As many are well aware, these are fascinating and crazy times within the realm of physics, as they have been for the past 30 years. The search for quantum unity has created a mechanical method that has become more bizarre the closer we look. The quest of quantum mechanics and Einstein’s undisputable Special and General Theory of Relativity has created a crack within the center of physics evolution, two powerful theories of which really have no dependence or reliance upon the other. On one side, in attempt for macroscale symmetry, deals with domains as large as the universe itself. On the other side, an attempt for microscale symmetry has done nothing but created more questions and confusion (as well as particles!). Present day physicists have developed the notion of a unified field theory that would somehow connect these two opposites. Once again, the realm of physics has called on for abstract theoretical thought and insight on the problem. How can one possibly even start on such a problem? On approaching such an overwhelming question, I can guarantee that one thing is for certain, discovery within the laws of nature have proved nothing but simple and unique. Pain and mathematical torture in solving such sophisticated questions have resulted in beautiful and simple solutions. Take Einstein’s initial dilemma with the relation between matter and energy for example. With my undergraduate experience and the math classes I have taken, one way to approach this problem is to define a hypothetical basis. As defined in a dictionary, a basis is a fundamental principle or ingredient in which everything else applies to. Mathematically, a basis is the minimal set of points or actions (a certain type of function) that define the rest as a consequence. (Superstring Theory is one of the first in such an attempt, to suppose that the universe consist of onedimensional filaments that stretch infinitely. Even the physicists who have theorized it have confirmed this basis extraordinarily difficult. Our mathematical capability is simply too primitive, the math field known as topology that could possibly have some insight to the basis is far too basic. Another claim with Superstring Theory is that once a breakthrough has been discovered, on one will know where to go with it, and even how it will apply to quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity directly.) When applying and defining a basis to the universe itself, things can quickly become rather overwhelming and complicated. For such a basis to be considered, it must hold the following characteristics: Now unto an underlying force, the chances of finding the right one are far greater. It would be a force that affects the other three, and through reasoning, a good choice would be gravity due to the fact that it affects everything! I thought hard in choosing this force, and I believe that Einstein has come through again on this one. Gravity has a lot of the same characteristics as light, in the fact that this force is relative as well. The absolute form of gravity (where light is the speed of light) is somewhat unclear and involves dimensional analysis. Our closed hyperspherical universe is simply the way it is due to an absolute measure of gravity that remains unchanged. By the work of Hubble and his famous constant, we have determined that our universe is in fact expanding. This absolute measure of gravity, possibly the "fourdimensional" center of our universe, may be this very constant that we are looking for. Many physicists have hypothesized a particle known as the gravitron that varies in degree under specific environments; it is also possible to consider that a gravitron is simply the amount of gravitational force within a certain limit of space. Just like various velocities less than the speed of light, amounts of gravity vary less than the absolute constant. Now that we have considered such a simple basis, in what way do these two relate to explain and predict what we feel and see? By observation, we see that gravity becomes almost "symmetrical" at certain levels of space. Gravity is clearly symmetrical when observing macroscale phenomena. Moons revolve around planets, planets revolve around stars, and stars revolve around galaxies, and galaxies…well, they do their own thing. This is due to the fact that these endlessly continual rotations exist because these bodies do not experience any other influential force. If you and I were to head out in a vacuum of space, we would undergo the same rotation if applied that right way to produce symmetrical gravity. However, within our scale of space on Earth, we do not. We deal with an overwhelming presence of gravity just beneath our feet. Gravitational symmetry can be seen again within atoms. In this microscale of space, any outside gravitational pull is so miniscule, it has little effect to the microworld we are trying to understand. The election rotates around the nucleus at ease, little disruption occurs, only under certain violent cases. Finally with the help of quantum mechanics, another level of symmetry occurs within the subparticles. It has been proven that electrons rotate within the atom itself, exchanging between protons and neutrons. Looking deeper requires much more energy, energy equivalent to the interior of the sun, nothing capable of harnessing by our current technology. But maybe we don’t need the technology; maybe we can deduce that the basis of the universe is gravitational symmetry. Perhaps our basis would consist of the photon in rotation around the force of gravity. This would define matter as gravitationally trapped light. There are many applications to this hypothetical basis. A large force of gravity would decrease the average radius of such a rotation. The basis would predict a larger density. A weaker unit of gravitation would let the photon rotate more vigorously with an increase in average radius (remember the velocity of the photon remains unchanged). The gravitation could become weak to the point that the photon breaks away, creating light itself, and the beauty between mass and energy applies with ease. I hope to look deeper into any application that this basis may produce. Perhaps this basis produces the weak and strong nuclear force, which in some way could be regarded as gravitational symmetry now. If the basis could somehow connect to the particles we have defined, much more conclusions could be drawn and for the first time in history, a relationship between the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics could be fused together.

As many are well aware, these are fascinating and crazy times within the realm of physics, as they have been for the past 30 years. The search for quantum unity has created a mechanical method that has become more bizarre the closer we look. The quest of quantum mechanics and Einstein’s undisputable Special and General Theory of Relativity has created a crack within the center of physics evolution, two powerful theories of which really have no dependence or reliance upon the other. On one side, in attempt for macroscale symmetry, deals with domains as large as the universe itself. On the other side, an attempt for microscale symmetry has done nothing but created more questions and confusion (as well as particles!). Present day physicists have developed the notion of a unified field theory that would somehow connect these two opposites. Once again, the realm of physics has called on for abstract theoretical thought and insight on the problem. How can one possibly even start on such a problem? On approaching such an overwhelming question, I can guarantee that one thing is for certain, discovery within the laws of nature have proved nothing but simple and unique. Pain and mathematical torture in solving such sophisticated questions have resulted in beautiful and simple solutions. Take Einstein’s initial dilemma with the relation between matter and energy for example.
