It probably won't lead to a Nobel Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! but why don't we finish Einstein's Unified Field theory? The talent exists right here in this forum to either complete the theory or put it to rest once and for all. I've laid out a path to completion that I think might work HERE There may be other ways to do it. I would like to hear about any promising ones. Even if the theory were complete that would not imply that it is reality. Quantum Mechanics could accommodate it as easily as it accommodates Einstein's other theory.
Yeah, it's not like people have been trying to get a unified field theory for oh, since before Einstein's death. And said people teach the people on the forums here who know anything about physics and we're a long way ahead of the majority of the posters here. What makes you think half a dozen postgrads, with other things to do when it comes to field theory, a few well read undergrads, a few well read layman and an unhealthy number of ignorant wackos will succeed where a literal army of the cleverest people on the planet have failed? If you knew anything about mainstream work, which you don't, you'd know your work is a long long LONG way from even being close to a decent theory. It gives a formula for mass. We've got that. We also have the relationship between colour, mass, charge and spin. You're decades behind a theory which gives so much more than your BS. Anyone who thinks it's a matter of an internet forum of predominantly ignorant (either due to lack of effort, lack of time or lack of brain capacity) posters sitting down for a 3 day weekend and 'finishing it off' is incredibly naive.
Hi AlphaNumeric; sorry about my lack of response to you in an earlier thread; I was trying to avoid discussing my ideas in that thread. I may be allowed to do so in this one. I value your opinion but I think you yourself have the capacity to finish Einstein's Unified Field theory along the lines I laid out. And yes; you could probably do it in one weekend. There are only two problems left to solve. From the referenced text.
Maybe; but what if someone works out those last two equations then discovers that they can predict things observed in particle accelerators, or some such.
Einstein's goal was to modify Maxwell's partial differential equations in such a way that they could describe particles of matter. The goal is to produce those modifications. I think there's a way to do it by showing how the asymmetry of the fields in the bent path of a photon can produce positive feedback that bends the path more in the same direction. I laid out the method I think might work HERE
Einstein didn't know about the weak and strong forces. The gluon Lagrangian is a generalisation of the Yang Mills Lagrangian of the photon to a non-abelian gauge field, and we've already examined the general structure of them and it's staggeringly complicated. Even simplifications/reformulations like MHV, which guys in my office do a lot of, are very very complicated. Doing them in curved space-time is even harder. Your own work is nothing but plotting circles. No interactions, no actual dynamics. We know protons and neutrons interact via meson exchange, it's an experimental fact. But you don't have anything like that in your work, they are just spheres which bounce off one another.
Hi AlphaNumeric; I know that the math to describe particle theory is very complicated and deeply respect all those who can master it. The graphics stuff I'm playing around with draws Neutrons to scale as shell structures and attempts to bounce them off each other. It don't work yet. I can't figure out the bounce equation Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The software just makes the graphics for visualization purposes. I know the chances of success, even if we finish the equations, are very slim. We might even find that there is no solution. But I still think it is a noble quest; at least as good as working a moderately challenging puzzle.
It might be fun though; especially if someone actually does do the bend equation Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Much of the work is being done: http://www.weizmann.ac.il/particle/ Led by Yossi Nir. In Rehavot Israel. These regions of Israel in modern age have added as much to modern science as the rest of the world combined. Yossi in specific is head of work done on Particle Physics. If you have accredidation go there. I would like to make note that scientists there don't think like scientists most other places, everything is more open and avoids restriction. While this guy should not be listened to for opinions on the world, whether he accidently stumbled on to his invention or deliberately created it...there is question as to whether or not it works. http://www.josephnewman.com/Light_and_Quantum_Mechanics.html His understanding of physics seems below-average but the results of his experiments are interesting. In any case he published a book about 20 years ago when he was more sane that contained interesting things and was written decently well. His online website is a joke. I suggest perhaps just checking it out at the library. Or http://minerva.mpg.de/minerva_centers/center_39.html as well in Israel.
Hi CheskiChips; interesting post ! I have reviewed every theory I can find about the fundamental construct of matter. Newman's is interesting. Many of them propose a photon-only theory without even knowing it. I find all of them very interesting.
Joe Newman??? You have GOT to be kidding! Man, you've really shot yourself in the foot this time - BIG time!!! He's one of the biggest and well-known crackpots of all time - the laughingstock of the entire scientific world for decades. He's claimed, more than just a few times, to have built an over-unity motor and the idiot even tried to get the silly thing patented. Jerk of all jerks, his crackpot ideas have only been exceed by J. Naudin who is also a master con-artist. And saying that "His understanding of physics seems below-average..." has got to go down as the understatement of the century!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You have really sunk to an all-time low with this one!!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I agree he's a crack-pot, but if you read his book...shockingly he makes a lot of interesting observations.
I have done a few other thingsPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! My own contributions to a Unified Field Theory are a few things that can possibly make it work. They include: The Source of Electric Charge A Modification of Hofstadter's Shells The Square of the Shells Rule Howcome the Quantum nature of the universe Gravity from Electromagnetic Fields These are all a long way from being theory I know. And maybe they are even too far out to be allowed posted here. If so, they are in a conveniently placed post that can be deleted.
