What is the base of our reality?

Don’t be alarmed, the end of this article might be more shocking than Quantum Physics.

Reality is basically everything you can (at the hazard of dying) touch and observe. Yes, air you can (and hopefully do so every moment) touch every day. Rocks you can touch. Snakes (though they can bite) you can touch. Even the sun you could touch, IF you were not incinerated by the fusion process already miles from the star itself (like in a nuclear reaction (because that is basically what the sun/star is, not a fire ball in the sky).

The depth of things

Now, we know that what we observe isn’t everything we can touch, and what we can touch isn’t everything we observe. Many fields of science and research direct themselves onto the ‘underlying’ part of what makes up things. For instance, we know that gold is a metal, just like lead. In the days before science became leading method of inquiry, there was a field between religious/fantasy thinking and what we call science.

Fall of the apple

Many well known scientists, like Newton for instance, was an avid practitioner of Alchemy. Alchemy is named to be the ‘the medieval forerunner of chemistry, concerned with the transmutation of matter, in particular with attempts to convert base metals into gold or find a universal elixir.’. The practitioners of this type of magical science, run all the way back to 200-300 CE (Common Era), but as far as today still.

Imagine, turning Lead into Gold. Looking at what we know now about the atomic structure of both:

Value of change

It is understandable that people would want to turn the cheapest type of metal into the (in the eyes of European humans) most valuable (at that time). As you can see, they don’t differ too much on the scale of electrons, protons and neutrons. But though the limited eye would say: Well, with such a limited difference, there surely should be a way to transfer protons and electrons from one to another… Well, no. Because of the strong interaction force makes the atomic bond nearly unbreakable, except by infusing extreme amounts of energy or force. This is all great, but the effects of infusing such energy and force, is unpredictable too. So you could end up with Steel, Gold, rock or air (these are unlikely, because most would be combined elements, but still).

Alchemy lead in new bags?

The idea of alchemists was that elements that were closely related, should be in some way ‘evolved’ from each other. As we are (even back then) able to ‘breed’ livestock to our wishes, so should we be able to influence the anorganic matter. And we can. We do. But not in the way alchemists wanted.

Mold theory, germ theory, grave theory

Since the time of Alchemy (and I dare say, even due to the fantastice imaginations OF Alchemy) we as humans have evolved our understanding and recognition of reality, the universe as to say. But…..we still fall for the same mistake as alchemists did. We project onto reality our expectations and find answers we look for. This is great! This gives us options to develop. BUT, it also causes us to mold our theories based on genetically evolved insights. We don’t use control moments, where we re-evaluate our insights and say: Okay, we came this far, did we at some point, limit ourselves by our knowledge and might come to different conclusions if we use our current understanding in earlier steps.

May the force be with you

For instance, we know we have identified four ‘forces’ or ‘interactions’ in reality.
– Weak interaction (Effect in the Electroweak theory)
– Strong interaction (Effect in the Quantum chromodynamics theory)
– Electromagnetic interaction (Effect in the Quantum electrodynamics theory)
– Grativational interaction (Effect in Einstein’s General Relativity Theory)

(Do understand that these theories are so thoroughly researched that they are solid. There is little question regarding their legitimacy.)

We came to most of these, after gravity was recognized as a universal force by Isaac Newton (As mentioned someone who also practitioned Alchemy and was like most people in his time, Religious). Einstein added the observational variation to it and from there on many scientists evolved our understanding of matter and energy adding Quantum Physics/Mechanics to the Standard Model (of Physics) and Theoretical Physics.


Our reality severely changed by understanding what Copernicus said about the non-heliocentric universe we lived in. Many people know how amazing things can be when you are raised in a small countryside village and suddenly at 18 years old, you go to the big city. Imagine that you are Columbus and you sail through dangers and such for weeks and find that the world isn’t just Europe and Africa and Asia (which as you know are three continents, but one landmass), but America too. The world became bigger for him and slowly for those in other societies as well. The theory of Copernicus was great, but it didn’t hit home yet because of Columbus found a new continent.

