<p>Hello everybody...Im a student at UNSW majoring in theoretical mathematics, also doing physics, computer science and biology. In case some of you big shots might be looking down on me, UNSW is extremely strong in mathematics and physics research. We are ranked number 1 in Asia and 14 in the world based on the quality of our research (ahead of MIT, Berkeley and Oxford). Anyway, I am interested in doing graduate work in the U.S. either in Theoretical Physics or Maths (or both), and I am thinking of a few universities...My university does have exchange programs with Institutions like Berkeley, but I am interested also in MIT, Harvard, Stanford, etc...
I know that it is extremely competitive to get into these schools and perhaps I could establish some contact with a few guys at MIT or Harvard and exchange some ideas. Im also an aspiring and certified film maker so it would be practical for me to do PhD studies somewhere in California, where I could also spend time on my film projects. However, I do have my sights on either Harvard or MIT.</p>
<p>Anyway, a lecturer at my university (Dr. Daniel Chan who did his PhD at MIT) told me how hard it is to get into MIT. He had a student who received the university medal in maths and got 98/100 and was still rejected by MIT. I asked him how the hell HE got in and he just laughed and he didn't really want to talk about it. So what DO I have to do to get in there? Can any of you people help me and encourage me in some way?</p>
<p>If any of you guys are mathematicians as well, perhaps you might be interested in some of the ideas I am developing at the moment. It's not just an entirely new theory of everything but an entirely new branch of science itself. I initially thought to myself that it's just another formal language (comparable to mathematics, except there are no numbers in that sense) but as I was developing the equations I realised that it is so deep that the entire axioms have to be rewritten in order to properly structure the mathematical machinery that culminates into a physical theory of everything.</p>
<p>I call it Centrics (Central Science, built up of Astarcian Mathematics, Complementary Analysis, which is a combination of A-math and traditional pure mathematics, and finally a UFT).</p>
<p>In A-math alone, there are 7 branches that I am developing:</p>
<p>Algebra
Geometry
Analysis
Dimension Theory
Group Theory
Operator Theory
Field Theory</p>
<p>First of all, there are some slight similarities between these branches and mathematics, however, most of it is quite different.</p>
<p>Before I delve into this, I would like to explain why I am developing a new (and hopefully more powerful) mathematical language in order formulate physical theories or structures of the universe. In my opinion there are many shortcomings and/or personal dislikes in mathematics that I wish to address and desirably better in A-math. Needless to say, mathematics that we use today will and should always be a very useful and relevant tool in quantifying much of the known universe and henceforth will always be relevant to the progression of the human race and the technology it thrives on. However, when one needs to get further and further, I have always believed that there are problems with the way current mathematics is structured. I realised this more so as I was developing my equation for Time. The equation that Astarcian Mathematics uses for Time (followed by the equations for Space, groups of Time, groups of Space, combinations of Space and Time, i.e. Space-Time, and Undefined groups or what a physicist might call vacuum etc etc.) uses all branches of A-Math. In essence it is a 3-variable matrix, which uses operators, tensors, algebras, dimensions and groups, for starters. What all this mumbo jumbo leads to is 1 very important conclusion: Time = Matter. So basically, without matter, there would be no Time. In fact they are in a certain sense, one and the same. So to fundamentally understand the universe, eventually one must accept that Time is no longer an axis on some Cartesian diagram, but in fact something completely different. This leads to of course very interesting conclusions. To prove this rigorously requires a lot of mathematics and this is why I am developing these tools. The difference between my approach and approaches of other scientists is that I acknowledge and accept that contemporary formalisms, while very useful and indispensable, do not sufficiently and efficiently address the big-time questions, especially the QUALITATIVE questions that must be explored using techniques which I am trying to develop.<br>
I have long predicted using my equations that there is in fact only 1 force in the universe, not 4, and that all other forces are resultants or consequences of this 1 force due to the way matter, space, space-time and vacuum (for lack of a better word) interact. I also think it is very naive that physicists waste time with so-called dimensions
Of course it is a useful way of defining the location of some object in a diagram, but this nonsense about length, breadth, height, time and all these other pseudo-dimensions are nothing more than a puerile approach because of the way our brains visualise some entity. It is ultimately useless if you wish to truly understand the properties of time and space, and in my opinion counterproductive. In A-math a dimension is something completely different. I must be brief, nevertheless please bear with me. 3 dimensions are formally defined in A-math, namely the Subject, the Object and the Inject. In very simple terms, if we have some number of particles (or mathematical objects, they can be numbers for example also), the subject is the way IT perceives the world around it. Of course this seems a bit odd, how can a number perceive the world? This technique can be explained differently using Number Theory, but to explain this practically or physically, I can say that a particle experiences the world subjectively and hence has its own concept and experience of how it interacts with other particles (to make a simple comparison with physics, think of the way an observer, made up of many particles or GROUPS of particles, measures or experiences some entity in relativity theory), whereas objectively speaking you would be discussing a different, outer dimension. So to imagine an objective dimension, one can say that objectively there exists a reality in which some particle is experiencing the universe around it. Of course we ourselves as perceivers will never know exactly the objective truth, we can still say that it exists and define it mathematically and say that a chaotic system is behaving in a certain objective way (even though we ourselves of course cannot ever truly quantify this objectivity). The Inject is a term I define as the way a particle experiences ITSELF. We could say its inner structure or inner or intrinsic value or reality. </p>
<p>Now, to any other mathematicians or physicists out there, I would like to underline that, although philosophy is a fascinating subject, I am not a philosopher and do not wish to waste any time on philosophy. I firmly believe that everything in the universe can be understood regardless of how complex. I am an optimist, and I believe the endless questions in philosophy are entertaining but ultimately useless. I would also like to add that all these ideas are precisely defined mathematically, and my goal is to develop the mathematics and THEN jump to conclusions, rather than the other way around. I try to be as unbiased as possible, and I am not trying to develop a theory based on its aesthetic appeal or the way it agrees with science. I wish to develop a small set of axioms and then build up a logical framework with which this very abstract and theoretical mathematics can be used to make very real and ultimately quantifiable predictions not only in physics, but in any discipline. </p>
<p>Also, this theory is in no way, shape or form intended as a replacement for traditional mathematics, but rather as a very powerful additional tool to work with where traditional mathematics fails (and always will fail). It is originally designed to construct a theory of everything and to greatly accelerate the development of physics, chemistry and other disciplines For example, instead of wasting time with nonsensical and fundamentally flawed theories like string theory or loop quantum gravity simply because somebody decided to add some more dimensions to cancel out infinities in mathematical physics, etc. etc., one can immediately start research on the correct theorems that explain the universe, because concepts such as time, space, vacuum, dimensions, etc are properly defined and infinities do not exist in this sense within A-math.. One can still use current physical theories for basic practical purposes, but the universe is so much more deep and complicated, that these theories are useless for current research.</p>
<p>In closing, I would like to add that I am not interested in snobby remarks from individuals with inferior complexes attacking my ideas because they deem me too arrogant or because the depth of my understanding and aspirations are intimidating. Of course there are many crackpots out there who claim to have figured out the universe, and I have no time for these people either. My aim is to exchange ideas and comments with people who dont necessarily wish to accept my work, but are willing to engage in appropriate academic discussion. My success or failure will anyway be evident in the verifiable predictions my theories make.</p>
<p>Also, I would like to tell you guys that Im coming to America sooner or later, and Id welcome your suggestions and help in choosing an Institution.</p>
<p>Regards,</p>
<p>Peter Ron</p>