univeral theory

and in my simple english background, i do not think of that to mean science can not "claim" the posibbility of the existence of GOD.

It is too unfortunate that TEW is a physical hypothesis which necessitates that it must also pass the tests of mathematics to have its true physics sense. It has never been a bad idea for physics to have even a thousand choices of interpreting the same physical phenomena so long as they can all demonstrate themselves logical - by logical i mean “consistence between predictability and testability”. With testability; our concerns focus mainly on the possibility of the claimed phenomena to have physical existence. by predictability, we focus on the consistence between the interpretational and calculation framework of predicting a claimed phenomena. I personally do believe that the problem of physics has never been in the observation of the phenomena; but in the interpretations and calculations of what we observe. When you have a relevant interpretation of a given observation, you can formulate relevant calculations which are quite consistent to the interpretation. Else; if you have a relevant calculation of a given observation, you can formulate a relevant interpretations that are relevant to it. It does not matter what level of complexity or sophistication which the calculations and interpretations of the observed phenomena can be conceptualized – so as long as they are consistent to each other. That is why you here claims like “focus on calculations” when any challenge against the interpretation of QM is raised.Reason being; that the interpretations and calculations are quite consistent to each other when predicting the observed phenomena of the quantum world which is still failing with TEW. And then you claim to be scientifically safe with TEW when “keeping the good bit of quantum mechanics!

i would not preffer to make this topic appear like the main debate of this thread. any way; i was inquiring into why "can't" the TOT account for the existence of GOD by making resornable claims as other theories have been doing. in my post i used "can claim" intentionaly meaning that they are still failing on the groungs of scientific proof - a fact that doesnot neccesitate them to have reference from any respected scientific journal paper. though this does not rule out that such claims "can" be true. how ever at the moment, i would advise both of us(me and you) to consider EdEarl comments in post 19 before replying each other on the same topic

the interpretation is phylosophically interesting. but dont you think that it necessitates a mathmatical proof to give it a physics sence?

so;there is only a single frame from which the quantum world can be predicted! this implies that the phenomena with in this frame can be predicted as: 1- either; a single phenomenon made up of wave and particle coordination and regulation. 2- or; a single phenomenon changing states of (either particle or wave). IS IT NOT SO?

some where abit closes! so there are two different indipendent phenomena (wave and particle) with differently relative frames in the postulate of TEW. which different phenomena MUST by all means be supported by E=MC^2 indipendently (if the postulate of TEW is compartible with special relativity by local determinism. if this is true, can you please explain to me the topological or entropy structure of waves using E=MC^2 with out physical interraction with a particle.

"... theories predict and experiments confirm...."if iam not mistaken, there is alot of theories that "can"claim wheather GOD is there or not.forget the dogmatic bit of it, but even in science, the last inch of any scientifically consistent theory wheather this consistence is proved mathmatically of phylosophically, can predict wheather GOD is there or not which task also a TOT can take previledge of. confirmation is a task of experiments based on a given technology. isnt it so?

yes, the experiment can prove the opposite direction movement;which is not daft with in the conventional interpretations of quantum mechanics. but in QM we interprete the quantum word as a single quantum phenomenon(wave particle) "made up" of two physical phenomena(wave and particle). in TEW, the quantum world is interpreted as two physically indipendent phenomena (wave and particle) that "merge" to form a single quantum phenomenon. and in relativity theory, this implies that each indipendent physical phenomenon had an indipendent accelerating frame before this merging took place. isnt it so?

i suppose i should start from the scratch:1- what is a wave according to TEW and what is a particle? why is it that the particle will always follow a particular elementary wave?

does this try to mean that as much as a given theory can answer everything in physics,the that is enough to predict that it will have correct answers to everything in other academic disciplines or it simply means that TOT is only concerned with physics?

