I am under the belief from continuing evidence that there may exist many forms of Unified Theories possible, which produce equivalent results for specific purposes, as long as the correct principles are followed. I've found when I find this, amazingly, the results are equivalent! This indicates we must not think binary about TOE. There is enough resources for all scientists developing one.
Stergio, I hope I am not remiss but I must ask t there may exist many forms of Unified Theories possible, which produce equivalent results for specific purposes, as long as the correct principles are followed. I've found when I find this, amazingly, the results are equivalent! This indicates we must not think binary about TOE. There is enough resources for all scientists developing one.
If the theory produces equivalent results, I believe, to GR, QP, and other functional and calcuable TOES proving themselves consistent with known mathematics and physics.then that I believe is a dead giveaway.
For now this is just interest but in the future I see extreme value in collecting the theories found which produce mathematically and physically consistent results, identify the PRINCIPLES, and then write on this and explain proper variation with consistency maintained. This can be checked in many ways, the clearest being consistent results calculated with the frameworks to GR/QM values. And then further isolating how the correct principles are represented (One would inevitably find if equivalent results to QM/GR are discovered, then the principles will be as well) and then further checking every aspect of authentication.
Bonus Points for anyone who can find one, or use their own and show the equivalency calculations.
Stellan Gustafsson Thank you, let me check that. May I ask, do you agree that there is likely many forms as long as the correct principles are followed? Even on RG you can find more than one calcuable version with GR/QM equivalence results, or results which indicate clear refinement of a GR/QM result. I believe binary thought is very limiting here.
We base the expectation erroneously of one giant defining theory changing everything on einstein's success. Much like the Beatles (due to culture phenomenon and the limits of knowledge availability at the time) I believe that is not a repeatable phenomenon or indicative of future similar major changes to science. We have a much larger body of knowledge now with a greater voice for unique thinkers. Not having these things, as a social aspect was a VERY large aspect of Einstein, his social aspect was almost equivalent to his scientific presence. Basing the next "big theory" on a similar situation is erroneous. Just like with TheBeatles, I dont believe that type of phenomenon is repeatable. You need to remember as well, this non-repeatable spci aspect is part of the reason for the large scale acceotance and proliferation of the theory.
Would you be able to show simple equivalency calculations? I'll check it out asap
Dear Alex Wolf III ,
The daon theory is the only theory explaining every natural phenomena in a simple manner, calculating or explaining all pertinent constants and at the same time be in agreement with all experimental data.
Of coarse, it's controversial but, if you pass the first obstacle (special relativity) you can easily understand all physics.
So, I don't think there are several possibilities, there is only one "the daon theory".
The only problem is that it's too simple to become popular with the theoretical physicien, since they don't understand physics.
JES
I think it is not a problem to mathematically unify all existing data from experiments. The question is what explanatory content should a TOE have?
I think a / the toe has to
- explain / eliminate all natural constants
- explain what exactly the speed of light is and why it has the measured value.
M.U.E. Pohl Nkw that's a very good point. Your first point I think about a lot. The second, would be an amazing endeavor to look into more throughly as well. In relation.yo why light has that value, ehat physical processes or mathematical models do you believe you would have to see fuly calculated to consider that second point achieved? Please give a very technical list, not because I'm challenging you but the opposite, I need to look into what you have said more. I obviously have considered this question, but you are right that would have to be very clearly proven.
Reading these two articles might help you . Both are unprecedented, yet are real,
https://www.academia.edu/38670214/The_Theory_of_Everything
Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted
M.U.E. Pohl The only thing I disagree with is that it's easy to unify a wealth of available experimental data. This is not easy. I mean the major problem is the disparities between theories which seem to still accurately and mathematical calculate constants and aspects of reality. The biggest problem we currently have, is making these equivalent. Unless we have the entire picture, we are missing vital "backend" processes which may be contributing to natural phenomenon in the universe in a way we cannot perceive. This is the case with many things in science as far as large scale cosmological and universal structures go. We don't have a full perception of higher dimensional physics (from a spatial geometry standpoint), compactified dimensions, or interactions of dark matter and dark energy. In simply admitting we cannot explain around 95% of all matter, then automatically we are also admitting any theory which more effectively explains the nature of DE/DM or higher-dimensional physics (from a strictly technical, mathematic and geometric standpoint) takes precedence in terms of data produced and its relation to an accurate representation of reality. Therefore I don't believe the more refined theories which exist and are emerging are easily as equivalent, on the basis that the data maydiffer vastly but only by representing a more refined form of the same data from a less refined model.
