https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-basic-elements-that-must-be-available-in-the-theory-of-everything/answer/Hossein-Javadi-1?share=7f7b7870&srid=F7rA
What is a theory of everything?
“A Theory of Everything is literally a theory of everything, including the force of gravity (which is not described by the standard model or a GUT), and anything else in our universe that our current theories cannot explain. One of the main ingredients in a "theory of everything" is Quantum gravity, the unification of gravity (general relativity) with quantum mechanics (quantum field theory). We do not yet have a successful theory of quantum gravity. A GUT is also a necessary ingredient of a theory of everything, but only if a GUT exists”. [1]
Solution the problems of GUT and a Theory of Everything:
It may be thought that these two problems are separate of each other, but both problems; GUT and the Theory of Everything has a common root. Therefore, the solution of each of them includes another solution as well.
A. The solution of GUT: if we describe the mechanism of the virtual photons production (electromagnetic force carrier) by charged particles, then we will see that electromagnetic repulsive force in a very short distance, turns to the attractive force, then the GUT problem can be solved. In this way we will reach to unify the electromagnetism and gravity that is the Theory of Everything. [2]
B. The solution of the Theory of Everything: to get understand the Theory of Everything, we must re-define fundamental particles. In CPH Theory, mass/energy and the amount of speed of fundamental particle must be constant and not turn into other particles. While in the Standard Model, fundamental particles have variable mass and speed, so they are not fundamental particles. To find fundamental particle we must reconsider and analyzed the interaction between photon and the graviton. In this way the GUT problem can be solved, too. [3]
Both of the above methods have been given in CPH Theory.
1 - Barak Shoshany's answer to What are the Grand Unified Theory and the Theory of Everything, and what is the difference between them?
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-Grand-Unified-Theory-and-the-Theory-of-Everything-and-what-is-the-difference-between-them/answer/Barak-Shoshany?share=7c027659&srid=F7rA
2 - Hossein Javadi’s answer to What principle can potentially substitute 4 fundamental forces in physics? Is it the principle of least action?
https://www.quora.com/What-principle-can-potentially-substitute-4-fundamental-forces-in-physics-Is-it-the-principle-of-least-action/answer/Hossein-Javadi-1?srid=F7rA
3 - Hossein Javadi’s answer to Are massless Dirac fermions, as discussed in the literature of graphene, identical to Weyl fermions? If yes, from where does the name of massless Dirac fermions come?
https://www.quora.com/Are-massless-Dirac-fermions-as-discussed-in-the-literature-of-graphene-identical-to-Weyl-fermions-If-yes-from-where-does-the-name-of-massless-Dirac-fermions-come/answer/Hossein-Javadi-1?srid=F7rA
For starters you might want to read "Beyond Einstein: non-local physics (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309533409_Beyond_Einstein_non-local_physics ) It explains how the gravitational force originates. It comments on the unit distance problem, and how this makes normal gravity incompatible with quantum gravity (but there are solutions) )
Out of all this comes hints and pointers to the path of a true Theory of Everything, which apparently has to be based on motion (space/time or time/space ratios, not to be confused with space-time, which is a quite different matter. ) All theories based on fundamental particles must be abandoned. Particles are not fundamental; they can be converted into radiation and vice verse; hence NEITHER are fundamental. The whole landscape of fundamental particle theory has just gotten to be ridiculous. We need something MUCH better, and something that does not require "bottomless answers". Our Universe is actually simple in its basic construction but you would never believe this from reading main stream science articles. Expect some really drastic revisions or outright abandonment of current theory.
Intrinsic rotation (spin), a special kind of space/time or time/space relation, is essential to understanding particles and photons. See "The cause of gravity" in the article.
The article does not comment on muons, kons, so-ons, or cosmic ray particles. These appear to be "non local" versions of the entire Periodic Table (which makes them "inverse atoms"; they have their space/time relations inverted from our perspective. Their masses can be worked out in natural units (the article comments on this scheme; a natural unit is probably something close to the mass of a proton or hydrogen atom). If I remember correctly, the basic mass after conversion was somewhere around 200 electron masses. But there are other factors that can drastically change this number. The masses are inverted from our perspective: non-local massive atoms are light in the local reference system, and light atoms are massive; charge, which normally has only a small mass effect in our system, can have the effect of a huge mass increase when inverted.