i apreciate your concern markus; and here is a more explained trial with some corrections in the pointed out problem area. We all hold this physical truth; that energy is energy- no more, no less. And that the universe is energy at action-reaction system. But then why is it that the universe is not made up of the same objects with the same actions, reactions,size, shape, behavior, colors, etc? The answer is self evident that even though energy is constant due to its conservation, but its amount is subject to the relative frames of its measurements, which is (√E)- . + (or as they shall be represented by letter S in this discussion) thus; E/+ .-(√E) = E. Where; E is energy. With conservation, energy remains constant. And this is calculated by E/+ .-(√E)=E. Where; E/+ .-(√E) is the framework of energy. But due to the difference in the relative frames of measuring this conserved energy as a function of observation (speed of consciousness), its framework can be measured differently. Such that, E/+ .-(√E)= MQ2, where ‘Q2’ is the speed of consciousness and ‘M’ is mass. And thus; E/S = E/+ .-(√E) = MQ2 = E. Speed of consciousness and mass are the basic relative frames through which energy is measured. What is thenegative of energy and what is its positive? Remember that the positivity and negativity of energy is a relative phenomenon that is based on the framework of conserved energy, a negative energy is that which takes the negative dimension of conservation and in this case it is the speed of consciousness. And a positive energy is that one which takes the positive dimension of conservation and in this case it is mass. Thus; mass: this is the pressure of conserving the constancy of energy due to its quantum action and the framework of this action. Such that; any change in mass is directly proportional to the change in the quantum actions of energy and inversely proportional with in the framework of coordinating theseactions. And thus: M= ħ X 2, where M is mass, X is energy conserved with in the framework of spontaneous symmetry breaking and ħ is reduced Planck constant. That is to say: energy conserved in units of spontaneous symmetry breaking “X” is (ħ /1/+ . -(√ ħ) )=1, The speed of conscious: this is the rate of energy cordination and regulation due to the change in the action- reaction system of mass. Such that any change in the speed of consciousness is directly proportional to the change in the quantum action of mass and inversely proportional to the centre of coordinating its reaction–thus Q2 = ∂X2/t, where t is time, Q2 is speed of consciousness and ∂ is change. thus; ∂X= ∂(ħ /1/- .+(√ ħ) )=1+or-1. Where; ħ is reduced Planckconstant. Time is the cycle range of massive reaction per a unit of its actions. time can be zero t(+.- √t)=0 from the accelerating frame of mass. And time is infinity t(1/(√t)+.-)=infinity from the inertial frames of mass- where t is time. And from the conservation of energy, time is a single dimension whose reaction ranges betwween zero and infinity. Why Q2 is the negative of conserved energy and mass is its positive? The implicit coefficient of a complex variable is 1 since multiplying it by 1 does not change the terms of the variable. Thus E=1E. Then our equation of energy turns out to be 1E/+ .-(√1E)= 1E/+1E . -1E = 1E. 0E = E. thus; with in the framework of conserved energy, 1E is the +E and 0E is the –E . Energy with out physical substance is abstract, and from the reference frame of visible energy, abstract energy equals zero energy. When we talk of zero energy (0E), in physical sense it sounds daft, but in conservation of energy it is not flawed. 0E does not mean absolutely no energy at all. But it means that with in the framework of conserved energy, one frame of S is physical while the other is abstract – and the influence of abstract energy can be detected with in the reaction of the physical energy. For an abstract phenomenon to influence physical phenomena is not flawed. Ordinary examples include; dreams that influence physical reaction, abstract visions that influence physical ejaculation, time that influence physical predictions -though it can not be physically detected, consciousness that influence the physical shapes of objects, etc. Remember that, the speed of conscious is the rate of energy coordination and regulation due to the change in the action- reaction system of mass. This implies that Q2 is a function of the actions – reaction system of mass. Q2 from the reference frame of mass is abstruct energy, so it is 0E = -E. and mass from the reference frame Q2 is physical energy and thus +E or 1E . relative frames of energy and the foundation of force Whenever there is a change, there is a cause of that change- and this cause is called a force. A force is any influence that cause changes to a free system/body. But really how does energy become a force to influence its own changes? In mechanics, when two or more relative frames of a given mechanical system confront each other in opposite directions, force is created and change is inevitable. Even though the confrontation between the opposing frames of energy is the foundation of force-as the determiner of changes, but the reaction