Friday, January 6, 2012


Self Similarity and the Grand Unified Theory

What would you say if I told you that the speed of light is wrong?  Would you believe me?  Would you think I am crazy? Would you at least hear me out?

Well, I firmly believe that the number- the calculation if you will, for how fast light travels (3x10^8 cm/s) is most likely erroneously calculated. The implications are huge. For there are many subsequent conjectures, theories, and ideas that have come from assuming this constant is right.  I, however, decided to question it all and I have come up with some ideas (with some help of course) which might contest the status quo on a very fundamental level.. Am I insane?  Almost certainly so, but do I have your attention yet? I would be ever so honored if you would at least entertain the idea.

In trying to explain this theory, I have honestly angered a few people.  I was angrily asked "Who are you to question Einstein?"  It matters little who I am, really... but more importantly...

It is ok to question.

Let me start by saying: I am seeking the truth. I am trying to understand the "multiverse" : the universe of universes. I am here to question what has been given to me as fact or truth and allow myself to construct my own understanding of how the multiverse* works based on my own observations, inferences, and deductions.  It is OK to question.  It is that which is not willing to be questioned that is suspect.  As such, I have come up with some simple notions which might (re)create waves in physics.

[By the way, I say multiverse lightly in this case, implying an infinite parallel dimensions that seemingly coexist superimposed on ours simultaneously representing all possibilities of everything that could have possibly ever existed given any iteration decision or even subatomic movement that would dictate a different course for the dream reality that we experience.  All of time simultaneously existing, if you will.  That does not include the infinite multiverses that might simultaneously exist WITHIN our current time trajectory that we just don't see.]

My Love Affair with Fractals
In college, I experimented on my mind a little bit ... and the side effect of that is that I became enamored, infatuated... maybe even (dare I say) obsessed with the concepts of fractals.  What I quickly realized was that the patterns found in these mathematical marvels where actual representations of the patterns that we found in nature.  Mandelbrot had brought us a true model for how we can represent patterns in nature... and what was it?  Chaos!?!

It is a simple equation z => z^2+c. What does this equation mean?  In its most simplest terms, you take a number, run it through a function, then the output of that function gets put back into the same function  Its what I would call an iterative recursive process.  You take a number - square it (multiply it by the same number) , add a constant and voila... a simple recipe for chaos. What it yields (if you graph it), is a semi chaotic picture which can often times display exact (self similar) replicas for patterns we see in nature.  Trees, Leaves, Mountain peaks can all be found in these fractal graphs.

You can take these beautiful pictures and zoom in till infinity... after all, one can always increase the precision... which makes me think there might be something to this.

To me, it has always seemed that this was the nature of the universe.  It seemed intuitive -almost natural.  My father explained to me that e=mc^2 is actually a mathematical equation that basically tells us that we are energy.  Everything is energy..  

Even though scientists are still trying to figure out what the smallest particle is, we all know very well that everything is energy and particles are just energy that is slowed down to give us the illusion of matter. So it would be quite obvious to me that there is no smallest particle. I believe you can divide energy into smaller and smaller (and smaller components of smaller energy components).  You can do this infinitely, you can always find a smaller component of energy.   Thus, in fractals I also found a basis that helped me describe my beliefs on energy : you can zoom in/out forever...

After years of obsessing over fractals, I later came to realize that perhaps it is not Chaos that is the nature of the universe.  It is perhaps more of a chaordic (chaos and order) tendency which seems to govern our reality... It is perhaps merely an order that is so complex that we don't understand or see the pattern- thus seeming like chaos to us, but to a much more capable mind of grasping the pattern - it is a universe based on order.  Thus, I had always believed that entropy and chaos ruled the universe, and now I am not so sure.

The notion of chaos and the laws of thermodynamics dictate that we are in a constant state of entropy.  At this point I will be honest and say that I am not sure about this - it is one assertion that I might take issue with.  It might be that the nature of the universe is ultimately one of neutrality and balance. The chaos is balanced by order.  Life is a direct representation of a self-organizing universe based on some force which creates order.

Self Similarity

Self similarity is one of the keys to understanding the multiverse. 

One of the key concepts of fractals is self similarity.  This has been something I understood when I first fell in love with Fractals.  But honestly, it is sometimes a bit difficult to explain without some examples or direct representation.  Wikipedia defines self similarity as an "object [that is] is exactly or approximately similar to a part of itself (i.e. the whole has the same shape as one or more of the parts). Many objects in the real world, such as coastlines, are statistically self-similar: parts of them show the same statistical properties at many scales."    Ferns are particularly a great example of self similarity.  It became apparent to me recently that that the grand unified theory is actually looking for the self similarity of the universe on the cosmic astrophysical level to the quantum level.  How are these two colliding worlds joined?  How come the models for the both of these are so vastly different?  It seems that the models are disjointed and break apart; they are mutually exclusive if you will.  

I then just asked myself: what is the binding force/mechanism of the universe.  What is the similarity between these vastly different worlds. After much thought, I deduced that it is the nature of the movement which binds the meta to the micro. 


I have always had an affinity for physics and the paranormal.  As a child, I would lie awake pondering the really deep questions such as... Why are we here?  Is there a God?  What is the universe? What was here before the universe?  Does it go on til infinity? What is infinity? What contains the universe?

I guess it would be safe to assume that most parents are probably terrified if they were asked these question.  I am not sure that I was given many answers by my parents, but one key concept that my father did explain to me was that we were energy.  But seriously, my poor parents- aside from being inquisitive and curious, I was always testing the social norm. By the time I was twelve, I had already read several occult and new age books. I took up the tarot, numerology, past life regression, crystal meditation, and ouija board as some of my favorite after school hobbies.  I was even able to get my school to start a new elective called "third eye and sixth sense" based on my enthusiasm for all things paranormal.  I was a handful.  And if this wasn't enough, they had to deal with my rebellious nature.  The following year I got into trouble for hacking into the IBM PBX* and making long distance calls.  It was merely a slap on the wrist- a brush with the law.  It certainly gave me a scare and I started to straighten  up a little bit.  And by the end of highschool, I had read a few Stephen Hawking books, Kort Vonneguts Slaughterhouse Five (which talked about alien beings that could see all time existing simultaneously), Einstein's Dreams (alluding to some real interesting interpretations on how time worked; such as time behaving like molecules in a water stream).  I particularly enjoyed reading about quantum physics, space, and cosmology. As a senior, I was fortunate enough to receive a "book award" recognizing me as an engineering prospect.  The book was based on Shroedingers Cat and Quantum Physics.  From this I learned quite a few very puzzling things.  First, I read about wave particle duality.  Particles are waves and waves are particles.  AND to make it more confusing: they can exist in multiple places at once. 

In college, my friend Alex and I would go on and on for hours talking about superstring theory, the holographic nature of the universe, nano computing and artifical intelligence.  And thanks to these conversations, I developed quite a curiosity on the grand unified theory of physics.  The more I learned about physics the more intrigued I became.  I started to wonder myself if superstring theory would join the meta with the micro.  I had already realized that there were "multiple dimensions", so superstring theory based off 11 dimensions did not seem that strange to me.

* In seventh grade I had two detectives come to my house while I was in school.  I was taken in for questioning.  Someone had hacked into the IBM PBX (Personal Branch Exchange) and spent about 75k in long distance phone calls.  They tracked some of the calls back to my number.  Based on the fact that I was a minor, they decided to not press charges against me.  I did not make all those calls... just some of them.

In trying to figure out how the meta and the micro meet. It dawned on me that everything in the universe seemed to move in a spiral. EVERYTHING.  On a meta level - we can see this in galaxies.  If the stars, cosmos, galaxies are moving in spirals, than so are the atoms that are contained within them. The atoms on a meta level are moving in spirals. 

On the scale of galaxies -it has been conjectured that at the center of every galaxy is a black hole.  And you can see, even from our own milky way, that everything seems to be spinning into or out of a singularity. It seems that all galaxies are moving in spirals.  All black holes are moving in spirals.

Every body in the universe seems to be orbiting another body in the universe. We have assumed (or derived based on observation) that the nature of orbiting bodies is elliptical.  However, when you consider that the universe is constantly expanding (or contracting), it would deem that said stationary ellipse is actually spiral.  It is consantly traversing further in space.  There is one more axis of travel that we have not taken into account. 