Massless particles like the neutrino, do not have sufficiently developed rotational systems to come to rest in the "local" system. They are "pre-atoms" and their spin systems can by worked out by studying the periodicity of the Periodic Table. They are "pre-table" constructs, as is the photon, but they fit within the math of the Table.
What a Theory of Everything needs is TRUE SIMPLICITY and logicity as well as complete comprehensiveness. No explanations by "enigma methods" will be permitted. I think "Beyond Einstein: non-local physics" at least points us in the right direction.
Dear Brian
Thank you for interesting and considerable comment.
There are new theories and experiments that show we need review our understanding of many concepts such as massless particles:
“The Nobel Prize in Physics 2015 recognises for their key contributions to the experiments which demonstrated that neutrinos change identities. This metamorphosis requires that neutrinos have mass. Its Standard Model of the innermost workings of matter had been incredibly successful, having resisted all experimental challenges for more than twenty years. However, as it requires neutrinos to be massless, the new observations had clearly showed that the Standard Model cannot be the complete theory of the fundamental constituents of the universe”.
https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2015/press.html
See:
“Until just a few years ago, scientists had never seen photons interact. In a new study, photons were observed binding in groups of three, accumulating mass, and slowing down”.
https://futurism.com/interacting-photons-quantum-computing/
Are photons really massless?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321589753_Are_photons_really_massless
one single theory of everything, whereat one single world formula is involved, cannot exist, simply because: the laws of physics are invariant according to those terms which do not appear in the formulas that describe them AND at the same time(!) they are depending on exactly(!) the terms included in the describing formula. e.g.: in E = mc2 the time is absent as a term, what means that this law is time independent (symmetrically, invariably, forever and always valid), but depending on energy and mass ! more, mass depends on velocity: m=m0/Sr(v,c), where Sr(v,c)=(1-v²/c²)^1/2, and v=s/t (s=space and t=time), whereas other laws are mass independent. ergo: physical laws cannot apply all together for the whole time, or the entire space. on the other hand it is postulated that the laws possess all the symmetries at the supposed big-bang- at those conditions there were no broken symmetries. the conclusions are: 1st- the world formula either includes all in the entire theory of physics involved terms, or none. many a terms are included in some physical laws, but not in all laws. 2nd: a system of all physical laws cannot be consistent (in case of using binary logic!).
Dear Paul
In fact, existence is independent of time, because everything is made up Sub-Quantum energy, See:
Interactions Between Real and Virtual Spacetimes
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270276224_Interactions_Between_Real_and_Virtual_Spacetimes
dear Hossein, in my opinion it is exactly the inverse: everything is time dependent. as time is motion and nothing stands still...
Dear Paul
Photon is the basic quantity of energy, it shows energy does not experience passing time. In the other word, time does not exist for energy or time is related to matter.
Dear Hossein Javadi,
it seems that there are three different directions of work to construct Theory of Everything.
First direction: developing current theories, which are based on Standard Model of electroweak interaction and quantum chromodynamics. Developing theory of quantum gravity on this basis by means of addition new concepts such as supersymmetry or superstrings, for example.
Second direction: developing absolutly new theory on absolutely new basis (such as theory of superstrings, for example), with usual theories as a low-energy limit of the theory.
Third direction (I'm doing research in this area): investigation of algebraic nature of the space-time, spinors and fields. Einstein formulated the principle of geometrization of physical theories. I believe that the time has come for a transition to the algebraization of physical theories.
We understand now that spinors, Dirac equation, Dirac matrices, Lorentz transformations, Lorentz-covariant spinor vacuum and even second quantization have superalgebraic (not supersymmetry!) nature - see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318392405_Superalgebraic_structure_of_Lorentz_transformations_preprint
I believe that this is a good basis for constructing the quantum theory of gravity and for unification it with Standard Model and with quantum chromodynamics. It is impossible to construct quantum theory of gravity without Lorentz-covariant spinor vacuum and Lorentz covariance of the second quantization as a part of the theory.
