitely many of them. Infinities are
a supporting mechanism for the human attempt to move from approximation
to the exact and to define continuity. The attempt seems to have failed.
The ongoing list of numbers ”in this grey area” might as well be an ill-
defined infinity, and that is how infinity came into existence, I guess. If
countable infinity cannot be adequately defined, we cannot compare it to
possibly existing other types of infinity. The task is: put forward a proper
definition of the infinity of N. I conjecture that we cannot do it. So far, I
have never come across one. I suspect we have been fooling each other and
ourselves. We have been playful. Another interesting source is a famous
algebra graduate textbook [19]. One would expect the difference of finite
and infinite groups to be defined here. However, it is not. The reader is
assumed to know a definition like the one above. The writer then makes a
map between a group and a number system on that assumption. Challenge:
find a book or text with proper definitions of infinity and finiteness. On the
other hand, it is okay to accept this flaw as long as we realise it. In lots of
cases, infinity makes our mathematical life easier.
F.4.4 Infinitesimals
Rational numbers can be expressed with a division symbol, for example 3/4.
Since Simon Stevin (Brugge 1548 - 1620), we also use the decimal system.
In this system, a number is expressed using a comma, for example 0, 75.
Another example: a = 1234,5678 which means
a = 1 ∗ 103 + 2 ∗ 102 + 3 ∗ 101 + 4 ∗ 100 + 5 ∗ 10−1 + 6 ∗ 10−2 + 7 ∗ 10−3 + 8 ∗ 10−4 .
All very familiar, of course. What will never be familiar is that, somewhere
along the line, mathematicians have decided that we can add infinitely many
numbers behind the comma to represent a fraction of one. Dots represent
the procedure to suggest that we can. Example: 1234,5678. . . . The same
objection, as mentioned before, holds for this situation. We cannot do it. We
cannot complete this process of writing down the infinite amount of decimals,
and no exact arithmetic is possible. The dot dot dot is a mathematical smoke
screen.
F.5. CONTINUITY. 175
The reason for introducing dot dot dot is to attempt to complete the num-
ber line, to make it continuous, with only discrete numbers at our disposal.
However, we can always fit another number between two numbers. Num-
bers never touch! A continuum can only be approximated this way. We do
not teach about this problem. We tell our children that we have created
a mathematical continuum and show a definition to suggest that we have
succeeded. We are fooling ourselves and each other.Two monsters have now
come into existence, untrue continuity and infinity. It leads to both useful
constructions and nonsense. As we will soon see, we have to be honest and
admit that we cannot achieve a continuum with only numbers. Rigorous
mathematics should be separated from playful mathematics, still respecting
the valuable results from playing around. Both have their merits.
F.5 Continuity.
Here is an old definition for continuity:
Definition 15. Continuity of a function.

Let E be a subset of R and f a real-valued function with domain E.
The function f is continuous at a point p ∈ E, if for every ϵ > 0, there exists
a δ > 0 such that
|f (x) − f (p)| < ϵ (F.1)
for all x ∈ E with |x − p| < δ. The function f is continuous on E if and only

if f is continuous at every point p ∈ E 7 .
This definition is from [36]. It implies that we need a never-ending process

to get arbitrarily close to a point on a line via other points in the neighbour-
hood. However, never are the two different points touching. There is always
still a continuum between the two arbitrarily close points. The continuum
with only numbers is not honest enough about its weaknesses. The conse-
quences of not admitting these weaknesses are hard to predict and recognise.
When we come across counterintuitive results in physics, it is good to re-
member these mathematical weaknesses. Maybe there is a connection. Can
we do better? Can we make mathematics more honest? The answer is yes.
7
This means that near every point on a function there should be other points on the
function, within a neighbourhood of that point, that are as close to the point as is needed,
using arbitrarily small numbers ϵ and δ.
F.5.1 New definitions

New definitions are needed to introduce the continuous and exclude infinities,
infinitesimals, infinite processes and the realm of big numbers in rigorous
mathematics. All numbers should be distinguishable, identifiable, expressible
and usable in arithmetic. As a word of caution, some definitions need subtle
analysis. Especially in the definition of touching points, we should realise
that touching points do not exist. They are merely defined to bridge the gap
between a discrete number system and the continuous.
New definition 1. A natural number.

A natural number is an expressible string from the set { ”one” }. In this
definition, there is no room for infinite strings (or unreachable strings for big
numbers) because of the word ”expressible” and the absence of the symbols
”. . .” and ∞.
New definition 2. A rational number.

A rational number is an expressible string from the set {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, ”−” ”/” ”,”} satisfying the normal conventions8 .
New definition 3. Touching numbers.

Two different numbers from a number system are touching numbers when
no other number can be inserted between them.9
New definition 4. Touching points.

Touching points are points that can not be separated by inserting another
point. Using the word touching is the moment where discrete and con-
tinuous come together. It attempts to create the continuous from distinc-
tions, wherein the continuous nothing is distinguishable. By distinguishing
specialised points (”touching” points), we create the possibility to identify
”some” of them with numbers. This definition is the fairy tail bridge from
the discrete to the continuous. Touching points do not exist.
New definition 5. Neighbours.

Two touching numbers or two touching points are neighbours.
8
This provides for the rational numbers, rational complex numbers, rational quater-
nions and rational octonions. Furthermore, the comma (or dot if you will) is only there
to facilitate that many fractions can have expressible decimal expansions.
9
Implicit in this definition is the suggestion of the existence of a number system that
can produce touching numbers. We have not found that number system yet, though, and
we probably never will. That specific number system, as well as the concept of continuity,
will remain intuitive, and no discrete tools will construct them ”without the connection
that is in the word touching”.
New definition 6. Continuous number systems.

Continuous number systems have only numbers that have neighbours.
New definition 7. Discrete number systems.
Discrete number systems have no touching numbers10 .
F.5.2 In-betweens.
To build a sandcastle from sand, water is needed.

To build a continuous line from numbers, in-betweens are needed.
A line is continuous because of the in-betweens and is accessible
because of the numbers.
The definition of continuity will no longer depend on numbers, infinite

processes, infinities or infinitesimals. We will use a continuous object that
cannot be expressed by division or distinctions. Our continuous functions are
now continuous but based on only the intuition on continuity. There is no
need anymore for infinities, infinitesimals, infinite processes and the realm of
big numbers that cannot be named or manipulated. The edge of reasoning,
using infinities, becomes more visible 11 .
New definition 8. A distinguishable point. A distinguishable point is a
point that can be distinguished by a number but that is not distinguished.
New definition 9. A distinguished point.
A distinguished point is a point that is distinguished by a number.
New definition 10. An intuitive continuity.
An intuitive continuity consists only of touching points.
New definition 11. An in-between.
An in-between is an intuitive continuity. It is not made of normal points.
It is made of very special points, touching points, points that have neigh-
bours. An in-between has no distinguished points. An in-between can have
distinguishable 12 points. Distinguished points specify an in-between but do
10
All known number systems are discrete. for example, R and Q are discrete because
they have no touching numbers. N is discrete because it has an extension field in which
numbers exist in between the addressed natural numbers.
11
The argument that mathematics can be without reality is a dubious argument. Every
definition is influenced by reality to make mathematics a useful tool. It is not hard to
make useless or vague mathematics.
12
As soon as we set a scale, a particular point is either distinguishable or not on this
particular scale. If it is distinguishable, it may be distinguished.
not belong to the in-between. It is important and difficult to realise that

an in-between is not made of normal points. The moment we distinguish a
point it is no longer part of the in-between.
New definition 12. A connected in-between.

An in-between is connected, when it touches a distinguished point.
New definition 13. Connected in-betweens.

An in-between is connected to another in-between when they are connected
to the same distinguished point 13 .
New definition 14. A continuous line segment.

14
A continuous line segment consists of connected in-betweens .
New definition 15. A continuous function.

A continuous function consists of connected in-betweens.
No function fits the description of being continuous yet under the new
definition 15 of a continuous function. The textbook definitions of conti-
nuity are our best definitions yet. Apart from the rational and real number
system, no known other number system defines continuity better. The reals
and rationals do not contain touching numbers, so functions do not con-
tain touching points. As there are no known pairs of touching distinguished
points, continuous functions, according to the modern textbook definitions
of continuous, contain only points with no neighbours. Therefore, textbook
functions do not consist of in-betweens and are not continuous functions by
the new definition.
According to the new definitions, the continuous cannot be produced by

adding numbers to a virtual line and saying that a certain filling fills the
line. The numbers have a new role. They label an in-between into smaller
and smaller connected in-betweens. We establish the continuum by intuitive
continuity (using the definition10 of intuitive continuity). Intuitive continu-
ities can be connected. The question of a proper definition for the contin-
uous through numbers only is settled now, and we admit that our human
13
In-betweens cannot touch other in-betweens. They can only touch distinguished
points. Different in-betweens cannot overlap. They split up into new in-betweens be-
cause of the distinguished points that specify them. As long as different in-betweens stay
connected (through distinguished points), the continuum is preserved.
14
In-betweens have length or better still quadrance [45].
perspective limits us. We did not recognise the relevance of the act of dis-
tinguishing in the past. The act of distinguishing was ignoring the ”space
between numbers”. Intuitive continuity was lost, and only the discrete was
left 15 . Numbers will not give an accurate description of the notion of conti-
nuity. The closest we can get in describing continuity is through our intuition
in combination with number systems. A line is continuous because of the
in-betweens and is accessible because of the numbers.
15
In reality, number systems can only approximate intuitive continuity. The new defini-
tions I propose are enough to use ongoing processes and ongoing better approximations.
Intuitive continuity is the complement of a number system. It is filling in the voids be-
tween the numbers. So two lines can meet, but the meet may not be describable by a
number from a certain perspective (on a certain scale).
Appendix G
True or fantasy.
This chapter discusses the side effects of mathematics with infinities, infinites-
imals, and infinite processes. In the more playful world of infinities, we can
sometimes prove what is considered a fantasy in the world of in-betweens.
G.1 A formula of Euler’s.

