24 minutes ago, studiot said:

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

Please give me a good example.

55 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

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

It is not what you all expect (if it were, this discovery would have been made many years ago). This is a completely different perspective, an attempt to build a physical model of the universe from scratch, without using existing physical laws.

It may not be consistent with physical laws you were taught in school, but it is entirely consistent with experimental data.

3 minutes ago, OlegMarchenkov said:

It is not what you all expect

Post part of it or I am done. I don't like time wasters

Just now, OlegMarchenkov said:

an attempt to build a physical model of the universe from scratch, without using existing physical laws.

even this is contradicted in your article

Here is just one such place

Instantaneous force allows conducting materials (which have loosely bound electrons) to induce a

current in themselves according to Faraday's law

As a matter of interest your original concept is very similar to Maxwell's vortex theory (published in 1860 and 1861), except he used rotational momentum and you have used linear momentum (isn't momentum another physical law you wished to avoid?)

This was also called Maxwell's Mechanical Aether theory.

The interesting thing is that the shapes in your diagram are not space filling.

(You did say that your required space to be completely filled with your protoparticles with nothing left over)

Round objects do not fit together to fill space, and 2D can be misleading.

Here are some 3D shapes that fill space.

Space-Filling Polyhedron -- from...

Space-Filling Polyhedron -- from Wolfram MathWorld

A space-filling polyhedron is a polyhedron which can be used to generate a tessellation of space. Although even Aristotle himself proclaimed in his work On the Heavens that the tetrahedron fills sp...

Maxwell used hexagons to achieve the filling

Here are some links to maxwells theory.

You can see in the original paper (the first link) how similar it is to yours

https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~temple/MAT22C/MaxwellOnPhysicalLinesOfForce.pdf

https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/em/dyson.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Maxwell%27s_equations

2 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

Post part of it or I am done. I don't like time wasters

I know you've all had your share of senseless drivel on this forum. I beg you to be patient and try to understand this model. Preparing my posts takes time. Thanks for understanding.

21 minutes ago, studiot said:

The interesting thing is that the shapes in your diagram are not space filling.

Good observation. Yes, we can completely fill a volume with a finite number of cubes or some other angular shapes, yet we cannot fill a volume with a finite number of spheres.

But we can completely fill a volume (or space) with an infinite number of spheres. And this is the universe after all (we cannot expect the number of particles to be finite).

As for Faraday's law, I have used the common names for physical laws, but what lies behind these names is different (Faraday's law is not explained by QM as far as I know).

Though you're right, there is some exaggeration in my statement "without using existing physical laws", momentum is still the same in the model.

Just now, OlegMarchenkov said:

But we can completely fill a volume (or space) with an infinite number of spheres. And this is the universe after all (we cannot expect the number of particles to be finite).

Space filling is not a property of infinity.

Take, for instance the integers 1, 2

We know ther are numbers between 1 and 2 because we can form the expression (1+2) / 2 out of the integers.

But it is also clear that those numbers are not integers.

Just now, OlegMarchenkov said:

As for Faraday's law, I have used the common names for physical laws, but what lies behind these names is different (Faraday's law is not explained by QM as far as I know).

But Faraday's Law simply states what happens.

It does not say why it happens.

Neither Faraday nor Maxwell had any inkling of Quantum Theory, so it is not suprising that they did not mention it.

However if you look in the second article (Dyson) about Maxwell that I linked to you will find a discussion of the quantum implications of their theories.

On 6/30/2025 at 7:07 PM, 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?

Here's why.

https://scienceforums.net/topic/136139-photon-collapse-as-the-origin-of-gravitons-gravigenesis-theory/#comment-1292263

Edited July 2Jul 2 by studiot

20 minutes ago, studiot said:

Here's why.

https://scienceforums.net/topic/136139-photon-collapse-as-the-origin-of-gravitons-gravigenesis-theory/#comment-1292263

🫥

3 hours ago, studiot said:

However if you look in the second article (Dyson) about Maxwell that I linked to you will find a discussion of the quantum implications of their theories.