Global recognition

The idea that the world was really a globe, like the Greeks already had deducted, was still a stretch for most. Copernicus had given a vision of more than just our world. Only when we finally got the technological advancement to test it, we came to realisation (as humanity), that the universe was bigger than Earth. Only decades ago, we came to the conclusion the universe is bigger than our solar system and even that our solar system isn’t the only one. All ‘zodiac signs’ were merely bigger stars that we had made patterns over, but in reality all were ‘solar systems’ of their own, in galaxy parts not even close to each other.

Though this is what we observe, this is not where the stars are in the galaxy. They aren’t on a flat distance from us.

Paternal or patternal

Humanity learned that patterns were not random and patterns weren’t based on intention (Though humans learned that their own influence on patterns were often intentional). Gods started to lose their meaning.

We skip ahead and see humanity evolve their knowledge of the universe and even matter and energy. The ideas of Aether left and Oxygen, Nitrogen, Argon, Carbon Dioxide and other elements replaced it as ‘air’.

But as our understanding of the universe grew, so did we want to pass on this information and knowledge to other generations. We ‘schematized’ all findings to a level that people that where smarter would have to ‘jump the bandwagon’ and people who weren’t would consider the ‘bandwagon’ a fata morgana.

Breath, breath!

If you learn that this is Oxygen:

Oxygen model

How do you then jump to this:

To this:

For some of you who have read this now, will say: WHAT?! (for two different reasons).

Some will start examining the first two images and learn how crude the first schematics is to the second schematics, however still a schematics (like a cave drawing of an mammoth to a Van Gogh or Rembrandt). The third is how we are able to actually detect the ‘form’ of the actual element.

Eventhough we now KNOW that what we observe in the latter is an ‘excited’ state of a field, we still refer from the ‘particle’ perspective. Even while we know that the particle as such ‘doesn’t exist’.

Two steps forward, one step back

I propose to look back and imagine how we would calculate the forces and models, if we started with what we know now.

We are pretty certain that what we observe as a particle, is the observed excited state of a field. This seems unintuitive, but it is not.

Imagine the universe being a expanding bubble field group:

Not to burst your bubble.

They aren’t these kind of bubbles exactly. These are fields, fields of energy frequencies. They started with a high amplitude and high frequency, but slowly start to stretch. Because they are ‘pushed’ by their original force, the space called the ‘period’ causes some of the forces to exist. The wave is a one dimensional observation of movement for the frequency. When two field-waves touch, they cause an excited state we observe as a particle. Because the frequency if stable and constant, the particle remains stable. This also explains why at point of observation of particles we recognize energy increase. Which direction on the field the wave moves and hits another field/wave, determines what we observe as spin.

Bubble fields, really?

This results in the idea (yes, just an idea), that reality, however real, is a bubble universe of fields. This is also why a particle can have different states at the same time, because, the particle doesn’t really exist. The particle is merely an effect of the frequency of the universe/reality. This means that there is much to find out still. But as always, very possibly, reality is stranger than fiction. The frequency of the universes fields and corresponding waves. How it will result into a bigger universe still and whether at some point reality will change if the field/wave frequencies collapse or start to misallign. Will physics change?

To exist or not to exist, is that is a question?

What Has Existed before the Universe?

The Universe is all of space and time[a] and their contents,[9] including planetsstarsgalaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy. While the spatial size of the entire Universe is still unknown,[3] it is possible to measure the observable universe. [From Wikipedia]

to have actual being; be:The world exists, whether you like it or not. [From Dictionary.com]

“The greatest teacher, failure is.”

So, you ask what existed before existence?

Post Hoc

Guess what? Before existence, many imply non-existence (We have a 0 in our numbers, which is an empty collection, but this is simply conceptualizing). Though this is impossible, there was no ‘before’. This has nothing to do with the cause – effect state, but simply because we know things (though some have postulated ‘virtual particles’) don’t come INTO existence (again, this shows lack of understanding of logic and reality, as something coming IN would have to come ‘out’ of somewhere else. We know magic doesn’t exist and even if it did, it had to hold to the fabric of spacetime and thus the laws of physics).

