THE PARADOXES OF THEORY OF EVERYTHING

THE GOLDEN THEORY

THE

Ricard Jimnez Garca.

e-mail: mundoaureo@gmail.com

Page 1

THE PARADOXES OF "THEORY OF EVERYTHING

The Holy Grail of science today is the establishment of a unified formulation about all the laws of physics. This formulation is called "Theory of Everything".

Since all the laws of physics have been unified except the Theory of Relativity and quantum gravity, this theory focuses on unifying both. In short, unify the world macro with the micro world.

As any physical law has a corresponding mathematical formulation, the Theory of Everything should also be able to express itself mathematically. However, if we apply an inductive or logical procedure it appears that this theory cannot be described by using any physical magnitude or, paradoxically, with the mathematical procedure. Only can be described using Universal and Timeless Language.

These are the arguments:

Index:
1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) A universal pattern is independent of mathematics. Quantum physics and relativity are irrational. The Big Bang, The Moment of Creation Quantum physics has not different laws. Quantum irrationality. The magnitudes and physical constants are not necessary. The universal constants are not constant. Any mathematical identity is geometry A unified formulation is a scale. If the laws of the physics do not serve, neither his method. The gravitational waves in the space-time.. A universal boss is mystical SUMMARY: THE GOLDEN GEOMETRY, THE NEW PARADIGM. The golden Geometry. Symbol and mathematical concept. 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 10 11 13 13 14 15 16 17

Ricard Jimnez Garca.

e-mail: mundoaureo@gmail.com

Page 2

"Around the essence, is the home of science" Platn.

1) A universal pattern is independent of mathematics. A universal formulation should be independent of human life. We assume that there has always been, from the very beginning of the universe. This formulation has to be unique and has to explain all physical manifestations we perceive but, in turn, the entire evolution of the universe. This implies any spatial manifestation but also temporary, provided that the laws that it tries to unify are based on both magnitudes. If the above mentioned formulation or Basic functioning of the universe is timeless it means that it is independent from the language that we use to describe it. Therefore, it must be independent from the mathematical language, which is an artificial language created by the man. According with Max Tegmark, Cosmologist: To understand the concept, you have to distinguish two ways of seeing the reality. The first one is from out, like the global vision of a physicist who studies a mathematical structure. The second form is from the vision of an observer living in the structure. (...) These two perspectives are connected between them across the time This publication is based on the Golden Theory, which concentrates its perspective on that global vision. The scientific procedure indicates that any formulation that should aspire to obtain this objective has to be demonstrated mathematically. But, this is not any more than an opinion: it might be like that or not. We cannot reject that the mathematical language, as is established, be totally correct to explain the above mentioned functioning. A mathematical demonstration is not an indispensable requirement to describe a unified theory. Since Gdel established mathematics by itself are incomplete.

2) Quantum physics and relativity are irrational. Today we have assumed that space and time are relative one respect of other one. Even it does, relatively, a little time this relative distortion it was almost magic, totally irrational. Nevertheless, it has been checked in multiple experiments and today there is a practically absolute consensus respect of the validity of the Special Theory of the Relativity. For his production, Einstein helped himself with the previous work of Lorentz, as well as with the (new) Geometry from Riemann, a type different of geometry based on the definition of a few initial conditions different from the typical classic geometry (or Euclidean). Both are based on the functions of imaginary variable, introduced by Euler in 1.777. The above mentioned name (imaginary) was given by Euler to indicate that these numbers did not have a royal or rational existence.
Ricard Jimnez Garca. e-mail: mundoaureo@gmail.com Page 3

The imaginary numbers (based on the square root of a negative number) for mathematical definition, do not exist. His existence and adjustment to the mathematical theory constitutes an anomaly of the first order. These non-existent "numbers" place, therefore, even a step beyond the irrationality; Nevertheless they are absolutely indispensable to describe the quantum physics and even to describe a theory of the relativity. The quantum physics demonstrates a totally irrational behavior. Both disciplines, physics and mathematics, they prefer rejecting, nevertheless, the irrational solutions that are "out" of the established logic. Paradoxically the immense majority of his results are based on the irrational values, but also on the imaginary values. The people say that the history always repeats itself. Then Have we to modify the mathematical or physical theory to include irrational or not existing solutions? Or probably have we to return to define a type different from geometry to describe the quantum mechanics?