Mathematicians will have a new tool. There is no more need for infinite
processes, infinitesimals and infinities. The word ongoing 1 can replace the
word infinite. After wisely weighing the positives and negatives of using
numbers and infinities to describe reality, physicists can have this new tool.
For instance, it seems risky to use only discrete objects in our models and
number systems and conclude that our universe is only made of discrete
building blocks. It seems incorrect to ignore the act of distinguishing. At
the very least, use a hybrid system of properly defined continuous and discrete
objects to reason with less bias towards either continuity or discreteness.
Many things can be proven using fantasy objects like infinity. A fun example
of this is a formula of Leonhard Euler[48]:
· · · + X 3 + X 2 + X + 1 + 1/X + 1/X 2 + 1/X 3 + · · · = 0

for all X ̸= -1, 0 or 1.
For proof, multiply the left side F of the formula by X 2 . While thanks to
the dots X 2 ∗ F = F ⇔ (X 2 − 1)F = 0 and if X ̸= -1, 0 or 1 then F must be
zero (QED). The only reason for the existence of this proof is the two series
of dots, suggesting infinities. The formula without the dots is not true. The
meaning of Euler’s formula is unclear.
1
As Wildberger has often proposed.
181
182 APPENDIX G. TRUE OR FANTASY.
Fantasy.
G.2 Infinitely many prime numbers

The proof of the existence of an infinite amount of prime numbers is dubious.
The proof assumes that a new prime number can always be constructed from
all known ones. This proof only proves that there is possibly ongoing growth
in the number of prime numbers that one can know, assuming that the
construction process is manageable. It does not prove anything about the
undefined infinity of existing prime numbers. Does a prime number exist if it
cannot be written down or known? Is being not a requirement of existence?
We can not construct the next biggest prime in the realm of big primes
(assuming that we have found a big prime). We can not identify big numbers.
The difference between big numbers cannot be established, and multiplication
cannot be done anymore, either in time or in space. Never-ending processes
are involved, or the number is too big to fit into space because, for example,
there are not enough particles in the known universe to describe the number.
In other words, the new biggest prime cannot be, be found or written down.
Fantasy.
G.3 Real numbers.

When one is willing to adopt the new definitions, the construction of infinite
sets becomes superfluous in constructing the continuous. There is an ongoing
increasing number of integers or rationals but not an infinite amount of them,
as argued by, for instance, Wildberger on many occasions. The reals and
the rationals become
√ the same ongoing set. We cannot call symbols/labels
such as π, e and 2 numbers because they cannot distinguish a particular
point. They cannot connect two in-betweens. An irrational label can be, in
a way, a name for an in-between (π is ¡3.14, 3.1416¿). It is also perfectly
acceptable to address numbers by symbols, such as π is 3.1415. When rigour
is wanted, dots cannot be added to suggest an infinite amount of digits. A
new convention could add dots to suggest an ongoing expressible amount of
digits. Another way of looking at these label symbols (like π) is to see them
as an admission of our inability to describe continuity with only numbers. In
this way, by not calling them numbers, we directly connect the labels to in-
betweens, acknowledging our inability. That would be an acknowledgement
G.4. CANTOR’S DIAGONAL ARGUMENT, INFINITE INFINITIES. 183
in the same way we acknowledge why we need in-betweens to show that

numbers alone cannot describe the continuum.
Computers produce good approximations of π nowadays. These approxi-

mations are numbers, unlike the label π. Good arithmetic can be done with
them. π’s best approximation is the number with the most known accepted
digits until we find even more accepted digits. Wildberger argues that π as
√ atbest √
a real number is not a number but a label because π + 2 = π + 2.
If this is sound and acceptable arithmetic, 5 + 4 = 5 + 4 should also be
perfectly fine, and kids will love math for the wrong reasons. The label π
can at best be an approximate place on an in-between on the number line.
Let us make no√mistake. π is still a beautiful, useful, powerful and playful
label (as are e, 2 and . . .).
Fantasy.
G.4 Cantor’s diagonal argument, infinite in-

finities.
Neither the rationals, the reals, nor any other number system produces a
continuum. Cantor’s diagonal argument to prove that the reals are of higher
cardinality than the rationals is a vacuous proof using an illegitimate argu-
ment. We should already have argued the following. Always finding a number
outside some known growing list of rationals (using an ongoing process) only
proves that it is an ongoing list to which that number can probably be added
(if manageable by any human or other object). It is incorrect to claim that
the ongoing list of rational numbers is infinitely long and a complete list of
rationals, so the new number cannot be rational because it is not in the list.
Because the proof is not correct, there is no reason to assume other types of
infinities.
On comparing the cardinality of sets, we can say the following. It is easy

to say that there is a one to one correspondence between the numbers x and
x2 when defining the function f: x → x2 on N. That might seem so at first
glance. However, what about taking x on the edge of what we can still write
down. X can just be called a number without resorting to symbols. In that
case, we need symbols other than just numbers to describe x2 . It becomes
impossible to do arithmetic, impossible to establish and write down x2 and
impossible to compare x and x2 . Any notion of countability becomes void in

this range.
On the scale of infinity, this pretty large x is a small number, about as

large as the number one. There is no way we can see the difference between
numbers looking back from infinity. It is easy to define looking back on a
number line, where one is right of zero, as ”looking to the left”, and why
would infinity be excluded from this definition if it is supposed to be part of
the number line? However, no number can be seen from infinity to the left
because they are all too far away. In a way, it cannot even be argued that
any counting is done ever on the scale of infinity.
Fantasy.
G.5 The continuum hypothesis.

The continuum hypothesis is decided under the new definitions. The con-
tinuum hypothesis states that: ”There is no set whose cardinality is strictly
between that of the integers and the real numbers.” The hypothesis is true
because the reals and rationals are the same numbers when the irrationals
are no longer considered numbers.
True.
G.6 Do lines and circles meet?

In figure G.1 (on page 185) 3 situations are sketched. The left sketch has no
scale. The other two sketches do. Mathematicians grow up with the intuition
that each line meets the circle, line L meets circle O in point A, line M meets
circle P in point B, and line N meets circle Q in point C. No well-defined
coordinates may exist of the point where line and circle meet. We can argue
that the lines do not meet when defining continuity in terms of numbers.
Wildberger argues that line M and circle P do not meet because there
are no rational coordinates to pinpoint the meet and irrational labels exist
only as approximate coordinates. According to Wildberger (I must conclude
from his argument), we can not decide if line L meets circle O until a scale is
assigned. I argue that Wildberger has a valid claim as long as the in-between
is not introduced into mathematics.
G.6. DO LINES AND CIRCLES MEET? 185
Figure G.1: Do the lines L, M and N, through the centres of the circles O, P and Q and
dividing the first quadrant into two equal segments, meet the circles O, P, Q in the first
quadrant? According to Wildberger, line M does not meet circle P in point B. Playfully
√ √ √
B = ( 21 2, 12 2). However, what is this symbol 2? It is not a clearly defined number.
B cannot be pinpointed with numbers, so is it there?
If the in-between is introduced, all three circles intersect the respective

lines in a meet. For circles O and P, the meet lies on meeting in-betweens
and cannot be distinguished by numbers, only by a label (A and B). For
circle Q, point (1, 1) is the meet. One could also reason that in stating
that all three circles intersect the respective lines, we accept the existence of
in-betweens.
The words intersect and meet may be used as synonyms or may have
two different meanings. As synonyms, two lines that do not meet do not
intersect. When meet and intersect have different meanings: two lines may
intersect but not meet because numbers cannot distinguish the meet. I prefer
that intersect and meet have different meanings as long as in-betweens are
not accepted into mathematics. When we accept in-betweens into mathe-
matics, intersecting lines always meet, and the words intersect and meet are
automatically synonyms.
True.
G.7 The fundamental theorem of algebra.

The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra may be saved by the in-between from
the justified critique[52] that it has no correct proof yet. The theorem states
that every non-constant single-variable polynomial with complex coefficients
has at least one complex root. Suppose we do not accept irrational complex
solutions for the simple fact that they do not represent identifiable distin-
guished numbers. In that case, any random polynomial (for example, the
simple y = x5 − 2x + 3) will almost certainly have no roots. The roots will
lie somewhere on an in-between.
If we do not accept in-betweens, we should not accept the Fundamen-

tal Theorem of Algebra. Accepting in-betweens, the roots can be approx-
imately located and acknowledged, although they cannot precisely be dis-
tinguished (in the case of the simple example x1 ≈ −1, 42360584, x2 ≈
−0, 2467 + 1, 3208i, x3 ≈ −0, 2467 − 1, 3208i, x4 ≈ −0, 9588 + 0, 4984i and
x5 ≈ −0, 9588 − 0, 4984i are approximate solutions). The roots are likely
not to be distinguishable by numbers, but at least the roots (the ”meets”)
are points on the function. That is as close as we can come to proving the
theorem. We need to adopt in-betweens in order for the intention of the
theorem to be saved. We have to adapt the theorem as a theorem of ap-
proximate complex roots if numbers are required as roots. The theorem is
directly coupled to the intuition of continuity and in-betweens and is quite a
cornerstone upon which other mathematics rests.
True.
Appendix H
Considerations.
H.1 On constructivism.
Wikipedia says: ”In the philosophy of mathematics, constructivism asserts
that it is necessary to find (or ”construct”) a mathematical object to prove
that it exists. In classical mathematics, one can prove the existence of a
mathematical object without ”finding” that object explicitly by assuming
its non-existence and then deriving a contradiction from that assumption.
This proof by contradiction is not constructively valid. The constructive
viewpoint involves a verificational interpretation of the existential quantifier,
which is at odds with its classical interpretation.
There are many forms of constructivism. These include the program of

intuitionism founded by Brouwer, the finitism of Hilbert and Bernays, the
constructive recursive mathematics of Shanin and Markov, and Bishop’s pro-
gram of constructive analysis. Constructivism also includes the study of
constructive set theories such as CZF and the study of topos theory.
Constructivism is often identified with intuitionism, although intuitionism
is only one constructivist program. Intuitionism maintains that the founda-
tions of mathematics lie in the individual mathematician’s intuition, thereby
making mathematics into an intrinsically subjective activity. Other forms of
constructivism are not based on this viewpoint of intuition and are compat-
ible with an objective viewpoint on mathematics. ” Wikipedia quote ends
here.
Constructivists seem to distinguish between rational and real numbers. To

me, there is no extra describing power in real numbers. I accept both rigorous
and playful mathematics on separate terms. Furthermore, constructivists
187
188 APPENDIX H. CONSIDERATIONS.
seem to assume at least a potential infinity and find that the real numbers
can model the continuous. I am afraid I disagree with that view. The way
Herman Weyl talks about the continuous (according to Mark van Atten[41]),
it seems√ as if in-betweens would fit in perfectly. As an example, π and
e and 2 are labels that do not point to an exact existing √number. No
precise
√ arithmetic can be done with them. Playfully, π + e + 2 = π + e +
2 = 7.1. . . ≈ 7.1 . We should make the distinction in mathematics between
rigorous and open. We should admit that the reals are the rational numbers
in the rigorous version of mathematics. Rigorous mathematics is probably
as rich as open mathematics. I am positive that both types of mathematics
will complement each other, but rigorous mathematics first has to catch up.
Caution is needed with axioms that are not trivially true. Even distinguish-
ing a zero from a one is an act that has consequences, as the new definitions
reflect. I believe rigorous mathematics has no need for axioms and needs to
be built on definitions only, beginning with the difference between zero and
one. I believe mathematics is a human construction from a human perspec-
tive, strongly coupled to reality and not in some realm of its own. We choose
our definitions and admit our limits. I believe the continuous will remain
intuitive and partly accessible.
H.2 1,99999. . . versus 2

Are 1,999. . . and 2 touching numbers? NO! Never.
Rigorously, infinities are not accepted. 1,999. . . is ill-defined when . . .

means ad infinitum (to infinity). According to the rigorous standard, not all
fractions have decimal expansions.
A playful answer is more subtle and two-fold when we let go of absolute

rigour:
When we redefine . . . as ”ongoing”, 1,999. . . and 2 are two different

numbers that do not touch.
With the definition from modern analysis ( . . . means ad infinitum),

1,999. . . and 2 are the same number (not two different touching num-
bers). The repeating decimal 9 is a bit special among repeating dec-
imals, but rational numbers often have repeated decimal expansions.
For any of these numbers, the decimal expansion equals the fraction.
H.3. QUESTIONS ON IN-BETWEENS. 189
We can never say that the fraction and its decimal expansion are dif-
ferent but touching numbers.
H.3 Questions on in-betweens.

