Amazing Theory of Everything

[Sensei]

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

If I want to use a complicated formula I often work out a simple already known example to check it out before applying it to something difficult and important.

Yeah, instead of making full 3 dimensional version, sometimes 2 dimensional or 1 dimensional is easier to check whether formula has any sense. If something does not want to work in 2D, the most likely won't work in 3D either.

[Mordred]

11 minutes ago, Eugenio Ullauri said:

Because photons are more wavy behavior they are like a cloud so that is why they seem to occupy the same place, and fermions are denser and its energy organization in other words a photon is more dynamic more flexible due to its energy organization, a photon is like a cloud and a fermion is like a rock, kind of

more wavy makes no sense what is more wavy about a photon compared to an electron ? Also a photon can have a wide range of frequencies but one frequency is not more wavy than another.

 A fermion is not like a rock all particles are field excitations. They all exhibit particle (poinlike) and wavelike characteristics via the wave particle duality. The pointlike properties are defined by the particles Debroglie and Compton wavelength. There is no SOLID corpuscular property of any particle. Solid is an illusion.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Mordred

[studiot]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

more wavy makes no sense what is more wavy about a photon compared to an electron ? Also a photon can have a wide range of frequencies but one frequency is not more wavy than another.

Perhaps the photon has had more whisky than the electron? 

Seriously though, I think you second sentence could give the wrong impression.

 

[Eugenio Ullauri]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

In which case you should be able to offer a proper case for why the arch stands up.

I agree that it is

But the point is that your #TOE should be able to explain this in a proper scientific manner , and even calculate some facts and figures about the arch.

But all you said was hand waving waffle. What energy is involved in a standing arch?

I seriously recommend you work on some simple examples before you tackle the Universe.

If I want to use a complicated formula I often work out a simple already known example to check it out before applying it to something difficult and important.

 

Thank you for you opinion i really appreciate it, ok what my TOE would say about the arch is as follows:

Take a camera and take a photo of the system and wait until you notice a change in the data and take another photo so you have two photos of the system how my theory approaches to this problem is that the arch and the floor are the same object if the arch is not moving in relation to the floor, what this says is that you cannot know for sure how stable is the arch just by looking at it in rest on the other hand lets say we have a system in which you told me more info about the arch energy organization like saying

The thing is that i need to learn how to apply my theory into the real world, so if you tell me how is traditionally described an arch i can maybe translate it into my TOE.

 

 

[Mordred]

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

Perhaps the photon has had more whisky than the electron? 

Seriously though, I think you second sentence could give the wrong impression.

 

how so when [latex]E=\frac{hc}{\lambda}[/latex] its frequency depends on its energy

Edited June 11, 2018 by Mordred

[studiot]

6 minutes ago, studiot said:

Also a photon can have a wide range of frequencies

Strictly a photon has one frequency, and cannot change it.

Of course, you can have different photons of different frequencies.

I'm pretty sure someone else had this discussion recently with swansont in another thread.

[Eugenio Ullauri]

8 minutes ago, Mordred said:

more wavy makes no sense what is more wavy about a photon compared to an electron ? Also a photon can have a wide range of frequencies but one frequency is not more wavy than another.

 A fermion is not like a rock all particles are field excitations. They all exhibit particle (poinlike) and wavelike characteristics via the wave particle duality. The pointlike properties are defined by the particles Debroglie and Compton wavelength. There is no SOLID corpuscular property of any particle. Solid is an illusion.

Yes in this case agree with you, this means that to make waves it is easier if the less energy it has, for example this is why the double slit experiment works only with "particles" that are weak enough to be affected by the double slit.

Yes instead of saying field excitations i would say energy organizations, they exhibit point like and wave like because of the observer, ok so i agree that particles in that sense does not exist, and yes i agree that solid is an ilusion but i meant is that one is easier to modify or influence than the other

[Mordred]

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

Strictly a photon has one frequency, and cannot change it.

Of course, you can have different photons of different frequencies.

I'm pretty sure someone else had this discussion recently with swansont in another thread.

photon energy is the energy of a single photon which that formula applies to that formula is in quantized units via the Planck constant.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Mordred

[Sensei]

7 minutes ago, Eugenio Ullauri said:

for example this is why the double slit experiment works only with "particles" that are weak enough to be affected by the double slit.