of this change depends on the pressure. Pressure is the physical quantity that determines the rate, dimensions and magnitude of energy reaction in form of the speed of consciousness. Any mechanical system can regulate its self provided that it is programmed to do so. And any mechanical system can only be programmed to regulate its self through the mechanism of action-reaction. And because the universe is a system of energy at action- reaction, from the reaction of energy point of view; energy can change its form, size, shape, colour, behavior, etc and this explains why the universe is made up. The universe is a mechanical system whose amount of energy is relative to the reference frame of the observer. there are two relative frames through which energy can be predicted(inertial frame and accelarating frame). The pressure of coordinating and regulating the relative frames of energy verses their conservation framework is the fundamental influence of the amount and forms of energy in the universe. Such that; E=MQ2 – where, M is mass measured in kilograms and Q2 is the speed of consciousness measured in meters of area occupied by massive coordination and regulation per second. E=MQ2: this implies that, with in the relative frame of energy; its amount depends on mass and the speed of consciousness. Where as; with the conservation of energy, mass and speed of consciousness are just different opposite frames of the same energy at its equilibrium framework. Mass is the physical frame of energy (positive frame) and the speed of consciousness is the abstract frame of energy (negative frame). Such that; at the equilibrium frame of M verses Q2, energy is conserved in form of quantum gravity. When the speed of consciousness is less than mass, energy is conserved in form of invisible energy. But when the speed of conscious is more than mass, energy is conserved in form of vacuum. Quantum gravity; this is the pressure of conserving energy due to its massive velocity per relative frames of its displacement. At equilibrium frame of massive velocity per displacement, energy is conserved in form of work. At less velocity than displacement; it is in form of black hole. At more velocity than displacement, energy is conserved in form of dark matter. Thus; A =1/3MV2 - where A is quantum gravity, M is mass; V is velocity and 1/3 this is the relative basic unit of massive acceleration per the velocity square of mass. Work; is the pressure of conserving the regulation of quantum gravity as a function of acceleration due to gravity and displacement field. At the equilibrium frame of acceleration due to gravity verses displacement field, quantum gravity is conserved in form of electro magnetic force. At less acceleration due to gravity than displacement field,quantum gravity is conserved in form of bosons. And at greater acceleration due to gravity than displacement field, quantum gravity is conserved in form of fermions - thus, W=g.df where, g is acceleration due to gravity, df is displacement field and W is work. That is to say; df = ∂ (KE /1/(((√ KE)+ .-)∩( KE ((√KE)+ .-)((√ KE)+ .-/ KE) )))=1+or-1.Where; KE is kinetic energy equivalent to MV2. Electro magnetic force; is the pressure of conserving the regulation of work due to charge and displacement. At the equilibrium frame of charge and displacement, work is conserved in form of turbulence. At less charge than displacement, work is conserved in form of quarks (magnetic force). At greater charge than displacement, work is conserved in form of leptons (electrical force) - thus U= Y.D2, where Y is charge, D is displacement and U is electromagnetic force. That is to say; d2(displacement square of acceleration due to gravity) = (9.8/1/(((√9.8)+ . -)∩(9.8 ((√9.8)+ . -)((√9.8)+ . -)/9.8 ) ))= (9.8/1/(-3.130495168 . + 3.130495168 ∩ (0)))= (6.669504832 + 3.130495168 ) = 9.8 Remember that; g = 9.8 m/sec2 for acceleration due to gravity near the surface of the earth, C = 3.0 *108m/sec for the speed of light in vacuum ≈ 3.130495168 h = 6.6 * 10-34j sec for plank constant or specifically for quantum action ≈6.669504832 And Rab = 0 for the vacuum Einstein equation = 0 Turbulence; this is the pressure of conserving the regulation of electro-magnetic force as a function of kinetic energy and energy conserved in the framework of explicit symmetry breaking. At the equilibrium frame of energy conserved in the framework of explicit symmetry breaking and kinetic energy, electromagnetic force is in form of atoms. At more kinetic energy than energy conserved in units of explicit symmetry breaking,electromagnetic force is conserved in form of molecules. At more energy conserved in units of explicit symmetry breaking than kinetic energy, electromagnetic force is conserved in form of wave – particles. Thus Tb = KE.K2; where; Tb is turbulence, KE is kinetic energy and K2 is energy conserved in the framework of explicit symmetry breaking. That is to say; “K”= (KE /1/(((√ KE)+ . -)∩( KE ((√KE)+ . -)((√ KE)+ . -/ KE) ) ))=1, Reference frames of energy and its measurements The amount of Energy with in a system depends on the action-reaction system of mass and the speed of consciousness through which the action-reaction