SimonFunnell Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 This is probably going to be a bit controversial, but I find this a great forum so I am hoping things go well. Fifteen years ago I had a profound realisation about the nature of reality, this realisation is basically a theory of everything (actually its just a space/time theory). Now I realise what I am saying here and it is either one of two things: 1 - I am insane (most likely). 2 - I am proper genius (highly unlikely). Now if its the first one, there might be a few laughs and that will be the end of it. Not very interesting outcome. However, if its the second one, then this is not only good for me, its good for all mankind. Very interesting outcome. I am working on presenting my theory in a video I expect to release in the next 6 months but I would like to, as an experiment, get some thoughts from people on what a theory of everything should do and what people expect it to be. For example Stephen Hawkings (according to wikipedia) stated "it would necessarily be a set of equations", this is actually not correct (assuming number 2). Also, Einstein, despite recent claims he was right (detecting gravity waves) would basically be wrong. Thank you for you thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Pleeeeease, don't do a Galileo on us when it gets vaporised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonFunnell Posted March 8, 2016 Author Share Posted March 8, 2016 Pleeeeease, don't do a Galileo on us when it gets vaporised. Not sure I understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) Most people get very upset and possessive about their ideas as it gets analysed and dismantled with references and evidence. They then go into a it's-me-against-the-establishment mode, hence, the reference to Galileo. Seems to happen a lot with stuff to do with Einstein's ideas. This will likely be moved to speculations because this forum likes to keep established science separate from personal ideas so that it doesn't confuse those who wish to just learn about the established science. Edited March 8, 2016 by StringJunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 For example Stephen Hawkings (according to wikipedia) stated "it would necessarily be a set of equations", this is actually not correct (assuming number 2). The problem is, if you don't have any mathematics then you can't make quantitative, testable predictions. In which case, how do we tell if your idea works (matches reality) or not? (And Hawking, not Hawkings.) Also, Einstein, despite recent claims he was right (detecting gravity waves) would basically be wrong. It is not about Einstein (although that could just be metonymy). It is the fact that the mathematics he developed produces results that match experiment and observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonFunnell Posted March 8, 2016 Author Share Posted March 8, 2016 Look, if I am wrong, fair enough, I am not emotionally attached to the idea. But I will be honest, I am not bragging, its just the plain facts, I have an IQ of about 140 and I am a polymath, I am a reasonably intelligent person. Furthermore, I have, like you would do in a Phd, taken one single problem and found an intuitive solution. It just so happens that because its a space/time theory and everything else is built on top of that, it effects everything else. Space/time underpin physics in the same way physics underpins biology and so on, its at the root. It will not be me vs the establishment either (although I do expect resistance initially) as I have a research plan to prove/disprove my case so others will likely get involved to take it further, its not going to be me alone. I have read the type of posts you are referring to, and yes people do get a upset. I am happy to be proved right or wrong, at this stage that's now what I really want. The problem is, if you don't have any mathematics then you can't make quantitative, testable predictions. In which case, how do we tell if your idea works (matches reality) or not? (And Hawking, not Hawkings.) It is not about Einstein (although that could just be metonymy). It is the fact that the mathematics he developed produces results that match experiment and observation. The mathematics will come with further study, my work just lays the philosophical foundations, it opens up a rich line of enquiry. Furthermore, considering this statement by John Wheeler: “Some principle uniquely right and compelling must, when one knows it, be also so obvious that it is clear the universe is built, and must be built, in such and such a way that it could not possibly be otherwise.” This statement is so true, its pretty obvious once you understand it. The problem is, if you don't have any mathematics then you can't make quantitative, testable predictions. In which case, how do we tell if your idea works (matches reality) or not? Ill be honest, what I am doing is very Copernican in nature. Consider the statement 'the earth revolves around the sun not the sun around the earth', yes there is mathematics involved, but it was essentially a simple non-mathematical idea, a new way to look at things. What I am doing is very similar, I am basically saying the following abstract is overly complex and as creative as it is, is basically modern epicycles. "Abstract: Recently, black hole and brane production at CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has been widely discussed. We suggest that there is a possibility to test causality at the LHC. We argue that if the scale of quantum gravity is of the order of few TeVs, proton-proton collisions at the LHC could lead to the formation of time machines (spacetime regions with closed timelike curves) which violate causality. One model for the time machine is a traversable wormhole. We argue that the traversable wormhole production cross section at the LHC is of the same order as the cross section for the black hole production. Traversable wormholes assume violation of the null energy condition (NEC) and an exotic matter similar to the dark energy is required. Decay of the wormholes/time machines and signatures of time machine events at the LHC are discussed." If I am right, then dark matter/energy/flow, inflation, are all modern epicycles. In fact, give me 3 well trained physicists and I could prove/disprove my case in 3-6 months, maybe even less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 Look, if I am wrong, fair enough, I am not emotionally attached to the idea. But I will be honest, I am not bragging, its just the plain facts, I have an IQ of about 140 and I am a polymath, I am a reasonably intelligent person. Furthermore, I have, like you would do in a Phd, taken one single problem and found an intuitive solution. It just so happens that because its a space/time theory and everything else is built on top of that, it effects everything else. Space/time underpin physics in the same way physics underpins biology and so on, its at the root. It will not be me vs the establishment either (although I do expect resistance initially) as I have a research plan to prove/disprove my case so others will likely get involved to take it further, its not going to be me alone. I have read the type of posts you are referring to, and yes people do get a upset. I am happy to be proved right or wrong, at this stage that's now what I really want. Cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 1 - I am insane (most likely). 