## Why Everything Is A Complex Volume

7th May 2015

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

Why Everything Is A Complex Volume.

To show you why everything is a complex volume you have to understand the concept that NO dimension is independent of the other dimensions. I.e. ALL dimensions are dependent on one another in some way at the most fundamental level.

[See other Tea Break Books to discover how].

Once you realise that nothing is fundamentally independent in our 'Real' Universe, then you can see that the reference to any single dimension or dimensions is just an Abstract exercise to simplify our understanding of things.

I will give you 2 examples.

One that nobody on the planet has figured out yet (I exclude myself of course, as the only person that has a solution to this problem) and that is 'Quantum Gravity'. I will explain Quantum Gravity later.

The second example I will use is a Table. Everybody knows or thinks they know what a Table is. It normally has a top surface and 4 legs, (it may have 3 or more legs). You picture the Table you want.

Now I ask you "How long is it"?

Your answer will be in reference to one of it's dimensions. You would measure it, or someone else measured it and told you it's length. You would normally think that it's length is independent to the rest of the Table, because you have been led to the belief that length is independent to it's other dimensions, and it is in the Abstract sence, and it also serves us well in the normal everyday life we lead, so we are led to believe that it is also true in the 'Real' sense. This is because you do not see nor perceive any change in it's length or any of it's other dimensions, so you end up believing it must be so.

It seems reasonable to believe this, but this leaves you in the belief that this is always true for everything you measure or is being measured. Then science, (specifically physics), tells you that you can't measure sub atomic particles or electrons properly because of the 'uncertainty principle'! WHAT?

What is the 'uncertainty principle'? and why can't we measure things like the Table?

Without going into too much detail, it tells us that (let us take the electron as the example particle), it is everywhere until we measure it! More specifically we can't know it's energy and position at the same time!

Now why has everything changed at the sub atomic level that does not apply to our Table?

It at first appears that there are 2 laws, one for us 'dim wits' in normal life and a different law for physicists who think they understand things better. They will tell you things are different at the subatomic level.

So what is 'Really' going on?

They will lead you to believe (as they do) that everything is possible and that the 'Real' world also follows these rules that they have conjured up. [This is their assumption].

Now don't miss understand what I have said when I say "they have conjured up", they have used mathematics to understand what is going on, which is fine up to a 'point'.

[My other Tea Break Book readers may see the point of my remark. My Tea Break Book "Mathematics does not dictate 'Reality'. 'Reality' dictates the mathematics."].

I say they (Table & electron) do follow the same rules, but not everything is possible, because of the relationships of All the dimensions. I will explain. Their belief that 'it is everywhere' until they measure the electron is incorrect [for those who are more pedantic, within the wave function].

Why do I say it is incorrect, when it works?

It works because of the mathematics that they apply (another Tea Break Book).

To simplify the concept, if I said and claimed 'everyone in the world was always at least 9 feet tall but you can't see (observe this true height)' but it is inherent in the formula. To get the measurement of the observed height all you have to do is to add 9 to the observed measurement to get their true height (which I claimed was at least 9 feet tall), then subtract by (27 /3). You will always get the answer you observed when you measured them, even though my premise was incorrect. (I am using simple maths to make my claim true).

[Note that it is not that the mathematics is incorrect, but the assumption that is incorrect, which leads you into using the incorrect maths to make the assumption true].

Let us go back to the Table, correcting the incorrect assumption. The Table must follow the same rules as the electron, (there are not different laws for each).

I.e. Is it everywhere until you measure it?

I will ignore the cynics and just tell you the answer is NO.

(Don't abandon what should be common sense, especially when there is a more reasonable answer at hand).

The Table is not everywhere until you measure it, but it is limited or confined to a specific 'Place' and 'Time', the only error in your measurements is the accuracy of your measurement and the 'scale' you wish to use.

(Now the physicist will agree, but still use his calculations based on the false assumption).

Using the same law as the Table. The electron is not everywhere until you measure it, either!

But how can you explain the mathematics?

Simply by saying the electron is also limited or confined to a specific 'Place' and 'Time', the only error in your measurements is the accuracy of your measurement and the 'scale' you wish to use.

[Note 'Place' is not a point, but a 'complex volume', explained in more detail elsewhere].

You may start to get confused and say "What is the difference"?

I will give another example to simplify the different concepts.

