The closer we look at matter, we get to quarks, muons, gluons, and the more we get to the quantum of energy, which is the planck value. And if we walk further, we will see, nothing. The universe is a big nothing. Like a big computer program. Rules and rules existing in nothingness. What really exists in the universe are the laws. Existing rules in an abstract system. When I was studying engineering, I remember wondering about Planck's constant, 6.6 times 10 to the power of negative 34 square meters times kilograms per second, a number so small that uncertainty was at its foundation. This is the universal uncertainty number. The limit of man when observing nothingness. What is a quantum? It is defined as energy, but it is defined as energy even without mass. Defining energy just for the moment. But if you put together a lot of photons, this massless system produces matter that has mass. How does something we say massless produce mass? For example, if we launch several powerful beams of photons from different locations aimed at one location, the photons when joined at a point will form matter. And is this magic? No, such a thing is merely, that light has the effect of mass, so that joining light, it generates gravity. So gravity is inherent in light. In this way either gravity is defined as quantum, or nothing is quantum. Imagine that the quantum you have is just a variation of a concentration of gravity. That is, imagine that the quantum in the photon is merely a specific gravitational concentration. And may the law of everything be in the understanding of how gravity works. But science for the most part seeks to define gravity as quantum rather than quantum as formed by gravity. It is interesting that once again the man likes to bet on the wrong side of the game. Is Hawking entropy correct? Let's imagine a black hole, and a photon emitted in a direction where it is tangential to the black hole. According to Hawking's ideas, the photon splits in opposite directions when in contact with the boundary of events. That is, the surface of the black hole. The point is that these two photons are on the threshold of being absorbed or escaping! In that case, if both go in, it violates Hawking's rules. And if they both escape, they violate Hawking's rules. In this case, I create an escape, one escapes and one enters. Because? Because I wanted to. But I can create an idea based on the concept of Schrodinger's cat. Where one photon created is the dead cat and the other photon is the live cat. I would say then that the living cat escapes and the dead one stays in the black hole or vice versa. And what controls it? Nothing, it happens illogically. Accepting such a condition is naturally perplexing, leading to the concept that physical laws are ultimately irrational. The great problem is that we predict positions and orders, how to ground an irrational principle on the basis of rational ones? In the case of two photons, then because I like that both don't enter the horizon, or both don't leave, I merely stipulate that one leaves and the other enters. The physics of adjustment to guide the concept of the fundamental irrationality of the universe is merely a human taste. I will give a simple example. Let's imagine the number PI, this is an irrational number, if we look at this number we see that we cannot determine the next number by merely looking at the previous one. It is necessary to know the generating function of this number, to detect its value. Imagine that I see a position of an electron, and it is controlled by the number PI, then if it is at position 3 and then it appears at position 4, if it again looks at position 3 and then it appears at position 2, and if it again looks at position 3 and appear in position 8, this does not mean that these positions are random, because if you notice, we saw that it is part of the irrational number PI. Thus, there is no constant of uncertainty, there is a lack of knowledge of the generating system. If this generatrix exists, the whole concept of creating particles irrationally ceases to exist and a rule is stipulated. In this way, the dizzying attempt to seek to favor randomness is merely a prejudice against having a detailed and rational logic.