Causal dependency

To elaborate why there was no ‘before existence’:

Time is the only measurement to use in the ‘before and after’ setting (unless meant spatial, duh). But what is time…how do we actually experience time and how does time relate to anything humans don’t experience? Like the 13.8 billion years you didn’t exist (woah woah, you said nothing comes into existence and now I didn’t exist? Yes, exactly. Though all the material you are existed, you did not. Hold that thought, because it is imperative to understand the state of the universe). Time is the measurement between change.

Uncertain configuration

From the very beginning of the current configuration of the universe (lets say ‘lifespan’), time has moved forward. BUT we know time doesn’t move at the same speed everywhere. We know that time moves faster where ‘gravity’ is higher. But what is gravity? Gravity is the movement (force/energy) of particles/waves that cause fields around it to move in a certain direction. So…the more matter, the more particles/waves that spin, the more inert energy, thus the more gravity. Because time is measured in change/movement (towards entropy), there is a requirement. There is a need for something to change, to have moments between one state to another. if there is no particle then there is no change, then there is little to no time (remember, light is energy/matter too). Imagine there is no matter/energy at all…what is there that would be able to change? To …be time? Nothing. So, they are implicitly connected. Without the universe, there is no time possible.

Charged Frequency

But…what is the situation with our universe and its ‘beginning’? Well…imagine that we know that change is what is happening from the very start of the universe. In our human words we say it was immeasurably hot. But what does that mean? That means that the frequency of energy was so high, it would burn anything we know to exist as matter. That is why there was no matter yet. But energy can not stay that state for long, so as it moved away from itself (I know, sounds weird), it slowed down and energy turned into matter. Very rudimentary, but as matter and energy meets and matter and matter meets, they form new complexity of elements. Like each element has a different charge/electron amount. Eventually atoms gained cohesion causing molecules of more complexity to exist.

Cool it, you are dead wrong

All the while the universe cooled down and the end state will be where there is no change anymore in the universe. Though I think this moment will only be a fraction of a …well…some length of time very short, causing all condensed cooled down matter to explode into another life…as such…you might consider the only thing that actually can really rebirth, is the universe. In that sense…before the universe (as we know it now) there was the universe.

Reinventing the Universe

Well…the title is a bit deceiving. What I want to write here, is about reexamining the universe and the way we modeled ‘physics’. For those not much into the matter:

Science (any science) is the method of examining the relations between causes and effects in the universe. Building a model from those relations that can be used to calculate how things in other situations will behave.

This is how we got the ‘Laws of Thermodynamics’, and the ‘General Relativity Theory’ and ‘Special Relativity Theory’ and even the ‘Theory of evolution’.

The first is a model that has observed the causal (cause and effect) connections in movement of objects and matter in general. Though it has been refined over the centuries, it is an important base on which we decide how the effects we observe should be connected and which sub-steps and by that sub-causality can be found (which in many cases have been very precise and correct. Others are still being investigated, which caused us to come to more complex/elaborate fields like ‘quantum physics’).

The second is a model that relates to how we actually observed the causality of the first. That when something moves, it is depending on distance, angle and more (ie. both Light and Observer are connected to the movement of the matter and energy in the first model).

The third is a model that explains how the process of evolution is causing different effects to be observed. Though there are people not up to speed with reality yet, regarding the whole fact that people have sex, and their parents had sex and even their dead great great great great grand parents had sex and brought forth new generations with altered combinations of genes, it is what causes life forms (we call categorized them/speciated them into species) to change and diversify on Earth.