Interesting article. Thanks

There are only two tools we use to study the universe - visualization (comparison with familiar concepts such as classical mechanics) and mathematics. There are some cases when visualization fails and math does not fail. For example, electromagnetic fields, as shown in the article (Dyson). But this requires creating new concepts and becoming familiar with them. In these pages, I intend to prove that the universe can be explained by only one concept.

1. Introduction

Each time you are tempted to ask "why?" you are driven by a powerful instinct, to which we owe our scientific and technological progress. At some point, we were asking "why particles behave like waves?". Today we take it for granted because we have not found the answer. Now we ask "why galaxies accelerate from us?". But it looks like it will end the same way.

What is the problem with these unanswered questions? Nothing bad will happen if we stop asking. - I can't argue with that. It's about your preferences. In my opinion, we should continue trying to answer these questions. After all, this is what scientists do.

Wave-particle duality seems completely counterintuitive, but we had to accept it to reconcile with experimental data. And we expect future discoveries to be even more complicated and ambiguous. Apparently they should be, since we have not made much progress in theoretical physics in the last hundred years, even though we have more free time for it and more scientists working on it than ever before. Another possibility is that we have reached a dead end in theoretical physics. This scenario is characteristic of human psychology. When solving riddles, we tend to bypass the simple correct answer and move on to more complex ideas.

The most ambitious goal of theoretical physics is to unite relativity and quantum mechanics. But the result of our enormous effort is insignificant. Furthermore, quantum mechanics itself consists of unrelated concepts (quantum spin, quantum fluctuations, quantum entanglement, diffraction, Brewster’s law, Faraday’s law, charge, dark matter, dark energy, etc) that also require unification. We will try a different approach in this study. By using only one concept as an axiom, we are going to carefully construct a model of the universe without using existing theories.

I think I have sufficiently emphasized the importance of this discovery in my previous posts. The remaining part is to keep up with my numerous promises. The next post about Earth magnetic field will not be soon. I would rather spend time drawing illustrations and calculating than cause unnecessary confusion here.

Just now, OlegMarchenkov said:

Interesting article. Thanks

Glad you like it

Just now, OlegMarchenkov said:

There are only two tools we use to study the universe - visualization (comparison with familiar concepts such as classical mechanics) and mathematics.

Having seen so many ideas fail because they start with there is only one or this is absolute or somesuch, I have this 'theory' aboute statements of absolutes, which runs:-

There are no other absolutes.

Two tools huh ? What about Trial and error ?

So few tools yes, but only and absolutely 2 no.

Just now, OlegMarchenkov said:

What is the problem with these unanswered questions? Nothing bad will happen if we stop asking. - I can't argue with that. It's about your preferences. In my opinion, we should continue trying to answer these questions. After all, this is what scientists do.

Agreed

Just now, OlegMarchenkov said:

Each time you are tempted to ask "why?" you are driven by a powerful instinct, to which we owe our scientific and technological progress. At some point, we were asking "why particles behave like waves?". Today we take it for granted because we have not found the answer. Now we ask "why galaxies accelerate from us?". But it looks like it will end the same way.

Agreed these were both important questions.

However I am comfortable with my understanding of QM in general and duality in particular. I find neither suprising.

Personally I consider that we are spending too much time and effort on external research into places we will probably never reach or influence.

Just now, OlegMarchenkov said:

Apparently they should be, since we have not made much progress in theoretical physics in the last hundred years, even though we have more free time for it and more scientists working on it than ever before. Another possibility is that we have reached a dead end in theoretical physics.

I think the actual physicists here would seriously disagree with this observation. Certainly the Physics I learned in the mid 20th century is way different from the Physics I am seeing today.

Just now, OlegMarchenkov said:

The most ambitious goal of theoretical physics is to unite relativity and quantum mechanics. But the result of our enormous effort is insignificant. Furthermore, quantum mechanics itself consists of unrelated concepts (quantum spin, quantum fluctuations, quantum entanglement, diffraction, Brewster’s law, Faraday’s law, charge, dark matter, dark energy, etc) that also require unification. We will try a different approach in this study. By using only one concept as an axiom, we are going to carefully construct a model of the universe without using existing theories.