What kind of notation is appropriate? A good starting point is to introduce
” < ” and ” > ”. The bracket notation from set theory for open intervals
comes close, but an in-between is not like a set. So to avoid any misunder-
standing, an in-between is identified as:
<A, B> where A and B are numbers that specify distinguished points and
A ̸= B.
Example: <2, 3> is the in-between between the distinguished points, speci-
fied by the numbers 2 and 3. In short: <2, 3> is the in-between between 2
and 3. The numbers 2 and 3 do not belong to the in-between.
Is the distance or quadrance between two touching points defined? No is

the short answer. According to already existing definitions of distance and
quadrance between points, distance and quadrance can only be expressed by
numbers. As long as we talk about points distinguished by numbers, it is
possible to express the distance or, better yet, the quadrance between them.
However, points on an in-between are not yet distinguished and most likely
not even distinguishable. At least one of two touching points is not distin-
guishable for sure, so the distance between two touching points is undefined.
The reasoning that two touching points would have quadrance zero would
reduce any in-between to a single point. The purpose of the in-between is
to keep us honest and make sure that we admit that a continuum is a beast
that cannot be constructed with numbers only (at least not the numbers we
currently know of). In a way, all the magic that traditional mathematics
puts into infinities, infinitesimals and infinite processes is put into the in-
between, a concept only partly accessible to numbers. The in-between <2,
3> has length 1 and quadrance 1. The in-between <2, 5> has length 3 and
quadrance 9. The distance between two distinguished points is defined as
the square root of the quadrance. So the quadrance can always be estab-
lished between two distinguished points but the distance cannot always be
established rigorously.
Can in-betweens overlap? No. In-betweens cannot overlap. The notation

for two connected in-betweens is <A, B><B, C>.
Example: <1, 3> + <2, 5> = <1, 2> + <2, 3> + <3, 5> = <1, 2><2,
3><3, 5>.
So as long as we distinguish the points specified 2 and 3, we end up with
three non-overlapping different connected in-betweens. If we consider <1,
5>, 2 and 3 (and all the other points distinguishable by rational numbers
between 1 and 5) are distinguishable but not distinguished points on this
in-between.
How many points are there on an in-between? The number of points

is undefined. Points that cannot be distinguished cannot be counted. We
should not dissect our confession of inability, our in-between.
Does an in-between have to have at least two non-touching points? No.

The number of points on an in-between is undefined. Because the points
on an in-between are not distinguished, they cannot be counted. The for-
mulation ”at least two” is therefore inappropriate here. Playfully in open
mathematics terms, where infinities exist, the answer could be yes.
Is there a smallest in-between, or is there perhaps unlimited nesting in-

volved? A measure for smallness could, for instance, be the quadrance (or
length) of an in-between. In that case, the smallness of the in-between de-
pends on our ability to specify numbers that are close together. The smallest
in-between is then defined as the in-between between the closest numbers
ever specified until we come up with even closer numbers. It is not so that
unlimited or infinitesimal size or nesting is involved.
What do in-betweens look like in higher dimensions? From one continuous

dimension to higher continuous dimensions, an exciting thing happens. In
higher dimensions, every point that is not distinguished still belongs to an in-
between. However, within a specified n-dimensional (n > 1) volume, there is
always only one in-between. Distinguished boundaries, if they existed, could
isolate in-betweens. However, these boundaries do not exist. In-between is
always leaking through between the distinguished points that make up the
boundaries.
In one dimension, more in-betweens can be. In more dimensions,

only one in-between can be.
H.4. CONCLUSION ON IN-BETWEENS. 191
H.4 Conclusion on in-betweens.

It will not come as a surprise that revisions to some textbooks may be in order
if continuity, infinitesimals and infinities in the spirit of Cantor are considered
in this new setting. I thank Wildberger for his insights into the problems
with continuity[49] and infinities[53][46]. Our opinions only seem to differ
on whether the rational numbers are the tool for describing the continuous.
I think in-betweens have to be added to the rationals. Together, numbers
and in-betweens can keep us honest. To me, Wildberger’s opinion1 suggests
that continuity can be saved, using only discrete objects, the rationals. I am
afraid I have to disagree. Continuity is still out of mathematics’ reach. The
introduction of in-betweens acknowledges this. For our use of infinities in
just about any field of mathematics, it would be justified to rethink where
conclusions may be a bit corrupted. Rethinking proofs and definitions in
which infinities are used will undoubtedly give us new insights. I suspect
that nothing much will have to change for the most part, yet new and good
things will happen.
Please, prove me wrong and let me know.
The simplest belief is a belief in the existence of the difference

between zero and one. Build on that and construct mathemat-
ics. Ultimately, we may start to believe that mathematics is what
nature is made of or that mathematics is the language of nature.
1
I am not sure that I know his opinion or what it suggests, so I hope he will comment
someday. My respect for what Wildberger has done for mathematics cannot be overstated.
Wildberger introduces in [51] the ”rough rational” as a range between rationals. It
certainly looks like a discrete version of an in-between.
Appendix I
Why care about the

continuum?
To me, the question why mathematicians should care about how to describe
the continuum is a no brainer and part of the job. In daily life and work
most mathematicians can completely ignore the foundations of mathematics
but all do care. They are interested and are in the process of becoming aware
of the controversies.
For physicists it is a different ballgame. Physicists have to take what math-

ematicians offer them as tools to describe nature. They are not aware of the
controversies and are told that the tools are capable of describing the contin-
uum. They work with the assumption that the number line (that is discrete
but assumed continuous) is continuous. Physicists are unaware of the possi-
bility that the tool may lead them to conclude that reality is discrete, even
if it is not. Reality might be discrete or continuous. Current mathematical
tools (without the in-between, our admission of our limitations) are probably
insufficient to distinguish.
Along with continuity comes infinity. Backed by mathematics, this word

is easy to use in all kinds of arguments and leads to all kinds of conclusions
and speculations, some more ludricous than others. Infinitely many universes
is such a speculation. We have to be more carefull. Until there is a proper
definition of infinity, we should not use the concept rigorously. There is much
less freedom than we wish, like there is very little freedom in machinery
based reasoning. Every conclusion based on infinities is for now possibly to
be treated as speculation. Physicists should be carefull.
193
194 APPENDIX I. WHY CARE ABOUT THE CONTINUUM?
Mathematics does not explain anything outside mathematics. Physicists

should care about the problems that could arise once you think that mathe-
matics can do more than it can. Ignoring the problems is not what we should
do. It is for instance far from okay (I consider it nonsense) to say that reality
is mathematical.
I.1 What about the scientific method?

The scientific method is sacred to a physicist. It is the first thing we hear
about when doing physics. Anything we think of as useful in describing and
understanding nature has to be verifiable by testing through experiments.
This is a beautiful guideline from a human perspective and it ensures that
we will get closer and closer to the optimum description of what the human
perspective can reach for. It is important to realise that the scientific method
and the human perspective that is making distinctions are connected. The
scientific method is bound by the fact that we need to make the distinction
between the measuring apparatus and what is not part of the measuring
apparatus. The scientific method makes distinctions as does the human
perspective which can potentially be a measuring apparatus.
The question is if what we can reach for through experiments will give us
a glimpse of the inner workings of nature. Most physicists have concluded
that nature is probabilistic. In this document, I conjecture that the inner
workings of nature can not be fully studied by using distinctions. It is like
saying we can not define or describe the continuum by using only numbers.
Using the measurements of a measuring apparatus already limits us to the
human perspective.
So the scientific method is still sacred. However, we may conclude that it

has its limit, just like we may come to the conclusion that mathematics has
its limit. In both cases, continuity plays an essential role. This project may
be essential in finding out.
Numbers are to the continuum what the human perspective

is to SpaceTime. Numbers and the human perspective do not
completely probe their ”envelopers’ depth”.
Appendix J
Information.
Probability and statistics in physics can only describe the be-

haviour of systems. They do not explain behaviour and do not
make the explanation understandable or trustworthy. It is like the
relationship between mathematics, physics and philosophy. Math
describes, physics explains, and philosophy makes us understand
and trust the explanation.
We receive and process stuff presented to us. We call (most of) it infor-
mation. How can this be connected to the bits that computers manipulate?
If it can be expressed, it can be expressed with information. That seems
to be the adagio in this day and age of computers. Almost everything can
be expressed on a computer. Computers represent and manipulate binary
numbers using voltages (common is: 0 Volt for 0 and 5 Volts for 1). By
assigning meaning (by analogy) to strings of bits, we can put everything into
numbers. Mathematicians have a particular definition for information based
on probabilities.
Two questions are important.
How many symbols are needed to express a particular occurrence, to

distinguish it from a complete set of possible occurrences?
What is the chance of this particular occurrence happening?
Let us discuss these questions one at a time, using an example. The

example is throwing a die and telling us the number on top. How much
information do we get when we are told it is a 4? We are looking for a
number as an answer. The first question has to do with representing or
expressing the number. The second question has to do with the shape of the
195
196 APPENDIX J. INFORMATION.
probability distribution involved. There are six possible states for the die
and the die may not be honest.
J.1 From symbols to information.

