Null Physics - anyone???? Need help with new theory

This is a question for our science experts - Can one of you explain to me in laymen terms what this theory is or rather what it would mean in terms of how I view reality? There is a new book out called Our Undiscovered Universe thats getting some press - but after reading a bit of it online at its website - I still don't have a firm grasp ...Please help me out?....I want to understand it...

www.nullphysics.com...

Quotes from the site:

Null Physics is the analysis and quantification of the relationship between the physical states of existence and nonexistence. This relationship leads directly to the intricate four-dimensional geometry of which matter and energy are composed. This geometry is used to explain and quantify many of the properties of matter and light, ultimately leading to a unified cosmology that demonstrates, through logic and a wealth of empirical evidence, that our universe is an eternal equilibrium system.

Null Physics is derived from the concept that our entire universe is the internal structure of nothingness. In other words, physical reality is an intricate, four-dimensional geometric equation that adds to zero because it exists within zero. There is no beginning or end to our universe because there is no beginning or end to nothingness. Reality is composed of space and curvatures of space (energy), both of which are composed of geometric points, which are the physical representation of nothingness. In short, there is no difference between a universe whose sum is zero and a universe that exists as a formulation of zero.

Help me out here - my internal structure of nothingness is having issues with somethingness....

but seriously this is intriguing and I do desire to have a better understanding of it...

Interesting thread, thanks OP! First, I have to say that in no way am I a physics expert, so perhaps someone here who qualifies and is aware of the theories espoused in Null Theory can contribute a better understanding.

I was hoping that it would turn out to be a unifying factor of c and g, which have been sought for decades..... the constants of lightspeed and gravitational influence. It may well turn out to address those aspects; unfortunately I don't see much of the workings of this theory in the website. I'm not familiar with Null Theory, and the information there has to be purchased to acquire it. That's not in itself a bad thing, but I will do a little more investigation before purchasing.

With new theories, it seems sometimes that what is lacking is parameters for testing the theory. That has been true for a long time and shouldn't be a hindrance to working out these concepts, but it makes it more difficult for us laypersons to understand the value and application of things.

Cheers

reply to post by argentus


thanks for posting though - I tend to understand things from a philosophical point of view - which is not scientific, I realize - but with quantum theory come those wonderful visuals which made the concept more accessible to me and then there's the multi-verse theory which I can conceptualize as well - this theory (internal structure of nothingness in relation to the universe we experience) is tickling my brain but until I can conceptualize it properly it won't stick to the wall so to speak...damn, I might have to buy the book..

reply to post by realshanti


I am not a scientist but after reading first paragraph it just basically says the Earth will always balance itself out. Fancy words for what most people already know.

take a look at the General Principles fo Reality thread

also it website with free ebook

www.gpofr.com

theres a lot of theories but much more understandable.

the author equates through his new relativity mass equation that the relativistic mass of Jupiter is equal to the charge of an electron 1.6x10^-19 C.

This reminds me of something Nassim Haramein said in a radio interview, I found it fascinating.

Basic geometry begins with the discussion of dimensions. Begin with a dot - dimension zero, which supposedly doesn't exist. All conventional geometry assumes dimension zero does not exist (in order for all subsequent geometric calculations to be correct). If you have 2 dots, and you draw a line between them - that's dimension 1. Still, to us this does not exist because it does not enclose volume. Take 4 lines and connect them - this is dimension 2. This still doesn't enclose volume and therefore, according to basic geometry, does not exist. Connect 6 planes of dimension 2 to form a cube and you have dimension 3 - this evidently exists because it encloses space.

However, a huge question arises: How can dimension 3 exist if it's made of planes that don't exist, lines that don't exist, and points that don't exist?

To answer this, one has to assume that the only thing that can exist is the point itself - dimension zero. Within a single point exists all possibility, whether that be the universe or all parallel versions of the universe.

Null Physics is derived from the concept that our entire universe is the internal structure of nothingness. In other words, physical reality is an intricate, four-dimensional geometric equation that adds to zero because it exists within zero.

Seems plausible, and definitely more logical than what was being taught in geometry class.

I associate the point with 1, rather than with 0. 0 gives the impression of nonexistence, but for the point to exist, obviously something must exist.

There are so many definitions for "dimensions" these days that it makes my head spin. For me, 0 doesn't even exist, but I may be looking at this from a different perspective.

There is an even simpler explanation for all of this, yet they whys of it are not known as of now. Dimensions don't exist as a fundamental of the universe. All dimensional physics we know of are on paper and never observed. We can't observe, poke at, and measure even our three dimensional universe. We can't explain WHY there is just three dimensions. We don't even have an adequate definition for dimensions.

Perhaps, just perhaps the most simplest answer is the correct answer? Things just have length, width, and depth and there is nothing intrinsically special about that. Things just change and move in sequential cycles from point A to point B and not through some unobservable mystical fourth dimension of time.

How the universe got here is a question we'll never have an answer for, that event is long gone, what properties occurred before that event are completely lost to us, and unless we can somehow cause all matter to retrace it's steps instantaneously, we'll never have the ability to observe what occurred.