There is electrons diffraction experiment..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_diffraction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davisson–Germer_experiment

 

There is neutrons diffraction experiment..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_diffraction

 

Check section "Variations of the experiment"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

 

Edited June 11, 2018 by Sensei

[studiot]

22 minutes ago, Eugenio Ullauri said:

Thank you for you opinion i really appreciate it, ok what my TOE would say about the arch is as follows:

Take a camera and take a photo of the system and wait until you notice a change in the data and take another photo so you have two photos of the system how my theory approaches to this problem is that the arch and the floor are the same object if the arch is not moving in relation to the floor, what this says is that you cannot know for sure how stable is the arch just by looking at it in rest on the other hand lets say we have a system in which you told me more info about the arch energy organization like saying

The thing is that i need to learn how to apply my theory into the real world, so if you tell me how is traditionally described an arch i can maybe translate it into my TOE.

 

 

I picked the arch because it is a particularly good example of your comment about a particular arrangement of component pieces.

Arching action shows what is called 'emergent behaviour'.

That is the arch behaviour only appears at a critical point when all the components are assembled. Before that the arch ahs no strength whatsoever and has to rely on something else to support it.

As to taking photographs there are Roman arches that if you could have taken your photograph when they were constructed and come back every 100 years your could have taken another photo showing much the same for the last 2000 years, so you would have some 20 photos

 

Now you say your method involves deducing from these photographs how the arch system works.

That is to deduce the necessary arrangement of component pieces.

So I am asking you to do just that.

I am also challenging you to show where any energy is involved.

Edited June 11, 2018 by studiot

[Eugenio Ullauri]

2 minutes ago, Sensei said:

There is electrons diffraction experiment..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_diffraction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davisson–Germer_experiment

 

There is neutrons diffraction experiment..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_diffraction

 

Check section "Variations of the experiment"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

 

That is true but to make a neutron behave like a wave you need more energy than the electron needs for example

[studiot]

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

photon energy is the energy of a single photon which that formula applies to that formula is in quantized units via the Planck constant.

I think Swansont gave a good answer pointing out that light has a frequency.

It's not a big deal.

 

[Mordred]

ah ok I see where that is going fair enough. A light beam would have a certain density of states which involves the Planck radiation formula.

 

[Eugenio Ullauri]

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

I picked the arch because it is a particularly good example of your comment about a particular arrangement of component pieces.

Arching action shows what is called 'emergent behaviour'.

That is the arch behaviour only appears at a critical point when all the components are assembled. Before that the arch ahs no strength whatsoever and has to rely on something else to support it.

As to taking photographs there are Roman arches that if you could have taken your photograph when they were constructed and come back every 100 years your could have taken another photo showing much the same for the last 2000 years, so you would have some 20 photos

 

Now you say your method involves deducing from these photographs how the arch system works.

That is to deduce the necessary arrangement of component pieces.

So I am asking you to do just that.

I am also challenging you to show where any energy is involved.

Yes this is a great example of challenge i will try to figure out how to apply my theory on this but ok lets start with the basics that is that the photo should have enough quality to distinguish the main level of detail of the energy organization which is being able to see where every block starts and ends, that is a must obviously, and then we need to figure out how that energy organization of blocks at the block arrangement level works, so what my theory says is that of course if you build it from the ground up and you have photos on how the arch was built you will know that the bottom ones were first and then the obvious way of doing it and the most important block you mentioned but for my theory it is different what it does is that it doesnt know the most important block because every block is the most important block because if you remove one block of an arch it will fall apart so for my theory the important thing is the whole structure because i dont want to know how to build an arch i just want to know how an arch behaves, so it distiguishes each block, as an object that wants to fall to the ground in simpler terms but they dont fall because of all other blocks so all other blocks have the same importance here so lets say it starts looking for the bottom left block and says this block is stable on its own and  then it will say the next block is stable because of the previous but also because of the next until it reaches the last block which is the bottom right one in which will say this block is again stable on its own and is connected to the other block that is stable on its own which is the bottom left one kind of like that but of course here i need to apply more maths

What do you mean by where do energy is involved?

So how does my theory looks at the Schrodinger's cat:

The experiment states that there is a cat , and a poison that has 50% change of killing the cat in a box and the box is closed

So as is commonly known the experiment tells that the cat is in a superposition of states, that meaning alive and dead at the same time and when someone opens the box the superposition collapses on one state and you can know the cat state.

What my theory says about this is that if you put a cat and a poison in a box and you close it you have lost the state of the inside of the box, this means that the cat is not dead and is not alive and also the cat is not even cat and the poison is not even poison, this means the contents of the box stopped existing when you were not able to look inside the box, so what i say here is that the cat is state is unknown is not in a superposition.

