merlin wood

Can you show us?

See above at post #38 re Bomian mechanics and galaxy rotation.

Physics is applied math, observation and experiment. If you miss out any of these facets, it's not physics. I'm not sure about physics isn't biology, they may seem distinct fields, but as with most scientific fields there's always cross overs, use of logistic and quadratic maps for example are used both in physics and biology, and this is nothing new. Biology is a completely different beast from the days of Darwin..

Well in my hypothesis I don'tmiss out on any of these facets. In fact,

(1) unike any Copenhagen type indeterminate interpretation of quantum mechanics, Bomian mechanics, which is required to to justify the hypothesis of a nonlocally acting cause and its effects, is a systematic mathematically justified argument describing, without paradox, the determinate behaviour of quantum objects beyond the observable evidence and so that this is entirely consistent with a wide range of experimental results,

and

(2) unlike string theory, my hypothesis is totally dependent for its justfication upon careful consideration of a wide range of directly observable large scale natural evidence as well as the observable and measurable experimental evidence of quatum mechanics.

You have a very strange idea of what a hypothesis is, judging by that statement...

Do I? Please explain how so.

I've read the book twice, A appeal to authority, B it's one mans opinion, it's a good book, but don't take it as gospel. You, and neither do I understand string theory enough to formulate an opinion on the subject.

But then it's not just Smolin's opinion, because there's also Peter Woit's book Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law for Unity in Physical Law which is even more damning about string theory. And you may have noticed quotes from several reputable physicists in Smolin's book who give reasons to doubt string theory, and there are more such quotes in Woit's book

Diagrams, just don't cut it, unless you're willing to put the work in, and base your hypothesis on already established math that has held up to experiment and observation, you're not doing physics...like it or not.

But then as I say, there's the mathematics of Bohmian mechanics which is the only quantum interpretation that accounts for the experimental results in terms of the mathematically described variable behaviour of quantum objects in motion. And then there's the mathematically quantified relationship between the orbital acceleration in spiral galaxies and the acceleration in the universal expansion which no existing theory has explained, and which Smolin points out in Ch 13 of his book. He also mentions there that the measured anomolous acceleration rate in the pioneer 10 and 11 space probes is quite close to the universal rate as well.

So that I'd say that if my hypothesis is speculative then any threads on string theory, at least, should be relegated to this subforum too.

It's called Dark because we don't know what it is.... so it's therefore exotic, it's quite unusual (read bloody odd) for massive matter to not be visible at any wavelength therefore I think it counts really as exotic... Although there was some talk of it being caused by neutrinos, current thoughts are I believe that there's just not enough of them to make up the mass and certainly the distribution required....

 

 

 

Diagrams without calculations or maths are meaningless.

 

 

 

Work from just the maths not the interpretation, it removes many difficulties and misunderstandings...

 

 

 

Without maths you don't really have anything :|

But then there is maths involved in my account therefore I do have something.

Doing physics without math is a form of self abuse. It is even worse than doing *shudder* philosophy. Physics is not biology. If you are afraid of or incapable of doing math stop trying to pretend you are doing physics. You are not.

Mere biass reflecting the usual physicists' attempt to argue for the superiority of physics over other sciences. Basically, like nearly all other physicists I've come across, you fail to understand the basic conception of a hypothesis that would explain the natural organisation of matter and the energy it radiates, including quantum wave and entanglement behaviour.

While physicists admire the mathematical complexity and ingenuity of string theory, if you apply Occam's razor to all it's unproven assumptions, plus the fact that no experimental test can prove it right or wrong, given that it's equations have myriads of solutions, you can reasonably conclude that there is nothing more unscientific in orthodox academic science than this so-called theory of everything.

Newton? Invoking the great minds in physics without cause scores high on the crackpot index. Claiming that "I can't do the math but I know I am right" scores very high on the crackpot index. And please. Newton invented the math that physicists use every day. It is called calculus.