Originally posted by sirnex
Perhaps, just perhaps the most simplest answer is the correct answer? Things just have length, width, and depth and there is nothing intrinsically special about that. Things just change and move in sequential cycles from point A to point B and not through some unobservable mystical fourth dimension of time.

I agree that the simplest explanation will likely be the truest. That said, you don't even need to construct a universe in 3D in order to perceive things in 3D. It can be "faked", which I believe is the most likely situation. We're already faking it with video games and 3D visors.

I read all kinds of physics theories and can understand them, but they tend to make things sound so much more complicated than they have to be. Some day I bet kids will be learning about universal physics in kindergarten. I really do think it's that simple.

Just look at how many advanced equations that Einstein's relativity (a very simple equation) did away with!

The way I see it is, what we see is what we get. We only see a universe comprised of length, width, and depth. That's all we have ever observed out of hundreds of theories proposed. We don't see any of these so called dimensions that three dimensional space is supposedly "rolled" up inside of.

We don't and never have measured any instance of a fourth dimension we call time. The only thing we have been measuring is sequential patterns an cyclical patterns. Objects moving through a three dimensional space, like the earth around the sun, or the oscillations of the cesium atom. Not once have we seen nor measured a fundamental aspect of some temporal force.

We humans, for some odd reason or other, demand that there be something special about the universe in which we live. We demand that there be something special about our own species. The problem is, no matter how hard we try and fight against it, there is nothing special. What you see, is what you get.

And Einstein isn't entirely correct either.

ok what you have to remember is that when we talk about dimensions, these are merely figments of our own imaginations. we set up dimensions to make easier for us to understand the environment around us.

here on earth, we have a warped understanding of up and down because of gravity. if you are standing at the north pole, and you point vertically up, this is in the same direction as pointing vertically down at the south pole! in space there is absolutely no perceivable concept of up or down so we apply an imaginery 3d coordinate system to give us some sense of direction. but this coordinate system is arbitrary and can be rotated in every which way. ie it is not naturally fixed.

when we talk of physical dimensions, they can only really be applied to physical objects ie matter. the scaling of these (cm m inches etc) are scales determined by humans, not nature, for the purposes of allowing us to express the object in communicable terms.

when we talk about the dimensions of space and time, then we are discussing imaginary parameters. that dont actually exist.

i dont know if this helps anyone understand the theory any better.

its just a load of mumbo jumbo ignore it.
Learn some science and then go beyond that..

Originally posted by Dr X
its just a load of mumbo jumbo ignore it.
Learn some science and then go beyond that..

so in other words you don't understand it either?.... sorry I just couldn't resist ..."Learn" is what I'm trying to do .....what makes this more mumbo jumbo than string theory for example? Or is it less mumbo jumbo -? I thought there might be at least a few physics gurus passing through the science forum from time to time...but so far - Nada...except for a few explorers like myself who kindly posted their thoughts....but thanks for your ...ermm...advice....

Honestly? It just seems like a big advertisement for a pseudoscientific, metaphysical book.

Originally posted by Johnmike
Honestly? It just seems like a big advertisement for a pseudoscientific, metaphysical book.

I am beginning to lean in that direction too... ah well....

reply to post by ayame2008


I may be be out of my league since I'm only a layperson in physics, but it does seems to me that these 3 dimensions are quite real. And without them our world of length, width, and height would not exist. And we might instead be like electrons scattering across a TV screen. Always moving and existing in a two-dimensional world. And so, in my view, what appears to be nothingness is quite real, even if it can't be held or touched.

See this review of “Our Undiscovered Universe” by Terence Witt from a professional physicist:
web.mit.edu...

Also see my review at homepages.ihug.co.nz...
The flaws of this crackpot book are many and include:
Redefining the concept of infinity as a length with magnitude.
Defining a line as a series of points written as zeros, treating them as numbers so that they add up to zero and then treating the number zero as a point again!
A really bad atomic model "proving" that a electron orbiting a proton has a ground state that it cannot decay from by creating a new physical law.
Using the high school description of a neutron as a proton plus an electron and not realizing that this is just his atomic model!
Postulating that galaxies have "galactic cores" which are super massive objects that are not quite black holes and not realizing that the centre of the Milky Way is well observed. These recycle stars into hydrogen. Oddly enough astronomers have not noticed dozens of stars vanishing from the galactic centre in the many images

that they have taken over the last few decades.

Conclusion: Bad mathematics and even worse physics.

See this review of “Our Undiscovered Universe” by Terence Witt from a professional physicist:
web.mit.edu...

Also see my review at homepages.ihug.co.nz...
The flaws of this crackpot book are many and include:
Redefining the concept of infinity as a length with magnitude.
Defining a line as a series of points written as zeros, treating them as numbers so that they add up to zero and then treating the number zero as a point again!
A really bad atomic model "proving" that a electron orbiting a proton has a ground state that it cannot decay from by creating a new physical law.
Using the high school description of a neutron as a proton plus an electron and not realizing that this is just his atomic model!
Postulating that galaxies have "galactic cores" which are super massive objects that are not quite black holes and not realizing that the centre of the Milky Way is well observed. These recycle stars into hydrogen. Oddly enough astronomers have not noticed dozens of stars vanishing from the galactic centre in the many images that they have taken over the last few decades.