3) The Big Bang, The Moment of Creation The Relativity not only refers to the curvature of the time respect of the space, also it makes clear that the Light bows due to the attraction of the celestial masses. The quantum gravity refers, of equal form, to the attraction that the fundamental particles demonstrate between them The light is the constituent fundamental one of the Universe. Not only it refers to the energy or the movement, also it is a concept intimately tied to the time. An example we have it in the definition of Light year, a speed measure that, in fact, is a measure of the time (though it is to stellar level). Provided that the fundamental particles seem to move to the speed of the Light (pure energy), we can say that the magnitudes that take part into the Universe, so much to level macro as to level micro, though in different scales, they are equivalent. This one is the base of the unified theory. In essence, the only formulation will indicate us of that way they relate the space and the time in all his scales. An alternative definition would consist of seeing the relation between energy and gravity that they are, in an intangible plane, the constituent basic ones of the Universe, as it indicates the Theory of the Big-Bang. To speak about these magnitudes (space-time) or about others (energy and gravity) would be equivalent, as it indicates the second law of the thermodynamic (entropy). The Big-Bang (as theory) establishes imperatively that the space and the time (or the energy and the gravity) were created at the same time as the Universe was created. This means, literally that, in the exact instant of the creation of the Universe, when this one still did not exist (in the moment of the "explosion") the space and the time they did not exist either.

Ricard Jimnez Garca.

e-mail: mundoaureo@gmail.com

Page 4

For this reason, the own laws of the physics, cannot be valid to explain the moment of the creation. Just later, there seems to be no problem in applying the physical laws, but not in the exact instant. Therefore, a physical unified formulation cannot make clear the creation and his evolution, simultaneously. The own theory of the Big-Bang in the just moment of the creation not only breaks 2 law of the thermodynamic one, also the Law that seems to be more universal: " Any action has its reaction ". Physics and creation seem to be incompatible. The moment of the creation can be explain better on the basis of an immense quantum fluctuation, as some scientists suggest, that on the basis of a physical explosion. Similarly, the laws of classical physics cannot explain quantum mechanics. For this reason we differentiate classical physics and quantum physics, two types of apparently different physics. A theory of everything must unify both types of physics but, as I said above, you also need to define other physical capable of unifying both. We need a rule capable of explaining the instantaneous creation, something that seems to be totally irrational.

4) Quantum physics has not different laws. Probably could think, though you do not know them, that the quantum physics is ruled by a type different from laws. It is possible that it is like that, we do not know it (! I do not believe it!). The reality shows that there is not known any type of Law capable of explaining the quantum mechanics, absolutely none! In fact, we cannot reject either that the quantum physics is an adjustment of the classic physics, of a way that we do not understand completely. A theory completely, it is possible that it defines a new set of "quantum" laws, later to unify both. But also it is possible that only we need an adjustment of the physical laws to explain the quantum behavior. In a unified model there are not more possibilities If we look at physical principle" known as Occam 's Razor", " the simplest explanation should be correct ." We do not need new laws but adapt what we have. Therefore the classic physics or it does not serve in the quantum world or, simply we do not know how to apply it in the world of the fundamental particles. In fact, the appearance of the Theory of the Relativity revealed that the classic or Newtonian physics was not valid to explain the distortions of the space and the time. This does not mean that it is incorrect, but if incomplete. It is valid perfectly to explain the daily events but it does not serve when we increase considerably the speed. Nevertheless, as Carl Sagan was saying, we do not also have the habit of moving to speeds near to the speed of the Light. In short, it seems to be a question of understanding the movement. The only pattern what is going to indicate us is like the Universe creates (even to itself) and evolves. And this is movement.

Ricard Jimnez Garca.

e-mail: mundoaureo@gmail.com

Page 5

As John D.Barrow suggests: "It does not seem that we are going to have any more scientific revolutions. () Anyone that turns out to be the Unified final Theory will have a restrictive form that describes the movement to very much minor speeds that the speed of the light in gravitational weak fields and where the wave quantum aspects of the mass are despicable. () This form will be the one that Newton found ".