Imagine you see a jogger running into a room without windows, then later on you see them jogging back out again. The door was left open all the time the jogger was inside and you had a friend that could see inside the room while the jogger was inside. The friend reports to you and says the jogger never stopped once, they couldn't tell you exactly where the jogger went, but just said they were running all over the place inside the room.

You want to know exactly where in the room the jogger went, so you get your friend to observe several different joggers going into the room. He reports back and says to you "it looked different" every time a different jogger entered into the room. "They just seem to run everywhere".

Now imagine you can't observe the joggers all the time your friend does but you ask him to take a picture for you so you can see where the joggers have been. The joggers being vain stop and pose for their picture to be taken.

Now I ask you 'Where are the joggers, and where have they been"?

Well you have to admit that you don't know where they have been, but you can tell me exactly where they were when they had their picture taken in the room.

Now depending on the two different concepts I tried to highlight earlier.

1. You either believe they were (spread) everywhere in the room all of the 'Time' and only came to be in the position the photo was taken because it was the act of taking the photo that made them appear there.

[2018 January 22nd. 1. This is equivalent to the 'Copenahgen interpretation' of quantum mechanics].

OR

2. You believe they were not everywhere in the room, but only followed a certain path (of which you are not aware of) and it was fortuitous that they were where they were when the photo was taken. By the way, they were still always in the room all of the 'Time' (and may not have been in some parts of the room at all).

Now you should see the difference between concepts 1 & 2. Number 1 sounds ridiculous and number 2 sounds plausible.

You can still apply similar mathematics and get similar results for both concepts, but only one of them is based on the truth. (The word 'Truth' brings many paradoxes in the mind, but you should know what I mean in this context). Maybe I should say the second concept is more correct than the first.

So why do (most) physicists persist in this manner?

They persist because they do not have another ('Real') model to fit the facts they have accumulated.

This brings me to my next 'point' [my readers of other Tea Break Books know what I am going to say next]. All dimensions are intricately linked and none are separate. Therefore you have to rethink the dimensions such that they become 'Real' and not just Abstract.

Points by themselves are Abstract and to make them 'Real' they must be linked together to create all the dimensions of 'Reality'. [Another Tea Break Book].

So this is what we have to do. The Table then can be thought of as 'Real' and the dimension of length is just one aspect of the Table and is not independent of it's width, height, Time, or it's 5th Dimension etc.(another Tea Break Book). The dimensions we perceive are macroscopic dimensions and their measurements are macroscopic (including 'Time'). [These dimensions are made up of the dimensions of their constituent parts].

Now the reason we do not see or perceive these interrelationships is because in comparison to our scale they are insignificant. [In addition our measurements are relative to us, so are also insignificant].

So we have to go to smaller and smaller scales to see the interrelationships.

I said earlier "limited or confined to a specific 'Place' and 'Time'", I deliberately left out some of the missing dimensions. To highlight further what I mean, lets go to smaller scales and speed things up.

What is the length of a bullet, shooting out of the barrel of the gun?

The bullet is small and fast, so our measurements must also be small and fast, otherwise we won't be able to be 'limited or confined to a specific 'Place' and 'Time'". We normally use flash photography to measure this kind of thing. Now just keep remembering that the bullet is not everywhere along it's trajectory, but 'limited or confined to a specific 'Place' and 'Time'' along the trajectory.

Same rules, but now you may have noticed that 'Time' has become more crucial. In the example of the Table our time didn't matter to our measurement because it appeared to be irrelevant (independent). The measurement didn't seem to depend on 'Time'. You may think that the bullet doesn't change it's length or width etc and it is only changing it's position.

So let's get smaller and faster still. Some of you may already think you know the answer and when you get to speeds close to the speed of light you get a contraction of length! Yes you do, but you are probably still thinking in abstract terms that length is independent of width and Time etc.

Let's go back to the bullet and push that faster. If you push it fast enough it will shorten, partly because of the amount of pushing you are doing and partly because of the resistance of the air against it. Length contraction, no great surprise, but it will not surprise you if I said it got wider in the process.

The width is dependent on the length and the Time (speed in this case).

Why should it surprise you if I say that the width is also dependent on the speed close to the speed of light?

This argument is insufficient on it's own to convince anyone.

So let us go back to the structure of 'Real' things.

Do you agree that anything 'Real' is made up of it's parts or constituents?

If you answered no, then you are reading the wrong book.

You should have answered yes.

If so, do you not think it is reasonable to think that the macroscopic dimension of length is made up of the lengths of it's parts?