2 - I am proper genius (highly unlikely). 3 - I am wrong (ultimate historical level of likelihood). One of the things you'll likely be asked to do is derive the altitude of a geostationary orbit around a planet, using your ideas. It's something a TOE should be able to do, so it would be much, much, much better than a video if you could show some work on that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonFunnell Posted March 9, 2016 Author Share Posted March 9, 2016 One of the things you'll likely be asked to do is derive the altitude of a geostationary orbit around a planet, using your ideas. It's something a TOE should be able to do, so it would be much, much, much better than a video if you could show some work on that. Yes, stuff like that will come. As I have said, give me 3 well trained physicist and I will prove/disprove my case in 3-6 months. I will remind you also that the idea is literally as simple as 'the earth revolves around the sun not the sun around the earth'. There is no mathematics in that. Furthermore its a space time theory, a literal specification of space and time that is simply not compatible with relativity and other spacetime manifold derived ideas. So as not to be too mysterious I will say it plain and simple as it will be asserted in the video, the universe is a kind of cellular automata. To the best of my understanding this was first suggested by Konrad Zuze in 'Calculating Space, and interestingly enough, Stephen Wolfram, who studied absolutely every aspect of cellular automata one could imagine, does not seem to touch on this particular implementation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) I will remind you also that the idea is literally as simple as 'the earth revolves around the sun not the sun around the earth'. There is no mathematics in that. But no one accepted the heliocentric model just because it sounds nice. It is because it turned out to be (mathematically) a better model. After all, without some sort of evidence, it might be that your idea is akin to saying that the Earth revolves around Saturn. Edited March 9, 2016 by Strange 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonFunnell Posted March 9, 2016 Author Share Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) But no one accepted the heliocentric model just because it sounds nice. It is because it turned out to be (mathematically) a better model. After all, without some sort of evidence, it might be that your idea is akin to saying that the Earth revolves around Saturn. It has nothing to do with mathematics, it wasn't a better model, it was the truth in relation to something that was false, the model came after. I have a simple idea vs a massive body of work by many intelligent people over centuries, I cant compete with that. That said however, if I am right, then the new model that emerges will supersede the standard model, and not because its a better model, but because its the actual truth. And even as it is, there are plenty of good reasons to believe the universe is a kind of cellular automata, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest it is the case. I discuss the reasoning and evidence in the video, everything points to it. Edited March 9, 2016 by SimonFunnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 It has nothing to do with mathematics, it wasn't a better model, it was the truth in relation to something that was false, the model came after. How did anyone know it was "the truth"? That can only come from testing the model against reality. I discuss the reasoning and evidence in the video, everything points to it. For various reasons, I won't be watching the video. But I look forward to the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 So as not to be too mysterious I will say it plain and simple as it will be asserted in the video, the universe is a kind of cellular automata. Please go further than some analogy about the universe being like a biological system. We find, historically, that people tend to stretch analogies like that much farther than they're meant to. You seem wedded to the video idea. We have rules that people need to be able to participate in discussions without having to watch videos or read blogs on other sites, so please provide a synopsis of your idea along with the video, if you really think the video is a good idea, which it's not, not really. And you should figure out a way to tell all the maths folks we have hovering around any Einstein is WRONG!!! thread that there won't be any candy for them. They'll be bummed out, of course, because that will say, "I have NO IDEA what I'm talking about" to them, since they have the math that tells them GPS works and all. Just sayin'. Please don't post a video. Awful, awful idea. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonFunnell Posted March 9, 2016 Author Share Posted March 9, 2016 How did anyone know it was "the truth"? That can only come from testing the model against reality. We know today that earth revolves around the sun and not the other way round. Today, we know it is the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 I don't see the point of having a discussion about a topic that someone might broach in the future. If you really want to talk about what a theory of everything should include, the title is bait-and-switch. If you have a theory of everything, I should be able to ask for the details that current models produce, and you should be able to provide it. It's in the name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) We know today that earth revolves around the sun and not the other way round. Today, we know it is the truth. Yes. Because the model works better than the old one. In other words, because of the math. BTW, that is why none of the cellular automata models have been accepted so far. Although ideas like loop quantum gravity and causal dynamical triangulation are conceptually similar in some ways. Edited March 9, 2016 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonFunnell Posted March 9, 2016 Author Share Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) Please go further than some analogy about the universe being like a biological system. We find, historically, that people tend to stretch analogies like that