5) Quantum irrationality. Max Planck determined that the fundamental particles move in compact packages of energy named "quantum". This means that the Light, though we perceive her as the continuous one in essence consists of small "packages". If we were doing a comparison with the football we might say the following thing: We know that there are players who move for the field. Every player would be equivalent to a photon or a fundamental particle. The problem is that we do not know the rules of game of the quantum football ". When something happens, when a goal is marked for example, provided that everything happens so rapidly, only we can see that the scoreboard has changed. Also we can observe that the players are in a different position, but what they have done in this interval of time, do not know it. In fact, the matter still is more irrational. In agreement with Higgs's Theory, a particle is it itself and in turn, his field of interaction. Who is the particle or what is the field does not remain too clear. If we return to the analogy, according to this every player would be he and his area of influence. When we look at the match we cannot determine, due to his speed, if we see the player or only we see the zone in which it moves. For this reason, the quantum mechanics is based on probability amplitudes and, since we have just seen, fundamentally, in the imaginary numbers. In short, probability wants to say that nothing is determined; that everything could happens in this game's land. Feynmann said: it is not our ignorance, nature have probability as something intrinsic to itself. The principal postulates of the quantum physics are: the base of our material "reality" is, precisely, immaterial. And so on, the act of observing modifies what we observe. In this land of quantum game, depending on if we are observing or not the party, which happens in the area of game, even the results can change. Really irrational. Under the postulates of the quantum physics to speak or not of mass, it is only a question of scale. We cannot forget that the principal ingredient of our universe is the Light, which can be so much a particle (something material) as a wave (something immaterial). The light (speed) seems to be a "natural" border between both worlds: the physical world and the world of the probabilities.

Ricard Jimnez Garca.

e-mail: mundoaureo@gmail.com

Page 6

As Heisenberg, the co-discoverer of quantum mechanics they said: "Atoms are not things, are trends. So, instead of thinking of atoms as things, you have to think of possibilities, possibilities of consciousness As we understand the science, to join the term -physics- with the term -quantum- it is so irrational as to join the words -Intelligence- and -Military- or -Democracy- with -Politics-.

6) The magnitudes and physical constants are not necessary. Can we cook a dish of spaghetti with tomato, spaghetti or tomato? Obviously the answer is not. But ... Can we develop a unified formulation of all natural laws without any physical magnitude or even without math? Well, I have it clear though you have to decide your answer. A mathematical formula, for definition it is static. The classic physics (from Newton) also it is static, for this motive a mathematical formulation adapts perfectly to describe this type of physics. Problems appear with movement. The question is Can we describe mathematically a formulation based on the statics (or in the comparison between two states of position) that, in turn, could be applied to a condition of "constant" movement? Mathematically it seems to be complicated, though it is not impossible. Both in the physical plane and in the quantum plane we refer to equivalent magnitudes: energy and gravity. If mathematically we have to unify them it is possible that we have, on both sides of the mathematical equality, concepts that refer to the same magnitudes. We all know that, in mathematics, when we have the same components on both sides of the equation we can simplify them. I mean, they are irrelevant for the final result. The whole mathematical logic can be reduced to the basic equality, A=B. Then, if you want, you can repeat it a million times, this already does not matter. Any mathematical theorem has this pattern in its construction. The mathematical logic is linear, as this equality. For this motive also we are based on a decimal scale that is linear too. Nevertheless, like in geometry, this is not any more than the consequence of defining a few certain initial conditions. Nothing is true. In last term the reality is not linear, but three-dimensional. As Einstein said "Math teaches you to move from A to B , but imagination will take you where you want" A mathematical theorem, as a formula, is a boss who indicates us of what way we jump from A to B. Really a mathematical pure formula is a scale, an identity in which only we include numbers. The problem is that the mathematics use a linear scale, the decimal scale; And this is a limitation to understand a Universe in 3D. If the conventional physics neither is valid to explain the creation of the Universe it does not also serve to explain the quantum world why should it include magnitudes or physical constants a unified formulation?

Ricard Jimnez Garca.

e-mail: mundoaureo@gmail.com

Page 7

The question, therefore, does not reside in understand on what way we jump from A to B. The question resides in understanding a mathematical identity as a scale. And, if we bear in mind that the Universe is a three-dimensional structure in movement, the scale for that we are looking cannot be based only on two components, since minimum they have to be three. The above mentioned scale a boss of movement must provide. This is fundamental. Its only a matter of scale, no magnitudes or physical constants.

7) The universal constants are not constant. If we had to define those characteristics of our Universe that were independent from any human intervention, without any doubt, we would have to fix our attention in our universal constants. The universal constants are, precisely universal because, with independence of our units of measure, everything indicates that they have to happen in any point of our Universe. Nevertheless, this is a supposition. These universal constants are the following ones: The constant of universal gravitation, the speed of the light, Planck's constant, the thermodynamic constant (related directly to Planck's constant) and the load of the electron. Let's remember that Planck's constant refers to the minimal unit of possible change in which the energy can be altered. The thermodynamic constant, or of Boltzmann it turns the above mentioned units of energy into units of temperature. All these constants have a common characteristic, they are independent from any unit of measure, I mean, they are independent from any physical measure that we use to describe them; they are based only on relations. For example, in case of the constant of universal gravitation we would speak about a relation between the masses and the distance that separates them. The universal constants are independent from our physical system, for this reason, we think that in another place of the universe they might define or understand these "constants" like us, which would be equivalent to say that there would have a equivalent physical system . All the physics that we know is based on the units of measure on which all his structure is raised. Thats mean; a proposition in physics does not make sense if it cannot be sustained in his measurements. Therefore, the existence of the universal constants is an evident test of the existence in the nature of "something" royal and independent from any human measure. The above mentioned constants, nevertheless they refer to quantum or cosmological scales very different from what we can consider to be the human measure. For this motive it is not strange that Einstein was thinking that all these constants really did not exist, and its apparent existence could be explained on the basis of a deep ignorance on the same ones. According to him, all these constants would have to be able to be expressed in the shape of basic numbers more adapted to our scale, like or . Einstein was speaking about pure numbers.
Ricard Jimnez Garca. e-mail: mundoaureo@gmail.com Page 8