The natural measure for the amount of information that comes to mind is
the number of symbols needed to communicate the message. As we are doing
mathematics here, we need a number system, and any will do. For the sake
of illustration, we will use two systems, the binary system (symbols 0 and 1)
and the decimal system (symbols 0 to 9).
Starting with the familiar decimal system, it seems evident that we only
need one symbol to represent the number 4, and that is 4. It must be a
little less than one symbol that we need on closer inspection because, for any
throw, we only need six out of the ten symbols at our disposal. Precisely one
symbol will do if we use a number system with a set of six different symbols.
We have restricted ourselves to only two different number systems (binary
and decimal). Keep in mind that we need a little less than one decimal
symbol and that we want to specify this precisely. It will be something like
0,987654321 symbols, some number a little smaller than 1.
Using the binary system (symbols 0 and 1), we at least need three symbols
in a string. With two symbols we can represent four different things, 00 =
0, 01 = 1, 10 = 2 and 11 = 3. Not enough. With three symbols we can
represent 8 different things, 000, 001, 010, 011, 100, 101, 110, 111. Again, on
closer inspection we need a little less than 3 symbols to represent one thing
(the number 4) out of 6 different things. Something like 11,110 symbols
(remember 11,110 means 1 ∗ 21 + 1 ∗ 20 + 1 ∗ 2−1 + 1 ∗ 2−2 + 0 ∗ 2−3 in decimal
representation).
To specify the number of symbols exactly, we need to realise one thing

about our number systems. Exponentiation is the trick behind stringing
symbols together. The meaning of every symbol depends on its position in
the string. Now let us take the decimal system as the primary example,
because we are so used to it. Suppose the number of different possible states
is 54321 = 5∗104 +4∗103 +3∗102 +2∗101 +1∗100 = 0, 54321∗105 . Look at the
exponential! That is the number that counts the symbols before the comma,
when the mantisse starts with 0,... . Then, as we are looking for a way to
count the number of symbols in the (number)string, one obvious candidate
immediately comes to mind (and no others). The logarithm! The logarithm
J.2. WHAT ARE THE ODDS? 197
is the candidate and indeed a good candidate counter in combination with

our exponential representation of numbers. So in our example, when I give
you the 4, I give you log10 (#states) = log10 6 = log10 (0, 6 ∗ 101 ) = 0, 778151
decimal symbols of information. In bits that is (remember 10 here means two,
to decimal system
not ten!) log10 (110) = log10 (0, 110 ∗ 1011 ) = log10 (0, 110) + 11 =
log2 (0, 75) + 3 = log2 6 = 2, 585 binary symbols (or bits).
J.2 What are the odds?

When we are told about the experiment with the die, it is a convention to
assume that every outcome is equally likely. Let us assume that the die is
not honest. Suppose the chance of throwing a 6 is very likely, say 0,9 and the
chance of throwing 2, 3, 4 or 5 is 0,025. The chance of throwing a 1 is 0. The
sum of the chances is one as it is supposed to, because when throwing, at
least one of them has to come on top. Telling that we threw a six is not very
interesting. Telling it is a 4 is very unlikely, but it happens and throwing
1 is a miracle! What is the amount of information we give when we tell
the outcome? Although the number of symbols I have to use to specify the
outcome is the same as for an honest die (0,778151 decimal symbols or 2,585
bits), it does not reflect the asymmetry in the possible outcomes. There is
no information (or, if you will, an infinite amount of information) in telling
a 1 has happened. We need no symbols to tell about that because it will
never happen. Throwing a 4 is like throwing an honest die with 40 sides,
with a 4 on just one of the 40 sides. That die we know how to calculate. Its
log10 40 ≈ 1, 602 decimal symbols of information.
The amount of information to store an outcome is not necessarily the same

as the amount of information that outcome represents, as we have seen in
the example of the 40 sided die. When we throw an honest die many times,
an outcome of symbols could be
66664666666666666666666665366666665233666666666666666666.
It could also be
24443522342254322543356652435265342534263345666332344444. To store the
two strings of results, we need the same amount of symbols. The logarithmic
function does not measure chance. It only measures the number of symbols
of the input number it ’eats’. For a human, the second string seems more
likely to happen at first sight. Weird as it may seem, that is not the case
for an honest die. Both strings are equally likely to happen if each throw
outcome is equally likely to happen. For the dishonest die from our example,
the first string seems more likely and is more likely. Therefore, it does not
seem wise to use only the storage capacity as the measure for information.
The other distinguishing variable is chance. In the case of the honest die, the
chance of a 4 happening is 1 in 6. In the case of the dishonest die, it was 1 in
40. We leave the production of this specific dishonest die to the imagination.
In comes Shannon[28].
Shannon introduces the following definition for the information I(p) in the
occurence of an event with chance p of that event happening:
Definition 16. I(p) = − log2 p
On closer inspection we recognise that I(p) = − log2 p = log2 p−1 and we
recognise that, with an honest die, the information when throwing a 4 (p =
1/6 and p−1 = 6 is the number op possible states {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6}) is log2 6
bits as we have already seen.
Summarising in different words, we can assign an amount of information

I(p) to an event p. I(p) is the necessary amount of symbols in a chosen
number system to express the number n = p−1 where p is the chance of
the event happening. The amount of symbols to express n is counted by a
logarithmic function in the base of the chosen number system.
In physics, the famous formula for entropy has the same structure.
Definition 17. S = kB ln W
where kB is Boltzmann’s constant (kB = 1, 380649 ∗ 10−23 m2 kgs−2 K −1
or Joule/Kelvin) and W is the possible number of(micro)states of the system
of particles. Implicit is the assumption that every (micro)state has an equal
chance of occurring. Boltzmann’s constant relates the average kinetic energy
of particles in a gas to the temperature of the gas. In this case, we count
the number symbols by the natural logarithm to base e ≈ 2, 718 instead of
base 2 or 10. The unit of counting to base e is a nat (as opposed to bit) for
a natural unit of information.
Again, in other words, given the perceived structure of the system (in this
case, moving particles in a volume), an ordering mechanism of states is the
basis for putting a number to chaos. The amount of information of a system
is directly coupled to the perceived structure of the system. The better we
know what the system is made of, the better we can order it into states,
and the better and more detailed we can describe it in terms of information.
Remember, we can also describe nonsense using information.
J.2. WHAT ARE THE ODDS? 199
”Everything can be described by bits. However, bits are no

building blocks, no machinery for anything but strings of bits.”
Appendix K
The eather.
Louis de Broglie: ”Any particle, ever isolated, has to be imag-

ined as in continuous ”energetic contact” with a hidden medium.”
However, as de Broglie pointed out, this medium ”could not serve
as a universal reference medium, as this would be contrary to rel-
ativity theory.”
In the history of physics, the word eather has come up several times.
It has a bit of a bad reputation. Eather is described on Wikipedia in the
context of luminiferous aether, mechanical gravitational aether and other
more modern contexts. All have one thing in common. They all talk of two
objects, one of which is eather, the other being some form of energy. Any
time the word is suggested in context with the object that is discussed and
under investigation in this book, the reader should realise that this word
eather does not apply. There are no two objects. So there can not be an
eather unless you define the one object to be the eather. You can do that
but I do not like it. It clouds the subject and the word has too much history.
I prefer SpaceTime with capital letters ’S’ and ’T’ as the proper word (for
the time being).
201
202 APPENDIX K. THE EATHER.
Appendix L
Elasticity and elastic resistance.
Elasticity is the tendency of materials to return to their original shape after

deforming when the driving force is removed. As Feynmann writes: ”The
subject of elasticity deals with the behaviour of those substances which have
the property of recovering their size and shape when forces producing defor-
mations are removed”. There is no tradition to refer to space as a material
or a substance with properties such as elasticity. Nevertheless, the word elas-
ticity feels natural and is therefore used in the context of the fabric of space.
This manuscript is not the first to do so (see, for instance, [?]).
The use of the word stiffness is more prone to confusion. For materials, it
is customary to use the words elastic modulus and stiffness in the following
context:
An elastic modulus is a number that measures an object’s or substance’s
resistance to being deformed elastically when a force is applied. It
classically is calculated as stress divided by strain. Stress is force per
area, and strain is elongation per initial length. It is considered an
intrinsic property of the material independent of its geometry.
Stiffness classically corresponds to the ratio of force and length change.
It is a more extrinsic property of a specific structure, dependent on
shape and environment.
These descriptions strictly lead to the word elastic modulus if we con-
sider space of some material composition. The Latin word modulus means
measure. Strictly speaking, the meaning is okay. Elastic modulus loosely
translates as a measure of resistance to change. Furthermore, it is a generic
term for some specialisations (Young’s modulus, shear modulus, bulk modu-
lus), and it is used almost exclusively as a constant in the context of linearity.
The word resistance is appealing. It has some of the feel and possible vari-
ability because space is not just any material. This manuscript uses the
203
204 APPENDIX L. ELASTICITY AND ELASTIC RESISTANCE.
Figure L.1: The term elastic resistance is explained and is formally equal to elastic
modulus. The difference between these terms is only of an intuitive nature. For space,
elastic resistance is possibly a variable while in most cases, for more earthly materials,
elastic modulus is used as a constant in the context of linearity.
words elastic resistance instead of elastic modulus. See also figure L.1 on
page 204.
Appendix M
Symmetry.
Symmetry is an important word in mathematics and physics. In mathemat-

ics, group theory is the discipline that formalises symmetry. A group is a
mathematical object, a set, with a binary operation. Two members of the
set can be combined, using this operation and the result is again a member
of the set with the following conditions:
associativity: The succession, in which elements are combined, does

not matter, (ab)c = a(bc). (Order may matter. Perhaps ab ̸= ba.)
identity: The set has an identity-element e, which, combined with other

elements, leaves those elements unchanged. ae = ea = a.
Invertibility: Every member of the set has an inverse. Combined, they

give the identity-element. aa−1 = a−1 a = e.
Group theory [19] is a vast area of research. Discrete and continuous

groups exist. For physics, some groups are particularly important. The stan-
dard model for particle physics uses U(1), SU(2) and SU(3). More details
can easily be found on the web. Symmetry and symmetry-breaking are im-
portant concepts in physics. Symmetry has a relation to conservation laws
[24] . Symmetry does not describe the complete structure, however. It does
not describe the complete shape of objects. Different shapes with the same
symmetry structure are possible (see for instance figure M.1 on page 206).
This book uses the word symmetry in the context of group theory.
205
206 APPENDIX M. SYMMETRY.
Figure M.1: Two objects can have a different form and the same symmetry structure.
Appendix N
On the sociology of physics.
Sociology is the study of human society’s development, structure, and func-