That's why I believe binary thinking is not good in mathematics and physics. It can easily be true that one theory that is less refined and another that is more refined have seperate results that both accurately represent reality, yet have different values due to being more or less comprehensive. That doesn't mean either is wrong, as long as they align with GR/QM and other refined theories which are comprehensive and vast and most important line up with the actual mathematical aspects of reality. By this I mean they could both potentially represent the same data, but differ in their use and level of refinement, producing seperate results which therefore both are representative of reality. One simply fails to account for more processes. In this way two sets of data that are completly different may actually still be representative of reality (both of them) in specific situations with specific requirements.
Not arguing, but just displaying my opinions on this and curious of yours.
Javad Fardaei Brilliant. Thank you Javad. I will comment on this later tonight after reading. Very exciting, thank you for sharing this work
Alex Wolf III I agree that binary approaches don't really make any deeper sense nor can they provide a solution.
I just wanted to say that my research shows that it is possible to describe things mathematically in a unified way. But that still does not explain the quantum theory, which in fact nobody understands or can explain, simply because it is completely illogical and inexplicable. And here the essential point is that one must first be able to explain the speed of light.
I claim I can do it. But it's so simple that no one wants to believe it. Here i try to give a "short" explanatation:
In physics we need measuring instruments, i.e. standards, to compare and measure something. A basic meter and a basic clock with which we can measure the universe. Originally (in 1793) we used the planet Earth and defined time in terms of the Earth's own rotation (86400 seconds) and space in terms of the diameter of the Earth (1 meter = 1/10000000 of 1/4 Earth's circumference).
Our premises in all models are based on the assumption that a) the diameter of the earth is a natural constant (does not change) and the rotation of the earth is a natural constant (the speed of rotation does not change). These simple and compelling facts are simply ignored today, although they are completely obvious. It goes even further, because our premises also presuppose that not only one earth rotation (86400 seconds) is constant, but that the earth rotates at the same speed every second, i.e. is "unaccelerated".
Now I found out that the speed of light simply represents the rotation of the earth around its own axis:
Speed of light = 2 * (earth radius)2 / ( pi * earth day) = 2* ( 6378626 meters)^2 / (pi * 86400 seconds) = 299792458 m2/s
It is worth noting that the speed of light thus represents a kind of "universe clock" with which we measure space and time (which are connected to each other), but which is given in the unit m2 / second, like Kepler's 2nd theorem that namely in this sense, a trajectory from the center of the earth to the equator covers equal areas in equal times.
Why is that? Quite simply: the natural constant "speed of light" includes the premise that the earth's rotation is constant (meter/second) but also that the diameter of the earth is constant (meter).
So Einstein made the "mistake" of defining a two-dimensional clock (speed of light = meter/second), when in fact a clock must be defined as a three-dimensional entity (meter2/second).
And then we will find out: Since it is only untestable premises that the diameter of the earth and the rotation of the earth are natural constants, it follows that there are no natural constants at all and all natural constants are derived from the concept of the circle, i.e. the circle number Pi.
Speed of light = 2* (earth radius)2 / ( pi * earth day)
If synchronizing classical mechanics equations and electromagnetic mechanic equations to describe equally well the elementary charged particles of which all atoms are made and their interaction in the universal vector field would qualify as a TOE, then the final article of the electromagnetic mechanics project may possibly introduce the related set of articles as a candidate:
Article Introduction to Synchronized Kinematic and Electromagnetic Mechanics
Along with a million others I have my own TOE; a simple but lengthy version of which is posted on researchgate: "Astrophysical Speculations [Up-dated] (An Essay on Phenomena's Common Basis)". Although, a mostly concept paper, it provides a road map to integrate all mathematical descriptions of phenomena. You may also be interested in a related, one page post, "Absurdities and Alternatives". "whole of physical phenomena may be derived from one simple universal world-law," Herman Wey.
Seems a beautiful theory. I will check it and add it to the research. I am compiling theories, I will vote everyone but I need everyone to effectively spread this message so that I may find mathematically and physically accurate TOES, in an attempt to prove or disprove my theory that binary thinking in relation to TOE is erroneous, based in human vanity and that multiple viable forms can exist, potentially infinite. I see common threads in all these theories which actually calculate to QM/GR equivalent standards.
If anyone reading knows someone who fits the bill, as in has a TOE which generates mathematically and physically consistent and non-specious results please let me know. I will incorporate them and cite appropriately.