When we speak about pure numbers we refer to numbers that do not depend on dimensions, as the speed, a mass or a length. Under this enclosed point of view the speed of the light would stop being a universal constant. If we combine some of these constants (the speed of the light, the load of the electron and Planck's constant) we find a new constant defined as "fine structures constant". The above mentioned constant determines that, of between infinite possibilities that our Universe might have had; only one corresponds with the reality. The technically above mentioned constant refers to the balance that takes place between the attractive force of the gravity and the atomic repulsion that appears when the atoms control themselves. This constant establishes that, of between infinite possibilities that might define our Universe only a possibility corresponds with the reality. The technically above mentioned constant refers to the balance that takes place between the attractive force of the gravity and the atomic repulsion that appears when the atoms are compressed. Fine structures constant neither it depends on any unit of measure. But, the most interesting thing about this constant is that it does not need any unit of measure, is a simple number. In essence it is saying to us that our Universe, in last instance, seems that it does not come determined by any physical characteristic. It is extremely important to emphasize this characteristic. A simple numerical value can condense the whole physical structure of the Universe. The existence of the above mentioned constants, therefore, is incompatible with a physical definition of the Universe. If all these constants were non-existent, I mean, if they could be explained on the basis of other values, even we might say that there is no basis to speak about a physical objective reality. In turn this would imply that, in a unified theory based on not dimensional values, such values would not be determinable empirically, which would imply that, enclosed the scientific method like foundation for the search of global answers would not be suitable. In short, if a "physical" global theory was capable of explaining all the constants of the nature, the science would stop being an inductive science, since this way it seems to be. The golden theory establishes that any physical characteristic of the Universe can be explained on the basis of the golden relations. Under this one focus even the speed of the light it stops being a constant, since it can be explained under geometric criteria on the basis of the golden values. For this reason the golden theory says that it is not a chance that Keops's Great Pyramid, which construction is based exclusively on the golden values includes between its exterior measures to the speed of the light. The ancient builders were very conscious of the geometric nature of the Universe.

Ricard Jimnez Garca.

e-mail: mundoaureo@gmail.com

Page 9

8) Any mathematical identity is geometry We all understand, basically, the concept on a large scale. If we take a map and see, for example: scale 1:5000, we understand that we have to multiply 1cm ( 1 mm) of the surface of the map * 5000 to obtain the royal surface. Magnitudes that we use have no relevance. The geometry works of the same form. If we define a length of 1 (it is not important if it is a 1 cm. 1 mm.) and we multiply it by 4, divide it by 3 and finally we multiply it for , we will obtain the volume of a sphere of diameter 1. But, in fact, we do not make anything different that in the example of the map Note that on a scale not involve any magnitude, involving only numbers. If we define a length of 3 we can elaborate, on the basis of the Theorem of Pythagoras a triangle rectangle. Logically if only we have the initial length it is probable that we have to do many tests to determine the length of another cateto and, later, the value of the hypotenuse, though this is not relevant. Pythagorass Theorem is an identity. Any mathematical identity is geometric. Any number can refer so much to a point, a line, a surface or even a volume. Therefore, if a physical unified formulation can express without physical magnitudes; In fact, a unified formulation refers to constructions that can be represented geometrically. A scale, therefore, is independent from the unit of measure, always it will be the unit without mattering of what way we define it or which magnitude we adopt. If we return to the example of the map, it is not important if we take 1cm, 1mm, or the distance that we want. Always we will refer to it as the Unit, and this one can be so big or so small as we want. A theory completely that does not include magnitudes or physical constants leads to a geometric vision of the Universe. This should not worry us since the Universe not only is harmonic but, fundamentally geometrically. The question, therefore, might reside in finding the only type of Geometry capable of including a static and dynamic vision of the same one in the only formulation.