I agree that unification of theories is today's ,most sought after goal. However not being goal oriented, I am perfectly comforable with 10 theories as 1.

Further your list of quantisable effects is certainly far to short so there is no need to incorporate non quantum effects, or currently unimportant ones when there are plenty of very important ones to choose from,

Just now, OlegMarchenkov said:

I think I have sufficiently emphasized the importance of this discovery in my previous posts. The remaining part is to keep up with my numerous promises. The next post about Earth magnetic field will not be soon. I would rather spend time drawing illustrations and calculating than cause unnecessary confusion here.

Whenever you feel ready.

But I would expect both the visualisation and mathematics (as per your basic physics) to match the observed field.

5 hours ago, OlegMarchenkov said:

. I beg you to be patient and try to understand this model

What model? You haven't posted anything I can look at.

I asked you for one big hitter, Dark Energy, DM, a QM/GR union but have posted nothing l.

Another poster has looked at some details and had pointed out difficulties already, basic ones.

Unfortunately "nicht einmal falsch" is looking like the headline to your thesis.

Edited July 2Jul 2 by pinball1970
Posted before I finished. Device issues.

51 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

I asked you for one big hitter, Dark Energy, DM, a QM/GR union but have posted nothing

What can I do? No sense in giving you big hitters. You won't understand them without learning basic principles of this theoretical model.

6 hours ago, studiot said:

Space filling is not a property of infinity.

Could you clarify this better? Why can't I fill a volume with an infinite number of spheres?

Just now, OlegMarchenkov said:

Could you clarify this better? Why can't I fill a volume with an infinite number of spheres?

This is where some knowledge of Chemistry or Mineralogy is helpful.

The term used is close packing and the best that can be achieved with equal spheres is 74% fill.

The shape of the unoccupied spaces preculudes packing with successively smaller spheres.

Geosciences LibreTexts

13.3.2: Packing in Three Dimensions

2 hours ago, studiot said:

I think the actual physicists here would seriously disagree with this observation. Certainly the Physics I learned in the mid 20th century is way different from the Physics I am seeing today.

Progress of theoretical physics is not measured by how fast it changes. It is measured by how well observational data is explained, ie the number of paradoxes and unanswered questions.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

The shape of the unoccupied spaces preculudes packing with successively smaller spheres.

I don't see how it precludes.

1. We can always fit a tiny sphere between other spheres.

2. We have an infinite number of spheres of arbitrary sizes.

These two true statements must ensure that we can completely fill a volume with spheres. Isn't it correct?

5 hours ago, OlegMarchenkov said:

At some point, we were asking "why particles behave like waves?". Today we take it for granted because we have not found the answer.

We take it for granted because repeated experiment/observation shows it to be the case.

Wave-particle duality seems completely counterintuitive, but we had to accept it to reconcile with experimental data.

Seems counterintuitive because we’re used to what we can see with our naked eye, and the quantum world tends to not behave classically.

Why is it so important to you to be shown to be right in every respect ?

In my turn I have agreed with some of your statements and listed good scientific reasons why I disagree with some of them.

Just now, OlegMarchenkov said:

Progress of theoretical physics is not measured by how fast it changes. It is measured by how well observational data is explained, ie the number of paradoxes and unanswered questions.

This one you simply misinterpreted since I was talking about content not speed

Just now, OlegMarchenkov said:

I don't see how it precludes.

1. We can always fit a tiny sphere between other spheres.

2. We have an infinite number of spheres of arbitrary sizes.

These two true statements must ensure that we can completely fill a volume with spheres. Isn't it correct?

This one is your claim not mine so it is for you to prove, mathematically, that your premises lead to the conculsion you claim.

But note that since the sphere is a convex hull (has positive curvature everywhere) the will always be spaces left between touching spheres of any size, different or the same.

Firther I already presented a link to the conventional maths for the simplest case and explained why you can't fill up the gaps leftover.