-AIII
The Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE) is unique but does not follow your supposition. It uses more fundamental principles and derives from Newton and the Quasi Steady State Cosmology.
Unlike the other mentioned models, the STOE reduces to both GR and QM with appropriate assumptions, it explains many problem observations such as periodic (quantized) redshift of galaxies, asymmetric rotation curves, planet 9, which no other model does. It also explains the interference experiment with particle photons and the transparent mask experiment which no other model (including all the various QM models) explain.
In addition, The STOE model has made predictions in 2006 which were later found to be true such as explaining all 10 of the Pioneer Anomaly characteristics which no other (the standard model address ONLY 1 of the 10) does and which were found in data analysis in 2009 and 2011.
There are experiments that reject Maxwell's Equations. The STOE offers a way to re-do Maxwell's Equations. I'll eventually address this and other issues.
Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE) unites the big, the small, and the four forces (GUT) by extending Newton's model
http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=2414
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YlJGdTvuTU
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344442808_Scalar_Theory_of_Everything_STOE_unites_the_big_the_small_and_the_four_forces_GUT_by_extending_Newton's_model
I think it is no problem to mathematically unite the existing theories QM and GR, which are contradictory in their explanatory content. Such a mathematical combination, which is certainly possible in an infinite number of ways, will still have no ideological explanatory content.
According to my approach, it turns out that the TOE is ultimately simple and includes Pi = circumference / diameter of circle. Ultimately, this is mathematically the entire explanation content of the TOE and of course cannot be mapped with "binary thinking".
Essentially I say if we want to "measure" the universe, we need standards. On earth we only have access to the surface of the earth, since we can neither measure the distance to the center of the earth nor measure the moon or the sun with a measuring tape. In this respect we have to geometrically project all durations and lengths from the earth's surface. So it only remains for us to define the earth's surface as the "center of the universe", in the sense that this should be the "natural constant" meter / second.
This is logically quite easy to understand and to confirmed in an experiment, since the speed of light reflects this connection (speed of light = earth diameter^2 / (2 pi earth day) Or in other words: of course, all laws of nature should apply independently of the reference system, but we just have to agree on a reference system.
Another point of view: You can of course define every celestial body as the center of the universe, i.e. as a benchmark for space and time in order to obtain an infinite number of TOE. But they all fall back to the single TOE: Pi = Circumference/Diameter
Regarding the "mistakes" in the history of physics, I would like to point out that the mistake is not necessarily due to Einstein (alone), since the definitions of ampere and coulomb already embodied the problem and Maxwell's equations are therefore already physically incorrect.
Preprint On the conception of “Time” in Maxwell’s Equations and ill-d...
sM.U.E. Pohl little late back to the party, but so you generally agree? I was curious what you fully meant by ideological explanatory content. Why do you say this? The math most certainly, in my eyes, goes hand in hand with being presented in an adequate fashion to meet those explanatory requirements. If someone can't do that then it's not a theory at all, it's just a bunch of numbers. Also I feel as well that mathematically uniting them as well, is simply a minor feature of any working TOE. I feel as well, that mathematically uniting QM and GR is no small feat. If we are looking for at least provable consistent outputs across not only the theory but all of QM and GR, that's absurdly difficult. So if anyone can prove that, their theory is sound. As long as you said, they also possess the ability to explain and support their work with the correct explanatory content as you have said .
A
a
lAT
Alex Wolf III
"ideological explanatory content" was possibly a translation error. I wanted to say that a mathematical solution on its own still has no explanatory value regarding the nature of the universe or how it “functions”.
I think an error analysis and presentation are initially indispensable and a prerequisite for “repairing” a faulty system. Of course, it first depends on whether you view the existing system of science as incomplete or flawed. According to my knowledge, the existing system (more precisely the measurement system used) is flawed and not incomplete.
This question is important first of all because a faulty system cannot be cured by adding new theories and an incomplete system cannot be cured by correcting errors in the existing system.
I repeat the essence of my analysis of the problem of contemporary theoretical physics:
Problem: There are TWO different qualities of the term “time” defined in the measurement quantities (SI units) (introduced as an axiom):
a) Time as a principle of cause and effect: assumed constant hyperfine frequency of the cesium atom
b) Time as a property of three-dimensional space or dependent on space: assumed constant speed of light.
A measurement variable (time) is therefore defined twice and differently, which is simply illogical (two causes are defined for one and the same effect) but logically leads to two theories that cannot possibly be (logically) united.