9) A unified formulation is a scale. If we find a formulation that unifies gravity and relativity, in fact what we are saying is that both are related, linked to each other for any value that they could take. It does not matter if we take a measurement to quantum scale or to "stellar" scale; always we are going to find a relation. A unified theory a boss is going to give us, which means that we are going to create a new scale. It does not import the structure that will have the above mentioned scale at this moment; the important thing is to understand this concept. Let's return to the physical magnitudes to understand it.

Ricard Jimnez Garca.

e-mail: mundoaureo@gmail.com

Page 10

We know that if we approach the speed of the light the time it expands (as Theory of Relativity says). A unified pattern (a scale) will say to us for every speed like it expands or contracts the time. A magnitude always will be sufficient to define other one. It is the concept of scale or, mathematically how come across from A to B. But, in a scale, since in a mathematical formula there is no movement. It is a simple photography, something static, which we can use to compare different positions. There is nothing external in a scale, only we can apply it and compare values or positions. A unified formulation is saying to us that the forces and effects do not make any sense. A theory of everything paradoxically has to eliminate forces and effects. Any force or effect can be replaced simply with a certain position into the scale. In physical terms, a certain position in the space-time, or a certain composition of energy and gravity. Not external at all, only it depends on the perception of the observer, on his point of view, on wherefrom the observer is placed or what perspective it has. The unified pattern from this point of view really is going to say to us that the forces, effects or interactions do not exist. I mean, physical manifestations are only perceptions that depend on our position and speed into the scale. We dont need physical interactions to explain it. In agreement with the "Uncertainty principle from Heisenberg, position and speed for a particle cannot be determined at the same time. This indetermination is directly tied by the probability that we observe in the quantum "plane". But the probability is not any magnitude or physical concept, though it could be applied in physics. Going a step further, relativity, probability, uncertainty, indeterminacy, duality or even entanglement refers to the same concept. The only boss, for common sense, leaves out the physical "concepts", rightly since we have just seen.

10) If the laws of the physics do not serve, neither his method. The scientific method is based on the measurement, classification and experimentation. Nevertheless, due to the above mentioned beginning of indetermination, nothing can be measured by accuracy in the Universe. If we center in the position of a particle we lose information about its speed. If we try to define his speed we lose precision on its position. This one is a consequence of the movement, which is inherent in the Cosmos. Nothing can be exactly defined, in consequence. Only we can establish approximations. Under this point of view, if the mathematics were representing completely to the reality, nothing would be exact in them. Independently of the precision, this is a consequence of forming a part as observers of the same inertial system. But, the vision that we are adopting is to try to see the mathematical structure from the perspective of an external observer, since we saw initially.
Ricard Jimnez Garca. e-mail: mundoaureo@gmail.com Page 11

We are included in some point of this cosmic scale. As Wheeler would say, not only we are observers, also we are participants. From this point of view we try to translate all manifestations from a physical conception. But a really external observer only could appreciate one fluctuating structure, the same configuration as quantum mechanics. With regard to the scientific method we might do two observations: The first one bases on the observation. Everything in the Universe seems to come defined in terms of infinite: the infinite about small things and the infinite about big things. An elementary particle contains a potentially infinite energy. Mathematically we might say that a simple line consists of infinite points, each of them infinitely small. A circumference has a fenced perimeter, but at the same time is infinite. Though they look like familiar concepts really they are irrational How can something finite contain something infinite? Wow! The infinite is an irrational solution; whats the infinite? Its only a concept, a probability that, in addition, we do not know if it will happen or not. Thats relativity. Paradoxically both, physics and the mathematics, are in the habit of rejecting the irrational solutions. The second one is a consequence of the first one. The physics, for definition, tries to explain the effects that we perceive the physical world. When we look for answers to deeper questions we have to resort to other fields of the knowledge. Science does not try to explain the sense of things. But ... which is the difference between trying to explain the last effect, even in the domains of the infinitely small or big, or to try to explain the reason? The scientific method based on the measurement is not valid to find a global solution. The infinite is not anything that could measure up. There does not exist a point, a final stop, a last effect, a Gods particle because it is contradictory with the essence itself of the Universe, the fractalidad without end, as the contour of a circumference. The mystery of the infinite does not consist of having only end, but also of not having a beginning. The infinite is not any more than a probability. The probability is not any more than the relativity led to its last end. For this motive the irrational numbers describe so appropriately the infinite, because his convergence to a certain value is not any more than a theoretical probability. As i said some authors hold that the beginning of the Universe cannot be any more than an immense quantum fluctuation, without any physical element. Quantum of Planck and the entire Universe under this perspective they are the same thing. Only it depends on the scale in which we place.