If you read Lee Smolin's book The Trouble with Physics you can reasonably concluded that string theory has developed into a crackpot cult where the construction of a priori mathematical models is considered more scientific than testability by experiment and observation.

Physicists still have non-quantitative insights to this day. It is an important part of discovery. The insights become real only after they are expressed mathematically.

In my hypothesis from the evidence of quantum physics I have carefully justified clear diagrammatic models of how a cause could act nonlocally in addition to the forces so as to produce wave and entanglement behaviour, which actually, according to my dictionary, could be called mathematical representation. I then find I can support this represention by considering observable natural evidence.

Doing physics without math is a form of self abuse. It is even worse than doing *shudder* philosophy. Physics is not biology. If you are afraid of or incapable of doing math stop trying to pretend you are doing physics. You are not.

Mere biass reflecting the usual physicists' attempt to argue for the superiority of physics over other sciences. Basically, like nearly all other physicists I've come across, you fail to understand the basic conception of a hypothesis that would explain the natural organisation of matter and the energy it radiates, including quantum wave and entanglement behaviour on terms of a nonlocal cause and it's effects. This needs to be unlike any previous hypothesis or theory in physics.

The fact is that, while physicists admire the mathematical complexity and ingenuity of string theory, if you apply Occam's razor to all it's unproven assumptions, plus the fact that no experimental test can prove it right or wrong, given that it's equations have myriads of solutions, you can reasonably conclude that there is nothing more unscientific in orthodox academic science than this so-called theory of everything.

Newton? Invoking the great minds in physics without cause scores high on the crackpot index. Claiming that "I can't do the math but I know I am right" scores very high on the crackpot index. And please. Newton invented the math that physicists use every day. It is called calculus.

If you read Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics you can reasonably conclude that string theory has developed into a crackpot cult where the construction of a priori mathematical models is considered more scientific than testability by experiment and observation, and which has almost taken over the discpline of theoretical physics.

Physicists still have non-quantitative insights to this day. It is an important part of discovery. The insights become real only after they are expressed mathematically.

In my hypothesis from the evidence of quantum physics I have carefully justified clear diagrammatic models of how a cause could act nonlocally in addition to the forces so as to produce wave and entanglement behaviour, which actually, according to my dictionary, could be called mathematical representation. I then find I can support this represention by considering observable natural evidence.

An example of attraction using vectors.

Still doesn't describe essentially what a force of attraction is: as something that pulls on objects at a distance.

But, as requested above, back to the thread topic question of dark matter.

So, since the appropriate type(s) of dark matter have not been directly detected and identified in any of a lot of purpose built or other experiments (why should it not be detectable in bubble chambers?), this hypothetical stuff, which theoretically needs to comprise some 90% of all matter in the cosmos, can still be regarded as the phlogiston of modern science.

Also, although MOND doesn't make sense in terms of existing basic principles of space, time and relativity and you can still ask why there should be this peculiar variation in Newton's law, it does explain spiral galaxy rotation curves more accurately than any dark matter explanation.

And MOND shows that the variation in the law is just governed by a particular orbital acceleration rate and not by the density of the visible matter or the distance from galactic centre as would be expected by the extra gravity produced by any invisible matter.

And then there is the very close measured relationship between the MOND orbital acceleration rate and the the rate of accelerated expansion of the universe, and which neither dark matter nor MOND can explain.

Also, neither MOND nor dark matter can solve the spiral galaxy winding problem, where the galactic arms should wind ever tighter and disappear as the galaxy rotates.

My own hypothesis finds reasons to think that the rotational behaviour of spiral galaxies can be explained as, essentially, a quantum effect on the astronomical scale.

No-one has convinced me that you can adequately describe the property of atraction by using vectors. As you say, a vector's an abstract representation. So as such, it fails to represent the pull that is felt as the result of an attractive force.