of mass is cordinated and regulated- and this is what we call E=MQ2. From the relative frames of quantum gravity, the minimum amount of energy with in a unit of quantum system is equivalent to E =1/3 MV2 . And from the inertial frame of energy, the minimum amount of energy with in a given unit of quantum system is equivalent to E=MC2. The trajectory of events is caused by the curvature of the speed of consciousness through which the relative frames of quantum gravity attain their equillibrium. the speed of consciousness which is ∂X2/t where X is energy conserved in spontanious symmetry breaking ((ħ /1/+ . -(√ ħ) )=1) causes time to dilate. the trajectory of events is then determined through a two dimensional framework of massive contraction,three dimensional framework of massive expansion and four dimensional framework of massive conservation (universality). mass and the entanglement of energy Entanglement refers to the correlation between the parts of agiven system. In physics, entanglement can be observed both in classicalmechanics point of view and in quantum mechanics point of view. If we can still remember our difinition of mass that; it is the pressure of conserving the constancy of energy due to its quantum action and the framework of this action. Such that; any change in mass is directly proportional to the change in the quantum actions of energy and inversely proportional with in the framework of coordinating these actions In quantum mechanics, entanglement of energy is popularly referred to as quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglement can be defined as the correlation between the regulation of the relative frames of energy with in the same quantum state in form of yin and yang. Such that any change in the yin frame of energy (particle) is directly proportional to the proportionate change in the yang frame of energy (particle). So the speed of quantum entanglement will be equivallent to the speed of 1/3MV2. And in classical mechanics; entanglement is popularly observed as the inverse square law. In physics, an inverse-square law is any physical law stating that a specified physical quantity or intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity…. And if we take the physical quantity of this law as mass and the maximum square of the distance of this mass as the speed of light, then the inverse square law will be equivalent to MC2, where M is mass and C2 is the speed of light. Turbulence and the Wave - particle Any moving mass creates waves as a form of pressureof its kinetic energy, such that any change in the wave is directly proportional to the change in the kinetic energy of mass and inversely proportional to the centre of its energy conserved in framework of its explicit symmetry breaking; and this is the foundation of wave - particle. Wave particle is equivalent to KE.K2; where; KE is kinetic energy and K2 is energy conserved in units of explicit symmetry breaking of kinetic energy. The centre of energy conserved in units of explicit symmetry breaking, is the centre of entangled particles. And the centre of entangled particles is the centre of mass, and the centre of mass is the centre of pressure of the wave and thus the centre of its amplitude. This holds true for atomic particles, subatomic particle and for larger objects. The probability of finding a particle at a particular location is related to the amplitude of the wave associated with the particle. The larger the amplitude of the wave at a particular point, the larger the probability that the particle will be found there and vise versa. In fact, the probability of finding the particle in a particular location is proportional to the square of the amplitude of its wave function. A wave function is a quantum vector field whose behavior can be predicted depending on its non local hidden variables. And according to the pilot wave model, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave‎ “originally developed by Louis de Broglie and further developed by David Bohm into the hidden variable theory proposes that there is no duality, but rather a system exhibits both particle properties and wave properties simultaneously, and particles are guided, in a deterministic fashion, by the pilot wave (or its "quantum potential") which will direct them to areas of constructive interference in preference to areas of destructive interference”. quantum fluctuation and the uncertainty principle All particles in their inertial frame have a precise position and momentum. That is to say; at any equilibrium position of two or more frames of mass accelerating relative to each other with in the same quantum state, their frame is an inertial frame. But due to the difference in the trajectory of these relative frames of mass in their disequilibrium as a function of quantum fluctuation, inertia is lost and the position - momentum of energy at the same time becomes uncertain. When two or more particles of the same quantum state are moving parallel to each other in opposite direction, they form a single quantum vector at their equilibrium coordination and at the disequilibrium this quantum vector superposits to two vectors or more>>>>>>>>>>>>>