Ricard Jimnez Garca.

e-mail: mundoaureo@gmail.com

Page 12

11) The gravitational waves in the space-time.. 1

Reproduction of Stephen's Smith article.

The detection of the gravitational waves is another step beyond in this burrow of rabbit that has turned the modern science. Beginning with the Big Bang, the landslide to the red one, the "fabric" of the space-time, the inflation, the CMB and now the waves of gravity, the science has appealed to postulates increasingly arcane that mixes a few fantastic ideas in an irremediable and confused marsh of mathematical prestidigitation. Again and again, respected scientists and mathematicians, as the late Halton Arp, Stephen Crothers, Eric Lerner, Pierre-Marie Robetaille, Wal Thornhill and others, too numerous them to mention to all, have presented the analyses that reveal that the confusion increases non-stop for the halls of the academy () it is enough to say that the space is not a substance and the time either. The space cannot deform, turn or undulate. The "space" is defined as " this threedimensional unlimited or incalculably big kingdom, or to the extension in which the material objects are situated and where all the events take place ". It is a domain without substance, since it is where the substance exists. And if it is not a substance, therefore, it does not take substance except as a method to define the existence and position about things. To infer that the space and time they are a "fabric" in which the gravity can "undulate" is ridiculous. It is equivalent to say that the space exists on itself and is capable of alteration. "

12) A universal boss is mystical The science, in this attempt of unifying the physical laws, trusts that his discovery explains any physical manifestation. With regard to the quantum or immaterial plane it counts on obtaining some type of Law that, under the umbrella of the logic, could explain its behavior. With posteriority it will try to unify both fields. It will try to obtain a physical formulation extended to include this irrational "world". The science tries to place to a certain distance before the attitude of many physicists of trying to explain this quantum world on the basis of more metaphysical concepts. But, the certain thing is that a unified pattern must give answers to topics so seemingly complicated as the conscience, the ideas or the dreams, provided that all of them seem to reside in this quantum "plane", where the energy and the gravity seems to reside. At the end of this way, so much if we want as if not, we have to conclude that, if a unified pattern has to be exactly that, soon or later it must enter into the metaphysical or spiritual field. Call it quantum field if you want.

http://bitnavegante.blogspot.com.es/2014/03/las-falacias-del-big-bang.html. Referencia:
e-mail: mundoaureo@gmail.com Page 13

ThunderBolts.info. por Stephen Smith, 25 de marzo 2014 Ricard Jimnez Garca.

If we observe that the whole physical world is connected (since the absolute emptiness does not exist) and we want to unify it with the quantum world... Why not to imagine that the quantum world also is connected? If the Universe seems to be an immense information system, since many quantum physicists think can universal conscience exist? Can ideas follow the same physical beginning of action-reaction? Can it the time be only one more sense? A unified pattern requires, sooner or later also unify pure science with metaphysics or mysticism. Not coincidentally, a unified formulation is not really more than the fulfillment of an ancient mystical premise: "As above, so below." A mystical definition of relativity. Beyond all this, the discovery of a Theory of Everything, in last term it would suppose the end of the theoretical physics as we know it. And, probably, the end of the mathematics, as we know them: The last paradox.

SUMMARY:

We might simplify the paradoxes of a Theory of Everything in the following propositions: The physical laws cannot explain the origin of the Universe or the quantum mechanics. A global solution must include, necessarily rational concepts, but also irrational. This implies a new mathematical or physical conception with regard to which it is or not rationally. The magnitudes or physical constants are not indispensable in the only and global formulation. Nothing physical is necessary in the "immaterial" field. A global theory demands a new type of physics that includes both the classic physics and the quantum physics. If the quantum physics is a simple question of probability (the atoms are not things, but probabilities) the global solution must be a mathematical model, capable of synthesizing or adapting all the physical laws and, probably, based on a binary model. A unified theory is, basically, a scale. The above mentioned scale must be able to represent any characteristic of the Universe: relativity, gravity, duality, quantum entanglement, probability and, fundamentally, the movement. Also it must have the characteristic of a fractal being able to be represented like it. It must spread to both ends of the infinite. Since it does not include magnitudes and is the only and universal, we cannot use (or need) any other type of scale to describe it. The scale must take its own unit of built-in measure. Bearing in mind that the Universe seems to be incredibly exact, it seems to be logical to suppose that the only formulation exists between infinite possibilities that it combines perfectly both concepts: rational and irrational.