You may consider what I've said about quantum entanglement as speculation, snail, I don't. Still, don't worry, I won't post anything more that's off topic on this thread.

you obviously have never encountered vectors then.

OK then, the properties of attraction and repulsion just as directions of effect can't be described by measurement and calculation. And then do vectors adequately desribe these properties? So suppose you lived in a gravity free environment, could you make sense of what vectors represent? Attraction just as an unmeasured pull at a distance upon objects is essentially a property that you can only feal to make sense of it.

no, observations are required for that. mathematics is essential for creating the model.

Is it though, necessarily? So I've often found physicists saying that quantum entanglement is an effect without a cause, and presumably because nothing can be quantified as a cause of an effect that can only be measured as a correlation. And nor can you describe the vector of such a cause.

You can, however, insist that to make sense of this effect you need at least to say there needs to be something in addition to quantum objects that maintains their entangled correlation, just as you need to describe the property of the attraction of a force. And this could make a general sense of how atoms and molecules can be and remain in their subatomic organization as described by the exclusion principle, and which no properties of the forces can be described to explain.

Then I say you can develop a workable causal hypothesis that can be supported by large scale matural evidence, and just by representing the action of such a cause by means of simple diagrams (which I suppose in its broadest sense could be called a mathematical representation, but this can't involve any measurement or calculation).

the best philosophy can be wrong, so can the best maths, the best hypothesis or in general contemporary human thought on any subject could be temporary and flawed, its the experiment really or the continuous application of such that really wins the day for understanding things. I don’t want to lampoon string theory but for physics its a perfect example that you cant just do math, you also cant just do reason or philosophy either.

Totally agree. Physicists tend to hold mathematics to be essential for discovering the truth. While they forget that biological discoveries just as much concern the truth but, at most, only secondarily involve mathematical description. While even in physics mathematical description by itself makes no sense at all and, in fact, crucial features like the attract or repel directions effect of the forces can't mathematically described at all. So Newton could never have made his discovery without the initial non-quantitive insight that gravity is force of attraction.

Scientists with the idea that mathematics is a primary means of describing nature can develop illusory a priori mathematical ideas about the world. Like Keplers's geometrical notion about the distances of the planets to the sun. While you can find just such a priori mathematical notions in string theory.

Also, I've concluded that this attitude led, perhaps inevitably, to what will be seen as greatest mistake in modern science, which is the Copenhagen interpretation.

While my opinion is that the human species does not know everything yet, that’s all such a statement would mean really. Classical mechanics was to be taken as an end all, save for the real world would not allow for such, evolution to many people seems to complex to occur giving their understanding, the real world however does not care about this. So its really about just trying to keep it real that counts, and honestly that’s the reason I like science over just about ever other human institution on earth for the simple fact that I could care less to live in a "fantasy" land akin to politics or some other idea. With that said I don’t look upon humanity as flawed because we are not all scientific robots looking to test everything, just that to claim something as a fact or something as wrong should take experiment really, or you should have to prove it. I mean if science was like politics, then it would not matter if classical mechanics could not explain everything, it would just be classical mechanics if the majority really wanted it to be that way, what a horrible reality that would be, more or less say hello to a work much like Nazi Germany.

Although if you read Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics, you find that, once divorced from the essential scientific stipulation that theory should be supported by experiment and/or observed facts, string theory turned into, if not politics then, as Smolin says, a matter of sociology.

It's not a theory.

 

 

 

It can't support your idea, because your idea would require maths to predict it, and it doesn't.

Look, Klaynos, http://foranewageofreason.blogspirit.com

is a non-quantative hypothesis, right? Although, as well as being supported by a wide range of natural evidence in virtue of a diagrammatic method of representing a nonlocally acting cause, it is supported by a mathematically justified interpretation of quantum physics called Bohmian mechanics and an already mathematically quantified relationship between spiral galaxy behaviour and the expansion of the Cosmos. And, as such. I leave it up to more open minded and, probably, better qualified individuals than you to see whether they can find further mathematical support for the cosmological hypothesis, OK?

