joigus

Just confirming what @MigL said: No. It is the same as the so-called Lagrangian formula that @Mordred wrote, but made just a tiny bit more explicit. In fact, I left out a term that Mordred included, which is gravitation. There's a huge amount more information to deploy even to describe the simplest of situations. So a primitive culture could do nothing with it. And that is without even thinking about questions of conventions, notation, etc. This would lead us back to the fascinating topic of what is simple and what isn't. One has to have a considerable preliminary knowledge of what to do with that recipe before any calculation is tackled. In the case of a Lagrangian, I'm afraid nothing would be simple, at any level. It would certainly not be like reading the digits of an irrational number, for which you would gain an important insight if someone revealed where the sequence came from in the form of a simple geometric idea, or a limit. Going back to @MJ kihara's example of the "primitive civilisation", you would have to --among many other things-- telling them about free parameters: The coupling constants (including the Higgs) and the CKM matrix of mixing angles. Provided they understood what we would be telling them, they would naturally ask, "why these numbers, and not others?" To which we would have to look to the skies, searching for their storm god, and shrug in ignorance.

I've thought exactly the same.

Something like this?: https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-deconstructed-standard-model-equation

It would have to explain all the coupling parameters and all the mixing angles of the standard model. It would have to explain why there are exactly 3 families of fermions, (electron, tau, mu) and corresponding quarks (u,d; c,s; t,b) --families of particles. It would have to explain not-so-well understood components of gravity (vacuum energy and dark matter) There is a swathe of accidental events that would not necessarily have to be included. Example: Why did a Mars-sized planetoid collide with Earth circa 3.9* billion years ago? Why did the Permian, Cretaceous, etc, extintions take place? Why am I here, drinking some wine, talking to you? (that's certainly part of everything), etc. Those are considered historical contingencies. Other cosmological problems you would be forgiven for not being able to explain, like matter-antimatter asymmetry, details on CMB etc. * 4.5? I don't remember. I almost forgot: It wouldn't hurt to know (if possible) why all dimensions are unobservable except for 4. All in all, that's a decent summary of what scientists understand by "theory of everything".

I always try to look at as many basic issues as possible before I get involved with the finer details. The finer details don't require as much attention if the basic issues haven't been properly dealt with. Once they have... well, let's have it. Polar coordinates are particularly useful when you have to deal with problems that are spherically symmetric. If I had to deal with the EM field created by a straight wire, I wouln't use spherical coordinates. I would use cilindrical coordinates instead. Why? Because the charge-current distribution of a straight wire has cilindrical symmetry, not spherical one.

r, the way you have defined it, should be dimensionless (provided cosine is cosine, of course). By dimensional analysis alone, provided r is some kind of distance parameter and cosine is... well... cosine, your Bas forces the use of some characteristic (fundamental distance, \( \cos\left(r\theta/r_{0}\right) \). \( r_0 \) would play the role of that fundamental distance. This is not necessarily a crazy idea, but you would have to justify it by drawing different consequences, etc. One immediate one I can think of would be renormalisation, the cosmological constant, etc.

That's actually what I first thought, because I'd noticed that glitch long ago, but I tried forcing plain text and it still produced a compilation error... 🤷‍♂️ I do know LaTeX gives you problem if you don't nest your braces {} for some sequences. So who knows...

Golden rule comes from a fundamental awareness of understanding reciprocity. A mandate from heaven, I'm sure, is the poor-man's version of ethics.

My point on this thread was made. Anyway, I didn't say schyzotypism is limited to religions. I said the occurrence of religious visionaries through history are likely to be related to schyzotipism, and the fact that genes related to them might not have disappeared from the gene pool on account of those genes not being detrimental, but quite the contrary, is some special cases. As to reductionism of ilness, don't oversimplify what an ilness probably is in many cases, and more in particular for mental ilness: A consequence of many factors, many of them environmental. It's not like a line of code in the software telling the hardware to do something. I did say that.

Exactly. That too. But a scalar relation makes it so obvious, as scalar = same in all reference frames/coordinate systems. I also had problems with cos(r·theta) if r is the polar distance and cos is the trigonometric cosine function we know and love, but one thing at a time...

Your equations do not display correctly. Please, review your LateX code. Give it a try on The Sandbox, eg, Often you can run your code piecewise there and usually you can isolate the part of the code that's making it fail to compile. Nevertheless, I see matters of basic concepts/principle etc that tell me your idea cannot possibly be right. Introducing a particular set of coordinates to tag space-time points should not affect any calculations in any sensible physical theory. When, eg, you write the Lagrangian piece, \[ \frac{1}{2}(\partial_{\mu}\phi)_{\text{Bas}}(\partial^{\mu}\phi)_{\text{Bas}}-V_{\text{Bas}}(\phi) \] functions such as a scalar field or a Higgs-like potential should not depend on the particular coordinate choice, on account of both being scalars. Sub-indexing "Bas" meaning "evaluated in my coordinates" should not make any difference. So nothing you propose seems very sound as per the formalism. I hope that's clear and was helpful.

Theories of everything are ten a penny lately. When you look more closely, they don't even attempt to do what the term TOE actually means. Namely, explaining the whole spectrum of bosons and fermions, as Mordred pointed out. In this case, they want to supersede a theory of the hydrogen atom that was considered obsolete already in the 1920s!!!

Oh, no! Battle of the wits in full swing. I'm out, lest I get even more confused!

Here: (my emphasis.) There. It takes two neurons to understand this. Either you are an 11-year-old, and not a particularly brilliant one, or you are being disingenuous on purpose, and therefore intellectually dishonest.

Must be king James English...

It's not. It doesn't. Do ask questions.

This strikes me as blatantly inconsistent with what you said in other thread. How did you put it? Oh, yes... In every atom of one thought the whole universe is contained. Or something like that. Please, make up your mind.

What leads people to the particular god they worship is the cultural environment in which they grow up. And that is an empirical fact. Or do you know of any person who grows up in Yemen, spends all their life there, and somehow ends up worshipping Ganesha, or the Christian god?

No. You ask questions. You seem to have dropped the attitude. Now drop the nonsense. Many good people here, they could teach you a lot. Take my advice. Bye.

Still not making any sense. Are you fielding questions now? What is this, a press conference?

This doesn't make any sense.

You've been explained, quite correctly I think, what a theory is as we understand it in science. Can you make a prediction? Or explain the workings of thermal engines? After all yours is a theory of everything.

Clever. But, the way in which you sub-divide the side of the square is divergent, as, \[ \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{3} + \frac{1}{4} + \frac{1}{5} + \cdots \] is the well-known harmonic series which is divergent. So, \[ \left( 1 + \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{3} + \frac{1}{4} + \frac{1}{5} + \cdots \right)^{2} \] cannot possibly give you a convergent series, I would say. This is compounded with the fact that what you have on your RHS is an infinite series of infinite series. Sometimes it happens that a divergent series can be useful because it can be regularised, or made sense of in some clever way. Euler was a master at this. Have you tried to discuss it with a professional mathematician? By the way, that would be an identity, not an equation. Otherwise, what is the unknown to solve for?

You need the mathematical counterpart to your... erm... theory. A fitting name for it would be "calculus of platitudes".

You're going all over the place with this. Young's experiment works better with monochromatic light. And trajectories split at the double-slit piece, not in the observer's eye. Newton's experiment of splitting light by their frequencies (energy of the photons) can be explained classically and does not demonstrate quantum mechanics. And, btw, I don't know of any single case in the history of science when a paradox was solved by throwing another paradox at it. Do you?