Correlating Newtonian Model with Einstein's GR

[DaveC426913]

Neither they are supporting you.

I'd say they are, even by their silence.

Others have made it clear what problems there are with your ideas; there's no need for us to reiterate what has been said. NE is simply taking our summation of the problems further.

 

[NotEinstein]

CFS/CRFS are reformulation of which already present terms?

CFS/CRFS are by definition sets of (sets of) forces. In other words, it's just a shuffling around of force-terms, nothing more.

From which already known axiom/premise, this can be derived?

Those of Newtonian mechanics.

To be precise, my CFS/CRFS are based on my Instantaneous Law of Inertia.

(Please forgive the typo in my original post: "I cannot allow the derivation" should read "It cannot allow the derivation".)
Which is based purely on Newtonian mechanics, and nothing more (at least, you haven't demonstrated otherwise). So no new axiom or premise here!

Did I claim that, my model is better than Newton's?

As far as I know, Newton didn't claim his theory was a TOE, but you do. So yes, yes you do.

I observe some similarity between my approach and Lagrangian model. Trajectory of a particle is considered in both these models.

(No comment.)

Did Lagrange introduce any new axiom/premise? In my case my Instantaneous Law of Inertia can be considered as a new axiom/premise.

Well, yes. How about the idea of the potential? That doesn't exist as a fundamental object in Newtonian mechanics.

No new physics is introduced by Lagrangian mechanics compared to Newtonian mechanics; following wikipedia.

That is totally true, but that was not what I was saying. They have different starting points, but yours is the same as Newtonian mechanics. Therefore, the situations are quite different.

May be true. People here are not supporting me. Neither they are supporting you.

(No comment, since this isn't a popularity contest.)

I answered your questions in the post #179.

For a change, can you answer my questions in the post #171.

(Note that that post wasn't directed at me, so that's why I didn't answer it. Also, I only see one question there?)
The difficulty is that the two theories seems to be incompatible at a fundamental level, at least in their current forms. A more generalized version of both needs to be found, and hopefully those can be unified. But without a discrepancy between observations and theory, it is difficult to figure out what direction to work towards.

 

[hansda]

CFS/CRFS are by definition sets of (sets of) forces.

Correct but not very correct.

In other words, it's just a shuffling around of force-terms, nothing more.

Not Exactly. CFS/CRFS came from IFS/IRF. In turn, IFS/IRF came from my Instantaneous Law of Inertia.

Those of Newtonian mechanics.

Currently, my Instantaneous Law of Inertia is not part of Newtonian Mechanics(NM).

(Please forgive the typo in my original post: "I cannot allow the derivation" should read "It cannot allow the derivation".)

Its OK.

Which is based purely on Newtonian mechanics, and nothing more (at least, you haven't demonstrated otherwise). So no new axiom or premise here!

My Instantaneous Law of Inertia is more generalised than Newton's Law of Inertia.

As far as I know, Newton didn't claim his theory was a TOE, but you do. So yes, yes you do.

Ha ha ha. Newton did developed his concept of force. Newton did developed his concept of Law of Inertia. But Newton did not develope Instantaneous Law of Inertia, IFS/IRF, CFS/CRFS. Newton did not see the potential of his Law of Inertia that a TOE can be developed from it.

(No comment.)

Good. You agree with this.

Well, yes. How about the idea of the potential? That doesn't exist as a fundamental object in Newtonian mechanics.

Potential Energy was already known in Newtonian Mechanics. There is nothing new in it.

That is totally true, but that was not what I was saying. They have different starting points, but yours is the same as Newtonian mechanics. Therefore, the situations are quite different.

Different starting point does not make it something new.

(No comment, since this isn't a popularity contest.)

Correct but people support based on their understanding of the things.

(Note that that post wasn't directed at me, so that's why I didn't answer it.

QH highlighted this point. I only asked the question in his reply. Good that you attempted to answer this question.

Also, I only see one question there?)

Yes. It is basically one question.

The difficulty is that the two theories seems to be incompatible at a fundamental level, at least in their current forms.

GR uses spacetime concept. But QM does not use this concept. This may be one of fundamental difference.