tioning.
Over the centuries, humans have organised the effort to understand what
is. People are born and raised in this organisation. The physics community
is one of the structures for the human endeavour of science. The business of
doing science is a matter of many things: concepts, infrastructure, commu-
nication, beliefs, people, managers, alchemists, scientists, money, consensus,
and research. Nothing human is alien to us.
Time provides for the opportunity to look for what we call the truth.
Truth is hard to get. People disagree. People have their interests. Money,
hunger, fear and fame are among them. Money often flows to those with
fame. Research needs money. There is only so much, and not many want to
do it for free.
It is important to protect money, order and innovation — chaos and waste

lurk. Innovation is necessary, inevitable, unpredictable, influential. New
foundational truths may shift the balance. Innovation is sometimes a threat
to the status quo 1 . The threat will first be ignored, then opposed and in the
end, maybe embraced. Time will heal. If history is any guide, right stands a
good chance against wrong. There is hope.
1
This project, coming from the outside, probably is a threat.
207
208 APPENDIX N. ON THE SOCIOLOGY OF PHYSICS.
Appendix O
Mathematics: invented or
discovered?
Kronecker: God made the integers. All the rest is the work of
man.
There is a debate amongst scientists on whether we invent mathematics

or if it already exists and is discovered. Mathematics has its flaws and shaky
foundations and funny artefacts, like infinities. All mathematical definitions
are constructed, related to the human experience. We build models. For
instance, we construct algebras that sometimes behave like some phenomenon
we experience in reality (comparing through analogy). Let us be clear on
this. We model properties of reality. We don’t model reality as a whole
yet. Building continuity is beyond our reach. Once we realise all that, it
becomes doubtful that mathematics is already out there. We can generalise,
relate, and construct all we want, using and creating mathematical objects.
Some objects will remain trustworthy fantasies. Some will relate directly to
our experiences in the real world. However, all of those objects will always
remain just ideas, symbolised in our minds or on paper. Only the paper and
ink are real. Only the flesh is real. The syntax and semantics are in our
minds and lead to the stuff we build. Mind and stuff are both not made of
mathematics.
Mathematics is a human construction, built by trial and error and built

with its usefulness and descriptive powers in the real world in mind. We
construct definitions accordingly. Mathematics needs consensus, having its
sociology, although, often, that does not seem to be the case. It is easy to be-
lieve in the difference between a zero and a one. Mathematics is constructed
over millennia of thought and experiment. Being such a vast subject and
209
210 APPENDIX O. MATHEMATICS: INVENTED OR DISCOVERED?
beautiful accomplishment and having such descriptive powers nowadays has

nothing to do with being somewhere out there already. It is like a cathe-
dral. We have to build it before it is out there. It is not out there until
constructed. We can imagine it is like we can imagine a sculpture, already
existing in the rock, before it was carved out. That is a fantasy, a nice
fantasy. The big difference between a cathedral and mathematics is that
the cathedral is made of real stuff. In contrast, mathematics is a body of
ideas written down with symbols that became meaningful through cultural
conventions. Reality allows us to build cathedrals and mathematics.
The moment we realise that reality might not need the stuff we humans
think we perceive to enable us to have the human perspective, mathematics
becomes just a constructed tool for describing that perspective. Our per-
spective, mathematics, and ideas seem irrelevant for reality to do its thing.
It is speculation to state that reality is made of numbers or bits or math-

ematics. Numbers do not represent machinery, nor do they connect to or in-
teract with anything. They do not have neighbours, do not stick to anything
and cannot make up a continuum. Numbers represent descriptive power but
not explanatory power. Again, reality seems to have no dependence on our
mental constructs and fantasies whatsoever. However, let us do the research
first. In the research, the elastic four-dimensional in-between, called Space-
Time, is under investigation, capable of change and made accessible through
numbers.
God and numbers have no relation. All symbols are the work
of man.
Appendix P
Consciousness.
Perhaps consciousness can emerge, because of the power of the

continuum, harbouring the discrete, harbouring distinctions. We
may gain more respect for the continuum if we acknowledge that
we cannot model it with numbers alone.
We have not yet solved the problem of consciousness [35]. In this ap-
pendix, we look for new answers. In the lab, detailed studies of the hardware
and middleware of our brain are on their way. However, I am not aware of
the conceptualisation of a particular software object model projected on all
this hardware and middleware activity, so just in case, here we go.
Constructs of molecules can have a complex structure. With enough com-

plexity, they can even start moving and reproducing. Single cells can start
cooperating and, given enough time and the proper environment, worms and
humans can become a reality. Worm machinery can produce some movement.
More complex movement can be produced by human machinery.
Human’s hardware has a particular structure, a brain, tissue with neurons,

capable of doing some pretty unique mechanics, chemistry and electromag-
netism. Groups of neurons can fire in space and time such that arms are
raised. Groups of neurons can fire so that chemicals are influenced, so that
movement, change, and memories are created. There is slow, fast and really
fast movement. More or less, the same patterns of memories can be recalled
and, in turn, can influence neurons. More and more complex groups of neu-
rons, in ever more complex relations to each other, can establish more and
more diverse movements in space and time.
211
212 APPENDIX P. CONSCIOUSNESS.
There are three levels of structure. The hardware-level consists of the

material brain, flesh, blood, and neurons. It provides part of the syntax
level. The second level, the middleware level, consists of physical processes,
interactions and changes established in the brain. What specific frequency
spectrums are available to the brain to support the signal structures is un-
known to me. The middleware layer provides the rest of the syntax level.
The third level, the software level, represents the semantic level of change.
At the software level, we speak of objects, relations and procedures as we do
in object B and data modelling in computer-related studies. For example, a
firing complex of neurons in space and time, handling the bending of the left
thumb, can represent an object in the software layer.
On an abstract level, it is probably helpful to distinguish between a pri-

mary (autonomous reflex driven) and management (operational, tactical and
strategic management) layer in the software. Different objects perform dif-
ferent procedures in different layers of the software. Some procedural objects
may be busy distinguishing distinctions in very complex firing sequences.
Obviously, in the end, it is all hardware and middleware movement.
As we have seen before, the moment of making distinctions is a big moment.

Our brain makes the distinctions. Limbs can be moved, and the eyes can
distinguish movement. A subgroup of all neurons fires during a particular
time to establish some movement. A subgroup fires due to the movement
and or receptors in the eyes. These subgroups can be modelled as abstract
objects in the software layer. It could be an object for a simple task, like a
pure reflex, an object firing to stretch a leg. When a certain complexity in
hardware is reached, it might be the case that a group of neurons is fired,
which in turn makes a new group of neurons fire. This new group of neurons
may again fire to make a third group fire to move an arm.
So there is a group of neurons caught in the middle of two groups of neurons

firing. The first group is fired because of photons in the eyes. The third group
moves a leg. The second group, in between, could be bypassed, but it is not
for some reason. It has occupied the position of observer and manager. It can
be modelled as the unit that can distinguish between the first group firing
and not firing — a simple distinction, but a distinction nevertheless. If the
first group is firing, the observer second group decides that the third group
fires. A semantic interpretation is given to the behaviour of three groups of
neurons in time and space. Who is to say that this is limited to one group of
neurons in the middle? A whole new layer of groups of neurons may start to
213
evolve to establish even more complexity. Moreover, who is to say that this
is limited to one layer?
All chemical and electromagnetic activity (in the middleware layer) of this
layer of observer objects (produced by this complex hardware) can evolve to
incorporate even more abstract new layers of objects in the software layer.
Let us consider these new layers and complexes of observer objects in our
software. Groupings of activity start representing observer objects and re-
lations. Their goal is, for instance, to produce electrical output to primary
objects, whose purpose is to produce electrical output directly to movers like
muscles. The software evolves, containing lots of interacting objects. The
firing structures represent more and more complexity, establishing ever more
ability for change.
The model of the structures of groups of firing neurons has descriptive

power. It makes distinctions. It processes perceptions. A moment can come
when the object model can distinguish the distinctions, maybe in a second or
third layer or maybe later. At first, the software could make distinctions, see
a lion, produce hormones, and flee the scene. A new object (this structure
of complex firing and chemical balance and imbalance) now recognises when
a distinction is being made. This level of complexity in space and time may
facilitate consciousness. This construct of firing groups of neurons, this object
in our software, may facilitate consciousness. When the object is capable of
representing a self (a software model analogous to and representing the host),
self-consciousness is possible. When the object is representing a self, by firing
the relevant objects into existence, self-consciousness is present.
The object is conscious for some time. The object is not conscious of itself
but of self, a representation of (parts of) the host. Consciousness and self-
consciousness are not there all the time. They cost extra energy, while more
primary processes may have to be maintained. As long as the middleware
sustains consciousness, as long as it is ”in memory”, it can observe and
potentially manipulate the relevant distinctions. There may even exist a more
elaborate way of ordering consciousness in levels of consciousness, refining
the object model when for instance, incomplete objects are in memory.
So, in this terminology, we seem like a computer — middleware running

on hardware, representing software. The big difference is, of course, in the
potential complexity of the machine. Where computers deal with roughly
1015 discrete bits today, we have not begun to establish the complexity of
214 APPENDIX P. CONSCIOUSNESS.
the brain yet. We have a number for the amount (roughly 1011 neurons) of
discrete neurons, but this only scratches the surface of the potential comput-
ing power of the continuous brain with all its (possibly partly undiscovered)
contributing mechanisms. The minimum requirement of computer power for
low-level consciousness is probably not attainable for artificial intelligence
at the moment. Figuring out how to represent the object model and im-
plementing it in this restricted environment of bits still seems out of reach.
Evolution may not be matched for the time being. Nevertheless, maybe al-
ready, useful hybrids are possible, bridging the gap to continuity, on the way
to fuller consciousness in artificial intelligence.
This way of looking at consciousness is different from establishing a relation

between consciousness and quantum mechanics. The jump from continuum
to discrete makes distinctions possible. The growing complexity of the dis-
crete, embedded in the continuum, enables the complex distinctions needed
for local consciousness to be. That is different from a probabilistic behaviour
of just discreteness to produce emerging capability.
Consciousness may, at a minimum, be the ability to distin-

guish distinctions. Self-consciousness may be the ability to dis-
tinguish the distinction between self and environment. It may
all be in the complexity of the object-model software represented
through mechanics, chemistry and electromagnetism. So Descar-
tish: ”I object model myself. Therefore I am.”
Appendix Q
Free will.
Whether you believe in free will or not, may or may not be a

question of choice.
If we are willing to accept that reality might be this conjectured four-

dimensional elastic fabric, the discussion about free will seems unconstraint
from the physics perspective. The statement that everything is in principle
predictable becomes irrelevant. Although the underlying machinery seems
or may perhaps be entirely predictable, the perceived ordering of separated
units and their relations is not. Human-perceived boundaries between objects
are, in reality, non-existent. Saying that a specific unit has free will is now
subject only to the definition of free will and the ordering details. One can
argue the same about free will for the quantum mechanical universe.
First of all, it is helpful to state that there is no scientifically agreed-upon

definition of free will. There are, however, intuitions and disagreements.
Moreover, some experiments establish specific causality and order in brain
activity in decision-making processes.
The question of free will and arguments about it seems to be in the hands
of biology, psychology and sociology [14]. Engaging, in this case, are the
findings of neuroscientists. Neurological timing, causality and the interaction
between conscious and subconscious mind are a research subject in itself,
nowhere near final definitions and conclusions.
Thoughts on free will are, for instance [15]:
215
216 APPENDIX Q. FREE WILL.
Any action resulting from unconscious thought is not an act of free will.
1
My soul is in control.
I can do what I want to do.
Free will is a mystery.
It is all in the chosen definition of free will.
What is body and what is mind?
It is dangerous to negate free will because moral standards will erode,
and research funding will decrease.
It is dangerous not to negate free will because punishments will be
harsher.
It seems that there is leeway to shape arguments. Here is another one.