Why do you bother? You're presenting a physics-related concept to a graduate physics student. He, like most other physicists, is going to ask you for the math. If that's too much to ask you're dabbling in the wrong discipline. I hardly think he should be called a self opiniated [sic] asshole for demanding a high standard of evidence. Consider that your warning.

All I can say is, blike, read http://foranewageofreason.blogspirit.com very carefully yourself to see whether it makes sense to you.

Darwin did not create a theory of evolution. Newton did,.

I've nowhere suggested otherwise.

also, darwinian evolution did not require maths as it was qualitative rather than quantitative. now that we have discovered genetics and such, there is a fair bit of maths to it.

So? I say, just like Darwin's theory, I have developed at

http://foranewageofreason.blogspirit.com

a non-quantitative general hypothesis (or theory) that can be subsequently supported by quantative calculations.

And, in fact, I could add that there is already a measured quantified relationship between the orbital acceleration of stars in spiral galaxies and the acceleration rate of the universe as a whole, which supports this theory(see Smolin's The Trouble with Physics ch 13 'Surprises from the real world').

I'm on the side of the maths... not the interpretation

 

 

 

Without maths you can't say it's supported by anything.

 

 

 

Without maths you can't say that any of this evidence supports it. Gravitation theories and EM are both fundamentally mathematical theories.

 

 

 

Without maths you can't make that claim.

 

 

 

Yes you can. You can make predictions of things, and then go and see if those predictions hold true.

 

 

 

Dark matter in itself is not a theory, it is a postulate to explain missing mass.

 

 

 

You have not proposed a theory, without maths it is mere random speculation.

 

 

 

Maybe they see the holes you don't? You've actually pretty much presented nothing, physicists don't like things without maths much because they are untestable and meaningless.

Why do I bother? I ask myself when I get so many self opiniated arseholes on the internet? There seems to be endless numbers of such people who profess to be physicists especially. It's no wonder theoretical physics has been in sucjh a dire state for the past 30 years (see especially Lee Smolin - The Trouble with Physics )

Try falsifying the existence of gravity or the theory of biological evolution, for which Darwin needed no maths at all for it to be accepted amongst the scientific community and form the basis for all subsequent developments in evolutionary theory.

PS Only for those who are more interested in others' theories than their own opinions, see http://foranewageofreason.blogspirit.com for a reasonably justified general hypothesis for a nonlocal cause and its effects in addition to the forces.

Most physicists are quite happy pretty much ignoring the interpretations and just concentrating on the maths.... Which doesn't change. I think you'd do well to take up this approach.

It's impossible to ignore the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Concepts like the superposition of states is built inton quantum theory. And these intepretations are absolutely crucial. So with the Copenhagen account it's imppossible, in principle, to develop any theory by considering other natural evidence: quantum behaviour is indeterminate and that's it.

Physicists tend to like big revolutions, all those new shiney things to work on.....

Not a revolution as big as this, unless one or, preferably, more physicists of some standing decide, at least provisionally, to accept this theory and find a way of significantly developing the cosmology, especially by measurement and mathematical calculation but also by finding other observations to support it..

Because you're replacing the way people work, they wont change unless what they're changing to is better. Else what's the point?

Don't understand. I'm saying that, unlike any other quantum theory or interprtation a nonlocal hidden variables interpretation like bohmian mechanics is clearly supportable from large scale observable natural evidence of where a nonlocal cause can also be considered to act (given the appropriate develpment into a causal quantum hypothesis). Thatis, just like other scientific theories (like gravity and electromagnetism) have been developed by considering a wider range of evidence of where a natural cause acts

If it's experimental evidence it counts, if it's NOT then it's not evidence at all and doesn't matter.

