Theory of Everything.

[globali]

Exactly! There was no body of scientists or scientific thought at that time, to resist Copernican ideas. It was as you say philosophers, allied to church theologians.

I agree! Even though they considered themselves as natural philosophers, they rejected the scientific method as an inferior tool, hence they had nothing to do with todays scientists. Their arguments against the Copernican system were not scientific in Nature, but they used the Doctrines of ancient authorities or the bible instead.

Same thing can be said for the medieval so called "physicians". They blindly followed the doctrines of Galen and Avicenna because they considered them the ultimate Authorities that can't be wrong. Although the book of Andreas Vesalius "De humani corporis fabrica" was published at the 15th Century, it took almost 400 years(!!!!) for the main body of doctors to abandon Galen"s doctrines and embrace the scientific method.

Of course we don't know how people in 1000 years will see us and its irrelevant to say that scientists cannot be wrong. In fact, they are wrong most of the time. However, human history has shown that the scientific method is by far more productive and superior compared to other ways of pursuing the truth like magical thinking, scriptures, etc. We can say that the scientific method has been one the greatest leaps in human kind historically. This is undisputable.

Against the mainstream ideas can eventually turn out to be right, but this is rare. 99.999% of them will turn out to be wrong. And most ideas by internet crackpots (amateur scientists) are just incoherent gibberish, that originate from their poor understanding of the subject they try to revolutionize. Most lack the rigor in their thought to make meaningful contributions. Phenomena around us are multiparametric and anyone can make assumptions, if free parameters are not removed (degrees of freedom?). Equations with 10 different unknown parameters are not informative. and of course, untestable and unfalsifiable. You can even fit an elephant in a car if you add enough parameters (i think Pauli said that but i am not sure).

So an against the mainstream hypothesis can be right, but it has to be a hypothesis first.

And also don't expect people to change their ideas. You need to be a genius to be able to realize you are wrong. Most wrong ideas die because their supporters die or are not able to defend them anymore.

 

[globali]

I wonder how specific predictions this TOE can make.

 

[Orion68]

I wonder how specific predictions this TOE can make.

I wonder too. One thing here is can the proposed computer program model be programmed (chapter 'Coding the dimensional basic')? If so, one could simulate the point particle particles model. The question then is what will be the outcome of these simulations? Do they really represent the physical world? If yes, the predictions will be incredible specific, if not, we at least have a new form of mathematical model (for what purpose I don't know), that is, for as far as I know the type of the point particle proposed has not been described before.

 

[Write4U]

I wonder how specific predictions this TOE can make.

IMO, the equation will be very general in scope but address common denominators of all things.

QM is a common aspect of all things in the universe.
E = Mc^2 is such a general equation that explains one common aspect of all things.
Relativity is another commonly shared aspect of all things.

A TOE would have to apply to all things and thus cannot be specific except for those universal properties common to all things.

But a TOE cannot present a conflict with any known universal law for anything. If it does it won't be a TOE regardless how many other objects it explains.

 

[Write4U]

I wonder too. One thing here is can the proposed computer program model be programmed (chapter 'Coding the dimensional basic')? If so, one could simulate the point particle particles model. The question then is what will be the outcome of these simulations? Do they really represent the physical world? If yes, the predictions will be incredible specific, if not, we at least have a new form of mathematical model (for what purpose I don't know), that is, for as far as I know the type of the point particle proposed has not been described before.

Moreover, String and M-Theory are replacing the point particle model.

String theory is a set of attempts to model the four known fundamental interactions—gravitation, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force—together in one theory. This tries to resolve the alleged conflict between classical physics and quantum physics by elementary units—the one classical force: gravity, and a new quantum field theory of the other three fundamental forces.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

One newer candidate of a concept of fundamental spacetime properties is Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT)

Causal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT) theorized by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and
Jerzy Jurkiewicz, and popularized by Fotini Markopoulou and Lee Smolin, is an approach to quantum gravity that like loop quantum gravity is background independent.

This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.

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

 

[DaveC426913]

Moreover, String and M-Theory are replacing the point particle model.

They're not.
There's certainly active research, but none of it is testable. There is a movement to demote string "theory" because it can't rightly be called a theory.
It certainly isn't anywhere near a position to replace the Standard Model.

 

[Write4U]

They're not.
There's certainly active research, but none of it is testable. There is a movement to demote string "theory" because it can't rightly be called a theory.
It certainly isn't anywhere near a position to replace the Standard Model.

Interesting, can you provide a link?
I found this :

The Physics of Everything: Understanding Superstring Theory
Shiggs, and sparticles, and squarks, oh my!

String theory states that all matter in the universe is composed of tiny 1-dimensional strings, not point particles (which are 0-dimensional in nature). According to string theory, “strings” are tiny bits of pure energy that are the smallest constituents of matter and force interaction in our universe. General quantum strings are approximated to be 10-33 cm in length (that’s pretty amazingly small).

In the eyes of a string theorist, all universal constituents (fermions, quarks and leptons, hadrons, bosons, and force carriers [such as photons]) are defined by the vibrational mode (and usually orientation) of its string.