In my opinion, any approach to a TOE that does not specifically address and cure this flaw is not a TOE, but rather a consolidation of the existing system, which, as an "explanation" of how nature works, essentially states that nature works contradictorily and therefore an infinite number of perspectives are allowed.
Forget ``ideology''. A valid model must explain observations - period. By explain I mean with measurements and model comparison - with numbers which represent a number of standard units of measure. For a TOE, the observations must include light interference, astronomical observations such as galaxy characteristics (such as rotation curves), and cosmological observations.
I updated my work a little and came to the following conclusion: Contemporary physics suffers from the fact that the speed of light and the plancks constant were introduced in incorrect physical dimensions. The spacetime correct is 12 Dimensional (L6/T6)
(L= length 0...oo; T = Time as angle measure 0...1)
Experimental proof:
12 pi (10/12 * 108 * speed of ligth * Rydbergconstant / FrequencyCS133)3 =1
Dimensional ( LT/LT )3= 1
(43 = 12 Dimensions)
(10/12 : Decimal System with 12 Dimensions)
(rel. error: 1,63 * 10-5)
The rel error is witin uncertainty for gravitational constant, and that uncertrtainty applies here
Einstein's Speed of light is introduced as L/T (General Relativity) and Einstein's Planck constant is introduced as L6/T4 (quantum theory) Both are wrong and therefore teh 7 Base SI units split in 3 units representing Pi for general Relativity and 4 units representing pi for Quantum Theory
G ;ℏ ;kB; e : Quantum Theory
fCS ; c ;R∞ : General Relativity
Correct dimensions:
Placks constant : T4/L4 (instead of L6/T4)
Speed of light: L2/T (instead of L/T)
Due to wrong Dimension for Plancks constant and speed of light, quantum Theory suffers from representing 18 "fake" dimesions, namely
12 ferminons and 5 bosons (17) and one "hidden" graviton which is "time" Particle.
Also due to wrong Plancks constant, String Theory suffers from 10 Dimensions of Plancks constant instead of using 12 Dimensions from General Relativity
With correction of the wrong dimensional treatment of plancks constant and speed of ligth, both theories join with
G /ℏ ⸱kB⸱ e / 102= 122 ⸱ (fCS/103)3/ (c ⸱103)3 / (R∞⸱103)3
( Theory of Everything : 12 Dimensinal Spacetime as prposed in the book of revelation )
-> not a single pyhsical constant exist any more
-> 7 Bases SI units join to 12 Dimensional space time
-> Quantum Theory and General Relativity are "isolated" special cases of a unified theory
Preprint Unification of Electromagnetism and Gravity by Correction of...
Philosophical interpretation:
if you apply the 12 space-time dimensions correctly, the result is that there are no natural constants at all and the universe itself is "alive". So the universe did not give rise to “life”, but “life” gave rise to the universe. With this new discovery and with the unification of quantum theory and the general theory of relativity, a new view of the present of the universe and the history of humanity's expulsion from paradise opens up.
Dear Alex Wolf III 1st there is no single static one dimension mathematic that we made up can describe three dimension of nature that it is changing every moment.
Please read this article, and give me your feedback.
https://www.academia.edu/38670214/The_Theory_of_Everything
1. There is a mistake in my previous post and last paper: My table for the natural constants had x*10-7 instead of x*107 for the Rydberg constant, so the powers of 10 are not correct. I corrected this and replaced the paper. But this doesn't change anything fundamental.
(update: Preprint Unification of Electromagnetism and Gravity by Correction of...
)2. With regard to other works, it should be said that a dimensionless mathematical TOE or unification of these problems is possible.
My analysis shows that QT currently physically maps the circle number in 18 dimensions (12 ferminons, 5 bosons and the missing graviton). while String theories deal with 10 dimension of ill defined plancks constant.
Pi = T8/L10 (18 Dimensions in QT)
On the other hand, GR can be treated in 0 Dimensions
Pi = L0/T0 (0 Dimensions in GT)
It is impossible to unite both theories in physics. Thats why no solutions is found since 100 years.
But, It is therefore obvious to set PI = PI and thus combine quantum theory and general relativity "dimensionlessly" or purely mathematically.
The only problem: The result has no physical meaning and does not address the error in contemporary physics.
Pursuing this approach: Stephen Jarvis as well as Stergios Pellis (each using the golden ratio approach, Pi and Euler's formula) Both (and perhaps others too?) have succeeded in showing mathematical unification.