Ddi you not read it ?

Just as an alternative thought; Why do your units have to be spheres ? I also showed many solids that will fill 3D completely. Certainly QM geometry has very few spheres in it.

9 hours ago, studiot said:

Why is it so important to you to be shown to be right in every respect ?

In my turn I have agreed with some of your statements and listed good scientific reasons why I disagree with some of them.

When I disagree with you, I also present my arguments. The question of spheres is important for me because you criticized my model with it.

9 hours ago, studiot said:

Ddi you not read it ?

Read almost everything you sent. Did not find anything related to infinities or the question I asked.

If you find this offensive, I will not touch on this topic again.

11 hours ago, swansont said:

We take it for granted because repeated experiment/observation shows it to be the case.

Yes, experiments showed that we cannot understand wave-particle duality deeper with current theories.

16 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

I asked you for one big hitter, Dark Energy, DM, a QM/GR union but have posted nothing l.

Unfortunately for me, I must obey your demands. After all, I came to you with this model, not you to me.

Perhaps, I can briefly explain dark matter in the next post. But don't be surprised that I may answer your questions with "Explanation requires basic understanding of the model".

In other words, I will do what you asked, please remove your downvotes.

Stop tap-dancing around this. Present something substantial. It’s put up or shut up time.

Just now, OlegMarchenkov said:

If you find this offensive, I will not touch on this topic again.

No I didn't find anything offensive.

But the onus remains with you to demonstrate that it is possible to tile or tesselate (let us say a plane as it is easier than 3D) a plane with circles.

It is not enough to just declare it so you have to actually demonstrate it mathematically.

I should warn you that lots of folks have tried but no one have ever achieved it as it is impossible.

It is however possible with parts of a circle, suitably arranged.

There are two several ways to approach the problem.

One is to try to arrange them geometrically, without overlap.

Another is to try to partition the plane into variable circles - this has been done by removal of a finite number of points from the plane.

A third way is to consider the areas of the circles used and show that this adds up exactly to the area of the plane. You could try taking a square or other tesselating shape an see if you can make a match with an infinite series of circles, the series being conditioned by weighting factors of the numersof any given size of circle used.

Edited July 3Jul 3 by studiot

38 minutes ago, studiot said:

It is not enough to just declare it so you have to actually demonstrate it mathematically.

Now I understand. There may be some gaps in a tessellated volume that can never be covered by spheres.

Fortunately, I don't have to prove it. In my model, protoparticles are not ideal spheres. They can be stretched a bit by repulsive forces (protoparticles are repulsive to each other, which leads to filling of all empty spaces).

Dark matter

Welcome to my theoretical model! You and every particle around you are made up of photons here. Nothing else exists (even a vacuum). Microparticles (far too small to be detected) fill all space. They also experience gravity and orbit every massive object (we will talk about gravity later). This is how they orbit the Sun:

All microparticles in the vicinity form a stable configuration of highly eccentric orbits during their fall toward the Sun. The same configuration applies to Earth, galaxies, or any other celestial body. In this way, microparticles move faster in the center, which ensures their uniform density throughout the universe.

We expect to detect ether flow in the Michelson-Morley experiment. These attempts are futile because the only streams of microparticles near Earth are too thin to be detected. Any photon (regardless of whether it is directed along the Earth motion or not) passes through millions of thin streams of microparticles directed almost perpendicular to the Earth surface (their elliptical orbits curve in the Earth core). As a result, photons do not appear to be accelerated or decelerated, especially when we lengthen the photon path in an attempt to improve precision. Furthermore, negatively and positively charged microparticles have separate streams shifted in the fourth dimension (which are mostly opposite, since otherwise they will annihilate). So photons oscillating in the fourth dimension often move in opposite streams without gaining speed in them, which gives a zero result in the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Highly eccentric orbits of microparticle flows (of Earth or other massive body) are formed from stationary distant microparticles. Not all microparticles are stationary in the universe (for example, some of them are accelerated by supernova explosions). These accelerated microparticles form their mostly circular flows around a massive object, which increases the gravity near it. How does this increase gravity? Consider the gravitational force exerted by a microparticle in a highly eccentric orbit that extends far from a massive body. This force is practically zero. However, if we place this microparticle in a close circular orbit, the gravity caused by it will be noticeable. These microparticles in circular orbits are dark matter.