point them out for me to do some corrections.

Supposing we accept to interpret QM from the non local hidden variable point of view, this implies that E=MC2 will be the inertial frame of energy and from the non inertial frame point of view,E=1/3MV2. The trajectory of events is caused by the curvature of the speed of consciousness through which the relative frames of quantum gravity attain their inertial mass. the speed of consciousness which is ∂X2/t where X is energy conserved in spontaneous symmetry breaking ((ħ /1/+ . - (√ ħ) )=1) causes time to dilate. no more space than that of a vacuum and time is no longer the pressure of clock but Time is the cycle range of massive reaction per a unit of its actions. (now clock becomes a mechanism of predicting time but it does not determine time. and for the dimension of time, it becomes a universal dimension that ranges between zero and relative infinity). the trajectory of events is then determined through a two dimensional framework of their contraction,three dimensional framework of their expansion and four dimensional framework of their universality. If iam not wrong, the interpretation above has only affected the interpretation variables of QM and GR, but has not affected the variables of the phenomena they predict. Remember this is just the beginning! So here we go; what if this was the interpretation of QM and GR,can QM reconcile with GR?

if you are "relatively" sure on this, please clarify more.

So I was thinking of another possible approach- which the “cost-benefit analysis” can offer to the unification of QM and GR. This will be applied to the phenomena and the model framework of predicting this phenomenon by QM and GM when reconciled with reference to the phenomena. C B A tool is quite popular in social sciences (say economics) for identifying the most appropriate choice from two or more competing alternatives(say A and B)from which we have to derive one desired alternative(say C). and its relevance extends to other sciences where two or more true alternative ideas are found to be in conflict with one another on the same phenomena to which they “can” all claim to be relevant. In this approach, QM and GR will be subject to C3=R (compromise, compare and contrast = reconciliation) mechanism. No any form of compromise will be admitted on the model framework of either GR or QM unless its marginal benefit is as great as or greater than the marginal cost of their reconciliation especially when compared and contrasted to the framework of the phenomena they are predicting. This mechanism will use simple logical tools of; 1-What if A or B was C (which definitely will be applied relevant to the phenomena with relevant logical explanation), could QM reconcile with GR? 2-What if QM compromises A for GR or GR compromises B for QM, can QM reconcile with GR? NB; we do not expect certainly correct models since this is a research subject. But at least we expect relevant models with a reasonable degree of scientific proof from which we shall construct the most economical way of reconciling QM and GR. And baseless answers are expected to be falsified to safe guard what we are predicting. This way we shall be going. If this can make any kind of sense, please supplement or correct this proposal or else press granted and I shall shoot the breeze.

A theory is any logical presentation of “HOW” things are predicted to BE, but doesnot influence their BEEING. So the TOT can predict how the next US president will be, but it can not influence who he/she will be.

I see it fit with the calculation and interpretation of the phenomena upon which the logical framework of TOT will be relevantly accurate what do you specifically mean by "scientific methods'?