Conclusion: Bad mathematics and even worse physics.

Originally posted by realshanti
This is a question for our science experts - Can one of you explain to me in laymen terms what this theory is or rather what it would mean in terms of how I view reality?

It's just... mindbogglingly bad and full of errors. If you look at the two sentences you posted, they actually don't make sense. Furthermore, the theorist seems to think that physics can only deal with 4 dimensions when in truth some models deal with 12 or 24 or more dimensions.

Looking at an example...

Null Physics is derived from the concept that our entire universe is the internal structure of nothingness. In other words, physical reality is an intricate, four-dimensional geometric equation that adds to zero because it exists within zero.

Translation: I have an idea. It says our universe exists in nothingness. I'm going to wave a magic wand and say "nothingness equals nothingness."

I'm not terribly stunned by this -- are you?

There is no beginning or end to our universe because there is no beginning or end to nothingness. Reality is composed of space and curvatures of space (energy), both of which are composed of geometric points, which are the physical representation of nothingness. In short, there is no difference between a universe whose sum is zero and a universe that exists as a formulation of zero.

Now he says "nothingness has no beginning or end" (mmmkay... but he doesn't actually define nothingness) and then he says that "our universe is 3 dimensional" (imagine my surprise, she says with wry and dry irony). Finally he says that "if you map somethings onto nothings you get somethings."

Amazing. (not really.)

Then he says there's no difference between nothingness and a space that exists perfectly in nothingness.

Someone from the Anonymous account gave this good link: web.mit.edu...

Chapter 1 is where Witt lays out a series of "proofs" derived from what he calls the "Null Axiom". That axiom is: "Existence sums to nonexistence" (pg. 28)---something that Witt calls self-evident after a page of invalid set theory. The central mistake, if I had to identify one, is the claim that "X does not exist" is the same as "everything except X exists". This is utter baloney, whether in formal logic or in set theory or in daily experience. That particular failure shouldn't bother us too much, in this detail-oriented review, because it will never come up again. Nothing in the rest of Witt's book appears to derive from this non-axiom axiom.
Witt would surely disgree with that statement, but it's true. Witt manages to cook and manipulate this pseudo-set-theory into various isolated islands of definitions and circular logic, none of which lead to "therefore the observable physics does X"

This is just what you saw, only the critique here makes it even plainer. When it's wrapped up in jargonese it looks somewhat convincing. Strip that away and it comes out to a "physics" by someone who has no idea about physics or math.

I could go on, but that link does a nice job of explaining everything and uncovering the jargon tricks that may fool many people.

reply to post by Byrd

I don't think that you've succeeded to steer the OP on the right path toward understanding by posting those excerpts. If the OP could understand this cocktail of undefined terms, the OP wouldn't ask for help the way he/she did.

There is a huge difference between abstract zero and physical zero, but the concept of abstract and physical coalesces in the art of theory forming. In other words, SPACE and TIME is to SPACETIME as ABSTRACT and PHYSICAL is to ABSTRACTPHYSICAL.

The Null Physics heavily leans toward what is called an "effective theory," which is a term describing a situation where purely abstract arguments tend to explain the behavior of the physical. The simple model of this explanation is this: If I see that f(x) = y [abstract] on the piece of paper, then y must have observable property, such as y = a + b [physical] where a and b are physical and observable entities that influence each other according to +, which doesn't necessarily mean addition.

The effective theories are NOT supported by y = a + b, and in generalized and very complex cases they are very likely to be wrong.

Null Physics is derived from the concept that our entire universe is the internal structure of nothingness. In other words, physical reality is an intricate, four-dimensional geometric equation that adds to zero because it exists within zero. There is no beginning or end to our universe because there is no beginning or end to nothingness.

Here is an example of an abstract and trivial 2D-based argument that disputes the above statement.

________A B_________

Nothing is a region between points A and B and bounded by these two points that are vertices of something not observable by human senses and not detectable by present human-made technology.

In a similar way, the difference between abstract zero and physical zero, where 0 = nothing, can be demonstrated. What if I divide nothing on two parts?

In that case, 0 / 2 = 0, and the result is again nothing.

Now let's do the division once again with respect to the physical.

The division of nothing on two parts: 0 / 2 => NOT / HING => NOT HING.

Since NOT means "negative" described by symbol - (minus), NOT HING = - HING.

Now ask yourself a question: Where the hell do those negatively charged hing particles come from? From 24th dimension?

Conclusion: Physical nothing doesn't exist. The absence of matter and energy doesn't define physical nothing. There is a third constituent which is completely unknown to the science.

And so my conclusion is an example of an "effective philosophy" -- a synonym for religion sometimes practiced in the the Church of Ph.D.