Gravity at the Axis of Force and Matter, 2nd Draft

The picture above is my visual representation of this Theory of Everything, but I'll explain more about it later in this essay.

First, I want to deal with some semantics. I'm going to just make a list of words and definitions so you know exactly what I mean when I use a word, because otherwise this might be hard to follow.



Universe: The Universe is everything, every single thing! Ever! There can not be more than one of these, because then the word would lose its meaning. There is no such thing as multiple universes.

Dimension: These are the standard 2D and 3D we are familiar with. For example, triangles are 2D and cones are 3D. The Universe only has 3 dimensions, no more, no less. We can draw "flat"  things on paper and call it 2D, but it isn't really 2D, the 3rd dimension is just too short for us to see with our eyes.

Reality: This is the term I will use for what is commonly know as multiverses, parallel universe, or alternate dimensions.

So to sum things up, there is only one Universe, it only has 3 dimensions, but it contains multiple realities.

Ok, the next thing I need to explain is that it seems Time and Space don't really exist. Time is a useful concept for humans to use to keep track of things, but other than clocks, I see no evidence that the Universe actually cares about time. The absence of time sort of messes up the concept of cause and effect, however I think instead of saying "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" it makes more sense to say "for every action there is an equal and opposite action." This also messes up the idea of entropy, but I think it makes sense to say matter follows entropy and force follows order. Of course it all depends on what you are trying to measure and how you are measuring it, and this emphasis on perspective ties in pretty well with the observations gained from Einstein's work and the Theory of Relativity. Time is not the fourth dimension, however what we call the past and the future are different realities.

Space is another abstract concept that I don't see any evidence for. What is space? What is it made of? What is in it? Again, space is a useful concept to use for communication, but instead of space, fields are a more measurable way of describing what is going on between two points. (More semantics here: Field= An area of activity or influence.) Empty space isn't really empty. It may not have any matter in it, but it does contain fields of electromagnetic radiation, such as visible light. It is theoretically possible for a "true nothing" to exist, however it would be impossible to measure that from the outside without "shining a light in there" to make sure it is really empty. This is starting to get into black holes and singularities, but I'll save that for a different essay. The main point here is fields are what we can measure, so fields should be what we think of when we think of space.

Alright, now it is time to explain the image some more! I think the diagram here is the real meat of this theory because it is the only part of it that can really count as evidence.

I think it is mostly self explanatory, but keep in mind it is a rough draft/prototype image. I didn't actually measure things out, so the labels I put in there aren't really in the right spot, but they are at least in order, I know that much. The basic idea is that Force and Matter are fluid, and interchangeable. I think the most interesting thing about this diagram is that the heavy elements emit gamma radiation and the light ones emit microwave radiation. When matter gets dense it begins to leak gamma radiation, and when it is more sparse it leaks microwave radiation, or something like that. I left out the strong and weak force because I am not certain how they fit in here, but I believe the strong force would be between gamma and gravity, and the phenomena known as the weak force would be between the unstable elements and gravity. I am well aware that this is not a complete picture yet, but I would need to do more research to fill it in better. 

There aren't any arrows on the diagram to show a flow of energy, because it goes back and forth, or changes polarity. (Wave/Particle duality could also be an appropriate term instead of polarity change.) It would also probably make more sense to say the Higgs Boson is at the center instead of Gravity, but I will leave it as Gravity for now since that is traditionally thought of as the missing link in a Theory of Everything. 

There are a lot of things this chart could imply, but I think I should just leave it here for now until I get some more feedback from other scientists to see if their observations would fit into this. If indeed it does fit, this could be a sort of periodic table of the Universe, and it will help us make new discoveries by predicting where things should fall on the chart and how they react to certain fields.  

So for now this seems like a pretty good framework for all the "stuff" in the Universe. I would love to get an opinion from Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku, Steven Hawking or any other big shot in physics, so if you know how to reach them, please send this along!