(I have only now picked up the Jan 2023 copy of the New Scientist and found the discussion between Neil Turok and Thomas Lewton.

My own imaginings, intended to weld art and science rather than present any serious theory, owe nothing to this serious science based discussion. Previously this month having finished my own tongue in cheek theory on reality I had sent the letter below.

Having firmly removed tongue from cheek it is obvious that intellects more experienced/more appropriate than mine have already made some comment.)

To various editors etc.

“

The theory itself was born from a doubt in the reality of a big bang or the discrete number of particles, (very small, large and indifferent) thought to be generated.

In sending this exposition to you I reveal my, not so hidden, agenda of welding the disciplines of art and science.

Publication would be a boost in confidence but the date may set a tone to implied critique. April whimsical but December bordering on irrelevant in the modern age for example.

Is reality real?

Imagination flows free when considering the existence before the big bang event. Those struggling with reality itself and its existence beforehand may find needless complexity rather like that mathematicians suffered before zero was allowed to be a number.

If we let reality be real and equal to a number of defined substances of reality then this number can be zero. It follows that there never was, never is, and never would be, any reality.

This conclusion seemed counter-productive; I had stubbed my toe only the day before, until I realised that if reality equalled the number zero then my reality has substance  if mirrored by a negatively congruent version of my own,

i.e.               REALITY (ours) + REALITY (-ours) = 0

REALITY (ours (= to mine of course)) would start from zero rise in value at some point and then fall in value. Catastrophically for my own but only reach zero for ours after an infinitely long time. Since  REALITY (ours) is of substance and we do not accept it can be invented then it follows that our reality will be described by a wave form roughly sinusoidal in form: a half cycle  lasting for an infinitely length of time followed by a half cycle negatively valued to  ours at present. The wave form will be unsymmetrical due to time and value being distorted. My own happy 59 year and something marriage lasted for a far too short a time whereas data collected from another authority suggests, on occasion, a slightly different value for an interminable length of time.

This wave forms’ rete of change through zero makes a collision production, of whatever particles, unlikely unless of course we existed for a very short time or no time at all.

All is vanity of course, what I considered was my own theory of reality,  illustrated by the equation and waveform, was a result of a well-worn path trod by others more eminent than myself.

My own dog like persistence in sticking to my own, none art, electrical/electronic teaching (Pavlov refers) means I therefore merely offer this theory as discovered, rather than invented, by myself.

A more feline example of the reflection considered part is well received and accepted (ref Schrödinger)

In fact the idea of your own single reality punctuated by a change of state at regular intervals had been discovered and developed for the past 2000 and odd years. (Ref. Siddhartha the 5th century B.C.E)

Even consider one more case where there were a number of realities multiverse), this has been investigated over a number of years (ref Gene Roddenberry). One of many published papers over the years considered our own consisting of 3 realities (ref multiverse) in depth. Seeking symmetry; he separated their phases by 120 degrees and, employing a consultant (ref LeGeyt Fortescue , Fourier (1768-1830)), found that one of the resultant parts ignoring our own, moving forward in time, and another, reversing, had nine particles only and no relevance to the passing of time.

I still maintain my own prejudice is valid from the above however. 

There is no reality, no big bang and no collision induced particles. This conception produced only by a cause and effect derived from data. A highly respected work refers (Matthew 7:7)

In finishing, not wishing to offend Ismites, I am wording my request for help carefully.

If any reader with an intellect more agile or appropriate to the task than mine can reinforce or disprove the theory or indeed comment on any fresh approach to matter, antimatter, softer big bangs, finite numbers of particles etc. then the writer would be grateful.

 “

.