A more generalized version of both needs to be found, and hopefully those can be unified. But without a discrepancy between observations and theory, it is difficult to figure out what direction to work towards.

I think problem of time is the main difficulty in their unification.

 

[origin]

Hansda, I hope your fantasies give you happiness, but this should really not be in physics and math, I will ask the mods (again?) to move this to a more fitting section.

One other quick point, you call your conjecture the Instantaneous Law of Inertia.

This wording literally means that the law is instantaneous but not inertia, which makes even less sense than what you meant (if that is possible)

I believe you mean the Law of Instantaneous Inertia.

Not that any of this matters since you have no law, no theory and no hypothesis. What you have is an unevidenced conjecture based on a lack of understanding of Newtonian gravity.

 

[NotEinstein]

Correct but not very correct.

Please explain what is not "very correct" about it.

Not Exactly. CFS/CRFS came from IFS/IRF. In turn, IFS/IRF came from my Instantaneous Law of Inertia.

Which deals with forces only, and all the terms in the given definitions are forces or terms derived purely from forces. So "Not Exactly", but "very correct".

Currently, my Instantaneous Law of Inertia is not part of Newtonian Mechanics(NM).

Are you claiming your Instantaneous Law of Inertia is a new axiom or premise?

My Instantaneous Law of Inertia is more generalised than Newton's Law of Inertia.

How do you justify the generalization?​

Ha ha ha. Newton did developed his concept of force. Newton did developed his concept of Law of Inertia. But Newton did not develope Instantaneous Law of Inertia, IFS/IRF, CFS/CRFS. Newton did not see the potential of his Law of Inertia that a TOE can be developed from it.

So you are claiming that your theory is better! I was right all along!

Good. You agree with this.

​

Please don't put words in my mouth. No comments means: "no comment".

Potential Energy was already known in Newtonian Mechanics. There is nothing new in it.

​

Please re-read my statement. Potentials are not fundamental in Newtonian mechanics, while they are in Lagrangian mechanics.

And of course there's nothing new in it: they are equivalent!

Different starting point does not make it something new.

​

So? That was not the argument.

Correct but people support based on their understanding of the things.

​

So you are saying that nobody understands you, because nobody is replying?

GR uses spacetime concept. But QM does not use this concept. This may be one of fundamental difference.

Right, but irrelevant. It's actually not QM that's the big theory, it's QFT. And QFT most definitely uses spacetime. (It's just that it is only compatible with the special theory of relativity, not the general one.)​

I think problem of time is the main difficulty in their unification.

What is "problem of time"? And wouldn't a Theory of Everything (TOE) solve it?​

 

[NotEinstein]

One other quick point, you call your conjecture the Instantaneous Law of Inertia.

This wording literally means that the law is instantaneous but not inertia, which makes even less sense than what you meant (if that is possible)

I believe you mean the Law of Instantaneous Inertia.

Quite a valid point; I hadn't even realized that!

 

[Kittamaru]

Yeah... I think at this point this can get shunted to alt theories...

 

[hansda]

Please explain what is not "very correct" about it.

Because CFS/CRFS is logically derived from my "Instantaneous Law of Inertia".

Which deals with forces only, and all the terms in the given definitions are forces or terms derived purely from forces. So "Not Exactly", but "very correct".

Here the term "force" can be redefined based on my "Instantaneous Law of Inertia". Whatever can change the state of motion of a particle at any instant of time, can be considered as a force. Here any dynamic quantity can be considered as a particle.

Are you claiming your Instantaneous Law of Inertia is a new axiom or premise?

Yes.

How do you justify the generalization?

It can be applied to any dynamic quantity. Not just a massive particle. You can read about the four unknown forces for examples of other dynamic quantities.​

So you are claiming that your theory is better! I was right all along!

My TOE is based on Newtonian Model.

​

Please don't put words in my mouth. No comments means: "no comment".

I thought, silence is acceptance.

​

Please re-read my statement. Potentials are not fundamental in Newtonian mechanics, while they are in Lagrangian mechanics.

And of course there's nothing new in it: they are equivalent!

You yourself are refuting your claim that Potential is a starting point in Lagrangian Model but nothing new in it.

​

So? That was not the argument.

So, Lagrangian mechanics is based on Newtonian Model only.

​

So you are saying that nobody understands you, because nobody is replying?

This is only your interpretation. Others interpretation may be different.

Right, but irrelevant. It's actually not QM that's the big theory, it's QFT. And QFT most definitely uses spacetime. (It's just that it is only compatible with the special theory of relativity, not the general one.)

So by your own admittance, QFT is still not compatible with GR. Anyway, here is a paper claiming unification https://www.academia.edu/32985587/U...ins_dream_realized_in_the_Single_Field_Theory .​

What is "problem of time"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time

And wouldn't a Theory of Everything (TOE) solve it?

​

In my TOE, there is no such problem of time.

 

[Schmelzer]

Just to clarify: The problem of time is a problem of quantization of gravity. A TOE is in no way obliged to solve it - a TOE simply unifies all fields with gravity. So, the TOE could be, as well, a classical theory with similar quantization problems as GR.

The problem of time would be, indeed, solved by (or better simply disappear in) any theory based on Newtonian concepts of space and time.

Then, QFT is a standard quantum theory applied to fields. It adds nothing to the general principles of quantum theory. It tries everything it can to hide that it has a hidden preferred frame, the method is quite simple: Do not mention anything which somehow uses it, but use only things which do not use it. This is one of the reasons why nobody discusses QFT interpretation. One would have to mention the hidden frame far too often. As long as one discusses quantum interpretation only in the "nonrelativistic" theory, one can mention them.

 

[NotEinstein]

Because CFS/CRFS is logically derived from my "Instantaneous Law of Inertia".

How is this incompatible with the statement: "CFS/CRFS are by definition sets of (sets of) forces."?

Here the term "force" can be redefined based on my "Instantaneous Law of Inertia". Whatever can change the state of motion of a particle at any instant of time, can be considered as a force.

Which is exactly how Newton's laws of motion work, so that's not a redefinition at all.

Here any dynamic quantity can be considered as a particle.

Please give some examples of "dynamic quantities" that are not seen as particles in Newtonian physics, but are by you, because I have no idea what you are talking about.

Yes.

Then please show how it is different from Newtonian physics, how it adds something new to it.

It can be applied to any dynamic quantity. Not just a massive particle. You can read about the four unknown forces for examples of other dynamic quantities.

I will (eventually).

My TOE is based on Newtonian Model.

Yes, so it is as I said, and you were just being obtuse in post #179.
​

I thought, silence is acceptance.

No, it is not.

And if it is, you do know that you ignored several questions along the way? Would it be fair if I interpret those as you accepting that you were wrong? Of course not!

​

You yourself are refuting your claim that Potential is a starting point in Lagrangian Model

Please show where I have done this. You do understand that it is possible to have two different descriptions of the same thing? Two descriptions that work completely different, but turn out to be just two perspective of the same truth/model?

but nothing new in it.

Correct; Lagrangian mechanics has been mathematically proven to be identical to Newtonian mechanics.

​

So, Lagrangian mechanics is based on Newtonian Model only.

If by "Newtonian Model", you mean Newtonian mechanics: Incorrect. Lagrangian mechanics is its own mechanics, independent of Newtonian mechanics.
If by "Newtonian Model", you mean a view identified with notions such as flat spacetime, velocities, particles, and such concepts: they both share them. We just happen to be calling it Newtonian nowadays. You could also call it the "classical model".

This is only your interpretation. Others interpretation may be different.

I was only trying to parse that weird-to-me sentence; sorry for the misinterpretation.​

So by your own admittance, QFT is still not compatible with GR.

It indeed is not, as is quite well-known. If at any point I appeared to be indicating otherwise, I apologize for the confusion.

Anyway, here is a paper claiming unification https://www.academia.edu/32985587/U...ins_dream_realized_in_the_Single_Field_Theory .

Scrolling through it, there's a big mathematical mistake in the figure on page 8: you can't equate two Heisenberg uncertainties like that. If we use units where $$\bar{h}$$ is $$1$$, then I can have one of the Heisenberg uncertainties be 100 (it is larger than 1/2, so that's fine), and the other be 10 (it is larger than 1/2, so that's fine). However, 100 is not 10. Therefore, that figure is wrong.