Another example of how my theory looks at information is:

Does black holes destroy information?

So my theory solves this problem in a very simple and new way, which is figuring out what information is, so  information is the data collected by a focuser.

Information exist only for the focuser it is not a thing on its own, so information is the focusable state of something black holes just change the energy organization is the same that if you throw a car to the sun or to a black hole it just changes its energy organization.

The information depends on the eye who looks at it, so for a certain type of eye a certain event can destroy information but it is just changing its energy organization, but we are confussed with black holes because they are dense enough to absorb photons so info depends on how much details the eye can map

 

 

How do my theory explains the double slit experiment?

My theory says that every object is a cloud that has some energy organization.

So a photon an electron and everything else is seen as a cloud.

When a photon is fired to the double slit for an interference pattern to emerge the slit should be small enough to make the photon which is a cloud to at least one very small part of it enters the other slit so lets say 99% of the cloud enters the first slit and 1% of it enters the second slit that 1% pulls or changes the cloud trajectory making the interference pattern emerge  this does not mean that the 1% passed through the other slit this just means that it entered and then went for the slit in which the majority of the cloud passed through is like throwing a cat and the tail of the cat enters for the other slit but then the tail follows the head so that event makes the trajectory of the cloud to change like if it was a wave.

Please tell me what do you think about that

[Mordred]

here once again the terminology gets in your way.

Superposition is a probability terminology. It actually didn't originate under physics but in statistics. However lets stick to the physics treatments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle

[Eugenio Ullauri]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

here once again the terminology gets in your way.

Superposition is a probability terminology. It actually didn't originate under physics but in statistics. However lets stick to the physics treatments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle

What i said is that superposition is not real and it does not apply to reality

[Mordred]

Its a measurable quantity, if I have two or more waves overlapping the superposition of those waves will give a sum of the individual vaveforms.

What is not real about that ?

[Eugenio Ullauri]

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Its a measurable quantity, if I have two or more waves overlapping the superposition of those waves will give a sum of the individual vaveforms.

What is not real about that ?

Waves are a behavior i mean waves are not a physical thing are behaviours of physical things like trajectories the problem is to threat behaviours like objects is like saying a movement is an object is like waves being an adjective but not a thing is a property of an object not an object itself

[Mordred]

Then your not using the terminology for Superposition correctly to begin with. Can you tell me the wifi which uses signal frequencies isn't real ? or that electromagnetic radiation isn't real? they both involve waves.

Or perhaps your referring specifically to probability waves

Edited June 12, 2018 by Mordred

[Eugenio Ullauri]

Just now, Mordred said:

Then your not using the terminology for Superposition correctly to begin with. Can you tell me the wifi which uses signal frequencies isn't real ? or that electromagnetic radiation isn't real? they both involve waves.

The electromagnetic radiation is the real thing yes that radiation behaves like waves but that does not make them waves.

Is like saying that painting your car red makes the car to be a color, so the car has a color but it is still car, it is not a color

[Mordred]

Ok then by the precise same argument energy as a property much like color isn't real either.

[Eugenio Ullauri]

Does anyone here believe that my theory could be right i mean of course that there is still a lot of math to be written to be formally accepted as a theory of everything but what do you think about the philosophy of it does the infinite loop density cycle looks promising?

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

Ok then by the precise same argument energy as a property much like color isn't real either.

Energy in the clasical definition is a property of matter, a color is a structure or characteristic of an object you cannot say i have a red, you need to say i have a red car

[Mordred]

There is one aspect of it that is useful but only one I can see. Some quantities do depend on the observer ie relativity, try switching your frames to inertial frames of reference then your getting somewhere.

[Eugenio Ullauri]

Do you think if i work the math this could one day become widely accepted as the main the theory of everything?

[Mordred]

4 minutes ago, Eugenio Ullauri said:

Does anyone here believe that my theory could be right i mean of course that there is still a lot of math to be written to be formally accepted as a theory of everything but what do you think about the philosophy of it does the infinite loop density cycle looks promising?

Energy in the clasical definition is a property of matter, a color is a structure or characteristic of an object you cannot say i have a red, you need to say i have a red car

and you cannot say I have an energy but you can say this state has an energy.

Just now, Eugenio Ullauri said:

Do you think if i work the math this could one day become widely accepted as the main the theory of everything?

way too much is involved for your work thus far to become a ToE. You haven't even touched the basics behind a ToE yet.