I don't think you do understand just how complicated. To someone who hasn't done high school maths, 1st year undergraduate maths is staggeringly complicated. When I was in my 1st year, I looked at the 2nd year quantum mechanics stuff and wondered how I'd ever be able to do it. Now I look at it and think "God, that stuff is easy". There are some things which I'll NEVER be able to look at, no matter how hard or long I work at them, and say "God, that stuff is easy". That is the kind of material you get Nobel Prizes in QFT or Millenium Prizes for. If you think that it's just a matter of Ben, myself, Prometheus and Guest sitting in a room, with a whiteboard and a pile of paper and pencils, for a week and we'd knock out a theory of everything, you don't realise how complicated this stuff is. I do sit in a room with such people for years and hardly scratch the surface. I collaborate with certain people in my area of work and we'll sit in a room and stare at a black board for 3 days, for 15 hours a day, talking about just our tiny tiny area and after that we might. MIGHT have had a brain wave enough to eventually write just one paper in our area of work. Which gets us one step down one very very long path (out of hundreds, thousands or millions of paths) towards the main highway which eventually leads to the intersection which has, if we don't miss it, a turning for the bridge over to the area where we think the theory of everything lives. Now I'm not saying that Prometheus, Guest, Ben and myself in a room discussing physics and maths, showing one another our work and perhaps doing Q&A with forum questions/discussion topics wouldn't be interesting, it'd be something I imagine I'd very much enjoy and learn a lot from, as would any observer/listener/viewer, but there's a long way from that and a ToE. Except that experiments show that they don't work like that. Besides, your model doesn't explain things like beta decay or anything which we explain via the electroweak model. There's a ton of experimental evidence for the Ws and Zs. Similarly with different quarks, you cannot explain the enormous slew of hadronic matter, all of which match the quark model so well. And have you bothered to look into The Eightfold Way, which gives an explaination of the relationship between, mass, spin, charge and quark make up? Here is an explaination of how to learn such things. Feel free to ask questions, I transcribed those notes from the lecture course. You don't realise that your model is a failure and cannot do things our models already do. I've told you this, shown you this and explain to you this. You don't understand and you don't want to know. Delusion is a powerful thing and cranks have it in gobs and gobs.
I thought the Shell Construct matched observations pretty well. I know I'll never comprehend the intricacies of Quantum Mechanics but if it does not represent reality maybe I won't have to understand it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I guess I share Schrodinger's view:
You do realise there's more to physics than masses? The Eightfold Way matches more than just protons and neutrons, it matches dozens of hadrons and explains the relationship between their mass, spin, composition and charge. Can yours do that? Can you calculate any dynamics? Can you calculate any interactions? If you don't even have a way of describing interactions, how can you explain things like the dependency of the strength of electromagnetic interactions on energy? You cannot explain the subtle properties of something you cannot model or even describe exists! So your 'I thought the Shell Construct matched observations pretty well' is actually 'If I confine myself to about 0.001% of particle physics then this one formula I have, which doesn't descend from any fundamental model, doesn't have any potential for expansion and which is already falsified on numerous experimental grounds, is actually pretty good'. Whereas mainstream models, before you even get into the proper dynamics of interactions, ie Lagrangian mechanics, can explain masses, charges, spins and composition in what amounts, to a theoretical physicist, as little more than a calculation done on the back of an envelope. I linked you to lecture notes on this stuff. Did you understand or not understand them, please answer. Lie algebras are now second nature to me, as they are to anyone studying theoretical physics. If you are someone whose been working in the physics community for decades, you should have come across them. But you appear not to have. And for someone who has claimed to have been involved in the experimental development of transistors, which we now know to be a lie, you have zero knowledge of what amounts to 'observations' in quantum mechanics. The effects in transistors make up 1 second of 1 lecture of a 24 lecture course in one of about one and a half dozen QM based lecture courses at university. That university touches less than 1% of all known material on practical physics. And yet you claim there's no much evidence for QM, it's only 'a theory' (yet, as Ben pointed out to you, gravity is 'only a theory), thus proving you have no clue about quantum mechanics or how science works. You appear to lie about your previous acheivments, enjoy spamming your 'work' in other threads but don't like hearing criticism, you haven't got any understanding, qualitatitive or conceptual, of quantum mechanics and, as this thread demonstrates, you're completely naive about the enormous task facing physics in general. Do you really think the posters here could do what the people who teach the top posters here cannot do? What do you think professors in universities do all day if it'd only need 6 of us a few days of concerted effort to get a unified theory? What do you htink we spend our PhD doing? Drinking coffee and saying about how one day we'll put pen the paper and bang out a unified field theory? Why don't you do us all a favour and stop telling the multitude of increasingly transparent lies you keep saying. Stop spamming your nonsense, falsified and even if it wasn't, pathetically simplistic, unimpressive and naive model around all the forums. Make a thread for it, accept criticism for it and otherwise STFU about it. Do you think noone of us realised that this thread was nothing more than another excuse for you to post your work?
