Theory of Everything.

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Orion68, Aug 11, 2019.

  1. globali Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    240
    I agree! Even though they considered themselves as natural philosophers, they rejected the scientific method as an inferior tool, hence they had nothing to do with todays scientists. Their arguments against the Copernican system were not scientific in Nature, but they used the Doctrines of ancient authorities or the bible instead.

    Same thing can be said for the medieval so called "physicians". They blindly followed the doctrines of Galen and Avicenna because they considered them the ultimate Authorities that can't be wrong. Although the book of Andreas Vesalius "De humani corporis fabrica" was published at the 15th Century, it took almost 400 years(!!!!) for the main body of doctors to abandon Galen"s doctrines and embrace the scientific method.

    Of course we don't know how people in 1000 years will see us and its irrelevant to say that scientists cannot be wrong. In fact, they are wrong most of the time. However, human history has shown that the scientific method is by far more productive and superior compared to other ways of pursuing the truth like magical thinking, scriptures, etc. We can say that the scientific method has been one the greatest leaps in human kind historically. This is undisputable.

    Against the mainstream ideas can eventually turn out to be right, but this is rare. 99.999% of them will turn out to be wrong. And most ideas by internet crackpots (amateur scientists) are just incoherent gibberish, that originate from their poor understanding of the subject they try to revolutionize. Most lack the rigor in their thought to make meaningful contributions. Phenomena around us are multiparametric and anyone can make assumptions, if free parameters are not removed (degrees of freedom?). Equations with 10 different unknown parameters are not informative. and of course, untestable and unfalsifiable. You can even fit an elephant in a car if you add enough parameters (i think Pauli said that but i am not sure).

    So an against the mainstream hypothesis can be right, but it has to be a hypothesis first.

    And also don't expect people to change their ideas. You need to be a genius to be able to realize you are wrong. Most wrong ideas die because their supporters die or are not able to defend them anymore.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2019
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. globali Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    240
    I wonder how specific predictions this TOE can make.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Orion68 Registered Member

    Messages:
    43
    I wonder too. One thing here is can the proposed computer program model be programmed (chapter 'Coding the dimensional basic')? If so, one could simulate the point particle particles model. The question then is what will be the outcome of these simulations? Do they really represent the physical world? If yes, the predictions will be incredible specific, if not, we at least have a new form of mathematical model (for what purpose I don't know), that is, for as far as I know the type of the point particle proposed has not been described before.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2019
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,793
    IMO, the equation will be very general in scope but address common denominators of all things.

    QM is a common aspect of all things in the universe.
    E = Mc^2 is such a general equation that explains one common aspect of all things.
    Relativity is another commonly shared aspect of all things.

    A TOE would have to apply to all things and thus cannot be specific except for those universal properties common to all things.

    But a TOE cannot present a conflict with any known universal law for anything. If it does it won't be a TOE regardless how many other objects it explains.
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,793
    Moreover, String and M-Theory are replacing the point particle model.
    https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

    One newer candidate of a concept of fundamental spacetime properties is Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation
     
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,902
    They're not.
    There's certainly active research, but none of it is testable. There is a movement to demote string "theory" because it can't rightly be called a theory.
    It certainly isn't anywhere near a position to replace the Standard Model.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,793
    Interesting, can you provide a link?
    I found this :

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    The Physics of Everything: Understanding Superstring Theory
    Shiggs, and sparticles, and squarks, oh my!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Different levels of magnification of matter (1-5), ending with the string level (6). Image credit via MissMJ, Wikimedia Commons.

    https://futurism.com/brane-science-complex-notions-of-superstring-theory


    The inherent conflict in the standard point particle model doesn't bother you?
    String theory solves the "communication" problem, no? QM doesn't.

    But does String theory falsify QM and GR or are they subsets of String theory ?
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2019
  11. Mark Turner Banned Banned

    Messages:
    350
    T.O.E

    ∆0 = -0.5+0.5=1/t

    Come back when you know some real science.
     
  12. Orion68 Registered Member

    Messages:
    43
    Thank you, please elaborate, in the context of the theory, if you will.

    Probably you don't have the internal visualizing power to comprehend how spacetime is being bend in the proposed scenario. Hope you understand the math is more complex than you sketch here, extremely complex even, but therefore one has to visualize the specific bending of spacetime as described in the article.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2019
  13. Mark Turner Banned Banned

    Messages:
    350
    An absolute rule of logic specifies that the value of 0 can only change in one possible way , that way being , nothing becomes something . We can't get less than nothing so logic states the only direction nothing can do in regards to change , is becoming something .
    Space has always existed , matter is the convergence of energies as explained in the prior math . This convergence of energy being the interwoven quantum singularity of everything .
     
  14. Orion68 Registered Member

    Messages:
    43
    When one reads the theory its all about curvatures only. Energy is a derivant observation. The type of singularity proposed is quite different. Like I said in the previous answer, one has to imagine how spacetime is being bend around the particle to compose an internal video of the interactions. The math derived from that picture is determinant. You come up with math first, but it does not represent the image projected in the theory. So the line of reasoning afterward does not have meaning concerning the described theory. (As I deduce from what you wrote).
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2019
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,902
    "Partly because of theoretical and mathematical difficulties and partly because of the extremely high energies needed to test these theories experimentally, there is so far no experimental evidence that would unambiguously point to any of these models being a correct fundamental description of nature. This has led some in the community to criticize these approaches to unification and question the value of continued research on these problems."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

    Personally, I think string theory is great. It's just a little ahead of its time.When I first started reading about it (in the previous millennium), a scientist quipped 'it's like a piece of 21st century math that fell into the 20th century'.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,793
    I ran across this older piece describing the quest for the Higgs boson at that time and it seems that time it was thought that the Higgs field provides the intermediate step from "pure energy state" of strings into "mass bearing" particles.

    Since then the Higgs boson has been produced and if my conjecture above is correct, it would be an example of a string having converted from pure energetic quanta into a massive (if unstable) particle.
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-the-higgs-boson

    The power requirements are enormous as you observed, but that would suggest that in nature the conversion from string to particle happens in the violence of the cosmic nebulae.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    http://www.astroeder.com/ic1805nb_eder_en.html

    I really like the concept of "strings", dynamic energy quanta, objects which display the very wave-particle duality required for QM.

    Is it the frequency of the string that determines the physical atomic pattern of the massive particle? What is the frequency of Hydrogen?
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2019
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,793
    WOW....... Frequency of hydrogen!
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_line
    and

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    https://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/13.pdf
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2019
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    33,118
    Moderator note: Mark Turner has been permanently banned from sciforums.

    See here.
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    33,118
    Note the troll tactics...

    Meaningless pseudo-maths statement, followed by an invitation to rumble, the whole designed in the hope that it will attract an outraged or angry response. In other words, troll bait 101.
     
  20. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,427
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,793
    That's where I live.

    This was the reason I picked it as well as the fact it was one of the very first particles which formed after the BB.

    I just realized that the alternating states of the H atom already generate waves at that level. One step removed from the energetic fields which produce the fundamental particles.

    I thought this might be of interest.

    Category
    Science & Technology
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2019
  22. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,427
    Why have you started posting crap suddenly? Who is this de Jong joker?
     
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,793
    Thanks for responding.
    I'm sorry. I have no clue what it is about and I must have been tired or fooled by the official looking Category; "Science and Technology".

    It looked interesting and I hoped for a comment on the science. If it does not ring a bell with you, I'm sure it has no Scientific or Technological value......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page