There is such as evidence by observation and measurement, you know?, as in astronomical findings. So you can't actually experiment with the orbital motion of stars or planets.. And anyway, as I said above, I have considered means by which the theory could be tested experimentally,

Falsifiability is a requirement of a scientific theory.

You can't actually falsify dark matter theory, other than by developinng a superior theory, and which need not itself actually falsify the theory but only undermine it. And this is how much scientific theory has progressed

Show how it can then mathematically.

As I say, I'm waiting, quite forlornly it seems, for a physicist to be open minded enough to attempt to develop the cosmological theory mathematically. The point is that, having been trained in orthodox quantum theory, no modern physicist is likely to see how the development of this theory is possible or, necessarily, get my theoretical argument without careful consideration.

WIMPs...

Have you got experimental evidence that suggests otherwise?

Plenty, if you accept the nonlocal hidden variables interpretation of quantum physics which the theory clearly supports. And, unlike the Copenhagen type interpretation that describes superposition of states and the collapse of the wave function, such a determinate account as Bohmian mechanics has been systematically worked out in mathematical detail, eliminates the paradoxes in any indeterminate interpretation and describes a distinct cause acting in addition to the forces called the quantum potential.

Not really, but it does have to be mathematical, match ALL the current experimental evidence better than current theories AND be falsifiable. If it doesn't have all of those things it wont be contemplated by any physicist.

Um... not really? You mean such a theory would not really be considered too revolutionary for physicists to contemplate? How do you know?

Why should this theory need to "match ALL the current experimental evidence better thancurrent theories"? Why shouldn't such a theory, like Bohmian mechanics, just need to as consistent with the experimental evidence as other theories, but derive its additional validity by being clearly supportable when considering other, observable large scale natural evidence, and where other theories could not be so supported?

The theory could be if not falsified then seriously undermined and then disregarded if the right kind(s) of dark matter were to be directly detected and identified. I consider that the cosmological theory could be supported by measurement and mathematical calculation and be found to clearly explain more observational evidence than existing theory, and also have considered means by which by which the theory could be tested experimentally,

Dark matter (that is suitable to explain galaxy rotation, comic lensing effects etc) is the phlogiston of modern science. How could such stuff avoid direct detection in any experiment while comprising some 90% of all matter in the universe?

The universe both on the small and large scale is of a particular organised natural form, does it really make any sense to assume that this is the merely result of the push or pull causes that are the known forces?

Trouble is, to clearly show that and how a non-push-or-pull cause acts universally in addition to the forces to explain how the universe is in its organised form requires the development of a theory that can be thought too revolutionary and wide rainging for any physicist to contemplate.

Modern physics is NOT biology in the 1800's... Sucks I know but that's life... well science...

But then plenty of physicists have had lots of things to say about consciousness. And one could conclude physics gets theoretically nowhere because it does not consider the natural organisation of matter with regard to living organisms as well as atoms and molecules.

I say atoms, living organisms and spiral galaxies (the winding problem can't be solved even given dark matter) all have in common that they can remain in these forms and organisation despite the action of the forces.

While no successful universal theory, cosmology or "theory of everything" will ever be developed unless such evidence is examined together, and physicists give up the assumption that the known forces are the only universal causes.

Evolution and Astrophysics are two very different fields...

Not in a general theory of a nonlocal cause and its effects that explains how the universe that includes life on Earth has become, and can be and remain in its material forms despite the action of the forces.

Without maths you don't really have anything :|

But without any maths, did Charles Darwin really have nothing in his theory that explained the origin of the species? And although Darwn's theory is biological, this would also be true, in part, of a full general theory of a nonlocal cause and its effects. While all successful scientific theories have begun with a non-mathematical hypothesis.

I've found that it is in the nature of a non-local form conserving causal theory that it can be developed in a lot of detail in words and diagrams without any measurement and calculation, and this theory could not be developed otherwise. While, strictly speaking, the diagrams I've devised could be called mathematical. So the definition of mathematics in my book reads: 'A branch of science concerned with number, quantity and space'. But this doesn't mean that measurement and calculation could not be used to support this causal theory, just as this has been done in the develpment of the evolutionary theory of living organisms.