Ricard Jimnez Garca.

e-mail: mundoaureo@gmail.com

Page 14

We might synthesize all these requirements in one:

The universe does not have to adapt to the rationality or to the logical procedure of the physics or the mathematics. It is just on the contrary, they are our physical laws and mathematical criteria those that have to for adapting to it. If we do not do it, all our attempts of understanding it are condemned to the failure. The challenge consists of understanding or assuming the irrationality of the Universe, without limiting ourselves what is logical or not.

THE GOLDEN GEOMETRY, THE NEW PARADIGM.

This publication refers to many of the paradoxes that, both physics and mathematics, have at the moment of establishing a unified formulation of the Universal Laws. But, his intention is not to create any more doubts or confusion brings over of his existence. For this motive, I cannot conclude the same one without advancing in the solution of this universal paradox. What is exposed in these latter pages is a small detail of a theory much more developed stocks in the golden values: The Golden Theory. The same one is a logical conclusion as result of the previous paradoxes that I have raised. How we have just seen a boss or universal formulation it must assemble several requirements. I will do a small summary of all of them: A universal boss, in essence, is a scale. This scale must allow explaining both, the infinitely small events and the infinitely big ones; In other words, the above mentioned scale must be a fractal. A scale, for definition, or common sense has to support the same "structure" between every couple of consecutive points of the same one. The whole scale in his composition has to have the same structure. This one is a way of defining the "fractal" concept. If the above mentioned pattern is only one, so much in the material "field", since in the immaterial conserves the same structure. As would say the teacher Feynmann: The antimatter behaves exactly like the matter ". We can, in consequence, try to deal this boss from an exclusively physical point of view (from the material side) or from a "immaterial" point of view. The boss has to be the same. We would speak then about physics or about mathematics. This one is the reason or the consequence why all physical laws that we know can be expressed mathematically. Another different question is what type of criteria mathematics we use. When we speak about a binary universe we refer to the duality. Everything in the universe comes expressed in these terms, the light, the electromagnetic effects, the material immaterial thing, zero - infinite, etc... Everything! This duality can spread to the curved or straight forms, the only ones that we can find in the Universe.

Ricard Jimnez Garca.

e-mail: mundoaureo@gmail.com

Page 15

The boss for that we look is a reply of itself. Therefore, fractality can be expressed in the following terms: the Universe is a simulation of itself, in all its scales, dimensions, manifestations or any magnitude (space- time) that we could imagine. If we want to unify the micro-world with the macro-world only we can do it geometrically. Realize about that: all laws or physical equations can be represented geometrically. Neither it is a chance that we observe the continuous appearance of the golden values in multitude of equations, so much physical as mathematics. Only we have to observe, they are indicating a deep reality to us. Planck's constant that revolutionized the physics and gave origin to the quantum physics is not any more than a relation between the quantity of energy and the frequency associated with an elementary particle. According to this, the energy, to fundamental (quantum) level it has discreet "conditions" of energy. If the speed of the light is finite, the total energy of the Universe also presents a discreet state. The universal constant (the unit) relates the total energy of the same one to his speed (to quantum level we speak about frequency). So much an all that as the whole Universe they are based on an equivalent relation, its difference is only a question of scale. What we are looking is the form that has this scale, how is the quantums geometric structure? And, therefore, what kind of structure has the whole universe? Such a boss must combine in his formulation both the finite thing, and the infinite thing. Also it has to include the curved and straight forms, as well as the movement. He has to be based also on the mathematical universal identities. All the magnitudes that we know are grouped by us in scales and all our measurements or units of measure are established on the basis of the unit. The unit must form a part of this scale. Only the geometry is capable of condensing all these qualities, both in the physical plane and in the conceptual or mathematical plane.

The golden Geometry.

A geometric figure is based on opposite planes, incorporates the finite field and the infinite. It is independent from the unit of measure and always it refers to the unit. Its size does not matter, provided that it is based on relations between opposite planes. It is a mathematical identity, does not depend on magnitudes. Geometry is universal. The relation between the diameter and the arch of the circumference is a relation that has to be fulfilled here and at the far end of the Universe. The geometry does not depend on the mathematics or of the language that we use to describe it. Only it is based on relations, does not import his orientation or his position. In a geometric figure since it is above it is below.