much farther than they're meant to. You seem wedded to the video idea. We have rules that people need to be able to participate in discussions without having to watch videos or read blogs on other sites, so please provide a synopsis of your idea along with the video, if you really think the video is a good idea, which it's not, not really. And you should figure out a way to tell all the maths folks we have hovering around any Einstein is WRONG!!! thread that there won't be any candy for them. They'll be bummed out, of course, because that will say, "I have NO IDEA what I'm talking about" to them, since they have the math that tells them GPS works and all. Just sayin'. Please don't post a video. Awful, awful idea. I am aware of the success, I am not trying to denigrate the contributions. However, if, for the sake of argument, I am right, then Einstein was incorrect. I cant really help that, the two ideas are simply not compatible. I will still be producing the video, however I understand people not wanting to visit external sites and what not. I will say it a third time, give me 3 well trained physicists and I will prove/disprove in 3-6 months, possibly less. I will be honest, I am not skilled enough to produce the mathematics, yes I am naturally good at maths, I can read about and understand complex maths to some degree, but I cant really develop the equations. I don't see the point of having a discussion about a topic that someone might broach in the future. If you really want to talk about what a theory of everything should include, the title is bait-and-switch. If you have a theory of everything, I should be able to ask for the details that current models produce, and you should be able to provide it. It's in the name. As mentioned previously, it is a simple idea, like 'the earth revolves around the sun not the sun around the earth'. We have relativity which is basically a space/time theory, the universe being a cellular automata (more like a machine than a biological system) is essentially a space/time theory. I am basically saying that relativity is modern epicycles (false) and the truth (about space/time) is actually different. I could of course be wrong. Edited March 9, 2016 by SimonFunnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 I find the discussion of "truth" in relation to science rather worrying.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonFunnell Posted March 9, 2016 Author Share Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) I find the discussion of "truth" in relation to science rather worrying.... I know, if you are influenced by people like Neil deGrasse Tyson or Lawrence Krauss and others then you not so keen on philosophy. Physicists worry me too Look, its the 'truth' that the earth revolves around the sun, there really is nothing to be worried about. Ok, this is the forth time I have mentioned this, but I am going to mention again, except this time I am going to offer up a small incentive. I am looking for 3 physicists to help me prove/disprove my case. I am not rich, but I can afford to pay £100 to each for their efforts. And, if it turns out the universe is a kind of cellular automata, we would have at long last gotten to the final truth. And it would be final, because that's as deep as the universe gets, this, if true, would be the ultimate truth about the universe. What exactly are you worried about? Is it a rational worry? You don't seem to explain why you are worried? Is that not the ultimate goal of science? To discover the truth? Edited March 9, 2016 by SimonFunnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Ok, this is the forth time I have mentioned this, but I am going to mention again, except this time I am going to offer up a small incentive. I am looking for 3 physicists to help me prove/disprove my case. I am not rich, but I can afford to pay £100 to each for their efforts. STOP saying this! You may have an idea that deserves discussion, and that's what we're all about here. I'll bet we can show you're wrong, or if you have some traction, after about two pages of talk. But it just seems ridiculous that you don't know relativity, you don't understand the maths, you're trying to better our best, most supported models, but you somehow just know that three physicists and 3-6 months will do the trick. To be honest, how on Earth are you going to find qualified physicists who will consider your philosophically-based ideas better than their own, professionally trained and physics-educated ideas? Your first step is to give a synopsis (hopefully written), show some supportive evidence for your ideas, ask some questions, and get some review. This might show you pretty quickly if you're missing something basic about current scientific explanations, and need to amend or abandon your concepts. I'd really, really hate to see you waste all those electrons making a video about this when some discussion on a science discussion forum will provide more understanding. More than a video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonFunnell Posted March 9, 2016 Author Share Posted March 9, 2016 Ok, its simple, you can't prove relativity to be fact, its a model that explains things.If the universe was a kind of cellular automata, it wouldn't be a theory, it would be fact.The way to resolve this is to first look at the standard model and ask questions of it, because it is in the process of answering the questions in which the solution naturally emerges. For example, I would like to hear how physicists answer this question: Where are the laws of the universe located? Try answering that, you may deem it philosophy and not relevant but it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) The laws of the universe is located within the dynamics of the universe. It's not written in words but is written in cause and effect Next question Edited March 9, 2016 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonFunnell Posted March 9, 2016 Author Share Posted March 9, 2016 The laws of the universe is located within the dynamics of the universe. Next question That is cosmic sounding, but not an explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Your question itself is foolish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonFunnell Posted March 9, 2016 Author Share Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) Your question itself is foolish. Please explain, and thanks for taking the time out to respond, it is appreciated. For example, if the universe were a cellular automata, that question is not only reasonable, its answerable. If the universe is a kind of cellular automata (composed entirely of identical cells) then all the laws of the universe are encoded into each and every cell, much like a monitor screen or a holographic plate. Edited March 9, 2016 by SimonFunnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts