This is the theory of everything. It predicts everything I tried to predict (dark matter, dark energy, quantum entanglement, quantum spin, neutron star glitches, etc).
My suspicion is scientists obstinately believe that the universe can be explained only by math. I tried to add some formulas (derive gravitational constant, Hubble’s constant, Coulomb’s constant, etc) to satisfy their expectation. But I realized that it could take years to do it single-handedly. Perhaps, you can save my time and read it. I am sure you will understand it if you try to understand.

Unsurprisingly, the universe model cannot be described in a short article. My 30-page article (15000 words) is divided into 7 sections:
· Introduction
· Construction of the universe model
· Explanation of all fundamental forces and interactions
· Connection to special relativity
· Explanation of astronomical observations
· Explanation of all remaining basic observations
· Discussion of essential details omitted at the beginning
It is necessary to read at least the first 3 sections (11 pages) to form basic understanding.

The general assumption is that microscale physics is not fundamentally different from familiar macroscale physics. In macroscale physics, we observe particles and their interactions through forces (or "pushing"). It turns out that presenting microscale physics in the same way allows us to understand it much better. Using this model, I was able to explain all the most well-known phenomena, most notably:
·       Double slit experiments and quantum entanglement;
·       Light diffraction and the speed limit;
·       Fundamental forces;
·       Special and general relativity tests;
·       Evolution and structure of all celestial bodies (including black holes);
·       Dark energy and dark matter;
·       Reflection, refraction and interference;
·       Superconductivity and Earth magnetic field.

New theoretical model of the universe 2.pdf

1 hour ago, OlegMarchenkov said:

This is the theory of everything. It predicts everything I tried to predict (dark matter, dark energy, quantum entanglement, quantum spin, neutron star glitches, etc).
My suspicion is scientists obstinately believe that the universe can be explained only by math. I tried to add some formulas (derive gravitational constant, Hubble’s constant, Coulomb’s constant, etc) to satisfy their expectation. But I realized that it could take years to do it single-handedly. Perhaps, you can save my time and read it. I am sure you will understand it if you try to understand.

Unsurprisingly, the universe model cannot be described in a short article. My 30-page article (15000 words) is divided into 7 sections:
· Introduction
· Construction of the universe model
· Explanation of all fundamental forces and interactions
· Connection to special relativity
· Explanation of astronomical observations
· Explanation of all remaining basic observations
· Discussion of essential details omitted at the beginning
It is necessary to read at least the first 3 sections (11 pages) to form basic understanding.

The general assumption is that microscale physics is not fundamentally different from familiar macroscale physics. In macroscale physics, we observe particles and their interactions through forces (or "pushing"). It turns out that presenting microscale physics in the same way allows us to understand it much better. Using this model, I was able to explain all the most well-known phenomena, most notably:
·       Double slit experiments and quantum entanglement;
·       Light diffraction and the speed limit;
·       Fundamental forces;
·       Special and general relativity tests;
·       Evolution and structure of all celestial bodies (including black holes);
·       Dark energy and dark matter;
·       Reflection, refraction and interference;
·       Superconductivity and Earth magnetic field.

New theoretical model of the universe 2.pdf

I do not open links or read long essays.

Can you not outline one of your showstoppers?

Moderator Note

You won't get much traction asking people to open even a PDF here at SFN. We ask that you spoon feed us your idea, starting with an overview of this ToE. If it starts well, the members will keep asking questions so you can flesh it out for us.

If you could start with the math, it would help others understand what you're doing. Thanks for understanding.

Why do people keep thinking quantum entanglement needs predicting or explaining beyond what QM already tells us? Is there some kind of epidemic I'm not aware of?

Just now, pinball1970 said:

Can you not outline one of your showstoppers?

Yes good idea.

In what way is the Earth's magnetic field related to superconductivity ?

Just now, OlegMarchenkov said:

Superconductivity and Earth magnetic field.

1 hour ago, pinball1970 said:

I do not open links or read long essays.

Can you not outline one of your showstoppers?

I understand your point. But, well... I can't do it much better. The first three pages is the outline of diffraction and quantum entanglement, and it is as short as it could be (maybe even too short).

Edited June 30Jun 30 by OlegMarchenkov

3 minutes ago, OlegMarchenkov said:

I understand your point. But, well...

But well?

Do you have a big hitter? What is the stand out point? Your flag ship?

29 minutes ago, studiot said:

Yes good idea.

In what way is the Earth's magnetic field related to superconductivity ?

It is not related. The meaning is the model explains Earth magnetic field AND superconductivity (no connection between the two).

58 minutes ago, joigus said:

Why do people keep thinking quantum entanglement needs predicting or explaining beyond what QM already tells us? Is there some kind of epidemic I'm not aware of?

I guess there is some reason)

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Why do people keep thinking quantum entanglement needs predicting or explaining beyond what QM already tells us? Is there some kind of epidemic I'm not aware of?

It’s like the demand for a medium for light to travel in, ca. 120+ years ago, just repackaged. “it’s how some other stuff works and my personal mental model requires it”

Just now, OlegMarchenkov said:

It is not related. The meaning is the model explains Earth magnetic field AND superconductivity (no connection between the two).

Well How am I supposed to know that your last line is different from the one above it.

Or are you telling me that there is no connection between refraction, reflections and interference ?

what about all the other line with 'and' in ?

This is very poor scientific writing, in my opinion.

47 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

But well?

Do you have a big hitter? What is the stand out point? Your flag ship?

Quantum mechanics is question-begging.

Why quantum spin exists? - Because the universe is designed this way

Why the state of one photon determines the state of another entangled photon? - Because the universe is designed this way

Why momentum is conserved? - Because the universe is designed this way

The whole point of science is to replace this answer "Because the universe is designed this way" with something sensible, something that will lead to a better understanding of technological processes.

In this theoretical model, we have only one such nonsensical answer (to the question "Why a photon behaves this way?"). Or, in mathematical terms, we have only one unknown variable that determines everything in the universe.

51 minutes ago, OlegMarchenkov said:

I guess there is some reason)

As that never happens for professional physicists who understand quantum mechanics, I'm going to guess the reason is just something along the lines of "I'm gonna find a reason that satisfies me" --like @swansont said. I don't care about that "every thing that can happen will happen" nonsense, the non-argument goes. But that's what QM says: Every single event that could happen has an amplitude that affects what will happen.

3 hours ago, OlegMarchenkov said:

· Explanation of astronomical observations
· Explanation of all remaining basic observations
· Discussion of essential details omitted at the beginning

Astronomical observations are not in the domain of a so-called theory of everything. TOE is about masses and angles and coupling constants. Not about why Mercury is so different from the Earth.

48 minutes ago, OlegMarchenkov said:

Quantum mechanics is question-begging.

Why quantum spin exists? - Because the universe is designed this way

Why the state of one photon determines the state of another entangled photon? - Because the universe is designed this way

Why momentum is conserved? - Because the universe is designed this way

The whole point of science is to replace this answer "Because the universe is designed this way" with something sensible, something that will lead to a better understanding of technological processes.

In this theoretical model, we have only one such nonsensical answer (to the question "Why a photon behaves this way?"). Or, in mathematical terms, we have only one unknown variable that determines everything in the universe.

Certain “why” questions are outside of science; they can’t be tested, so any proposal is just so much hot air.

But we know why the states of entangled particles have their particular correlation - because conservation laws apply. And conserved quantities like momentum are related to symmetries. Momentum is tied to spatial translation symmetry, energy to time translation. Noether’s theorems show this.

As I said, you will eventually dig down to the point where you can’t answer why, but your apparent unawareness of these existing answers suggests you need to dig a lot more before you start lecturing others.

I'm still waiting for the explanations of both the earth's magnetism and superconductivity.

All you have told me so far is that they are different, which I agree with.

29 minutes ago, swansont said:

Certain “why” questions are outside of science; they can’t be tested, so any proposal is just so much hot air.

But we know why the states of entangled particles have their particular correlation - because conservation laws apply. And conserved quantities like momentum are related to symmetries. Momentum is tied to spatial translation symmetry, energy to time translation. Noether’s theorems show this.

As I said, you will eventually dig down to the point where you can’t answer why, but your apparent unawareness of these existing answers suggests you need to dig a lot more before you start lecturing others.

I was referring to "spooky action at a distance", the fact that certain interactions are faster than the speed of light, which begs the unanswered question "why". I should have expressed myself more clearly.

It is frustrating to see that some people picture me as an impudent upstart. Actually, I am humble and grateful for your feedback. However, it irritates me when someone makes judgments about my work without even looking at it. But that's my problem, I have to break this article down into many separate threads to encourage meaningful discussion.

Don't want to lecture you, but in my opinion "hot air" is called a hypothesis, and it can be developed into a tested theory (this theoretical model can be tested).