Whether or not free will exists, as long as we are in the stage of believing
one or the other, it will seem to be a choice, and we are, as a consequence,
forced to assume that free will exists. We would probably want to think of
a certain amount of free will, depending on, for instance, the complexity of
the system at hand. Humans seem to have a certain freedom of choice, even
leading to a mathematical axiom of choice.
Perhaps it is even so that in the end, we need for the definition of free will
to be such that we have it. Our perspective has just evolved that way. In a
way, we are just the moving fabric of SpaceTime, and on a specific scale, we
are (?semi-)free-willed 2 conscious entities, capable of choice.
If the appendix on consciousness P has any say in this, it would be hard

to deny free will. If not in our minds, where else do we grow and nourish
the software that seems to decide. No properties of the all-encompassing
SpaceTime seem to limit the ability to create elves and dragons and other
non-existing objects and make them go left or right.
This book was possibly or even probably written with some free
will. I want to feel responsible.
1
This would require an exact definition of unconscious and conscious. We are not there
yet, especially on the conscious part.
2
We cannot for instance escape nature. Or more poëtically ”we cannot escape the laws
of nature.”
Appendix R
Tricks for navigating the PDF.
To navigate through this document, here are some tricks. It will save you
time reading when you jump from one place to another.
If you do not see any indicators for jumping to another place in the book,
you should consider changing the PDF viewer you are using.
In the back of the book, there is an index. It facilitates jumps to where

words or definitions are used in the book.
Most PDF viewers accommodate jumping back (Go back feature) to where
you came from after you have jumped to another page. In my PDF viewer,
I do a right mouse click and select ”Vorige weergave”. In general, it pays to
get to know your PDF viewer better.
In the bibliography, lots of URL’s are indicated that will take you to a
place on the internet where the information is shown.
You can jump from the index, the contents and lots of other places in the
book. There are indicators to appendices, tables, pictures, bibliography and
sections.
217
218 APPENDIX R. TRICKS FOR NAVIGATING THE PDF.
Appendix S
Bibliography
[1] Pieter Adriaans. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, 2014.

URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/
information/.
[2] David Albert. World science festival, time since einstein, at
time 1:18:44., 2014. URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
d5G90ovdqmk.
[3] David Albert. World science festival, time since einstein, at time 1:33:30
david albert quoting augustinus, 2014. URL: https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=d5G90ovdqmk.
[4] J. Jurkiewicz Ambjøørn, A. Görlich and R. Loll. Cdt an entropic theory
of quantum gravity, 15 juli 2010. ArXiv:1007.2560v1 [hep-th].
[5] Paul Bartha. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, 2013. URL: https:
//plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-analogy/.
[6] (Translation by Jean Piccard) Albert Einstein. Physics and re-
ality, 1936. URL: http:$//$www.kostic.niu.edu$/$physics_and_
reality_albert_einstein.pdf.
[7] Sean Carrol. Mysteries of modern physics, at time 54:15., 2014. URL:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBpR0LBsUfM.
[8] Cottingham and Greenwood. An introduction to the standard model of
particle physics. Cambridge University Press, 2007. ISBN-13 978 0 521
85249 4.
219
220 APPENDIX S. BIBLIOGRAPHY
[9] Paul Davies. World science festival, a matter of time, at time 8:30.,
2014. URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8FnFjqiAWs.
[10] G. de Berredo-Peixoto and M. O. Katanaev. Tube dislocations in gravity.

oct 2008. arXiv:0810.0243v1 [gr-qc] 1.
[11] Lorenz Demey, Barteld Kooi, and Joshua Sack. Stanford encyclopedia
of philosophy, 2013. URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/
logic-probability/.
[12] George Ellis. World science festival, time since einstein, at time 1:35:24.,
2014. URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5G90ovdqmk.
[13] George Ellis. World science festival, time since einstein, at time 28:17.,
[14] Daniel Dennett et al. The great free will debatel, 2021. URL: https:
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=3O61I0pNPg8.
[15] TamarKushnir et al. Mind over masters: The question of free wil, 2015.
URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIXGxRZk3G4.
[16] Richard Feynman. The Feynman lectures on physics. Addison Wesley,

1965. ISBN 0-201-02118-8.
[17] Theodore Frankel. The geometry of physics, An introduction, second

edition. Cambridge University Press, 2004. ISBN 0 521 83330 2.
[18] Mario Roman Garcia. Category Theory and Lambda Calculus. Univer-
sidad de Granada, 2018. URL: https://mroman42.github.io/ctlc/
ctlc.pdf.
[19] Serge Lang. Algebra. Springer, 2002. ISBN 0-387-95385-X.
[20] John M. Lee. Riemannian Manifolds, An introduction to curvature.

Springer, 1997. ISBN 0 387 98322 8.
[21] Fotini Markopoulou-Kalamara. World science festival, time since ein-

stein, at time 1:33:15., 2014. URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=d5G90ovdqmk.
[22] Fotini Markopoulou-Kalamara. World science festival, time since ein-

stein, at time 51:04., 2014. URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=d5G90ovdqmk.
221
[23] Pierre A. Millette. Elastodynamics of the Spacetime Continuum, A

Spacetime Physics Theory of Gravitation, Electromagnetism and Quan-
tum Physics. American Research Press, 2017. ISBN 978-1-59973-401-9.
URL: http://zelmanov.ptep-online.com/books/STCED2017.pdf.
[24] Dwight E. Neuenschwander. Emmy Noether’s wonderful theorem. John

Hopkins Univerity Press, 2010. ISBN 10: 0 8018 9693 4.
[25] Abraham Pais. ’Subtle is the lord ...’, The Science and the Life of Albert
Einstein. Oxford University Press, 1982. ISBN 0-19-285138-1.
[26] Abraham Pais. Niels Bohr’s Times, In Physics, Philosophy and Polity.
Clarendon Press Oxford, 1991. ISBN 0-19-852049-2.
[27] Roger Penrose. World science festival, time since einstein, at time 48:20.,
[28] John R. Pierce. An introduction to Information Theory. Dover Publi-

cations, 1980. ISBN 0 48 624061 4.
[29] Carlo Rovelli. The physics and philosophy of time, at time 21:35., 2018.
URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6rWqJhDv7M.
[30] Carlo Rovelli. The physics and philosophy of time, at time 34:10., 2018.
URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6rWqJhDv7M.
[31] Jonathan Schaffer. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, 2003. URL:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-metaphysics/.
[32] Christoph Schiller. Motion mountain, the adventure of physics, 5 vol-

umes, the 2021 edition, 2021. URL: https://www.motionmountain.
net/.
[33] Christoph Schiller. Motion mountain, the adventure of physics, vol-

ume 6, the strand model, a speculation on unification, pdf file the 2021
edition, 2021. URL: https://www.motionmountain.net/.
[34] Peter Schulte and Karen Neander. Stanford encyclopedia of

philosophy, 2004. URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/
content-teleological/.
[35] Anil Seth. The neuroscience of consciousness, 2017. URL: https://

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRel1JKOEbI.
222 APPENDIX S. BIBLIOGRAPHY
[36] Manfred Stoll. Introduction to real analysis. Adison-Wesley, 2001. ISBN

0 321 04625 0.
[37] M. Stöltzner. Action principles and Teleology. Springer-Verlag, 1994.

ISBN 978-3-642-48649-4.
[38] Leonard Suskind. Why is time a one-way street?, at time 13:26., 2013.
URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhnKBKZvb_U.
[39] Leonard Suskind. Why is time a one-way street?, at time 17:04., 2013.
URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhnKBKZvb_U.
[40] Gerard ’t Hooft. World science festival, quantum reality, space, time
and entanglement, at time 42:46., 2018. URL: https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=BFrBr8oUVXU.
[41] Mark van Atten. Brouwer and the mathematics of the continuum
(around tenth minute), 2014. URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=WNAm7TH0iOw.
[42] ’t Hooft Veltman, de Wit. Lie groups in physics. Institute for theoretical
physics Utrecht university, 2004. URL: www.phys.uu.nl.
[43] E.R. Weinstein. What is a spinor? spinoral matter explained by dr. wein-
stein, 2021. URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6sYanAPA1o.
[44] Frank Wilczek. World science festival, time since einstein, at time 38:33.,
[45] N.J. Wildberger. Divine proportions. Wild Egg Books, 2005. ISBN
097574920X.
[46] N.J. Wildberger. a youtube lecture on dedekind cuts and

cauchy sequences., 2014. URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
4DNlEq0ZrTo.
[47] N.J. Wildberger. a youtube lecture on extremely big numbers, 2014.

URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPEYoW0Mj1U.
[48] N.J. Wildberger. a youtube lecture on fractions and p-adic numbers.,

2014. URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXRwlo_MHnI.
[49] N.J. Wildberger. a youtube lecture on modeling continuity., 2014. URL:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu-YPJSNFpE.
223
[50] N.J. Wildberger. a youtube lecture on numbers, 2014. URL: https:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=91c5Ti6Ddio.
[51] N.J. Wildberger. a youtube lecture on pure and applied geome-

try, 2014. URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHQwJhL5i0E$&
$list=PLC37ED4C488778E7E$&$index=22.
[52] N.J. Wildberger. a youtube lecture on the fundamental theorem of alge-

bra., 2014. URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSZsTeO-C1o.
[53] N.J. Wildberger. a youtube lecture on the sporadic nature of big num-
bers, 2014. URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8I68E7yZeY.
[54] Ralph Wojtowicz. Catagorical logic as a foundation for reasoning under

uncertainty, 2004. URL: https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/
232166/.
Index
absorption, 30 strings of, 195

accelerated expansion, 21 black hole, 93, 130
accuracy black hole structure, 130
constructing a device, 33 Boltzmann, 54, 198
action, 30 boson, 71
algebra, 29 Brouwer, 187
analogy, 159 building blocks, 24, 27
Arabic, 39 Byzantine, 39
argument
aesthetic argument, 108 calculator, 23, 109
artificial intelligence argument, 111 Cantor, 183, 191
economical argument, 109 diagonal argument, 183
emotional argument, 114 cardinality, 184
intuitive argument, 107 carrier ball, 70, 79, 108, 122, 135
mathematical argument, 110, 114 carrier ball topology, 70
money argument, 112 carrier ball vortex, 70
philosopher’s argument, 109 carrier topology, 4, 64, 70, 89, 108
physics argument, 110 category theory, 164
sceptics argument, 114 Causal Dynamical Triangulation, 140
spin-off argument, 111 causal reasoning, 7, 31, 160
spiritual argument, 108 cavity resonator, 135
technicality argument, 114 chance, 163
artificial intelligence, 70, 116, 124, 155, charge, 86
213 Chinese, 39
associativity, 205 chirality, 86
axioms, 169, 188 Christoph Schiller, 136
clocks, 52, 54, 62, 91, 92, 100
Babylonians, 39 geometry of clocks, 52
bandwidth, 32 coherence, 27
behaviour, 21, 28, 64 coin, 37
Bell’s inequality, 32, 46 collapse
bits, 25, 93, 195, 198 collapse of carrier ball, 71
224
INDEX 225
collapse of discrete SpaceTime, 119 countable, 173

collapse of SpaceTime, 131 definition, 145, 170
wave function collapse, 68 discrete number system, 176
colour, 43 distinguishable point, 177
communication, 39 distinguished point, 177
complex numbers, 69 free will, 215
computer, 27 human perspective, 168
computer fabric, 121 in-between, 177
computer memory, 121 infinity, 171, 173
computer model, 118 interaction, 148
conformal symmetry, 47 intuitive continuity, 177
conjecture, 5, 7, 47, 51, 55, 60, 62, label, 169
63, 79, 93, 111, 114, 117, 127, machinery, 147
135, 137, 138, 150, 153, 161, MachineryTime, 57
171, 174 material, 148
consciousness, 4, 157, 168, 211 mechanism, 147
artificial intelligence, 213 natural number, 176
consequences, 127 neighbours, 176
constructivism, 187 nothing, 169
continuity, 7, 24, 26, 27, 29, 153, 185, one, 169
191, 209 one add one, 169
intuitive continuity, 178, 188 part, 148
continuum, 5, 7, 22, 153, 167 point, 169
continuum hypothesis, 184 property, 145
control local behaviour, 70 rational number, 176
control local shapes, 70 relation, 145
coordinate system, 28 sociology, 207
coordinate transformations, 44 SpaceTime, 57
cosmology, 21 string, 169
counting, 159, 190 symbol, 169
system, 148
dark energy, 7, 110 Time, 57
dark matter, 7, 110, 113, 133 TimeInterval, 57
Darwin, 161 touching numbers, 176
definition, 169 touching points, 176
connected in-between, 177 uncountable, 173
connected in-betweens, 177 describe, explain, understand, trust,
continuity, 171, 175 4, 5, 21, 27, 34, 59, 149, 155,
continuous function, 178 195
continuous number system, 176 dice, 28, 33, 163, 195, 197, 198
contiuous line segment, 178 dishonest, 197
226 INDEX
honest, 195, 197, 198 rigid elastic resistance, 95

dimensions, 25, 190 variable elastic resistance, 64,
four, 22 95, 97, 122
higher dimensional, 190 elasticity-code, 74
many, 22 variable elastic resistance, 71
multi, 24 Elastodynamics of the SpaceTime Con-
one, 22, 24 tinuum, 140
three, 22 electromagnetism, 27
two, 22 elementary particle, 28
Dirac, 52 emission, 30
Dirac equation, 52 Emmy Noether, 44
discrete Emmy Noether’s principle, 44
building blocks, 181 emotion, 38
numberline, 22 energy, 4, 23, 89
objects, 181 entanglement, 31–33, 46, 60, 68
reality, 181 entanglement problem, 122
discrete machinery, 27 entropy, 54, 198
dispersion, 136, 137 equilibrium, 54
distance Ernst Mach, 51
distance, 189 error margin, 163
quadrance, 189 errors, 32
distinctions, 4, 27, 31, 34, 37, 59, 154, Euler
159, 168, 170, 178, 212 a formula, 181
distinguished point, 189 evolution, 36, 157, 161, 213
double-slit experiment, 33, 99 expansion of universe, 65
experimental data, 154
Edward Witten, 79 experiments, 27, 29, 31, 33, 34, 154
Egyptians, 39 data, 59
Einstein, 4, 23, 27, 43, 62, 112 experimental data, 150
Einstein equation, 102 predictions, 59
Einstein’s field equation, 133 exponential, 196
Einstein’s principles, 43 exponentiation, 172
elasticity, 23, 67, 74, 79, 82, 89, 97,
111, 113, 127, 146, 203 face centred cubic, 71
elastic connections, 122 fairy tale, 187
elastic fabric, 63, 70, 71, 129 fantasy, 154, 181
discrete elastic fabric, 121 Fermat, 40, 161
symmetries, 121 Fermat’s principle, 40
elastic resistance, 63, 67, 94, 119, fermion, 71, 79, 89
127, 129, 136, 138, 140, 203 Feynman, 45, 67
elastic modulus, 203 Feynman diagrams, 150
INDEX 227
fields, 23, 29, 69 helicity, 86

vector fields, 74 Hindu-Arabic numbers, 169
fine structure constant, 65, 95, 137 honesty
fitting, 163 admitting weaknesses, 175
fitting elastic resistance, 103 not enough honesty, 175
parameter fitting, 94, 164 Hooke’s law, 74, 122, 127
force, 22, 27 horn torus, 80
force field, 30 human perspective, 4, 6, 7, 22, 24, 28,
foundations of mathematics, 22 29, 31, 34, 38, 47, 54, 60, 92,
frame of reference, 43 107, 153, 154, 168, 171
accelerating, 43 beyond the human perspective, 60
inertial, 43 construction, 188
free will, 157, 215 Huygens, 40, 161
frequency, 30, 43 Huygens principle, 40
fundamental theorem of algebra, 185 hydrogen spectrum, 138
galaxy formation, 131 identity, 205

Galileo, 40 in-between, 7, 26, 27, 61, 70, 93, 121,
Galileo’s principle, 40 154, 167, 177, 178, 182–186,
general relativity, 4, 23, 30, 44, 61, 189, 190
62, 114, 150 bracket notation, 189
goal, 161 only one, 190
god, 39 rough rationals, 191
graph theory, 164 Indians, 39
gravitation, 89 infinitesimals, 22, 153, 190
gravitational constant, 65, 95, 138 infinity, 22, 153, 167, 171, 173, 174,
gravitational wave, 133 182–184, 187
gravity, 4, 27 information, 25, 93, 150, 195, 198
Greeks, 39 amount, 196, 198
group represented, 197
continuous group, 205 store, 197
discrete group, 205 measure, 196
group theory, 205 initial conditions, 52, 122
infinite groups, 174 innovation, 207
interaction
Hamilton, 42, 161 experimenting system and observed
Hamilton’s principle, 42 system, 33
hardware, 157, 211 separation and entanglement, 33
Heisenberg, 45, 109, 137 interference problem, 122
Heisenberg uncertainty principle, internet, 39
32, 45, 109 interpretation, 23, 31, 34
228 INDEX
quantum mechanics, 45 open, 187

invariance, 43 playful, 187
invented, discovered, constructed, 209 rigorous, 187
invertibility, 205 means, 161
measurement interpretation, 68
Jan-Willem van Holten, 51, 52 measurement results, 4, 32
John Wheeler, 55 measuring devices, 6, 31, 33, 38, 43,
journals, 39 69, 91, 92, 150, 154
mechanism, 21, 27, 162
kinetic energy, 30, 74, 82
meet, 184, 185
Klein-Gordon equation, 52
lines and circles, 184
Lagrangian, 30, 43 meet versus intersect, 185
Lamb shift, 138 root, 185
Lambda calculus, 166 Mesopotamians, 39
language, 38 message, 196
languages, 36 metric of space, 127
laws, 21, 28, 111, 148, 150, 205 metric tensor, 133
laws of physics, 4, 5, 19, 28, 40, middleware, 157, 211
51, 52, 55, 59, 63–65, 150, 154 modulus, 67
Legendre polynomials, 86, 136 bulk modulus, 67
light, 6, 30 shear modulus, 67
logarithm, 196 Young’s modulus, 67
loop quantum gravity, 26, 27 moment of time, 29
money, 39
machinery, 4–7, 21–27, 29, 33, 45, 47, morality, 39
48, 52, 54, 57, 64, 86, 89, 107,
111, 113, 127, 131, 139, 147, natural selection, 36
154, 162, 163, 210, 211, 215 nesting, 27
complete machinery, 59 neurons, 211
copy universe machine, 59 group of neurons, 212
coupling, 55 object, 212
extra machinery, 56 new paradigm, 69, 97
lack of, 42 Newton, 4, 22, 27, 41, 61, 161
MachineryTime, 57 Newton’s laws, 41
properties, 55 Newton’s principle, 41
main conjecture, 63 Newtonian gravitational pull, 148
manifold, 69 Niels Bohr, 33
Markov chain, 118 non-locality, 32, 46
mass, 22 numbers
mathematics big numbers, 171
constructions, 22 problems, 172
INDEX 229
biggest prime, 182 paradigm shift, 95

