My theory of everything, needs to be prooven wrong, need help :p

[Robbo!@#$%^&]

MY theory of everything:

 

Such prooven theories such as general relitivety and string theory BOTH have very valid points, and are most likely quite true. However, although there is no way to proove it, My own theory is that life itself may have existed BEFORE the big bang. It is my opinion (completely unvalidated) that beofre OUR universe (as we know it) expanded, it may have existed in an entirerly differnt state, governed by an entirerly different set of rules and universal laws. It is a posibilty that life may have then existed in this state, in another form from what we know it. However the point of this article is not whether or not life existed beofre the big bang, but whether anything did. As we know it, matter cannot be destroied, we cannot void matter. Thus it must then have existed beofre the big bang. As we have learned, our universe expanded, and the result of that expansion is the universe we know today, filled with a common set of atoms and particles, which have stabalised themselves over many years. Is it not then unreasonable to say that there is a chance that before the big bang occoured, a much smaller universe existed in which a completely different set of atoms and particles had stabalised themselves in such a way. Therefore, i predict upon this theory that; when the universe grows too cold, and too 'old' , that this process could very well happen again, and our universe will expand again, to the point where more and diffent atoms and particles are created. Who are we to asume that our universe will simply grow colder as it expands? Quantum theory breaks down as we get closer to the big bang. Could this be some evidence of my theory? As the universe grew larger, and into what we know it as today, quantum mechanics became what governs our universe, perhaps on a molecular level at least. String theory poses an explination for this, although it is a very complicate dtheory, whereas my theory poses a simple solution to both problems and unifies both theories as being correct. although certin comprimises are made for this to be the case. Of corse, i have no way of testing my theory, prooving it, i am not a qualified scientist, in any form. But neither was einstien i may remind you. Not when he published G.R.

 

In any case i need some help identifying problems and would like to know more about this theory, whether anyone else has thought of it, and why (because im sure i will be ) im entierly wrong.

 

Thankyou.

 

PAUL J. ROBERTS.

 

PS: i know i havnt gone into much detail, and i know this is really a theory of everything

[insane_alien]

you don't even have anything that qualifies as a hypothesis so your wish is granted!

[the tree]

Prove, proven, disprove and disproved all have one 'o' in them. There is no such word as "unvalidated", I assume you mean invalidated. Entirely is spelled like that and there are two 's's in possibility.

There are many more errors in your post, but I wont waste your time by noting all of them.

You might want to install a spell-checking plug in to your browser, or update to a browser with spell-checking built in.

Such prooven theories such as general relitivety and string theory BOTH have very valid points, and are most likely quite true.

String theory has never been proven, it never got that far, it can be regarded as "not even wrong" because it hardly stood up as a theory.

However, although there is no way to proove it, My own theory is that life itself may have existed BEFORE the big bang. It is my opinion (completely unvalidated) that beofre OUR universe (as we know it) expanded, it may have existed in an entirerly differnt state, governed by an entirerly different set of rules and universal laws.

A universe within a universe model? This is quite acceptable as a possibility, I recall one scientist saying that is quite possible for this universe to exist inside a five dimensional black hole.

It is a posibilty that life may have then existed in this state, in another form from what we know it. However the point of this article is not whether or not life existed beofre the big bang, but whether anything did.

And where would that "anything" be, things take up space, remember.

As we know it, matter cannot be destroied, we cannot void matter. Thus it must then have existed beofre the big bang.

Err, not really. Matter in the sense of atoms and such like can form from not-matter i.e. disarranged quarks and leptons just flying around. And I think these minuscule particles can well, appear.

As we have learned, our universe expanded, and the result of that expansion is the universe we know today, filled with a common set of atoms and particles, which have stabalised themselves over many years. Is it not then unreasonable to say that there is a chance that before the big bang occoured, a much smaller universe existed in which a completely different set of atoms and particles had stabalised themselves in such a way.

No, not unreasonable, just useless. It isn't a model that can be complemented either way by empirical observation.

Therefore, i predict upon this theory that; when the universe grows too cold, and too 'old' , that this process could very well happen again, and our universe will expand again, to the point where more and diffent atoms and particles are created.

Why, what would initiate the event of another "big bang"

Who are we to asume that our universe will simply grow colder as it expands?

It's kind of part of our definition of "colder".

Quantum theory breaks down as we get closer to the big bang. Could this be some evidence of my theory?

As of yet you haven't produced a theory, but no, no it couldn't.

As the universe grew larger, and into what we know it as today, quantum mechanics became what governs our universe, perhaps on a molecular level at least.

It did not become anything, Quantum Mechanics is relevant at any point in the Universe's life time.

As for it being a at a molecular level, molecules are way to big for quantum mechanics to be relevant.