Ricard Jimnez Garca.

e-mail: mundoaureo@gmail.com

Page 16

The above mentioned geometry must incorporate irrationality, therefore it must be based on the irrational values. The irrational values are quotients (relations) that tend to infinite; because of it they are so used in physics, especially to measure the manifestations of space and time. In addition the irrational numbers express a relation. For this motive also they are indicated to refer to the relativity. The question is Can we group all these characteristics in only one mathematical identity or condition capable of explaining all the physical manifestations of the Universe? The response is affirmative. Not only this, in addition this condition is extraordinarily simple. In agreement with the golden theory a universe of extreme complexity can be explained exclusively with only one condition, maximum simplicity. This condition is the following one: to subdivide in two". It is not a chance, since i have commented that the majority of physical formulations that we know should be based on the elevations to the square or that a great quantity of them they incorporate in his formulation to the golden values. The mathematical conception "squaring" can be translated, in the physical world as: "to subdivide in two ". The golden theory is based exclusively on the identity of Pythagoras (Theorem) and on Euler's Identity though, both, in essence, express both the same condition. Euler's identity is this:

i = ( ,1/ ) There are many mathematical rules which utilization does not correspond completely with the reality that we observe. I might refer between them to the concept of dimension, irrational, zero, infinite, initial condition or some others. But, contradiction between all these definitions and our mathematical ideas are based on a central idea: the association between the symbol and the concept. How numbers can explain Universe.

Symbol and mathematical concept.

All our evolution is based on the bosses' search on the nature, but also, of parallel form, on the association of concepts to certain symbols. This is something evident in the language. In any area of knowledge, physics included we associate concepts with certain symbols. There does not exist a mathematical idea that does not have or could have its geometric representation. This forms a part of our mental "structure"; we do not accept anything for valid if intuitively we cannot understand it. The graphical representation is our better resource.

Ricard Jimnez Garca.

e-mail: mundoaureo@gmail.com

Page 17

Paradoxically only in mathematical this association is not fulfilled. The numbers, beyond being account units, do not have any associate concept. This is a great limitation. Hereby we confront the reason or mathematical logic, with the idea of a Universe that expresses in mathematical terms. 1 is only a unit of something (length, quantity, etc.). But beyond of this have not any other quality. In the golden model 1 is a point, but also it is a line of length 1, 1 is also a square surface and 1, can be a cube of volume 1. But, 1 also is a circumference of diameter one.

1 =
1 in the physical world (the finite world) does not have existence. In the immaterial or conceptual world it is a geometric structure based on the golden values that there represents the- Geometric unit-, the symbol of the Universe. The golden model associates concepts with the numerical symbols. This means that the numbers stop being mere symbols about having existence for themselves. According to this each of 10 numbers that compose our decimal scale makes a geometric sense, takes associates a concept. Of this form we define a new mathematical language composed symbolically by 10 letters, each of them have a meaning. Thats means mathematics based in forms. If in quantum computation a qubit (or bit quantum) can adopt simultaneously the value 0 or the value 1 and this can provide and stratospheric capacity of calculation. Can you imagine a mathematical language where every number could represent simultaneously other 9? The geometric comprehension of the quantum irrationality is the door of entry to a universe of science fiction. Any number that you could imagine has a geometric representation, stops being only an account unit. This one is the sense that the Pythagorean doctrine attributed to the numbers. The numbers are the universe including, certainly, irrational numbers. And, without any doubt, this one is the sense that the Egyptians had of the Universe. Since it is above it is below. For this motive, all the symbols, paintings or constructions of our ancestors what they reflect is this geometric vision of the Universe, a mathematical culture: a golden civilization. A civilization that dominated the space, the time and the energy thanks to the most powerful tool never created: The mind ".

Ricard Jimnez Garca.

e-mail: mundoaureo@gmail.com

Page 18

If the base of our reality is immaterial and can be defined of strictly numerical form, a unified boss is similar to a simple order of computation. Our universe not only is fractal and holographic; In essence, it is like a video game. In a nearby future we might construct quantum computers capable even of being conscious of its own existence. But, before this moment, we are ourselves that we have to arrive to this point. Our Universe is an immense quantum computer. To know the rules of the game only we have to look at the stars, because if, since it is above it is below, they must be written in them. The mathematical, geometric or purely numerical conception of the Universe contradicts the physical conception of the universe that we have established. It supposes a comprehension radically different from the cosmos. Its implications go far beyond of what we can imagine. The universe stops being something external to us, and our mind happens to be a fundamental "part" of the same one. This one is the sense deeply spiritual that ancient cultures had of the cosmos, the royal existence of a universal conscience.

To know more about the Golden Theory:: Bibliography: (free download) www.scribd.com/mundoaureo www.facebook.com/mundoaureo

For me, an equation does not make sense until it expresses a God's feeling. Srinivasa Ramanujan. (Mathematician)
Page 19

Ricard Jimnez Garca.

e-mail: mundoaureo@gmail.com