So one could ask: if a cause acts just so as to conserve the form of atoms and molecules despite the action of all the forces, how could you describe such a cause by measurement and calculation? And that there can be no such mathematical description is a fundamental reason why physicists don't think there's any cause acting in addition to the forces that could explan the natural organisation of matter or how it can remain in its forms as they resist the action of the forces.

Physicists have become so obsessed with the idea that theories need to be mathematical that they can believe in string theory because it is mathematically complex, and even though it can't be tested by any experiment and its equations have myriads of solutions.

Well, what do you mean by 'fill-ins'...cosmic inflation could be wrong, we just have no way of knowing.

Actually, I've developed what I think is a quite well argued hypothesis that, from th observable natural evidence and (non-inflationary) Big Bang theory, gives a wide range of reasons to consider that a cause acts non-locally on the astronomical scale in addition to the forces, and which derives from a non-local hidden variables interpretation of quantum mechanics.

My account is not (yet) supported by any measurements, calculation or mathematical formulae I'm afraid, but I have been able to illustrate the action of a nonlocal cause using diagrams.

So I assume to start with that the indeterminate Copenhagen type interpretation of quantum mechanics is wrong, whereas a causal Bohmian mechanics interpretation is at least essentially right. Quantum objects in motion are both laterally extended waves and particles each with a single definite trajectory. And the quantum wave has definite causal properties, with the wave behaviour of objects in motion being of a particular continuous form. Bohmian mechanics is a detailed and well developed theory that is consistent with a wide range of experimental ervidence, and decribes an additional cause called the quantum potential, as well as ridding quantum theory of the paradoxes arising from the Copenhagen interpretation.

One can reasonably propose, therefore, that standard model quantum theory, which assumes the action of the forces alone, predicts everying but fundamentally explains nothing about how the form and organisation of matter is possible. So one may ask Could this be also be true of any cosmological theory that just assumes the action of the forces?

My own conclusion is that a detailed and systematic theory can be developed that sufficiently justifies and describes details of a cause that acts nonlocally both on the small and cosmic scale. While a universal property of this cause can be described as material form conserving. This cause thus acting so as to conserve the forms and organisation of both atoms and molecules despite the action of the forces as well as, in particular, spiral galaxies, but also galaxy clusters and cosmic voids.

Well, we don't KNOW that for sure.

So dark energy and, I'd say, the right kind of dark matter - since it hasn't been directly detected and identified - could just be fill-ins for an altogether different kind of theory. And especially if, as the "axis of evil" in the CMBR suggests, cosmic inflation theory is wrong.

Read my article. In fact, strings do exist and are collimated and extruded at near perfect phase angle in sub-spatial fields and up-cycle into space at set intervals giving us our cycles. The brain operates around 15 cycles and the body about 30 cycles. Athletes that are very good simply synchronize thier brain and body better than the rest of us. If we have fields in sub-space then we have long-distance communication naturally. About 20 miles, in my opinion, we can deduce at rest and much practice the emotions of a group of individuals given sub-space is more conducive to field effects of organics and given they are less effected by gravimetrics since gravity is....

Sounds like psychostringybabble to me. More people should read The Trouble with Physics - Lee Smolin or Not Even Wrong - Peter Woit. String theory is really doomed to the same fate as phlogiston.

And you could expect that any true theory of everything should be able to clearly explain consciousness. Although I suggest that such a theory would neither have anything to do with unifying the known forces nor much at all concern the present standard model of quantum theory.

I'd say attempting to combine general relativity with quantum theory to produce a testable theory of everything is rather like trying to combine cheese with chalk to produce a digestible meal.

