Recently I found a paper about new theory. It seems a kind of digital physics.

The paper is located at this link http://figshare.com/articles/Nokton_theory/1549720

Is it a good candidate to be a theory of everything ?

is the paper published in any reputable peer reviewed journals?

I don't think.

!

Moderator Note

If you want to discuss it you'll need to post the pertinent information here.

is the paper published in any reputable peer reviewed journals?

It doesn't matter.

 

What matter, if it can predict everything what we know today..

Starting from spectral lines of Hydrogen,

then to Deuterium,

and Helium..

First, can space and time both discret, unlike general relativity.

Second, I found that the idea resolve the measurement problem in quantum mechanis.

Well it seems to me that the paper contains a self contradiction since in the opening discussion it restricts the scope of the theory to rational numbers, but then goes on to discuss Euclidian norms, which use the square root.

 

Can you throw any light on this?

 

 

Second, I found that the idea resolve the measurement problem in quantum mechanis

 

 

By this I assume you mean the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which is inherent in the pure mathematics of the operators involved and does not really present a problem.

First, can space and time both discret, unlike general relativity.

 

Does he present any evidence for this?

 

 

Second, I found that the idea resolve the measurement problem in quantum mechanis.

 

Can you explain how.

There is no contradiction because it used with D^4.

For heisenburg principale, I don't have any idea but, it's possible to discover onther form of this principale.

 

There is no contradiction because it used with D^4.

 

I don't follow.

 

 

For heisenburg principale, I don't have any idea but, it's possible to discover onther form of this principale.

 

 

 

Yes, Heisenberg's application is not the only application of the uncertainty principle.

Its effects are normally insignificant in the macro world (larger than atoms).

He was the first to apply it to the micro sub atomic world where it is hugely significant.

 

Do you understand where it comes from?

Once you see the connection between the mathematics and the real world it really is very simple and beautiful.

 

Does he present any evidence for this?

It's a hypothesis. I think Loop Quantum Gravity use a discrete space and time.

 

 

 

Can you explain how.

 

Because the theory use a well definited states for all noktons. The probability of displacements forces us to take all possible paths.

 

I don't follow.

 

k _-x ( i,t, Γ ) = .... /D(i,j,t, Γ ) ⁴

It doesn't matter.

it does if you don't want to get the article from that specific link in the op, which i don't. the title of the paper would be good enough as i could look into other places to read it.

 

i don't disagree with the rest of what you've posted.

Edited September 30, 201510 yr by andrewcellini

Why does this not contradict this definition

 

 

 

Let be a number between 1 and 3. If this number is rational, then we can present
it accurately using a finite number of bits (bits of information). If instead it is
irrational as p= sqrt(2) then it is impossible to present it with a finite number of bits.

 

Further if there are only a finite number of noktons how can intermediate and in particular irrational values of measure be achieved?

 

Edit spelling.

Edited October 1, 201510 yr by studiot

It's about rules. Il think the rules must be rational.

we are always sqrt(x)²=x.

Then explain how the stated rules allow the conditions I have described.

 

"I think .... must be...." does not cut it.

 

You have not replied to my comment about the uncertainty principle, have you given up on that?

No idea.

But the theory defines some kind of observables. It use a prabability. So we can calculate mean, standart deviation...

Edited September 30, 201510 yr by ensea2004

I wouldn't place any faith in this theory. For one thing his paper shows zero correlations to known formulas for comparison. Searches on it didn't reveal a single peer review.

 

There is also zero correlations to the applicable symmetry groups such as SO(3), SO(2) and U(1).

Besides anyone claiming a theory of everything in a mere 18 pages should raise a red flag.

Edited October 1, 201510 yr by Mordred

Some notions are completely different from quantum mechanics and standart model like symmetries, observable...

I think the author search for help.

What suprises me is that having been told there is a body of mathematics that develops a much more general situation than the over-restricted mathematics presented in the paper, you are not interested.

 

I have not checked that the Schwarz inequality will lead to the paper's results but they look similar.

What suprises me is that having been told there is a body of mathematics that develops a much more general situation than the over-restricted mathematics presented in the paper, you are not interested.

Can you explain more.

 

 

I have not checked that the Schwarz inequality will lead to the paper's results but they look similar.

Where ?

Anyone read the paper ?

Anyone read the paper ?

 

Doesn't sound worth the time.

Il found an article about Dr. Edward Fredkin and digital philosophy.

http://www.digitalphilosophy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/nsmin.pdf

Edited October 1, 201510 yr by ensea2004

Il found an article about Dr. Edward Fredkin and digital philosophy.

http://www.digitalphilosophy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/nsmin.pdf

 

How is that relevant to the subject of the thread?

They are some common ideas, like using a grid and rules. States are updated by step.

But there's a difference : Edward Fredkin uses a deterministic rules and nokton theory uses some kind of probabilities.