Jump to content

JGNLBCA

Members
  • Content Count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About JGNLBCA

  • Rank
    Quark

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. JGNLBCA

    John's TOE

    Ok, I have been reading with a bit more patience. Right now I am looking at superposition states of anti-matter being DM. They did the double slit experiment last year with positrons. Would DM need to be at near zero degees K? Does this smell fishy? Please disregard the previous confusing post regarding Hilbert spaces.
  2. It took more than 10 years of sober observation and reflection to figure it out for myself. My life is better knowing. Early diagnosis is better now, I suppose, if you have access to health care. Testing now is easy and painless if anybody is wondering for themselves.
  3. I can relate with every word here. Bravo! I'm 49 and didn't even know I was on the spectrum until about 3 years ago. Back to OP. I don't know how far you have gotten with your student but I know when I was a kid in high school and after I had mastered trig and and trig based physics I had a giant shock, a trauma really. At that time, calculus and that progression in physics felt like someone telling me that "everything you have just learned isn't correct". I thought I knew precisely how most things worked, but then I was told to start over from scratch where everything is much messier. I crashed and burned. My academic career never really recovered until a a few years ago. Break the news to the gently and when you change from one way of thinking to another, make sure they understand why. Also they should know that they do not need to forget or disregard the previous way of thinking because it is still useful. I hope this helps.
  4. Earth Capture theory is not a new idea, but an old debunked one if memory serves. Early Earth's history was largely influenced by a period of increased vulcanism. Vulcanism was responsible for increased CO2 and temperature, not a variation in the sun. The giant-impact hypothesis is far more interesting to talk about IMO. "Good point, which points to another issue that requires explanation: where did it form and how was it ejected from that system?" There are ways to eject a planet from its solar system. Can we re-capture that ejected planet in a different system if every vector matches up, possibly. Is that likely? No.
  5. JGNLBCA

    John's TOE

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.1556.pdf The Algebra of Grand Unified Theories John Baez and John Huerta this one stops working for me here. "In general, if a system’s state can lie in a Hilbert space V or in a Hilbert space W, the total Hilbert space is then V ⊕ W." Instead of either V or W every particle in a systems state (the universe) must lie in varying degrees of both Hilbert spaces V AND W dependent on its location in its galaxy per observed galaxy mechanics. I give significant weight to this one little observation and equation from my outline: "We might agree, as Newton would, that if the Higgs Field is described as a positive scalar force as G+ then there must be an opposite balancing negative scalar force observed as the effects of dark matter and energy as G-. For every G+ there exists G-."
  6. JGNLBCA

    John's TOE

    Everything copied and pasted. Thanks
  7. JGNLBCA

    John's TOE

    Yes QFT. That is exactly where I will study. The writers notes that I was writing to myself should've have clued me in. But if QFT is completed and unified with the The Standard Model and Relativity as it should applied as you suggest, will that answer all the big mysteries that I list in the intro? (honest question) Work being done with "partner" particles is where I was looking. Those partner particles would NOT be mirrors as asymmetry would dictate but they would fulfill the role to complete QFT symmetry weirdly.. And then I am lost.
  8. JGNLBCA

    John's TOE

    Hawks and Hounds hunt better together.
  9. JGNLBCA

    John's TOE

    No, please criticize my paper, that is why I'm here. Not many have offered an outline as big as this yet to my knowledge. I want people to please point out the errors in my way of thinking so I can grow personally. If M-theory is an issue for some here I have no problems renaming the terms oppoverse, multiverse, and dimension to operate within a 4D one and only universe theory. The terms would describe unknown parts of that one universe. From my perspective It can be see a one thing, or a group of things working together. Now I suppose I could write a 428 page scientific paper describing the chemical and physical properties of the valve cover, belts, pulleys and air cleaner on an engine. But then, you still would learn nothing of how a 4 stroke engine operates? Maybe that is the problem. My simple model does work somewhat as a function over time.
  10. JGNLBCA

    John's TOE

    I would say that if I read 428 pages of mathematics I would probably be left unsatisfied and frustrated as well. My point is how can you possibly even begin to work out the minutia that is demanded without a working roadmap or an outline? This is speculation after all, a place to dream and ask questions. Count the question marks in my article. I am still working out more of the math, but I honestly need help. I think you can see that I addressed many of the issues you had and I appreciate the help already given. I guess I'll see you next year.
  11. JGNLBCA