Why these three examples? Well for no apparent reason, but there is always a possible causal connection. One of the most attacked theories/models is that of evolution. This has to do with the fact that no scripture writes about the other two (though plenty of them tell tales defying the first and others can only have been observed by defying the second mentioned model). But the first two even have different names and that is something that I do want to address: The first is ‘The laws of…’ which states that the observed is irrevocably correct, while the second one is ‘…theory’, which means there is evidence and proving to support it, but it can still be falsified. The third is, in my mind, a misdenomer. You can’t falsify evolution, even if you wished. You can falsify some small theories (as has been done the last 400 years) regarding partial observed causality, but the actual evolution can’t be denied.

So….what is this ‘reinventing’ or ‘reexamining’ the universe about?

Well…basically it means, taking all the current ‘information’ and ‘data’ we have gathered about the universe and redefine the ‘laws’, ‘theories’ and intrinsic causality. I think that what current sciencific consensus has done, is make a shoestring action (string theory anyone? XD)

We now know that the universe exists of pretty much the same stuff everywhere. There will be exotic options elsewhere, depending on the influences of forces and ‘age’ of the universe at that spot.

We currently hold a model of the universe, where all we observe exists as a ‘spacetime’ unit. Matter is a ‘state dependant dilation of energy of a specific frequency’ E=MC2. In other words, the longer the frequency the more it shifts from energy observation to matter observation. How do we know? Energy is hotter than matter. Meaning the radiation in energy is higher than in matter. Obviously, as a rock is colder than a flame. Though lava is hot, it is so, when infused with radiation.

So, why do you want to re-examine or ‘reinvent the wheel’, you already named it as we know it?! Well…I think you can come to very interesting new insights if you do.

About spacetime. I don’t believe it is a good representation of what we observe. Why not? Because it was a model created as a starting point. If the causal calculations then require arbitrary ‘Constants’ like C, for which Einstein himself said he felt bad to have to add it because he didn’t recognize any other way, it shows that somewhere before that, it went wrong (same as in programming).

So, what is spacetime? Nothing. Lets start at the start. The universe has ‘evolved’ from the very early point. We don’t know about space yet, because all we observe is spatial states. There is always the question of whether wat we ‘experience’ (in the scientific sense of the collection of impulses from the universe to our awareness) is actually what exists. I don’t think spacetime exits. I think you can say: existence is the observed reality (collection of impulses gathered by awareness) of which the state exists without the observer. Yeah, wishywashy eh?

Basically, if we take time separate, we have nothing. Time doesn’t exist without existence. Why not? Because it can’t be measured without us. We are the ones observing it. But how did time pass when we didn’t exist yet? It basically didn’t. What happened was the evolution of the universe in progress. IE. change. Or the movement towards entropy. And how did that come about? Well…think of it as a ripple in a pond (bad example, because it requires something to start the ripple, but still). The ripple starts with large/high waves. Then when the movement is spread, the diffusion of the wave causes it to lose amplitude and angular frequency decreases.


Yes, we are talking wave here. What I will try to explain is that the universe is an extensive model of three dimensional wave functions, which cause what we observe as three dimensional field functions, which in turn is what we perceive/experience as reality. This is NOT a representation of a field theory, or wave theory (well the latter a bit more). What I will try to explain is that particles don’t exist without wave and field, instead of the other way around. Classical physics (but also quantum physics) starts from ‘there is matter and energy’. But the point is, that we also agree in that that matter = energy and visa versa. But if that is true, why do we have particles? Because of mass? Or, because we address matter and mass the same? We often example gravity as a force, that depends on mass. But what if gravity isn’t dependent on mass, but our observation of mass is dependant on the amplitude and the angular frequency of a wave function, and intrinsic behavior as a field function? In other words, what we observe as mass, is the implied result of interaction of the wave/field function in fluxtuation (was writing time there, but I want to explain how we observe time from the actual wave/field function behavior).


Now, lets see where we are. We have a wave (for which we have a flow, which causes the amplitude to diminish due to the frequency that interacts with ….), which has to start somewhere (we call this the big bang/rapid inflation model). At the very start, the amplitude was nearly infinite vertical and it will go to a amplitude infinite horizontal (figuratively, because direction in non-linear space is arbitrary).

—Post will be updated—