# Is Our Universe Flipped Inside Out?

## Could this be why we are having trouble with unifying theories?

I am a classical physics guy and so I’ve had to use a lot of dimensional analysis in my work. I have spent many hours staring at and manipulating these letters and their superscripts for years and have never questioned any of them. In my most recent look at our base dimensions, along with our Fundamental Physical Constants(NIST pdf), I saw something that I have never noticed before. **None of our physical constants seem to have dimensions that could belong to something that is physically real.**

Looking at them individually, no constant seems suspicious by itself. But, taken as a group you will notice the peculiar trend. Our constants seem to point at spaces rather than objects themselves. You will see examples next but let’s call what we have now, “**space-oriented units**” and the other “**object-oriented units**”.

## Is “c” The Speed of Light or The Speed of the Vacuum?

Let’s take a look at the speed of light for example. The units of “c” are the same as velocity, length over time (L/T). But what are the units of a piece or quantity of light? Anything physically real should take up some volume but t**he units here suggest that this speed is the speed of the vacuum, not some quantity of light.** What is our value of c pointing at? There aren’t units here to suggest that anything physically real is being referenced.

How about the inverse seconds? Time is supposed to be a physical dimension but what is the physical intuition of an inverted base unit and physical dimension? **Inverse seconds on a base unit implies that things or phenomena are expected to exist before it’s measured**. Is that right? That seems to be a pretty dangerous philosophical problem. Is that how we got Schrodinger's Cat?

How about those units taken together side-by-side? If the speed of light is the speed of the vacuum then these units, L/T, are also saying that **vacuum length is inversely proportional to vacuum time**. Having a rule like that built into our space-time would make Einstein’s warping of space almost necessary for relativistic speeds. This sounds dangerously close to proving our expectations of space-time rather than however it really is.

## Newton’s Constant of Gravitation, G

Perhaps the strangest constant of them all is our constant of gravitation, “G”. It’s strange because it is the only fundamental constant that ISNT space-oriented. There are only two constants on this NIST table(pdf) with the dimensions that support representing something physically real (3 length dimensions = volume). They are molar volume, with inverse moles, and there is our gravitational constant, G.

If our constant of gravitation were like the other constants I would have never questioned any of these units. It might be strange but at least it would be consistent. But G is almost a different species of physical constant compared to the rest.

The units of G are **[some volume]** with **[anti-mass]** and **[2 dimensions of anti-time]**. The anti-mass and anti-time ensure that this constant can’t point to anything physically real so that is consistent with the rest so far. **However, it stands out as different because both c and G show an inverse relation for length and time but the ratios are different.** **The ratio of length to time is 3:2 for G whereas it is 1:1 for c**. Both seem to describe the same vacuum of space but they each describe it very differently mathematically. What is the justification for this? I don’t know myself.

What about the physical intuition of these units for G? With 3 dimensions of length, and 2 dimensions of anti-time, we have something that looks like a stationary ball with a hole for mass. The two anti-time dimensions suggest that this ball is only rotating along two axes. Strangely, this reminds me of a black hole.

## Additional Thoughts

- Is the G constant saying that mass is inversely proportional to a volume that will exist over some duration?
- Notice the numeric dimensions add to zero but their absolute value adds to 6. Does this refer to the fact that objects have 3 linear and 3 rotational dimensions?
- If we group dimensions of G by “
**here”**(positive value superscript in base dimension) and “**not here”**(negative value superscript in base dimension),**volume is inversely proportional to mass and time duration**.

# Space-Oriented vs Object-Oriented Physics

We tend to look at everything from the outside in so we put everything in a box before looking at it. This makes us the 3rd person silent observers of the universe. When units describe space and or distances between objects, like forces and our constants G and c, they have a space-oriented perspective.

However, the universe moves along and forms stars and planets starting from the center and builds out. Snowflakes, trees, and even tiny humans grow from the center out. This is the inside-out or what I am calling the object-oriented perspective.

Our physical constants and units seem to be largely space-oriented. I wonder if we could develop object-oriented dimensions and physics by adding a notation to differentiate between objects and space and fix our dimensions to not set expectations of existence before measurement. I am not advocating one over the other but rather, I think they’d work great together.

Empty Space-Time + Objects (stuff) = 1 (Complete Reference Frame)

An equation like the one above would help us make sure that everything that needs to be counted is counted. This would also give us the power to easily test for mutual exclusivity in our physical concepts as well as give our linear equations the extra power to see the universe from more angles.

# Where Did This Problem Come From?

Earlier I pointed out that none of our constants seem to be able to represent something physically real. This might seem exceedingly harsh but I think this is a real win for physics. I have been tracking and working on big problems in Number and Set theory lately and found damning issues with our formulation of Real numbers (I wrote about it here).

What I’ve learned is that Real numbers represent points or infinitely thin 2D planes both with no geometric information about sides, orientation or connectedness. No physically real thing can be a zero-dimensional point or 2D plane with no sides. **Since Real numbers can’t represent any physically real object, the fact that we managed to develop a space-oriented physics that was still consistent within this framework is miraculous and astonishing to me.** Physicists have done very well despite that severe handicap.

*Personal note:** I am an amateur physicist and mathematician and have uncovered a few serious problems that are far too big for me to handle and solve on my own. Unfortunately, I presently have no contacts or support from the academic community and am looking for help and support. If you have advice/guidance, know someone who can help, or know how to contact anyone who’d be interested in this, please contact me at JaisonEngineers@gmail.com. Thank you!*