I don't see it demonstrating that this unification is compatible with (for example) Einstein's field equations, or with a QFT Lagrangian. In fact, it doesn't seems like a full unification at all. Perhaps it unifies some underlying concepts, but I'd hardly call this a unification of QFT with GR.

It is not published in a peer-reviewed magazine, so at best, it's somebody's attempt. But any crackpot can claim unification, so you finding a non-peer-reviewed text doesn't surprise me.

But more importantly: did you notice that this paper completely destroys your own TOE?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time

OK, got it!

In my TOE, there is no such problem of time.

Yes, obviously, because you are using Newtonian physics, which considers time to be universal and absolute, and is thus incompatible with GR and even SR in the same way QM is. Note though that QFT is compatible with SR, and thus your TOE is incompatible with QFT. So your TOE is incompatible with both GR and QFT, the two major current theories in physics. Perhaps you want to explain the effects that we call "time dilation" using your TOE then? Mercury's precession? The results from the LHC particle accelerator?​

 

[hansda]

Just to clarify: The problem of time is a problem of quantization of gravity.

I think problem of time is the difference of the concept of time in QM and Einstein's GR. So, to unify QM with GR; this difference of the concept of time is to be resolved.

A TOE is in no way obliged to solve it

NE has a different opinion on this.

- a TOE simply unifies all fields with gravity.

Simply put, QM should unify with GR.

So, the TOE could be, as well, a classical theory with similar quantization problems as GR.

As long as QM and GR are unified; I think it is OK.

The problem of time would be, indeed, solved by (or better simply disappear in) any theory based on Newtonian concepts of space and time.

In my TOE, there is no such time problem.

Then, QFT is a standard quantum theory applied to fields. It adds nothing to the general principles of quantum theory. It tries everything it can to hide that it has a hidden preferred frame, the method is quite simple: Do not mention anything which somehow uses it, but use only things which do not use it. This is one of the reasons why nobody discusses QFT interpretation. One would have to mention the hidden frame far too often. As long as one discusses quantum interpretation only in the "nonrelativistic" theory, one can mention them.

Seems NE prefers QFT over QM.

 

[hansda]

How is this incompatible with the statement: "CFS/CRFS are by definition sets of (sets of) forces."?

Here force is not F=ma, as in Newtonian. It can be beyond that also.

Which is exactly how Newton's laws of motion work, so that's not a redefinition at all.

Newton's Laws of Motion only defines F=ma. It does not define anything beyond this as far as force is concerned.

Please give some examples of "dynamic quantities" that are not seen as particles in Newtonian physics, but are by you, because I have no idea what you are talking about.

Other dynamic quantities can be space, field.

Then please show how it is different from Newtonian physics, how it adds something new to it.

Can you apply Newton's Law of Inertia to space?

I will (eventually).

Thanks for this.​

No, it is not.

ok.

And if it is, you do know that you ignored several questions along the way? Would it be fair if I interpret those as you accepting that you were wrong? Of course not!

I prefer to stay at one thread, at a time.

Please show where I have done this. You do understand that it is possible to have two different descriptions of the same thing? Two descriptions that work completely different, but turn out to be just two perspective of the same truth/model?

See your post #185. You said there is nothing new with the term potential.

Correct; Lagrangian mechanics has been mathematically proven to be identical to Newtonian mechanics.

ok.

​

If by "Newtonian Model", you mean Newtonian mechanics: Incorrect. Lagrangian mechanics is its own mechanics, independent of Newtonian mechanics.
If by "Newtonian Model", you mean a view identified with notions such as flat spacetime, velocities, particles, and such concepts: they both share them. We just happen to be calling it Newtonian nowadays. You could also call it the "classical model".

OK. Lagrangian Model has its own identity.

I was only trying to parse that weird-to-me sentence; sorry for the misinterpretation.

ok.​

It indeed is not, as is quite well-known. If at any point I appeared to be indicating otherwise, I apologize for the confusion.

Scrolling through it, there's a big mathematical mistake in the figure on page 8: you can't equate two Heisenberg uncertainties like that. If we use units where $$\bar{h}$$ is $$1$$, then I can have one of the Heisenberg uncertainties be 100 (it is larger than 1/2, so that's fine), and the other be 10 (it is larger than 1/2, so that's fine). However, 100 is not 10. Therefore, that figure is wrong.

I don't see it demonstrating that this unification is compatible with (for example) Einstein's field equations, or with a QFT Lagrangian. In fact, it doesn't seems like a full unification at all. Perhaps it unifies some underlying concepts, but I'd hardly call this a unification of QFT with GR.

It is not published in a peer-reviewed magazine, so at best, it's somebody's attempt. But any crackpot can claim unification, so you finding a non-peer-reviewed text doesn't surprise me.

I have not read this paper completely. Only saw the title of the paper.

But more importantly: did you notice that this paper completely destroys your own TOE?

How? How do you think so? Seems you have observed some fault with this paper. With this fauly paper(in your opinion) you are trying to attack my TOE.

OK, got it!

Good. You got the problem of time.

Yes, obviously, because you are using Newtonian physics, which considers time to be universal and absolute, and is thus incompatible with GR and even SR in the same way QM is. Note though that QFT is compatible with SR, and thus your TOE is incompatible with QFT. So your TOE is incompatible with both GR and QFT, the two major current theories in physics. Perhaps you want to explain the effects that we call "time dilation" using your TOE then? Mercury's precession? The results from the LHC particle accelerator?

​

My Instantaneous Law of Inertia can be applied to the whole universe. https://www.academia.edu/35206537/Instantaneous_Law_of_Inertia

 

[Schmelzer]

NE has a different opinion on this. ... Seems NE prefers QFT over QM.

I explain the standard use of these terms. What NE thinks about this is not really question.

There is no reason to prefer QFT, at least not if one likes mathematically well-defined theories, because it is an ill-defined limit. It makes sense only as an approximation (effective field theory).

Simply put, QM should unify with GR. As long as QM and GR are unified; I think it is OK.

The unification of quantum theory and GR is the problem of quantum gravity.

It is the unification of GR with the fields of the standard model of particle physics (SM) which is named TOE. The SM is a field theory, and may also be considered as a classical theory (like is well-known part, EM theory). In this case, the TOE can also be a classical theory, thus, without any unification with QM. There is nothing OK or not OK with this, this is simply the meaning of TOE.

In my TOE, there is no such time problem.

You have nothing worth to be named TOE, so there is nothing which could have a problem of time.

 

[NotEinstein]

I explain the standard use of these terms. What NE thinks about this is not really question.

You are right, but just for the record: I generally interpret a TOE to mean, literally: "a theory of everything", where everything includes more than just the fundamental forces (if anything). I know that there's a specific meaning in fundamental physics, but I find that most people don't actually use the term in that context. (hansda for example clearly doesn't.)

There is no reason to prefer QFT, at least not if one likes mathematically well-defined theories, because it is an ill-defined limit. It makes sense only as an approximation (effective field theory).

Ah well, out with the Standard Model of particle physics then?

The unification of quantum theory and GR is the problem of quantum gravity.

It is the unification of GR with the fields of the standard model of particle physics (SM)

Right, but that latter one is QFT, isn't it?

which is named TOE.

I can agree with that definition in this context.

The SM is a field theory, and may also be considered as a classical theory (like is well-known part, EM theory). In this case, the TOE can also be a classical theory, thus, without any unification with QM. There is nothing OK or not OK with this, this is simply the meaning of TOE.

But then you'd have a TOE that's incomplete (i.e. missing all quantum effects). Also, shouldn't it unify with the strong and weak nuclear interactions too, to be called a TOE?

You have nothing worth to be named TOE, so there is nothing which could have a problem of time.

This we agree on, under either definition of the term TOE.

 

[NotEinstein]

Here force is not F=ma, as in Newtonian. It can be beyond that also.

Please give an example of a force that's not Newtonian, but does allow you to use Newtonian physics as a basis.

Newton's Laws of Motion only defines F=ma. It does not define anything beyond this as far as force is concerned.

True, so you can't use (the full set of) Newton's Laws of Motion if you introduce a force that's not F=ma. We've actually been over this earlier: the first law is still usable (as I had to explain to you), but the second one defines forces to be F=ma. If you start using forces that don't follow F=ma, you're throwing out Newtonian mechanics.

Other dynamic quantities can be space, field.

Forces cannot be applied to space or fields. If you disagree, you are using a definition of force that is incompatible with physics, and you've committed a fallacy of equivocation in your invocation of Newtonian physics.

Can you apply Newton's Law of Inertia to space?

No, because it's nonsense: in Newtonian physics, space is absolute, so there's no inertia to give to it.

See your post #185. You said there is nothing new with the term potential.

Oh, you mean when I said: "Potentials are not fundamental in Newtonian mechanics, while they are in Lagrangian mechanics." That's not "that Potential is a starting point in Lagrangian Model"; it's affirming it!

OK. Lagrangian Model has its own identity.

So you mean "mechanics" when you say "Model"? In that case, I agree, but I disagree that Lagrangian mechanics are build on the Newtonian Model.

I have not read this paper completely. Only saw the title of the paper.

So you found a "paper" with a title in a non-peer-reviewed state, with obvious mistakes in it. How does this demonstrate that QFT is compatible with GR?

How? How do you think so? Seems you have observed some fault with this paper. With this fauly paper(in your opinion) you are trying to attack my TOE.

No, I was merely pointing out it's ironic that you try to make a point with a paper that conflicts with your own TOE. Of course I'm not attacking your TOE with a faulty paper!

Good. You got the problem of time.

Yes, I was simply unfamiliar with the term.

My Instantaneous Law of Inertia can be applied to the whole universe. https://www.academia.edu/35206537/Instantaneous_Law_of_Inertia

Only a Newtonian universe, which is not what we live in.

And stop dodging questions. You just said your TOE can be applied to the whole universe. Good. Then explain "time dilation", Mercury's precessions, and the results from the LHC particle accelerator. Show that your TOE actually works!

 

[paddoboy]

And stop dodging questions. You just said your TOE can be applied to the whole universe. Good. Then explain "time dilation", Mercury's precessions, and the results from the LHC particle accelerator. Show that your TOE actually works!

A common ploy amongst most anti mainstream proponents who frequent public forums [there only vehicle to promote nonsense] such as this and have become a dime a dozen in literal worth.

 

[Schmelzer]

Ah well, out with the Standard Model of particle physics then?

No, the SM is fine. But QFT is not fine, technically. A lot of infinities and so on. Not even well-defined as a theory. (Say, GR has also singularities but is nonetheless a well-defined theory. QFT is not.)
It is acceptable only as an effective field theory - that means, it should be clear from the start that it works only as an approximation for large distances, and fails below some critical distance.

Right, but that latter one is QFT, isn't it?

It is a field theory. Not necessarily a quantum one. In the classical context, it is seldom applied, but this is an accidental effect of the physical constants, which create a situation where only a few parts of the SM (Maxwell theory) have effects which can be reasonably computed in the classical limit.

But then you'd have a TOE that's incomplete (i.e. missing all quantum effects). Also, shouldn't it unify with the strong and weak nuclear interactions too, to be called a TOE?

The problem would then be named "quantization of the TOE".

The other question is a subtle one. Those who proposed the notion "TOE" had, of course, in mind that a theory which contains as the SM, as GR, should also contain something more, something which unifies them all somehow. In some sense, this is a reasonable expectation. Even in my own approach, I had to add some particles: One massive scalar field for every electroweak pair, and two more gauge fields, which become invisible for large distance effects.

 

[NotEinstein]

No, the SM is fine. But QFT is not fine, technically. A lot of infinities and so on. Not even well-defined as a theory. (Say, GR has also singularities but is nonetheless a well-defined theory. QFT is not.)
It is acceptable only as an effective field theory - that means, it should be clear from the start that it works only as an approximation for large distances, and fails below some critical distance.

I know there's a lot (more) trouble with QFT and infinities, but isn't the SM without QFT like the Periodic Table without atomic theory? Is there any other theory/framework in existence in which the properties of the particles described by the SM can be explained?

It is a field theory. Not necessarily a quantum one. In the classical context, it is seldom applied, but this is an accidental effect of the physical constants, which create a situation where only a few parts of the SM (Maxwell theory) have effects which can be reasonably computed in the classical limit.