However, this cannot be a solution due to a lack of dimensions.
3. In the physical union the essential connection is: L3/T3 = L3/T3
You can imagine it like this: a balance of forces is represented as a pressure equalization. Volume / volume = pressure
In contemporary physics, pressure is defined as Newton/L2, i.e. as M/ (LT2). Taking into account the fact that the kilogram was originally introduced into physics as a volume (1 liter of water), "Newtons Force" is actually a volume ratio for the pressure (Newton / L2 = L3 / (L1T2))
Maybe this poster will help put the speed of light into an understandable light. Main points: For Einstein, C = L/T constant, which means that he defines a space-time clock that should apply at every point in the universe. But with the “proper time” of the movement. This means that the speed of light practically replaces the “center” of the universe, or the “coordinate system” for relative speeds. But this is wrong and inadmissible in that there are no natural constants and the speed of light only defines the center of the earth and the rotation of the earth as the center of the universe. But in the wrong dimensions. So the problem is basically an extremely fundamental problem. Not necessarily complicated, but extremely fundamental. Of course, speeds are always possible up to infinity, whether for light or whatever. Everything else is complete nonsense. But the speed of light has become so established that it will probably take decades to rethink it
Preprint What is time? On the Construction of the World Formula - Sum...
My two articles mentioned on RG are from the "the ultimate theory for physics" their abstracts are disponible but not their full -texts I hope the Editor of the Journal IJDSSS will publish them soon, therefore people can see how I link the muonic protons with the electronic proton and how I calculate the radius of the neutron without passing by Laboratories. I mean by Ultimate physics the physics which is constructed on exact values for the constants at the mathematic meaning sens using exotic calculations which need cosmological parameters as for example Hubble constants as well as other. To make the comparative possible the namely "theory of everything" to the namely "ultimate physics" this latter aims to calculate the exact constants of physics without passing by labs. I'm based on emeritus physicists principally Einstein, Planck, Schwarzschild specially his solution for the Einstein equations, and the natural Planck constants I find that they have established the basic fondement of an ultimate physics there is now a hundred year. In this ultimate physics we use the theory of the "special relativity", the Schwarzschild solution for the Einstein equations, and the natural Planck constants. On can see that they cible the two scales of the infintly small and the infinitly large. I also find that the results of the Planck results of 2018 emerges from tha same theory which is the theory of an ultimate physics. As a result i find that Planck, Einstein theories energe from one same theory which is the ultimate theory for physics which links everything in term of calculation.
According to me it should exist a value which is about equal to Pi but it should be a fonction of new cosmological parameters, and Pi in the ultimate physics is a constant of a circle not more. The exact value of the ratio of h to the reduced Planck constant should slightly be inferior at Pi! But in these new conditions the formula of the Bohr radius should be replaced by one other more adequate. Means all the formulas of the constants of physics should be revised. The majority of them continue to exist but using the new value which should replace Pi. The formula of the Rydberg constant should be replaced by another which should be in close link with the classical electron radius. New constants of physics should be developped to help to link all the constants of physics. But all this is a simple continuation of the existing physics.
Here I have put my approach in context with the work of Stergios Pellis on a dimensionless ToE and Stephen Jarvis dimensionless Theory and sketched out a little the open heart of quantum theory, or where exactly the gateway to a refutation of the most important theory of physics lies.
Preprint Steps to the World Formula… Comparison of the dimensionless ...
This brings us directly to the "engine room" of physics, which ultimately represents the interface between physics and biology and chemistry. The Context
Avogadro Constant (Dimension Number) =Faraday Constant (Dimension Charge) / Elementary Charge (Dimension Charge)
(Faraday's Laws of 1834)
forms the "cause" or the foundation of quantum theories, because here a ratio of physical phenomena is formed and a ratio number is introduced as a natural constant, which of course then makes nature "quantized", i.e. "discrete", into the natural numbers and states in the foundation that nature must be a pure number theory
Now I come to a kind of overall consideration of the energy
E=hf and E=mc2
Result: Both are wrong and the TOE is "translated"
E2 = c2
Preprint What is Energy? A clear solution to the E=hf vs. E=mc 2 riddle
Personally, I think that from a physical point of view it really makes “sense”. The interpretation of quantum theory is then really Wheeler de Witt like in such a way that absolute time can be excluded and with it of course the principle of causality in the form that the past would determine the future. In this respect, quantum theory is (will) ultimately be a deterministic theory.