Traditional string theories include two kinds of strings, open and closed. Those that are open generally have endpoints, which vary in length. Closed strings, on the other hand, have no endpoints and are generally circular in nature (unless, of course, they are in a vibrational state). Ironically enough, some string theories contain open strings, but all string theories require closed strings.

Different levels of magnification of matter (1-5), ending with the string level (6). Image credit via MissMJ, Wikimedia Commons.

https://futurism.com/brane-science-complex-notions-of-superstring-theory

The inherent conflict in the standard point particle model doesn't bother you?
String theory solves the "communication" problem, no? QM doesn't.

But does String theory falsify QM and GR or are they subsets of String theory ?

 

[Mark Turner]

These zero-point particles are different from the mainstram particles in that respect that the the mainstream particles are a combination of zero-point particles, while the zero-point particle can also be found in it's sollicitary state. Mainstrwam particles can be devided in sub-particles, zero-point particles cannot.
An infinite number of zero-point particles does not imply an infinite universe because if our universe has a limited number of these particles, our universe is probably limited in space time. In that case one can speak of an multiverse where there are infinite more universes (emperical uncheckable) where the other zero-particles reside.

T.O.E

∆0 = -0.5+0.5=1/t

Come back when you know some real science.

 

[Orion68]

T.O.E

∆0 = -0.5+0.5=1/t

Come back when you know some real science.

Thank you, please elaborate, in the context of the theory, if you will.

Probably you don't have the internal visualizing power to comprehend how spacetime is being bend in the proposed scenario. Hope you understand the math is more complex than you sketch here, extremely complex even, but therefore one has to visualize the specific bending of spacetime as described in the article.

 

[Mark Turner]

Thank you, please elaborate, in the context of the theory, if you will.

An absolute rule of logic specifies that the value of 0 can only change in one possible way , that way being , nothing becomes something . We can't get less than nothing so logic states the only direction nothing can do in regards to change , is becoming something .
Space has always existed , matter is the convergence of energies as explained in the prior math . This convergence of energy being the interwoven quantum singularity of everything .

 

[Orion68]

This convergence of energy being the interwoven quantum singularity of everything .

When one reads the theory its all about curvatures only. Energy is a derivant observation. The type of singularity proposed is quite different. Like I said in the previous answer, one has to imagine how spacetime is being bend around the particle to compose an internal video of the interactions. The math derived from that picture is determinant. You come up with math first, but it does not represent the image projected in the theory. So the line of reasoning afterward does not have meaning concerning the described theory. (As I deduce from what you wrote).

 

[DaveC426913]

Interesting, can you provide a link?

"Partly because of theoretical and mathematical difficulties and partly because of the extremely high energies needed to test these theories experimentally, there is so far no experimental evidence that would unambiguously point to any of these models being a correct fundamental description of nature. This has led some in the community to criticize these approaches to unification and question the value of continued research on these problems."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

Personally, I think string theory is great. It's just a little ahead of its time.When I first started reading about it (in the previous millennium), a scientist quipped 'it's like a piece of 21st century math that fell into the 20th century'.

 

[Write4U]

Personally, I think string theory is great. It's just a little ahead of its time.When I first started reading about it (in the previous millennium), a scientist quipped 'it's like a piece of 21st century math that fell into the 20th century'.

I ran across this older piece describing the quest for the Higgs boson at that time and it seems that time it was thought that the Higgs field provides the intermediate step from "pure energy state" of strings into "mass bearing" particles.

Since then the Higgs boson has been produced and if my conjecture above is correct, it would be an example of a string having converted from pure energetic quanta into a massive (if unstable) particle.

How does the Higgs boson affect string theory? February 26, 2001

Over the past few decades, scientists have developed a successful and well-tested description of our physical world, called the Standard Model of particle physics. It incorporates the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces into a coherent picture and describes all relevant experiments.

But one test has not yet been completed: for consistency, and to account for the masses of particles, the theory requires the existence of a new field called the Higgs field which is analogous to the familiar electromagnetic field but with new kinds of properties. Just as we learn of electromagnetic fields by detecting their quanta, particles called photons, we hope to learn of the Higgs field by detecting its quanta, called Higgs bosons.

If the Higgs boson (named after British physicist Peter Higgs) were discovered, it would actually be one of the most important experimental discoveries of all time, in large part because of the unique role Higgs physics plays.

On one hand, it completes the Standard Model, tying together the successful description of the microscopic physical world, which scientists have sought to understand for many centuries. This description tells us how the physical world works. At the same time, the form the Higgs physics takes points to how the Standard Model can be strengthened and extended to describe not only how the world works but why it works that way.

The Higgs boson is important because it is the transition to why. The Higgs boson is also a new kind of matter, the first in a century.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-the-higgs-boson

The power requirements are enormous as you observed, but that would suggest that in nature the conversion from string to particle happens in the violence of the cosmic nebulae.

Cosmic clouds form fantastic shapes in the central regions of emission nebula IC 1805. The clouds are sculpted by stellar winds and radiation from massive hot stars in the nebula's newborn star cluster, Melotte 15. About 1.5 million years young, the cluster stars are toward the right in this colorful skyscape, along with dark dust clouds in silhouette against glowing atomic gas.