    John's TOE

    I think I'm ready for you this time Mordred! I told you I'd be back. Sorry no abstract yet, but it is much better than it was last year. I do know that it is still full of errors and have my big red marker ready. the project.6.pdf
  12. I do have a psychological aversion to calculus that I developed when I was young (funny true story). I do know that high level calculus is required for the QM equations. I can also tell you that whatever I do it will be a much simpler approach than SM theory. That being said it might be many months before I respond again, or never. so I leave you with a couple of quotes from Feynman.. "You can recognize truth by its beauty and simplicity. When you get it right, it is obvious that it is right—at least if you have any experience—because usually what happens is that more comes out than goes in. ...The inexperienced, the crackpots, and people like that, make guesses that are simple, but you can immediately see that they are wrong, so that does not count. Others, the inexperienced students, make guesses that are very complicated, and it sort of looks as if it is all right, but I know it is not true because the truth always turns out to be simpler than you thought." "I do feel strongly that this is nonsense! … So perhaps I could entertain future historians by saying I think all this superstring stuff is crazy and is in the wrong direction. I think all this superstring stuff is crazy and is in the wrong direction. … I don’t like it that they’re not calculating anything. … why are the masses of the various particles such as quarks what they are? All these numbers … have no explanations in these string theories – absolutely none! … I don’t like that they don’t check their ideas. I don’t like that for anything that disagrees with an experiment, they cook up an explanation—a fix-up to say, “Well, it might be true.” For example, the theory requires ten dimensions. Well, maybe there’s a way of wrapping up six of the dimensions. Yes, that’s all possible mathematically, but why not seven? When they write their equation, the equation should decide how many of these things get wrapped up, not the desire to agree with experiment. In other words, there’s no reason whatsoever in superstring theory that it isn’t eight out of the ten dimensions that get wrapped up and that the result is only two dimensions, which would be completely in disagreement with experience. So the fact that it might disagree with experience is very tenuous, it doesn’t produce anything."
  13. Yep, my mistake. I was thinking of Sagan and Hawking
  14. “Not really, one doesn't need to apply a multiverse to account for the w=-1 equation of state for DE. Even though we do not fully understand DE we cam readily model it's influence using its thermodynamic contributions. In the case of DM the situation is different in so far as its influence matches that of matter with equation of state w=0. Even though we don't know the particle itself. “ Nobody knows what DM/DE is. My hypothesis is meant as an explanation for the gravitational and thermodynamic contributions of DM/DE. As an overlapping closed system certain contributions of the negative universe are detectable in our universe. “GR was never designed to predict the SM of particles. It is designed to handle field treatments of relative measurements with a variable time. “ GR was modest at first but after his predictions were confirmed, He became more bold with his claims. Both Einstein and Hawking near death thought that TTOE would be found in m-theory. “You haven't defined how your expanding the first law of thermodynamics you need the equations for that. What you have described isn't a closed system by any rules of thermodynamics. So you wouldn't be able to apply the first law regarding conservation laws in a multiverse scenario as you would be dealing with multiple systems.” The multiverse should be considered a closed system, obeying the first law. The interactions between the 2 are within that closed system. Both require the contributions from the other. Can you guess what happens when entropy reaches zero in the negative universe? I’ve left out a lot of good information from this summary. “Not to mention there is no evidence for a multiverse itself though the possibility of a multiverse existing is viable that doesn't entail it has any connection with our universe even through BH'S. Even if there is connection through a BH you still have to deal with Raye of information exchange and causal connected regions limited by c. “ The evidence for a multiverse is detectable as DM/DE. There is some thought required to work out the aperture effects, the connection may be less than the width of an atom. Hawking radiation may be deflection? “So quite frankly I see no viability in anything you have described thus far. Quite frankly you could literally invalidate the theory by both GR and thermodynamic laws.” I disagree, my hypothesis embraces both. “Not to mention that you would require the mathematics to make testable predictions which is completely lacking.” This summary was originally intended for ordinary people. I can translate it into Nerdspeak later. There is actually quite a bit of math there, just written out in prose.
  15. "Not everything comes in pairs for starters, the strong and weak force both have three charges as one example. " I didn't say everything I said "many" There is a lot to say about pairs of things and dualism, etc, but I was invoking more the spirit of Newton with that part of the hypotheses, "Secondly Kaluzu Klien theory describes a specific symmetry group U(1) ekectromagnetic charge under rotation symmetry at the infinitismally pointlike scale and has nothing to do with Blackholes and their singularities. The U(1) symmetry group is also called the circle group due to the rotation symmetry relations. You might want to study Kaluzu Klien as it is one of the earlier steps to unifying the four forces under symmetry and symmetry breaking. We have since unified the strong and weak force only gravity remains elusive due to renormalization. It tends to diverge from renormalization. The fifth dimension under Kaluzu Klien has nothing to do with other universes." forget Kaluza klein if its a problem for you. My hypothethetical model would contain 8 universes, The pos and negative universe and six more miniscule small "pocket" universes, no mass or dimension possibly just EM and Nuclear forces. I do understand the multiple definitions of dimension or dimensions, and if I worded something sloppily I apologize. Ill be honest I have aspergers and I have difficulty with levels of meaning. I've been in crisis the last six months trying to write this so that people can see the logic as I do. Really I would like to know if you understand what I am trying to do, sloppily worded or not.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.