I claim that the length of any object is some function of the lengths of it's parts.

E.g. The length of a wall is the sum of the lengths of it's bricks plus the lengths of the cement between the bricks.

This being so, I also claim that the length of a brick is the length of it's parts. The parts being more complex, maybe clay particles and water holding them together, but the same principle applies.

You can keep going down the scales to molecules, some function of the lengths of it's atoms.

Before I go lower down the scales you may notice it becomes more difficult to measure the lengths because of movement of the atoms. Energy makes more of a difference the lower down the scale you go.

When measuring the Table we didn't consider the Energy. With the bullet we indirectly mentioned Energy when we said we would push it faster. At the atomic level we can't ignore Energy.

To measure accurately we must reduce or eliminate the Energy. Freeze it if you prefer.

The alternative is to consider the Energy.

What is Energy and how does this influence the dimensions?

Does Energy have dimensions?

If it does (which I claim it does, another Tea Break Book) are they different dimensions to matter?

Why should they be different, I claim they are not, just like the Table and the electron have the same rules or laws, then Energy and Matter should have the same dimensions. (They just have different values).

Maybe I am digressing a bit, but as explained in another Tea Break Book, Energy and Matter have the same building components.

This Tea Break Book was Why Everything Is A Complex Volume. So getting back to the subject, if all the dimensions are linked together then any object (matter) however small we get, or any Energy however small that is, must have a length, a width, a height, a time (and the other missing dimensions not mentioned here) for it to exist as 'Real' and not just as an abstract (independent) entity.

The real problem is: - What is the shape and nature of this complex volume?

I explain it in another Tea Break Book, but suffice to say that it changes in Time, contracting and expanding in cycles, becoming it's opposite half of it's cycle, always with a hole in the centre. It does not increase or decrease it's primary volume while doing this.

Now if we simplify this and imagine it as a hollow ping pong ball that gets bigger and smaller, we can go to my second example and talk about 'Quantum Gravity'.

What is 'Quantum Gravity'?

It is simply a model that physicists are looking for that will explain Gravity at the quantum level.

Many explanations, but basically Einstein's general relativity and curved SpaceTime.

I won't go into any details here but to say it appears contrary to quantum theory.

Simply put curved SpaceTime is assumed smooth, and quantum is assumed grainy.

So what is the real problem here?

Physicists can't seem to resolve it. Why?

I don't see any problem at all. It is just a matter of scale.

Physicists see the problem because they see things in the Abstract, the dimensions, so going up or down the scales should make no difference. A length is a length. In Abstract terms it is.

But when you look at 'Real' dimensions that are not independent, a length is not just a length, it is a function of the lengths of it's parts or constituents [and also linked to the functions of the other dimensions]. So scale means everything.

A Table can be considered smooth at our scale, but at the atomic level it is definitely lumpy. (Atoms are not flat smooth objects linked together).

So general relativity and smooth (Analogue) SpaceTime curvature is only applicable at large scales.

At atomic and sub atomic levels the curvature is simply lumpy. [quantum like, or Digital if you prefer (I will expand on this in another Tea Break Book].

The analogy you can use is a hill or valley, from a distance (large scale) it looks like a smooth curve, hill or valley. But when you get close and start to climb or go down, it is full of ups and downs, ridges and pot holes (smaller scale). Both are valid views.

Now the real question is: - how is this SpaceTime curvature created from these quanta?

Again there is no problem here either, just read other Tea Break Books that explain how Gravity works.

You have to add the missing 5th dimension of course.

10th May 2015

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

I will mention another analogy while I am here.

If you plot a graph, you make measurements and put points on your graph paper (before computers), you then draw as straight (or as smooth) a line as you can, to fit as many points on it, (or average between the points) to get this smooth graph.

This curve is the analogy of (Analogue) SpaceTime curvature.

The actual plot was (Digital) discrete points, like quanta.

These Digital points are only the observations not the actual quanta that create these points.

The structure and nature of the 'Real' quanta of the Universe are the 'Real' entities that create Quantum Gravity.

These are the 'APE's that I have proposed. [Originally called Alternating Particular Energy (when I worked out a 'Real' mechanism for wave particle duality), All Purpose Entities (when I worked out a 'Real' mechanism to unite all the forces and a 'Real' mechanism for Gravity), or Andrew Pepes Entities (that's me of course), I also called them 'APE's because they can mimic both particles and waves, although they are neither, (and they can create all the forces and fields)].

Morph your mind with Morphological at

apepes.com

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

Why Everything Is A Complex Volume.

To show you why everything is a complex volume you have to understand the concept that NO dimension is independent of the other dimensions. I.e. ALL dimensions are dependent on one another in some way at the most fundamental level.

[See other Tea Break Books to discover how].

Once you realise that nothing is fundamentally independent in our 'Real' Universe, then you can see that the reference to any single dimension or dimensions is just an Abstract exercise to simplify our understanding of things.

I will give you 2 examples.

One that nobody on the planet has figured out yet (I exclude myself of course, as the only person that has a solution to this problem) and that is 'Quantum Gravity'. I will explain Quantum Gravity later.

The second example I will use is a Table. Everybody knows or thinks they know what a Table is. It normally has a top surface and 4 legs, (it may have 3 or more legs). You picture the Table you want.

Now I ask you "How long is it"?

Your answer will be in reference to one of it's dimensions. You would measure it, or someone else measured it and told you it's length. You would normally think that it's length is independent to the rest of the Table, because you have been led to the belief that length is independent to it's other dimensions, and it is in the Abstract sence, and it also serves us well in the normal everyday life we lead, so we are led to believe that it is also true in the 'Real' sense. This is because you do not see nor perceive any change in it's length or any of it's other dimensions, so you end up believing it must be so.

It seems reasonable to believe this, but this leaves you in the belief that this is always true for everything you measure or is being measured. Then science, (specifically physics), tells you that you can't measure sub atomic particles or electrons properly because of the 'uncertainty principle'! WHAT?

What is the 'uncertainty principle'? and why can't we measure things like the Table?

Without going into too much detail, it tells us that (let us take the electron as the example particle), it is everywhere until we measure it! More specifically we can't know it's energy and position at the same time!

Now why has everything changed at the sub atomic level that does not apply to our Table?

It at first appears that there are 2 laws, one for us 'dim wits' in normal life and a different law for physicists who think they understand things better. They will tell you things are different at the subatomic level.

So what is 'Really' going on?

They will lead you to believe (as they do) that everything is possible and that the 'Real' world also follows these rules that they have conjured up. [This is their assumption].

Now don't miss understand what I have said when I say "they have conjured up", they have used mathematics to understand what is going on, which is fine up to a 'point'.

[My other Tea Break Book readers may see the point of my remark. My Tea Break Book "Mathematics does not dictate 'Reality'. 'Reality' dictates the mathematics."].

I say they (Table & electron) do follow the same rules, but not everything is possible, because of the relationships of All the dimensions. I will explain. Their belief that 'it is everywhere' until they measure the electron is incorrect [for those who are more pedantic, within the wave function].

Why do I say it is incorrect, when it works?

It works because of the mathematics that they apply (another Tea Break Book).

To simplify the concept, if I said and claimed 'everyone in the world was always at least 9 feet tall but you can't see (observe this true height)' but it is inherent in the formula. To get the measurement of the observed height all you have to do is to add 9 to the observed measurement to get their true height (which I claimed was at least 9 feet tall), then subtract by (27 /3). You will always get the answer you observed when you measured them, even though my premise was incorrect. (I am using simple maths to make my claim true).

[Note that it is not that the mathematics is incorrect, but the assumption that is incorrect, which leads you into using the incorrect maths to make the assumption true].

Let us go back to the Table, correcting the incorrect assumption. The Table must follow the same rules as the electron, (there are not different laws for each).

I.e. Is it everywhere until you measure it?

I will ignore the cynics and just tell you the answer is NO.

(Don't abandon what should be common sense, especially when there is a more reasonable answer at hand).

The Table is not everywhere until you measure it, but it is limited or confined to a specific 'Place' and 'Time', the only error in your measurements is the accuracy of your measurement and the 'scale' you wish to use.

(Now the physicist will agree, but still use his calculations based on the false assumption).

Using the same law as the Table. The electron is not everywhere until you measure it, either!

But how can you explain the mathematics?

Simply by saying the electron is also limited or confined to a specific 'Place' and 'Time', the only error in your measurements is the accuracy of your measurement and the 'scale' you wish to use.

[Note 'Place' is not a point, but a 'complex volume', explained in more detail elsewhere].

You may start to get confused and say "What is the difference"?

I will give another example to simplify the different concepts.