 

So that you could call general relativity the digestable cheese in that it sufficiently justifies and describes a cause called gravity from its effects upon objects in motion to explain their behaviour. Whereas the indigestibly chalky quantum theory provides no such explanation of the quantum behaviour called wave, spin and entanglement.

 

While it can be thought that the quantum behaviour is so unlike the effects caused by any force that it just could not be explained by any theory of quantum gravity like string theory or loop quantum gravity.

...But rather, the alternative thought can be that the universe that includes the atoms and molecules of the elements and compounds, the species of living organisms including trees and human beings,the galaxies of stars and planetary systems, and galaxy walls and clusters around cosmic voids is of a certain form. While modern physics still only recognises push or pull causes that are all the known forces. So that the questions can be asked How could any properties possibly be described of such causes to explain any or all of this material form and its organisation? Does it make sense that all this universal natural arrangement of matter is merely the result of these forces? For, surely, doesn't all matter as this has been found to consist almost all of the space between its subatomic components persist as atoms and molecules despite the action of the forces and thus there needs to be described something in addition to these forces that causes this persistence?

Then the evidence of quantum physics can be considered and, especially when considering the observable form of matter and a systematically worked out alternative interpretation, reasons can be found to reject the indeterminate, Copenhagen type interpretation of quantum mechanics. But to conclude instead that the evidence of quantum waves is of matter components and photons with a particular universal form of behaviour as objects in motion,, while quantum entanglement measures the simpest kinds of natural organisation. And the only quantum interpretation that seeks to explain these forms of behaviour in terms of objects in motion describes a cause that is distinct from any of the forces.

So that it could be enquired Could the only account that may be called a theory of everything be one that explains all that can't be described as, or just as effects caused by the forces? So this account would need to examine together enough natural and experimental evidence of where it acts so as to sufficiently justify and describe enough details of a universal cause and its various effects in addition to the forces?

I'd say attempting to combine general relativity with quantum theory to produce a testable theory of everything is rather like trying to combine cheese with chalk to produce a digestible meal.

So that you could call general relativity the digestable cheese in that it sufficiently justifies and describes a cause called gravity from its effects upon objects in motion to explain their behaviour. Whereas the indigestibly chalky quantum theory provides no such explanation of the quantum behaviour called wave, spin and entanglement.

While it can be thought that the quantum behaviour is so unlike the effects caused by any force that it just could not be explained by any theory of quantum gravity like string theory or loop quantum gravity.

Suppose that the nearest to an account that could be called a theory of is not a unified theory of the forces but a theory that explains every thing that the force can't be described to explain.

So although quantum theory an explain much about the visual, chenical and electromagneus proprties of matter by describing the behaviour of electrons am photons, it cannot fundamentally explain how this behaviour is possible by desribing the action of the forces alone.

So that quanum theory does not explain how matter persists as atoms and molecules given the powerful action of the forces other than by mathematically describing the principles of this behaviour. So that matter cab described as remaining in its forms and organisation as atoms and molecules despite the action of all the forces. And what makes this this form and organisation possible is the quantum behaviour called wave, spin and entanglement. While, unlike the effects of the force, this quantum behaviour can't be explained in terms of a cause and its effects upon objects in motion. Hence there are only various and very conflicting interpretations that attempt to account for such behaviour.

Then the universe in general both on the small and very large scale and of living organisms can be observed to be of a particular form. While problems have also arisen in explaining the astonomical evidence of the galaxies of stars and planetary systems, galaxy clusters and cosmic voids by assuming just the action of the forces.

Thus it could be asked Could a general theory or explanation of how the universe is in its observe form need to examine a wide range of natural evidence together so as to justify and describe enough details of an invisible cause acting in addition to all the forces?

4. Give up attempting to develop a theory of quantum gravity because the findings of quantum physics imply that a cause acts universally and nonlocally in addition to all the forces, while the nature of this further cause cannot be deduced from any attempt to develop a theory of quantum gravity from the standard model of quantum theory.