It came to me: we were seeing a 4d problem in 3d.  Ellipses are actually spirals- and if the nature of the movement is spiral on the meta level then it also carries out on the micro level.  I mean even if subatomic particles are not moving in the same way (meaning that you don't believe that electrons are orbiting in a spiral) - they actually are, because they are also spiraling with the rest of the celestial bodies on the meta level.   It is easy to see that that there is a self similar nature to the universe.  I believe what exists on the meta level also exists on the micro level.

However, quantum physics has not been able to predict how electrons orbit.  Its next to impossible to predict because of our time and scale. When the observer far outweighs the scale of the observed, it will in fact change the outcome of the observation (see Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle).  For example, if you have a giant space ship (say the size of the earth) come to study an ant farm, it will most likely crush the ant farm as it tries to land and observe it- thus changing the nature of what they wanted to observe. This is just a simple example as to how observer changes the observed.  In our case, we are trying to predict the patterns of something that is so small that when you go to look at it, you have changed the outcome of the observation.  Thus it is next to impossible to create a valid prediction or pattern for the motion.  However, it is possible to calculate the probabilities of the electron.  That is, the likelihood that an electron will appear in a certain location.  

Some scientists say that because we cannot tell where the particle is, that the electrons do not orbit the proton in the same way that the planets orbit the sun.  However the Heisenberg uncertainty principle merely makes it difficult to prove this either way.  As we try to observe the electron, we are disturbing its path.   However, if you look at an electron wave probability function you can see that there is almost certainly a cyclical movement to the electrons (it is called an orbital after all):  I have some deep rooted intuition that the orbitals we see from an electron to a proton are self similarrepresentations of what is happening to planets and stars. I look at these electron probability functions and immediately see the self similar nature of the universe:  

Many scientists disagree and say that orbitals are not like planetary orbits.  I however  believe that the electrons are just too small and work on a different time scale*.  An electron has probably orbited thousands of times in a second whereas we orbit the sun in one year.* As a result, we cannot create functions that predict electron orbital. The planets and stars are moving on a much larger scale (t  i  m  e AND size).

*I am currently trying to verify previous models that have been disputed and whether they had taken "time scale" into account.  Even if they did take time scale into account, how would we be able to verify that our planet would maintain the exact same elliptical orbit and could be predicted on the scale of billions of years if we haven't been around for that long?  

We have been able to ascertain that our planet moves in an ellipse.  However if viewed on a much larger time scale (in the scale of billions of years), it would more closely resemble an electron probability function - there would most likely be some fluctuations akin to what we see in an probability function (where the ellipses might stretch or contract... etc). This time scale would be a better representation of a true orbit of a planet around a star; and that is more than likely how we are seeing electron orbit a proton.  It is difficult for us to picture that which is bigger than us.  How can we observe that which contains us?

*I don't know how many times an electron orbits a proton in a second.  I just guessed.  It's probably way off, but I have a feeling its a lot more times than what I guessed.  But if you do know, then you should let me know...

Even more realizations came to me.  I faintly remembered (please correct me if I am wrong here) reading about some of the single slit quantum physics experiments that pointed to wave particle duality.  They pointed a laser to a wall, then they put a barrier.  The laser did not go through.  Then they made a slit to the side of the laser -  photons were somehow bending around a slit that was not placed directly in front of a laser. Well, this laid the groundwork for the heisenberg uncertainty principle and wave particle duality.  The explanation?  The partice can exist at multiple places at once.  Oh that crazy quantum world - it is so hard to pin you down. 

We have also been able to see that light also bends around celestial bodies.  Some light bends around very large stars and even galaxies.  Somehow, someway- light makes its way around things but we have a very hard time understanding why.  I think this is because we visualize light and energy moving in waves - in sine waves.
However, I have another explanation for this behavior.  I believe that photons are moving in spirals, not waves (or spiral waves- whatever you want to call it).  The photons are bending around the hole and making their way to the other side of the slit or around the giant star. But we can measure that it is moving in waves; you say.  We have proof.  Well, that migh very well be true.  But I will counter by telling you that the cross section of a spiral is a sine wave.  Imagine, if you will, a coil or spiral on its side.  
There is a self similarity from the macro to the micro.  There is a fundemental movement which joins the two worlds. And I believe that the nature of the motion is spiral.

Strange Attractors
However, nothing in nature is perfect, per se.  There are no perfect circles, ellipses, or spirals for that matter.  What we are describing as a spiral is merely a snapshot of what is happening on a much larger scale.  I instinctually and fundamentally feel that the semi-chaotic nature of the universe is one that can mostly be described where the spiral meets the fractal.... which actually, might very well be the mathematics behind strange attractors.  What are strange attractors?  Smoke is a very good example of a strange attractor.

Strange attractors, to me, display what seem to be spiral and chaordic properties; bodies seem to orbit each other with some allowance of outside forces which might change the normal course of their orbit.

This is how I envision the the universe: it is a self similar fractal spiral; a spiral made of spirals that can be steered off course depending on the scale of the surrounding forces. There are outside (semi chaotic) forces which might derail spirals into new orbits.  Imagine atoms losing electrons in collision in the same way that a solar system might lose a planet.    

The Speed of Light
The speed of light is a constant in physics.  It is said that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.  This might very well hold true.  However, it is the speed itself - the number that I take issue with.  Why?  Well for the sake of simplicity, let us say that the motion is strictly spiral that light, energy, sound, and even we move in some sort of spiral orbits.  It would then be such that light is actually moving faster than we have calculated. For light is not moving in a straight line or even a sine wave; it would be moving in a spiral.  

Picture a corkscrew; it is in essence on the meta level- a straight line; however the contour of the shape is a spiral, and the cross section is a sine wave.  This is how I envision that light and energy truly move.

Now assuming that so far my thought process is correct, this would imply that light travels faster than we thought.  Why? Well,  you can measure it as a straight line-, but actually the path (and distance) that the photon actually travels is more than a straight line.  Add up the traversal of the path and it is more than just a straight line from point a to point b.  The photon has travelled more than what we thought in the same amount of time.  See, we are measuring the corkscrew from top to bottom with a ruler when we have to add up the spiral wth a tiny flimsy tape measure that can bend into a spiral. it has actually travelled a lot more space than what we originally thought.  

There are now other indicators that our calculations might be off.  Recently we discovered particles that are travelling faster than the calculated speed of light*.  It would make more sense to me that our calculations for the speed of light are off more than particles that travel faster than light.  I mean, Einstein might be wrong about some things, but that is probably not one of them.

I want to especially thank my friends that have been willing to endure my rants for months about my beliefs.  I would like to send some special thanks to Alex de Guzman, Thomas Fisher, Jsun, Quillan Rushton, Jeremiah Green and all the people that have listened to me and helped me come up with these theories.


  1. i am greatly inspired by your work and i think i can totally support you.. :)

  2. wow, thank you! I hope that others will actually help me prove my theory...

  3. i am a medical student , but i love reading physics .. so i don't know much .. but i appreciate your way of thinking .. and i hope that you keep on thinking and learning to reach the truth :D

  4. Hey buddy, I saw this article reporting a finding that challenges Heisenberg's Uncertainty theory and thought about you. I hope you are doing well!


  5. Hey what's up. I'm reading through your article. I'm a Physics student about to graduate in a year, and have also read a whole lot about the epistemology and philosophical implications of this science called quantum mechanics. In essence I totally agree with you (as Einstein would), in that resuming it all to probabilities is nonsense (since "God plays no dice"). But I can assure you the problem lies much deeper than it might seem. Down to the point where many many people have disagreed on the principle that Nature is intrinsically probabilistic, and have exhaustively searched for the "hidden variables" (this term is Einstein's) underlying the theory. For instance, the atomic orbitals you propose are in essence Bohr's atomic model. It is essentially a classical model, and even Bohr knew immediately that it made no sense: in orbiting the nucleus, the electron would undergo a radial acceleration, meaning it would irradiate electromagnetic waves, thus loosing energy and quite quickly collapsing to the nucleus.