Old galaxies lived through many supernova explosions. Therefore, they contain a lot of accelerated microparticles, a lot of dark matter.

Note: Charged particles are shifted in the fourth dimension. Negative particles are slightly above our space, positive are slightly below. If we take two dimensions from our space (any plane in our view) and add to them the fourth dimension instead of the third, we will see something similar to this figure (not to scale, trajectories of oscillating photons are also shown). Keep in mind that photons in the model are not exactly what QM tells you.

So what is a microparticle ?

Please elucidate the following

Just now, OlegMarchenkov said:

You and every particle around you are made up of photons here. Nothing else exists (even a vacuum). Microparticles (far too small to be detected) fill all space.

What is the difference between a photon and a microparticle ?

Note this is not a critism or rebuttal.

I just do not understand what you are trying to say.

Perhaps a heirarchy or list of particles might help.

Please also note that once you introduce a 4th dimension loops no longer divide the universe into two parts.

Edited July 3Jul 3 by studiot

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

So what is a microparticle ?

This is what I call all particles that cannot be detected. The model of 3D universe (one dimension lower to make it comprehensible for us) is a space filled with them. As incredible as it may seem, I managed to build a universe out of it. I'd love to walk you through this process, but I don't want to dump it all on you today. Although, I feel obliged to tell you about the structure of microparticles. This paragraph from my article should help:

Particles are the fundamental building blocks. It seems reasonable to fill all space with moving particles and see what happens next. Perhaps, there is no need for electromagnetic waves and other numerous concepts. If one particle moves toward another, it transfers part of its momentum. Since nothing (even vacuum) exists except particles, we must consider what happens to lined up particles. The particles move in a specific formation (see the Figure). A particle with momentum pushes the next particle in the line and bounces back to its previous position after transferring momentum. The two highlighted lines (two momentum transfers) contain disturbed particles. We will call these formations photons. The photons are directed oppositely. Naturally, particles from the compressed region (photon head) of one photon are pushed into the rarefied region (photon tail) of another photon. The photons are turning their directions of propagation. At least partially, they loop on themselves. Such formation of photons moving in circle will be called a particle. We must keep in mind that between other particles there are always particles, not emptiness. The background in the Figure is made of smaller particles, which will be called microparticles.

If you ponder about it and the structure of hydrogen atom long enough, you will see why de Broigle assumption and therefore Schrodinger equation were correct. Leptons are all made of rotating microparticles, as shown in the Figure.

If the black disks are particles or microparticles ( which one is still not clear) then what are the red circles and the white space since there is not such thing as vacuum ?

Just now, OlegMarchenkov said:

It seems reasonable to fill all space with moving particles

Why are these particle moving?

Edited July 3Jul 3 by studiot

43 minutes ago, studiot said:

If the black disks are particles or microparticles ( which one is still not clear) then what are the red circles and the white space since there is not such thing as vacuum ?

The black discs are microparticles (actually, all microparticles are still particles). The white spaces between them are filled with microparticles (not vacuum).

Hm... You got me wondering with that sphere question. In principle, there could be some tiny pieces of vacuum between microparticles.

The red circles are used to show how electron orbitals might be deformed if we imagine these microparticles as atoms.

Why are these particle moving?

Microphotons pass through them.

Edited July 3Jul 3 by OlegMarchenkov

You were asked to start with the math, and haven’t posted it. Is there any?

You keep mentioning a fourth dimension. Is this a spatial dimension? There are very good reasons why we think there are only three “macroscopic” ones - the 1/r^2 behavior of things from a point source, e.g. light intensity or the strength of gravity (https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-does-our-universe-have-more-than-3-spatial-dimensions/)

Of course, we’d need the math of the interactions to do more than have vague discussions