1- can you explain to me how the engineering of GPS depend on mechanics that can only be provided by the model of GR? 2- can you also explain to me how the functionality of GPS depend on GR model and with out physics like that of GR the functionality of GPS would not be inevitable? please explain this with practical examples because this is an already implemented field of physics. what is gravity according to GR? and what is space-time? what iam driving at is that if LQG does not work out, then we are perhaps left with two alternatives; 1. either, making quantum mechanical predictions deterministic so as they reconcile with the deterministic calculations of GR. 2. or, making general relativity predictions inditerministic so that they reconcile with the inditerministic calculations of quantum mechanics. any way am not all that certain on this. and if LQG succeeds basing on its in between algorithm, this implies that this algorithm will be deterministic = non deterministic. and if this is to be the case, then this equivalence should be in one of these forms 1. polynomially equivalent 2. exponentially equivalent 3. and or sub exponentially equivalent. for deterministic exponential time= non deterministic exponential time makes no sense not only in mathmatics but also in physics. for sub exponential time, it is equivalent to its polynomial counterpart at some limits of its bounds(though not certain) this implies that we are only left with P=NP. any way this is a research topic where you find that iam not correct it is that iam not certain. but iam just recommending absolution alternatives Quite Popular comments of QM-GR reconciliation enigma, if Iamto appreciate. But do you think that we can sustain this popularity by merely pointing out these challenges with out identifying the cause of these problems and recommending the most economical way of solving them? Any way good comments to remind me of the double slit experiment and then the machelson–moley and then the photo-electric experiment and then the other experiment that might be done one other day! However, such advances are expected in such a remote subject like physics whose problem has never been in the observation of the phenomena, but its calculation and interpretation.

The theory of everything is the most interesting research topic extending to almost all academic disciplines (arts or sciences), and to some; it is called the holy grail of science. Most interesting to me because when it is dicovered,it is expected to reconcile between logic, reason and natural phenomena which will provide a correct yardstick for future research and phenomena implementation. In philosophy(which is the grand parent of all sciences), even if you have all other answer to everything with out answering why- you can better go and dig your own grave. With phenomenology, reason without logic is daft. That is why Descartes found tough times with phenomenology. But metaphysics which is the father of physics has an interesting integrated approach towards reason, logic and the phenomena of everything. This because in metaphysics, until you can have a satisfying answer to what, how, why, where and when, less of this the model in question is flawed. Physics; which is a metaphysical specialized discipline of its own realms believes that if you can satisfy it with where, what, how and when then you are the hero of the subject. Not all that new that the concerns of why have helped many scientists to discover the flaws with in models which were once a beacon of the phenomena based on what, how, where and when. We are at the threshold of a new scientific era, where the why of the phenomena, sounds insignificant in the evaluation of models about the phenomena; not to mention that where it is relevant to the beacon models it is okay and where it is repugnant to the beacon models it is not necessary. We are searching for the theory of everything and If we don’t make why significant in the research for the TOT, we only point at one conclusive fact that the TOT is not there. Or else if it is there, it will answer why though this why is not necessary in the search for it. Now members, what would be the correct approach to the search for the theory of everything or else the correct approach for any scientific research?

basing on this; may you reconsider the questions on post #9 and answer me again?

I dearly apologise in advance if I happen to have misunderstood you from this post! But are you trying to imply that the mathmatical algorithms employed by LQG through which it is expecting to unify GR and QM is neither deterministic or non deterministic? Else; in what type of algorithms do they fall? please be specific on this.

but even string theory or any other model is entitled to have a consistent mathmatical structure or framewok through which it will have to predict the phenomena- and this mathmatical framework that i hope to be either deterministic,nondeterministic or P=NP. isnt it? and if not,may you please notify me on how such a mathmatical framework or algorithm that is "neither of these" might be structured to its satisfiability.

should we have to assume that the only reasonable and constructive mathmatical approach through which quantum gravity research can hope to unify GR and quantum mechanics leaves us with no any other alternative apart from; 1. either, making quantum mechanical predictions deterministic so as they reconcile with the deterministic calculations of GR. 2. or, making general relativity predictions inditerministic so that they reconcile with the inditerministic calculations of quantum mechanics. 3.or, swallowing the P=NP approach (which most of our scientists are not optimistic about).

incomplete in what sense? as a theory, is GR incomplete in the sense of its formulation or else its interpretation?

i have been following the discussion that you initiated about the math magical foundations of general relativity and i found it interesting.but Markus; don you think that the deterministic nature of general relativity has been the fundamental stumbling block for reconciling between general relativity and the deterministic nature of quantum mechanics as the only way quantum mechanics can be interpreted based on special relativity can only be inditerministic?