But you do agree that there are classically measurable things that can only be explained by a quantum theory? And that, thus, a classical field theory will necessarily be (more) incomplete/less broadly applicable than a quantum field theory?

The problem would then be named "quantization of the TOE".

Agreed.

The other question is a subtle one. Those who proposed the notion "TOE" had, of course, in mind that a theory which contains as the SM, as GR, should also contain something more, something which unifies them all somehow. In some sense, this is a reasonable expectation. Even in my own approach, I had to add some particles: One massive scalar field for every electroweak pair, and two more gauge fields, which become invisible for large distance effects.

Are there classical descriptions of the weak and strong nuclear interactions? You can't have a classical TOE without that.​

 

[hansda]

The unification of quantum theory and GR is the problem of quantum gravity.

It is the unification of GR with the fields of the standard model of particle physics (SM) which is named TOE. The SM is a field theory, and may also be considered as a classical theory (like is well-known part, EM theory). In this case, the TOE can also be a classical theory, thus, without any unification with QM. There is nothing OK or not OK with this, this is simply the meaning of TOE.

Do you think Quantum Gravity(QG) and TOE are different?

You have nothing worth to be named TOE, so there is nothing which could have a problem of time.

Thanks for your views on my TOE. Would you like to offer your views about my Instantaneous Law of Inertia ( https://www.academia.edu/35206537/Instantaneous_Law_of_Inertia )?

 

[hansda]

Please give an example of a force that's not Newtonian, but does allow you to use Newtonian physics as a basis.

Examples are given in the four unknown forces which I have developed. Specially you can read about the space-force https://www.academia.edu/34302744/One_More_Unknown_Force_to_be_Considered_as_Space_Force . You also can read about other three unknown forces https://www.academia.edu/34096181/THREE_UNKNOWN_FORCES_TO_BE_CONSIDERED .

True, so you can't use (the full set of) Newton's Laws of Motion if you introduce a force that's not F=ma. We've actually been over this earlier: the first law is still usable (as I had to explain to you), but the second one defines forces to be F=ma. If you start using forces that don't follow F=ma, you're throwing out Newtonian mechanics.

Based on my Instantaneous Law of Inertia, I have redefined the term "force". You can see my Instantaneous Law of Inertia https://www.academia.edu/35206537/Instantaneous_Law_of_Inertia .

Forces cannot be applied to space or fields. If you disagree, you are using a definition of force that is incompatible with physics, and you've committed a fallacy of equivocation in your invocation of Newtonian physics.

Space and fields are dynamic quantity. So, force can be applied to them. Force can be applied to any dynamic quantity.

No, because it's nonsense: in Newtonian physics, space is absolute, so there's no inertia to give to it.

Universe is expanding. So we can consider that metric expansion of space is happening. Space-force can be considered for this. Link I already mentioned above.

​

Oh, you mean when I said: "Potentials are not fundamental in Newtonian mechanics, while they are in Lagrangian mechanics." That's not "that Potential is a starting point in Lagrangian Model"; it's affirming it!

So you mean "mechanics" when you say "Model"? In that case, I agree, but I disagree that Lagrangian mechanics are build on the Newtonian Model.

So you found a "paper" with a title in a non-peer-reviewed state, with obvious mistakes in it. How does this demonstrate that QFT is compatible with GR?

In the title, the paper is claiming about unification.

No, I was merely pointing out it's ironic that you try to make a point with a paper that conflicts with your own TOE. Of course I'm not attacking your TOE with a faulty paper!

My TOE is based on Newtonian Model. That paper TOE is in GR model. So, there is no conflict. We can always have multiple solution to a problem.

Yes, I was simply unfamiliar with the term.

OK.
​

Only a Newtonian universe, which is not what we live in.

There is nothing like Newtonian universe or Einsteinian universe. It is the same universe for all.

And stop dodging questions. You just said your TOE can be applied to the whole universe. Good. Then explain "time dilation", Mercury's precessions, and the results from the LHC particle accelerator. Show that your TOE actually works!

All these can be explained with the Law of Inertia. These can be explained with the concept of forces. If they cannot be explained with the known forces, unknown forces can be considered. You can also read the link https://www.academia.edu/35206537/Instantaneous_Law_of_Inertia . These are covered there.