Imagine you see a jogger running into a room without windows, then later on you see them jogging back out again. The door was left open all the time the jogger was inside and you had a friend that could see inside the room while the jogger was inside. The friend reports to you and says the jogger never stopped once, they couldn't tell you exactly where the jogger went, but just said they were running all over the place inside the room.

You want to know exactly where in the room the jogger went, so you get your friend to observe several different joggers going into the room. He reports back and says to you "it looked different" every time a different jogger entered into the room. "They just seem to run everywhere".

Now imagine you can't observe the joggers all the time your friend does but you ask him to take a picture for you so you can see where the joggers have been. The joggers being vain stop and pose for their picture to be taken.

Now I ask you 'Where are the joggers, and where have they been"?

Well you have to admit that you don't know where they have been, but you can tell me exactly where they were when they had their picture taken in the room.

Now depending on the two different concepts I tried to highlight earlier.

1. You either believe they were (spread) everywhere in the room all of the 'Time' and only came to be in the position the photo was taken because it was the act of taking the photo that made them appear there.

[2018 January 22nd. 1. This is equivalent to the 'Copenahgen interpretation' of quantum mechanics].

OR

2. You believe they were not everywhere in the room, but only followed a certain path (of which you are not aware of) and it was fortuitous that they were where they were when the photo was taken. By the way, they were still always in the room all of the 'Time' (and may not have been in some parts of the room at all).

Now you should see the difference between concepts 1 & 2. Number 1 sounds ridiculous and number 2 sounds plausible.

You can still apply similar mathematics and get similar results for both concepts, but only one of them is based on the truth. (The word 'Truth' brings many paradoxes in the mind, but you should know what I mean in this context). Maybe I should say the second concept is more correct than the first.

So why do (most) physicists persist in this manner?

They persist because they do not have another ('Real') model to fit the facts they have accumulated.

This brings me to my next 'point' [my readers of other Tea Break Books know what I am going to say next]. All dimensions are intricately linked and none are separate. Therefore you have to rethink the dimensions such that they become 'Real' and not just Abstract.

Points by themselves are Abstract and to make them 'Real' they must be linked together to create all the dimensions of 'Reality'. [Another Tea Break Book].

So this is what we have to do. The Table then can be thought of as 'Real' and the dimension of length is just one aspect of the Table and is not independent of it's width, height, Time, or it's 5th Dimension etc.(another Tea Break Book). The dimensions we perceive are macroscopic dimensions and their measurements are macroscopic (including 'Time'). [These dimensions are made up of the dimensions of their constituent parts].

Now the reason we do not see or perceive these interrelationships is because in comparison to our scale they are insignificant. [In addition our measurements are relative to us, so are also insignificant].

So we have to go to smaller and smaller scales to see the interrelationships.

I said earlier "limited or confined to a specific 'Place' and 'Time'", I deliberately left out some of the missing dimensions. To highlight further what I mean, lets go to smaller scales and speed things up.

What is the length of a bullet, shooting out of the barrel of the gun?

The bullet is small and fast, so our measurements must also be small and fast, otherwise we won't be able to be 'limited or confined to a specific 'Place' and 'Time'". We normally use flash photography to measure this kind of thing. Now just keep remembering that the bullet is not everywhere along it's trajectory, but 'limited or confined to a specific 'Place' and 'Time'' along the trajectory.

Same rules, but now you may have noticed that 'Time' has become more crucial. In the example of the Table our time didn't matter to our measurement because it appeared to be irrelevant (independent). The measurement didn't seem to depend on 'Time'. You may think that the bullet doesn't change it's length or width etc and it is only changing it's position.

So let's get smaller and faster still. Some of you may already think you know the answer and when you get to speeds close to the speed of light you get a contraction of length! Yes you do, but you are probably still thinking in abstract terms that length is independent of width and Time etc.

Let's go back to the bullet and push that faster. If you push it fast enough it will shorten, partly because of the amount of pushing you are doing and partly because of the resistance of the air against it. Length contraction, no great surprise, but it will not surprise you if I said it got wider in the process.

The width is dependent on the length and the Time (speed in this case).

Why should it surprise you if I say that the width is also dependent on the speed close to the speed of light?

This argument is insufficient on it's own to convince anyone.

So let us go back to the structure of 'Real' things.

Do you agree that anything 'Real' is made up of it's parts or constituents?

If you answered no, then you are reading the wrong book.

You should have answered yes.

If so, do you not think it is reasonable to think that the macroscopic dimension of length is made up of the lengths of it's parts?

I claim that the length of any object is some function of the lengths of it's parts.