A composite of narrowband and broadband telescopic images, the view spans about 30 light-years and includes emission from ionized hydrogen, sulfur, and oxygen atoms mapped to green, red, and blue hues in the popular Hubble Palette. Wider field images reveal that IC 1805's simpler, overall outline suggests its popular name - The Heart Nebula. IC 1805 is located about 7,500 light years away toward the boastful constellation Cassiopeia.

http://www.astroeder.com/ic1805nb_eder_en.html

I really like the concept of "strings", dynamic energy quanta, objects which display the very wave-particle duality required for QM.

Is it the frequency of the string that determines the physical atomic pattern of the massive particle? What is the frequency of Hydrogen?

 

[Write4U]

WOW....... Frequency of hydrogen!

The hydrogen line, 21-centimeter line or H I line[1] refers to the electromagnetic radiationspectral line that is created by a change in the energy state of neutral hydrogen atoms. This electromagnetic radiation is at the precise frequency of 1420405751.7667±0.0009 Hz,[2][3] which is equivalent to the vacuum wavelength of 21.1061140542 cm in free space. This wavelength falls within the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum, and it is observed frequently in radio astronomy, since those radio waves can penetrate the large clouds of interstellar cosmic dust that are opaque to visible light.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_line
and

Abstract - The results of a joint experiment aimed primarily at the determination of the frequency of the H1 hyperfine transition (F = 1, mF =O) cf (F = 0, mF 0) is reported.

In terms of the frequency of the Cs133 hyperfine transition (F = 4, mF = 0) c-* (F = 3, mF O), defined as 9192 631 770 Hz, for the unperturbed hydrogen transition frequency the value VH = 1420 405 751.768 HZ

https://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/13.pdf

 

[James R]

T.O.E

∆0 = -0.5+0.5=1/t

Come back when you know some real science.

Moderator note: Mark Turner has been permanently banned from sciforums.

See here.

 

[James R]

T.O.E

∆0 = -0.5+0.5=1/t

Come back when you know some real science.

Note the troll tactics...

Meaningless pseudo-maths statement, followed by an invitation to rumble, the whole designed in the hope that it will attract an outraged or angry response. In other words, troll bait 101.

 

[exchemist]

WOW....... Frequency of hydrogen! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_line
and

https://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/13.pdf

Why wow? It's just a transition between two hyperfine states - standard undergraduate stuff.

Mind you, it is actually electric dipole forbidden, so it is an extremely weak line. But then, there's so much hydrogen floating about that that compensates.

 

[Write4U]

Why wow? It's just a transition between two hyperfine states - standard undergraduate stuff.

That's where I live.

Mind you, it is actually electric dipole forbidden, so it is an extremely weak line. But then, there's so much hydrogen floating about that that compensates.

This was the reason I picked it as well as the fact it was one of the very first particles which formed after the BB.

I just realized that the alternating states of the H atom already generate waves at that level. One step removed from the energetic fields which produce the fundamental particles.

I thought this might be of interest.

Ron de Jong. Published on Jul 11, 2015
What you see here (directly above) is an abstract representation of a hydrogen atom. The big blueish planet represents the proton or the nucleus of the hydrogen atom. The blue particles are 3 experimental electrons orbiting the proton / atom nucleus. The yellow balls are possibly photons orbiting the electron causing the electron to wobble, making fast electrons look like waves. The reason i suggest it could be a photon is because with electron quantum leaps to lower atomic shells (Bohr) the atom emits light.

Quantum leaps to higher / outer atomic shells do not cause light / photons to be emitted, whereas I even doubt that photons are EM light particles. It could well be that actually electrons them selves are causing the light phenomena on our retina, because we emit electrons through radio antenna's. Light simply is a shorter wavelength particle in comparison to radio emitted electrons, which are just longer wavelength electrons coming from an antenna. The photon / electron I consider a separate topic / field of study

For now this is about the question whether EM waves are particles (likely electrons) that move in wave patterns. Check how the smaller yellow photon makes the slightly bigger blue electron wobble on it's own orbiting trajectory around the proton. The top electron is a suspect candidate for what could be happening on the scale of electrons. The middle electron is just there so you see the difference in the electron's orbit (when nothing orbits the electron itself). The lower electron is just there to simulate a horizontally orbiting photon around the electron (highly unlike, because highly unstable).

Category
Science & Technology

 

[exchemist]

That's where I live.

This was the reason I picked it as well as the fact it was one of the very first particles which formed after the BB.

I just realized that the alternating states of the H atom already generate waves at that level. One step removed from the energetic fields which produce the fundamental particles.

I thought this might be of interest.

Category
Science & Technology

Why have you started posting crap suddenly? Who is this de Jong joker?

 

[Write4U]

Why have you started posting crap suddenly? Who is this de Jong joker?

Thanks for responding.
I'm sorry. I have no clue what it is about and I must have been tired or fooled by the official looking Category; "Science and Technology".

It looked interesting and I hoped for a comment on the science. If it does not ring a bell with you, I'm sure it has no Scientific or Technological value......