Jump to content
JGNLBCA

John's TOE

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I think I'm ready for you this time Mordred! I told you I'd be back.  Sorry no abstract yet, but it is much better than it was last year. I do know that it is still full of errors and  have my big red marker ready.

 

the project.6.pdf

Edited by JGNLBCA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Sigh it never fails to amaze me how many posters want to invoke other universes to develop a Toe when they cannot describe how our universe evolves. 

A TOE as I mentioned in your other thread requires the relevant mathematics. The few equations you have do not even begin to describe how particles interact. They do not describe particle generations. The Pauli exclusion principle or apply any of the conservation laws in particle physics which is a primary importance for a TOE.

Quote

A Theory of Everything would unify all the fundamental interactions of nature: gravitation, strong interaction, weak interaction, and electromagnetism. Because the weak interaction can transform elementary particles from one kind into another, the TOE should also yield a deep understanding of the various different kinds of possible particles. The usual assumed path of theories is given in the following graph, where each unification step leads one level up:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

So how are you unifying these forces ?

What temperature do they reach thermal equilibrium and become indistinct from each other ?

What temperature would the weak field or the strong field separate from the unified field ?

How does the symmetry breaking of the force fields affect expansion of our universe ?

For example electroweak symmetry breaking is one of more commonly theorized causes of inflation. Ie the Higgs inflation as one example.

We can already unify three of the four forces. However we cannot keep gravity normalized. How do you mathematically address this ?

Let's compare this author tries to deal with quantum gravity though he argues that trying to normalize gravity is the wrong approach. ( quite frankly QM and QFT requires a field to be recognizable) however he presents 428 pages of mathematics.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9910036&ved=2ahUKEwiwzaiJpqbqAhWHtJ4KHQR1AwcQFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw2G-2qIgljw2zsC9XHKzW55

In my opinion he still hasn't dealt with developing a proper TOE though he claims to have done so.

(Peer reviewed articles don't necessarily mean its correct. Only that it meets the criteria of being on topic and the authors own work)

Now how does your 8 page article compare ?

 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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

Edited by JGNLBCA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are arguing that NO ONE can criticize your paper because YOU did not include a "working roadmap" or "outline"?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

No, please criticize my paper, that is why I'm here.  Not many have offered an outline as big as this yet to my knowledge. I want people to please point out the errors in my way of thinking so I can grow personally.  If M-theory is an issue for some here I have no problems renaming the terms oppoverse, multiverse, and dimension to operate within a 4D one and only universe theory. The terms would describe unknown parts of that one universe.  From my perspective It can be see a one thing, or a group of things working together.  

Now I suppose I could write a 428 page scientific paper describing the chemical and physical properties of the valve cover, belts, pulleys and air cleaner on an engine.  But then, you still would learn nothing of how a 4 stroke engine operates? Maybe that is the problem. My simple model does work somewhat as a function over time. 

Edited by JGNLBCA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, JGNLBCA said:

My point is how can you possibly even begin to work out the minutia that is demanded without a working roadmap or an outline?

It's like trying to find your way out of a maze, or a forest. There is no roadmap, and if you've got one it's probably wrong.

But understanding topology, reading clues, minor details, can help you a lot.

Do you always need a map to find your bearings? In physics the map always comes later.

Not very well known fact: Einstein spent one whole year without accepting Minkowski's concept of 4-dimensional space-time (I've heard this in a classroom.) He already had all that was needed, logical fact to logical fact.

In the words of Steven Weinberg:

"physicists are more like hounds than hawks"

Dreams of a Final Theory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm not stating you require x amount amount of pages. I am stating you do require testable predictions which requires the applicable mathematics.

You don't need to completely rewrite all of physics to develop a TOE. The only step missing is a working renormalizable theory of quantum gravity.

The other three fields is already done. You simply need to study and apply QFT. 

However you chose a method that would require starting from literally scratch and rewriting every formula involved in particle physics.

For example how does your parallel universes work with the standard model of particles

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, JGNLBCA said:

Hawks and Hounds hunt better together.

I think you got it wrong:

Gannets and barracuda fish better together

;)

 

Edit: x-posted with Mordred

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

The other three fields is already done. You simply need to study and apply QFT. 

+1. Couldn't have given you better advise.

Edited by joigus
x-post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes QFT.  That is exactly where I will study.  The writers notes that I was writing to myself should've have clued me in.  But if QFT is completed and unified with the The Standard Model and Relativity as it should  applied as you suggest, will that answer all the big mysteries that I list in the intro? (honest question)

33 minutes ago, Mordred said:

For example how does your parallel universes work with the standard model of particles

Work being done with "partner" particles is where I was looking. Those partner particles would NOT be mirrors as asymmetry would dictate but they would fulfill the role to complete QFT symmetry weirdly.. And then I am lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well let's put it this way. There are testable models for dark energy and matter already developed that involve QFT and the Higgs field. For example DM could be right hand neutrinos which the SM model predicts but has never observed.

DR could be a result of the Higgs field itself. 

Example

GUT theories

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.1556.pdf The Algebra of Grand Unified Theories John Baez and John Huerta
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdf
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdf GRAND UNIFIED THEORIES

DARK MATTER AS STERILE NEUTRINOS

http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4119
http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2301
http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4954

Higg's inflation possible dark energy

http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3738
http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755
http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2801

 

A theory of Quantum gravity would be solved if we discovered the Graviton. This would solve the singularity problem and revitalization.

What is missing isn't viable models. What is missing is the confirmation evidence. In order for any viable model to be confirmed you must have some means to test the viability of said model.

These articles will give you some direction. 

This article will familiarise you with cosmology

//www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis

 

 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your welcome feel free to ask questions on the material. It will give you a feel for what some of the requirements are to properly develop a workable and testable model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.1556.pdf The Algebra of Grand Unified Theories John Baez and John Huerta

this one stops working for me here. "In general, if a system’s state can lie in a Hilbert space V or in a Hilbert space W, the total Hilbert space is then V ⊕ W."  Instead of either V or W every particle in a systems state (the universe) must lie in varying degrees of both Hilbert spaces V AND W  dependent on its location in its galaxy  per observed galaxy mechanics.

I give significant weight to this one little observation and equation from my outline:

"We might agree, as Newton would, that if the Higgs Field is described as a positive scalar force as G+ then there must be an opposite balancing negative scalar force observed as the effects of dark matter and energy as G-. For every G+ there exists G-."

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I  have been reading with a bit more patience.  Right now I am looking at superposition states of anti-matter being DM. They did the double slit experiment last year with positrons. Would DM need to be at near zero degees K?  Does this smell fishy?

Please disregard the  previous confusing post regarding Hilbert spaces.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well DM seeds early large scale structure formation so must symmetry break at an early stage. Right hand neutrinos is considered a candidate for DM. The double slit experiment has no bearing on this. The temperature for DM will depend on its density and degrees of freedom. (Chapter 3 and 4 of the early universe particle physics will discuss temperature contributions of different particle species).

I already linked a copy earlier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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