E.g. The length of a wall is the sum of the lengths of it's bricks plus the lengths of the cement between the bricks.

This being so, I also claim that the length of a brick is the length of it's parts. The parts being more complex, maybe clay particles and water holding them together, but the same principle applies.

You can keep going down the scales to molecules, some function of the lengths of it's atoms.

Before I go lower down the scales you may notice it becomes more difficult to measure the lengths because of movement of the atoms. Energy makes more of a difference the lower down the scale you go.

When measuring the Table we didn't consider the Energy. With the bullet we indirectly mentioned Energy when we said we would push it faster. At the atomic level we can't ignore Energy.

To measure accurately we must reduce or eliminate the Energy. Freeze it if you prefer.

The alternative is to consider the Energy.

What is Energy and how does this influence the dimensions?

Does Energy have dimensions?

If it does (which I claim it does, another Tea Break Book) are they different dimensions to matter?

Why should they be different, I claim they are not, just like the Table and the electron have the same rules or laws, then Energy and Matter should have the same dimensions. (They just have different values).

Maybe I am digressing a bit, but as explained in another Tea Break Book, Energy and Matter have the same building components.

This Tea Break Book was Why Everything Is A Complex Volume. So getting back to the subject, if all the dimensions are linked together then any object (matter) however small we get, or any Energy however small that is, must have a length, a width, a height, a time (and the other missing dimensions not mentioned here) for it to exist as 'Real' and not just as an abstract (independent) entity.

The real problem is: - What is the shape and nature of this complex volume?

I explain it in another Tea Break Book, but suffice to say that it changes in Time, contracting and expanding in cycles, becoming it's opposite half of it's cycle, always with a hole in the centre. It does not increase or decrease it's primary volume while doing this.

Now if we simplify this and imagine it as a hollow ping pong ball that gets bigger and smaller, we can go to my second example and talk about 'Quantum Gravity'.

What is 'Quantum Gravity'?

It is simply a model that physicists are looking for that will explain Gravity at the quantum level.

Many explanations, but basically Einstein's general relativity and curved SpaceTime.

I won't go into any details here but to say it appears contrary to quantum theory.

Simply put curved SpaceTime is assumed smooth, and quantum is assumed grainy.

So what is the real problem here?

Physicists can't seem to resolve it. Why?

I don't see any problem at all. It is just a matter of scale.

Physicists see the problem because they see things in the Abstract, the dimensions, so going up or down the scales should make no difference. A length is a length. In Abstract terms it is.

But when you look at 'Real' dimensions that are not independent, a length is not just a length, it is a function of the lengths of it's parts or constituents [and also linked to the functions of the other dimensions]. So scale means everything.

A Table can be considered smooth at our scale, but at the atomic level it is definitely lumpy. (Atoms are not flat smooth objects linked together).

So general relativity and smooth (Analogue) SpaceTime curvature is only applicable at large scales.

At atomic and sub atomic levels the curvature is simply lumpy. [quantum like, or Digital if you prefer (I will expand on this in another Tea Break Book].

The analogy you can use is a hill or valley, from a distance (large scale) it looks like a smooth curve, hill or valley. But when you get close and start to climb or go down, it is full of ups and downs, ridges and pot holes (smaller scale). Both are valid views.

Now the real question is: - how is this SpaceTime curvature created from these quanta?

Again there is no problem here either, just read other Tea Break Books that explain how Gravity works.

You have to add the missing 5th dimension of course.

10th May 2015

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

I will mention another analogy while I am here.

If you plot a graph, you make measurements and put points on your graph paper (before computers), you then draw as straight (or as smooth) a line as you can, to fit as many points on it, (or average between the points) to get this smooth graph.

This curve is the analogy of (Analogue) SpaceTime curvature.

The actual plot was (Digital) discrete points, like quanta.

These Digital points are only the observations not the actual quanta that create these points.

The structure and nature of the 'Real' quanta of the Universe are the 'Real' entities that create Quantum Gravity.

These are the 'APE's that I have proposed. [Originally called Alternating Particular Energy (when I worked out a 'Real' mechanism for wave particle duality), All Purpose Entities (when I worked out a 'Real' mechanism to unite all the forces and a 'Real' mechanism for Gravity), or Andrew Pepes Entities (that's me of course), I also called them 'APE's because they can mimic both particles and waves, although they are neither, (and they can create all the forces and fields)].

Morph your mind with Morphological at

apepes.com