30 minutes ago, OlegMarchenkov said:

I was referring to "spooky action at a distance", the fact that certain interactions are faster than the speed of light, which begs the unanswered question "why". I should have expressed myself more clearly.

But there’s no interaction.

30 minutes ago, OlegMarchenkov said:

It is frustrating to see that some people picture me as an impudent upstart. Actually, I am humble and grateful for your feedback. However, it irritates me when someone makes judgments about my work without even looking at it. But that's my problem, I have to break this article down into many separate threads to encourage meaningful discussion.

I can only go by what you post; made no judgement about what you didn’t. (uploaded files don’t count)

30 minutes ago, OlegMarchenkov said:

Don't want to lecture you, but in my opinion "hot air" is called a hypothesis, and it can be developed into a tested theory (this theoretical model can be tested).

I look forward to seeing the testable model posted on these pages.

5 hours ago, studiot said:

I'm still waiting for the explanations of both the earth's magnetism and superconductivity.

All you have told me so far is that they are different, which I agree with.

If you really have a definite predictive physical explanation of either the Earth's magnetic field or Superconductivity, as you have claimed then we mare all interested because both of these have yet to be fully described and explained by current theory.

Edited July 1Jul 1 by studiot

If you have genuinely discovered something new what a shame you are clearly determined not to emulate your countryman who introduced the periodic table we still use today.

Scientists have been trying for some time to fit conductivity (super or otherwise) to the layout of the table. for instance using the Mott transition temperature and energy.

One day it will happen.

Sorry you don't want to discuss this.

However it is clear you don't wish to discuss details, despite claiming (twice) that your hypothesis explains this phenomenon.

21 hours ago, joigus said:

Astronomical observations are not in the domain of a so-called theory of everything. TOE is about masses and angles and coupling constants. Not about why Mercury is so different from the Earth.

Astronomical observations - magnetic fields of neutron stars, black holes, dark matter and other observations in the sky. It is important to test this theoretical model against astronomical data.

But before that, I am going to present digestible portions of this discovery step-by-step:

1. A proper introduction to this model, which will answer the questions "Why is it useful?", "Why do I think there is a deeper understanding of quantum entanglement?", etc.

2. Earth magnetic field (luckily, the explanation does not even require the model, QM will do).

3. Everything else (superconductors, tests, quantum entanglement, etc) if you'll be patient enough.

Again, a theory of everything is a name that became popular in the '90s, if I remember correctly, and does not mean a theory of "every thing". Nobody would be silly enough to engage in such an endeavour.

A so-called TOE sets out to explain parameters of the SM (standard model).

A theory of every thing (every single thing that is out there) is just an mirage stemming from a basic misunderstanding of what those words mean.

2 hours ago, joigus said:

Again, a theory of everything is a name that became popular in the '90s, if I remember correctly, and does not mean a theory of "every thing". Nobody would be silly enough to engage in such an endeavour.

A so-called TOE sets out to explain parameters of the SM (standard model).

A theory of every thing (every single thing that is out there) is just an mirage stemming from a basic misunderstanding of what those words mean.

Alternately, the OP can explain what they mean by a TOE. Though if it’s even more aggressive than this…good luck.

12 hours ago, OlegMarchenkov said:

Astronomical observations - magnetic fields of neutron stars, black holes, dark matter and other observations in the sky. It is important to test this theoretical model against astronomical data.

But before that, I am going to present digestible portions of this discovery step-by-step:

1. A proper introduction to this model, which will answer the questions "Why is it useful?", "Why do I think there is a deeper understanding of quantum entanglement?", etc.

2. Earth magnetic field (luckily, the explanation does not even require the model, QM will do).

3. Everything else (superconductors, tests, quantum entanglement, etc) if you'll be patient enough.

Before you do that and since it's now been two days since you posted, can you outline your reconciliation of GR and QM?

That should be your big hitter in your TOE.

12 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

Before you do that and since it's now been two days since you posted, can you outline your reconciliation of GR and QM?

I am afraid not. Any outline except Earth magnetic field requires basic understanding of the model. All in due time.

7 minutes ago, OlegMarchenkov said:

I am afraid not. Any outline except Earth magnetic field requires basic understanding of the model. All in due time.

You have not actually posted anything in two days.

Rather than telling us what your TOE can do why don't you put down, specially what it is or part of it?

Just ONE part that current physics does not explain.

Well I looked at your paper and I can honestly say that I don't recommend you or anyone else spending any more time on it.

There are so many self contradictions that it is in the category of 'Not even wrong'.