With my undergraduate experience and the math classes I have taken, one way to approach this problem is to define a hypothetical basis. As defined in a dictionary, a basis is a fundamental principle or ingredient in which everything else applies to. Mathematically, a basis is the minimal set of points or actions (a certain type of function) that define the rest as a consequence. (Superstring Theory is one of the first in such an attempt, to suppose that the universe consist of onedimensional filaments that stretch infinitely. Even the physicists who have theorized it have confirmed this basis extraordinarily difficult. Our mathematical capability is simply too primitive, the math field known as topology that could possibly have some insight to the basis is far too basic. Another claim with Superstring Theory is that once a breakthrough has been discovered, on one will know where to go with it, and even how it will apply to quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity directly.) When applying and defining a basis to the universe itself, things can quickly become rather overwhelming and complicated. For such a basis to be considered, it must hold the following characteristics:
â€¢ Conform to quantum mechanics, the basis will prove the existence of all universal particles we have currently discovered (this includes the three main categories of leptons, mesons, baryons, and their subparticles)
â€¢ Explain the four distinguishable forces of strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism
â€¢ Coincide with the theory of relativity, to be able to explain macroscale phenomena
â€¢ The "inverse" of such a basis would be able to explain the existence of antimatter/force that is currently in debate
Basically, a basis would have to include force and matter/energy (do not need to separate these two thanks to the work of Einstein), a "true" basis would only include these two. So if one considers a fundamental force and particle in which all others are a consequence, which ones are to be considered? As far as the particle is concerned, the continual discoveries of quantum mechanics itself do not help much, we currently find more and more particles every year when slamming the ones we know of harder and harder together. I believe that Einstein has come through on this one; Einstein claims that the only thing absolute in the spacetime continuum is the velocity of light. In other words, the speed of light itself is a basis for all spacetime relations. We technically cannot determine any other velocity without comparing it to the speed of light, since all other velocity is relative. (Have you ever wondered how everything inside your car remains "still" when you are flying down a highway? To you, everything inside the car seems to remain a peace. To someone by the side of the ride, the whole car zooms by. Einstein basically states that only when one rides on a beam of light can everything else’s velocity be determined without error.) I have no doubt in my mind that light itself is the underlying particle, otherwise known as the photon in terms of mass.
Now unto an underlying force, the chances of finding the right one are far greater. It would be a force that affects the other three, and through reasoning, a good choice would be gravity due to the fact that it affects everything! I thought hard in choosing this force, and I believe that Einstein has come through again on this one. Gravity has a lot of the same characteristics as light, in the fact that this force is relative as well. The absolute form of gravity (where light is the speed of light) is somewhat unclear and involves dimensional analysis. Our closed hyperspherical universe is simply the way it is due to an absolute measure of gravity that remains unchanged. By the work of Hubble and his famous constant, we have determined that our universe is in fact expanding. This absolute measure of gravity, possibly the "fourdimensional" center of our universe, may be this very constant that we are looking for. Many physicists have hypothesized a particle known as the gravitron that varies in degree under specific environments; it is also possible to consider that a gravitron is simply the amount of gravitational force within a certain limit of space. Just like various velocities less than the speed of light, amounts of gravity vary less than the absolute constant.
Now that we have considered such a simple basis, in what way do these two relate to explain and predict what we feel and see? By observation, we see that gravity becomes almost "symmetrical" at certain levels of space. Gravity is clearly symmetrical when observing macroscale phenomena. Moons revolve around planets, planets revolve around stars, and stars revolve around galaxies, and galaxies…well, they do their own thing. This is due to the fact that these endlessly continual rotations exist because these bodies do not experience any other influential force. If you and I were to head out in a vacuum of space, we would undergo the same rotation if applied that right way to produce symmetrical gravity. However, within our scale of space on Earth, we do not. We deal with an overwhelming presence of gravity just beneath our feet. Gravitational symmetry can be seen again within atoms. In this microscale of space, any outside gravitational pull is so miniscule, it has little effect to the microworld we are trying to understand. The election rotates around the nucleus at ease, little disruption occurs, only under certain violent cases. Finally with the help of quantum mechanics, another level of symmetry occurs within the subparticles. It has been proven that electrons rotate within the atom itself, exchanging between protons and neutrons. Looking deeper requires much more energy, energy equivalent to the interior of the sun, nothing capable of harnessing by our current technology. But maybe we don’t need the technology; maybe we can deduce that the basis of the universe is gravitational symmetry. Perhaps our basis would consist of the photon in rotation around the force of gravity. This would define matter as gravitationally trapped light.
There are many applications to this hypothetical basis. A large force of gravity would decrease the average radius of such a rotation. The basis would predict a larger density. A weaker unit of gravitation would let the photon rotate more vigorously with an increase in average radius (remember the velocity of the photon remains unchanged). The gravitation could become weak to the point that the photon breaks away, creating light itself, and the beauty between mass and energy applies with ease. I hope to look deeper into any application that this basis may produce. Perhaps this basis produces the weak and strong nuclear force, which in some way could be regarded as gravitational symmetry now. If the basis could somehow connect to the particles we have defined, much more conclusions could be drawn and for the first time in history, a relationship between the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics could be fused together.
Related Links
Math Art Online