String theory poses an explination for this, although it is a very complicate dtheory

String theory doesn't pose an explanation for anything, surely you know that?

whereas my theory poses a simple solution to both problems and unifies both theories as being correct.

You haven't presented a theory yet.

although certin comprimises are made for this to be the case.

A model that has to be compromised in order to work is what is commonly known as wrong.

Of corse, i have no way of testing my theory, prooving it,

So how does it qualify as a theory?

i am not a qualified scientist, in any form. But neither was einstien i may remind you. Not when he published G.R.

Einstein was not at any time a qualified scientist, neither was Newton or Hawkins or Galileo. You know why? Because there is no such thing as a qualified scientist, a scientist is someone that does science, not someone with a qualification.

In any case i need some help identifying problems and would like to know more about this theory,

The biggest problem being that it is not a theory and barely stands up as a hypothesis.

whether anyone else has thought of it,

Something this vauge? Yes, little kids, stoners, guys waiting for trains. Both Looping Universe and Multiverse are ideas that everyone thinks of during existential pondering, most don't bother to write it down.

and why (because im sure i will be) im entierly wrong.

You're not wrong, you haven't said enough to be wrong.

Thankyou.

No Problem.

PAUL J. ROBERTS.

Paul L.A. Carpenter.

PS: i know i havnt gone into much detail,

No kidding?

and i know this is really a theory of everything

Merely being a ToE doesn't make something invalid.

[Klaynos]

I see no equations so see no predictions, I see no hypothosis, I see nothing...

 

The Tree, you have too much time on your hands!

[ecoli]

Hmm... the theory of everything in one paragraph with no mathematics. Seems obvious enough to me.

[mimefan599]

geez Tree, you picked that bloody.

 

Robo, what you wrote down is probably more of a world view than anything. It isn't scientific but displays certain concepts that you see to be true. While it isnt scientific, it doesnt automaticlly make it wrong, it's just how you see the world, expressed in non-scientific terms.

 

That is the problem of a thinker with no real knowledge of what he is thinking about. It is still important to think about the concepts of the cosmos as you see them.

 

P.S. I have no idea what you were talking about in post, try to be more succinct so you don't make people trail off half way through reading.

[TriggerGrinn]

Alot can happen in an infinite amount of time, if that is what you base the universe upon

 

However it is difficult to measure something in an unmearsureable enviroment with infinite nature. (also requires another wink)

[jck]

Robbo,

 

My solution will appeal to you for it rests on the alternative consideration that space existed before big bang. Now this is not a multi choice question as space existed before or it did not.

 

While there is ample evidence that space exists there is no evidence that space does not exist at anytime or anywhere.

 

To have some sort of theoretical contorted space before big bang is simply a provision for science based on theory which is rather like the police policing their own.

 

My solution therfore establishes the only alternative that has evidence in this universe that space must exist before big bang. It has the logic that once you have space not having it at anytime is not an option.

 

While theoretically you can remove space without leaving a space in reality this cannot be done.

 

While theoretically you can create space with energy in reality this cannot be done as no one can find anywhere where space does not exist to create some space from the energy.

 

Starting from complete scratch the first requirement in order for anything to exist is space, endless space.

 

Anything that conjures up anything at all without the endless space has nowhere for that to exist. Once the space constant is applied a logical solution becomes automatic which has nothing to do with theories that were calculated billions of years later from observations.

 

A strange thing happens when space everywhere before big bang is considered, the theories cannot be correct almost from day one. The problem for the theorists is they fail to understand starting from scratch with just space does not require theory. There is no observation with simply endless space existing, it has to be worked out from there with logic.

 

Now the logic should lead to the same answers as the theories, for science has it that it does not matter what was before big bang so it does not affect the situation we have in the universe now.

 

In fact the opposite is true, if space existed before big bang the theories cannot be correct.

 

It then becomes a game of chance, heads there was no space before big bang and the theories can be correct or tails there was space before big bang and the theories cannot be correct.

 

My solution considers the space before big bang option and works through from scratch to a complete solution based on logic and certainty be default.

 

 

best wishes,

john

jck

[bascule]

Robbo, you may want to have a look at this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecund_universes

[bunburryist]

Paul - In think you have too much faith in relativity theory, string theory, etc. to be basing extra-cosmological worldviews on them. One of the frustrating aspects of the development of science is that ideas that are, at one time, taken by many to be descriptions of reality (a classic example is the ether theory of light), are tossed into the conceptual dust bin of history. A book that might help you focus your thinking in relation to what scientific theories are and what they mean, is called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas Kuhn. This should be required reading for anyone who has any interest in the meaning of scientific concepts an theories. Rob