expressible numbers, 172 parity, 86
expressed numbers, 172 particles, 28
potentially expressible numbers, Pauli, 46
172 exclusion principle, 46
fractions, 172 perception, 38
infinity types, 183 philosophy, 155, 195
integers, 172, 184 photons, 32, 33, 46, 79, 91, 92, 102,
irrational labels, 172, 184 212
irrational numbers, 171 photon paradox, 6, 91, 100
approximations, 183 photon perspective, 92, 154
label symbols, 182 wavelength, 33, 100
natural numbers, 171 physics
postponed approximations, 172, 184 foundational, 38
prime numbers, 182 Planck, 45, 65
undefined infinity, 182 Planck’s constant, 45, 65, 95, 97,
rational numbers, 171 109, 136–138
real numbers, 24, 171, 182, 184 Planck-scale, 51
rough rationals, 191 Planck-scale cubes, 172
touching numbers, 188 point array, 121
numerical particle collider, 118 points
distinguished points, 189
object, 24, 27, 29, 31, 37, 39, 59, 67, touching points, 175, 189
69 potential energy, 30, 74
textbook object, 24 power, 39
object model, 31, 40, 145, 157, 166, principle, 36, 38
211, 213, 214 correspondence principle, 45
objections, 135 Heisenberg uncertainty principle,
observer, 91 32, 45, 109, 137
occurence, 195 new principles, 47
complete set, 195 particle-wave duality, 46
particular, 195 principle of least action, 30, 42,
ongoing processes, 154 43
operator, 69 principle of least time, 40
order quantum mechanical, 45
minimal, 38 superposition principle, 46, 137
perceived order, 25, 28, 31, 38, ultimate, 38
215 unifying principles, 46
ordering, 38 probabilistic behaviour, 69
probabilities, 21, 27, 163, 195
papers, 39 probability distribution, 25, 26, 28,
230 INDEX
33, 59, 64, 92, 107, 118, 137, semantic reasoning, 158
195 symbolic reasoning, 158
probability function, 33 syntactic reasoning, 158
process teleological, 30, 37
infinite process, 22, 178, 189 teleological reasoning, 6, 31, 161
ongoing process, 178 redshift, 21, 65, 91, 130
properties, 28 new reasons, 130
behavioural properties, 95 reductionism
constitutive properties, 59 methodological, 166
relational properties, 59 ontological, 166
structural properties, 95 theory, 166
relations, 27
quantisation, 136, 137 renormalisation, 47
quantum computer, 34, 111, 116, 166 resonance, 80
quantum field theory, 4, 23, 25, 27 torus-like resonances, 136
quantum groups, 47 types of resonances, 86
quantum mechanics, 23, 33, 45, 114, resonance cavity, 82
150 resonate, 24
resonating cavity, 130
random, 163 resonating constructions, 120
reasoning, 27 Ricci tensor, 133
abduction, 164 Riemann tensor, 133
analogical reasoning, 159 Riemannian manifold, 68
backward reasoning, 166 Romans, 39
categorical reasoning, 165 root, 185
causal, 37
causal reasoning, 6, 31, 160 scale, 22, 62, 131, 134, 177
conditional reasoning, 164 global scale, 30
counterfactual reasoning, 166 preferred scale, 136
critical thinking, 166 scale of thing, 97
deduction, 164 scale of things, 64, 136
defeasible reasoning, 166 small scale, 47, 97
emotional, 38 small scales, 69, 70
induction, 164 scale of things, 138
induction reasoning, 166 Schrodinger, 52
intuitive reasoning, 166 equation, 52
mathematical induction, 165 Schwarzschild, 102
non human reasoning, 166 scientific method, 4, 6, 8, 34, 39, 154,
paraconsistent reasoning, 166 155
probabilistic reasoning, 163 scientific societies, 39
reduction, 166 second law of thermodynamics, 52
INDEX 231
self referencing, 170 statistics, 24, 27, 163, 195

senses status, 39
external, 38 steel rod, 67
internal, 38 stiffness, 203
set, 205 stochastics, 163
cardinality, 183 string theory, 24, 27
set theory, 159, 166 structural properties, 21, 63, 65
Shannon, 198 structure, 28
shut up and calculate, 45 body centred cubic structure, 121
sociology, 27, 39, 155, 207 face centred cubic structure, 121
software, 157, 211 tetrahedral structure, 121
some n, 173 Sumerians, 39
Space, 63, 67, 71 supersymmetry, 24, 47
space, 22, 29, 39, 67, 182 symbols, 22, 169, 196
quanta, 59 symmetries, 4, 21, 28, 47, 59, 70, 79,
SpaceTime, 7, 34, 57, 60, 63, 67, 70, 118, 135, 205
74, 82, 89, 91, 92, 94, 95, 97, symmetry breaking, 47, 59, 62,
103, 116, 118, 130, 133, 134, 64, 79, 111, 135
136, 138, 148, 159, 210, 216 system
rational SpaceTime, 70 binairy system, 196
spacetime, 4, 23–26, 29, 30, 33, 44, decimal system, 196
47, 56, 60, 62, 67, 89, 91, 92, structure, 198
94, 95, 148, 162
non-commutative spacetime, 47 teleological reasoning, 7, 31, 161
quantised, 25 tensors, 7, 23, 26, 29, 33, 111, 133,
speed, 30 154, 162
speed of light, 43, 61, 64, 95, 127 energy-momentum tensor, 23
variability of speed of light, 127 Ricci tensor, 133
variable speed of light, 95, 97 Riemann tensor, 133
speed of sound, 67 testable predictions, 118
spherical harmonics, 79 Time, 7, 29, 57, 60, 63, 67, 71
spin, 86 adjacent moments, 55
half-integer spin, 79, 80 arrow of Time, 56
spinor, 86 bounded time dimension, 56
spooky action at a distance, 32, 46 circular Time, 57
standard model, 5, 69, 150 continuous, 55
standing wave, 86 coupling machinery, 56
states, 198 discrete, 55
begin, 30 discrete moments, 55
end, 30 duration, 55
possible, 198 machinery for Time, 52
232 INDEX
moments, 55, 56 long wavelength, 110, 112, 131,

Time reversal, 74, 122 134
time, 6, 7, 22, 26, 29, 39, 46, 48, 51, Western European, 39
60, 67, 146, 161, 182 white noise, 93
arrow of time, 51, 52 Wildberger, 181, 182, 184, 185, 191
continuous time, 51 wine glass, 54
direction time derivative, 52
directionality, 51, 52 Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, 168
discrete time, 51 zero and one, 6, 31, 162, 168, 170,
partial time derivative, 52 188, 191, 209
time reversal, 162
types of time, 61
Time-slices, 71
TimeInterval, 57
universal clock, 57
topological quantum field theory, 47
topology of space, 114
topology too simple, 135
torus, 79, 135
truth, 34
tube dislocations, 140
tubes
knotted tubes, 135
tunnelling, 33
turtles, 27
two types of physics, 150
unification, 26
universe, 8
age of the universe, 131
collapse of spacetime, 131
fluttering universe, 131
universities, 39
vectors, 24, 29, 74, 86

Venn diagram, 159
vortex, 5
war, 39
wave function collapse, 68
wavelength, 43, 100, 102, 130
Nullius in verba.
(motto of the Royal Society,
freely translated as: ”Don’t just believe me. Investigate.”)

Every book is the wreck of a perfect idea.
”Iris Murdoch”
Those who have helped me are not to blame for this. I owe them a lot,
especially Jan Willem van Holten and Ben Bakker but most of all Dirk van
Ormondt who guided me during many years of struggle.

Boe Knew Physics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Boe Knew Physics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

20 januari 2023, draft version 1.

Examine the ”smallest possible” distinction.

human perspective can be found at 5. The shape of SpaceTime is all there

There is one more demand on our conjectured descriptions. The expla-

As is argued, there is a primary object to construct and research, named

From a capability for distinctions comes a capability for creating language,

 There is a problem with the mathematical description of the continuum.

 Mathematics does not rule. Laws do not govern the universe.

 There is a lack of trustworthy, understandable explanations in physics.

 There is a lack of complete machinery in our understanding.

 Experiments and the scientific method may not be enough to explore

Some new ideas are developed. Here is a summary.

 A reevaluation of the limitations of the human perspective. 1

 Some new principles are introduced. 2.2.15

 A specific carrier topology or carrier ball as machinery for fermions 5

 A relation between the machinery of nature and our quantum mechan-

 A relation between the machinery of nature and our general relativistic

 The introduction of a photon paradox. 7.2

 A new paradigm is introduced. 8

 Why to do the research. 9

 The specification of a new project to create new physics. 10

 There is a strict relation between causal and teleological reasoning. E

 The introduction of the ”in-between” in mathematics, to help admit

 A reevaluations of old mathematical proofs. G

 Appendices on consciousness P and free will Q are presented as a result

To accommodate those with no time to dig in, here is a birdseye view of

The key ideas are still conjectures. No conclusive proofs, agreement or

Nature might not order. It may not need order. Parts of

I Physics, the old. 17

2.2.8 Hamilton’s principle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

II Physics, the new. 49

4 The new model. 63

5 The fermionic carrier ball. 79

6 The gravitational carrier ball. 89

7 Clocks, light and gravitation. 91

III New research. 105

9 Why must we do this research? 107

10 How to do the research? 117

11 Computer fabric behaviour. 121

IV Consequences and objections. 125

12 Some consequences. 127

13 Possible objections. 135

A New definitions. 143

B Objects and relations. 145

C Machinery and mechanisms. 147

F.5.2 In-betweens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

G True or fantasy. 181

I Why care about the continuum? 193

K The eather. 201

L Elasticity and elastic resistance. 203

N On the sociology of physics. 207

O Mathematics: invented or discovered? 209

Q Free will. 215

R Tricks for navigating the PDF. 217

Is a number line discrete?

Is nature ruled by mathematics or

is mathematics enabled by nature?

Physics, the old.

”What are the fundamental laws of physics?”

”What are the properties of the fabric of nature?”

Probabilities can describe behaviour but do not describe struc-

Physicists describe nature using mathematics, processes, relations, inte-

We should aspire to describe nature using just machinery. The working

There is a problem with the mathematical description of the continuum.

Mathematics does not rule. Laws do not govern the universe.

There is a lack of trustworthy, understandable explanations in physics.

There is a lack of complete machinery in our understanding.

Experiments and the scientific method may not be enough to explore

A reevaluation of the limitations of the human perspective. 1

Some new principles are introduced. 2.2.15

A specific carrier topology or carrier ball as machinery for fermions 5

A relation between the machinery of nature and our quantum mechan-

A relation between the machinery of nature and our general relativistic

The introduction of a photon paradox. 7.2

A new paradigm is introduced. 8

Why to do the research. 9

The specification of a new project to create new physics. 10

There is a strict relation between causal and teleological reasoning. E

The introduction of the ”in-between” in mathematics, to help admit

A reevaluations of old mathematical proofs. G

Appendices on consciousness P and free will Q are presented as a result

An extra computational device is needed for changing and interpreting

No explanatory power, only descriptive power is available.

There is a limitation on the experimenting system, on the accuracy of

There is a limitation on the interaction of the experimenting system

Second law: a force on a mass changes its motion (momentum). f =

Third law: When mass A exerts a force on mass B, mass B exerts an