Dear Vadim
I agree with you that there are several ways.
I also try to work out the development of existing theory.
Dear Peter
What is a theory of everything?
In physics:
“A Theory of Everything is literally a theory of everything, including the force of gravity (which is not described by the standard model or a GUT), and anything else in our universe that our current theories cannot explain. One of the main ingredients in a "theory of everything" is Quantum gravity, the unification of gravity (general relativity) with quantum mechanics (quantum field theory). We do not yet have a successful theory of quantum gravity. A GUT is also a necessary ingredient of a theory of everything, but only if a GUT exists”.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-Grand-Unified-Theory-and-the-Theory-of-Everything-and-what-is-the-difference-between-them/answer/Barak-Shoshany?share=7c027659&srid=F7rA
dear Hossein, it is an interesting idea that time does not exist for energy or time is related to matter., if this formula (e=mc²) wouldn`t exist.
In my opinion there may be following three different approaches to the Theory of Every Thing:
1) Theory of Super- strings (including super symmetry and super gravity)
2) Higher Dimensional formulation in terms of Quaternions and Octonions
( this problems we have been taking up since last many years and work carried out there in has been published in the form of several research papers in good journals)
3) Higher dimensional Space-Time (where space and time are both infinite continuum, without any beginning and end (this problem also has been currently taken up by us and several papers based on this work have been published in the journal of internal repute and high impact factors)
revise entire physics, express all terms and values in the language of distribution theory for functionals of set/ test complex functions. reconsider the axioms and use fuzzy/neutrosophic logic for the theory itself, and binary logic as the logic of the logics.(named: Epi-Logic)
Dear Paul
Sorry to reply late.
In quantum mechanics, quantity of time is proposed in a more fundamental style. For example, in standard model a photon that moves with constant speed of limit c, does not experience "time passing".
http://www.whillyard.com/science-pages/electromagnetic-force.html
But in CPH Theory, even photons experience "time passing".
https://www.quora.com/Is-time-physical-Can-you-touch-time-space-time-too-whatever-you-want-to-call-it-What-is-time-not-the-human-time-but-relativity-time/answer/Hossein-Javadi-1?srid=F7rA
dear Hossein, doesn`t it mean that (in standard model) photon motion is absolute? (as it were constant: for ever!)
Dear Paul
What I understood of modern physics the speed of light is absolute. Because in special relativity the speed of light is same for all inertia observers. But in CPH Theory speed of light is not the limit of speed in the universe.
See:
connection between quantum gravity and entanglement
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315572721_Connection_between_quantum_gravity_and_entanglement
dear Hossein, you are right about physics, but in my opinion it is false that speed of light is absolute; that is merely an axiom which must be changed to: speed of light has the limit c.
Dear Paul
What I know is that the speed of light in all inertial reference frame is same.
Do you have any evidence that it is wrong?
Yes dear Hossein, please see my demonstration in . when c*m is described as a constant functional its derivative (=0) implies a symmetrical behavior of mass genesis in the universe, what de facto is in contradiction to steven weinberg`s explanation about matter-antimatter...
dear Hossein, you are welcome! about the other natural constants I made similar conclusions. described as constant functionals (corresponding to formulas they are included in) the derivative- see generalized functions- being zero allow conclusions about the implied constants. mostly about the symmetrical behavior. so, in my opinion, natural constants are (often) depending on time. ergo: natural constants are not constant indeed.
Dear Paul
I think natural constants can be changed
Does this mean that your definition of time is correct?
yes, Hossein, that doesn`t change the definition. more: time is non-linear, it is 2-dimensional (complex- where the "< >" relations fail)
Paul Pistea
In any case, you need to use your definition to describe defend your point of view.
dear Hossein, You are right (I always should mention that it is MY point of view- versus established RT and QT)
thank You Hossein! I know that my ideas will be accepted in the next 300 years :))
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Materials Science
- Materials
- Carbon Materials
- Graphite
- Graphene