I have solved the theory of Everything

Maybe read this first. It's an interesting story....

I need a break at this point.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Now I know I said that a Photon was a white hole. I thought it was because the electron appears there. Now that I have written it out on paper I can see how it gets there without it being a white hole.

Or maybe you know what these pairs are better than I do. I really only understand what they are doing, and not what they are.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To be continued...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To be continued...

Corrected.

 

To be continued...

 

To be continued...

 

To be continued...

 

You have a future in creative writing!

 

To be continued...

 

To be continued...

 

To be continued...

 

If you have a theory of everything then please state and derive its predictions for the following systems :

1. Precession of Mercury
2. Differential cross section in electron-electron scattering, stating clearly any variables you use and/or upon which the cross section depends.
3. Emission spectrum for the Hydrogen atom, including their dependency on external magnetic fields.

If you can't even approach these questions then you have nothing close to a 'theory of everything', you have a fictional narrative for how you want the world to be, not how it is.

 

Maybe you do to. You are converting things that you do not understand into numbers which work with the things that you do not understand. Your numbers work, but you don't know why they work. My theory of everything is the physical theory of everything, like nature does it, without nature knowing what mathematics is. I wouldn't use maths to give you the answers to your question. I would make the components in a computer, and see what they do together.

 

Anyway, if this thing ever gets off the ground it needs a lot of other people to join forces. I am the part of the brain that you have missing, and you are the part of the brain that I have missing. We need to form a whole brain.

 

Gold!

 

Anyway, you can think of it as a story if you like. It's one of those stories that could be true. They are the best. Just remember me if the theory ever gets some credibility.

 

If you're going to describe nature in such a way that you can make useful, clear statements then you need a good formal language. Mathematics is such a language. Physics is more than just "If you throw a ball upwards it will come down" it's about "Where will it come down? When will it come down? How fast will it be moving? What amount of effort do I need to exert to throw it that far?"

You claim to have a theory of everything which doesn't actually describe anything.

What is it with cranks and the "If someone is any actual knowledge then they are utterly lacking in creative thought" flawed logic you employ?

Having a physical understanding of something is important but if you can't actually formalise that description into a concise coherent logical framework than you're wasting your time. You aren't using any formal logic in your 'work' so you have absolutely no justification for reaching the conclusions you do, you simply make up the beginning, middle and end.

Physics is about saying "I think the underlying physical mechanism is X. What does X imply? What does it predict? What experiments might I do to test X?"

You're saying "I think the underlying physical mechanism is X. And I guess that Y follows from X".

If you can't justify going from X to Y then your work losses all predictive power because you guess the predictions, not derive them from your more fundamental assumptions.

Without a firm grasp of electronics, quantum mechanics and chemistry you would have no way of designing a computer chip, you would have to do trial and error. If you know how electrons behave then you can build chips whose workings you control. If you don't know how electrons behave then you have no way of knowing how to build a system to control them.

 

Promise. *yawn*

 

To be continued...

 

To be continued...