[analog]

Hello again majik,

There are no requirements to making an article other than those posted by Robert in the sticky at the top of the articles page: Article Length. There are many of us that have articles posted there with no credentials other than a good imagination and a lot of hard work.

The link Toe Theory Articles is under the main Forums heading at the top of this page, then under Member Articles, then you'll see Toe Theory Articles along with some other forums.

You can look at some other articles there and get an idea of how they are done. The article format allows for pages with headings, etc, so you'll have to put page breaks when writing your work where ever you want a page change.

As far as I know the Theories link at the top of this page is the only place that has any type of requirements. It's the link to the Toe Quest Library and is reserved for published theories and such. A serious author with published work or proper 'credentials' must PM Robert (ToeQuest Administrator) or fill out the 'Become an Author' form to be allowed to publish work there. At least that's my understanding, but you should be fine with the link I've given you, or any other link under the Member Articles section that you may feel is more appropriate concerning your work.

regards,

Tim

[dleviwing]

Hi Majik;
Tim’s advice is quite sound but I would suggest you use the “Your Toe Theory” forum first to get the feel for the ToeQuest community. Most of ToeQuest members are not looking for formalized theories but just discussions of various ideas; that’s why I suggested a translation of your formalism to one that would be more attractive to a greater audience.

I too am a fan of Richard Feynman but disagree with many of his assertions presented in mathematical formalism. The problem is not with the mathematics but with the paradigm used to define and interpret the meaning of the terms. The formalisms are basically structures of methodology; that also includes the Feynman path integral. This means you need a proper paradigm or theory to apply such methodologies. Your approach provide another form of methodology to interpret the numbers but it still does not have the basic fundamental paradigm concept to make it any more useful than existing formalism.

String theory is an excellent example of the enthusiasm of scientist causing them to ignore the fundamental philosophical premise of the scientific methodology; a lot of time and money put into a lot of formalization only to produce worthless abstract visions of reality; it fails the scientific test. If these people failed to change the long held philosophy of scientific methodology, I don’t think you’ll have much luck at it either.

Now if your work presents a simplified solution to existing empirical data then you have something to present. Just show how your method presents a clearer picture than existing methods.

BTW: If you haven’t read Roger Penrose’s “The Road To Reality” I think your fascination with mathematics will find satisfaction within its pages.

Good luck Mike and I’ll be looking forward to reading your postings.

[Majik]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Hi Majik;
Tim’s advice is quite sound but I would suggest you use the “Your Toe Theory” forum first to get the feel for the ToeQuest community. Most of ToeQuest members are not looking for formalized theories but just discussions of various ideas; that’s why I suggested a translation of your formalism to one that would be more attractive to a greater audience.

I was thinking that I would construct an Article with all the details with equations numbers. And then give an abstract in the Your TOE Theory forum. I'm a little busy with engineering duties, so it might take a few days to get to it.

Originally Posted by dleviwing

[I too am a fan of Richard Feynman but disagree with many of his assertions presented in mathematical formalism. The problem is not with the mathematics but with the paradigm used to define and interpret the meaning of the terms. The formalisms are basically structures of methodology; that also includes the Feynman path integral. This means you need a proper paradigm or theory to apply such methodologies. Your approach provide another form of methodology to interpret the numbers but it still does not have the basic fundamental paradigm concept to make it any more useful than existing formalism.

Actually, I think my approach does provide some insight as to where the Path Integral comes from. I show how from the premise that all facts are consistent the PI can be derived. By considering facts of reality as propositions in logic, I can form a type of "logical" Path Integral. And then by applying measure theory to this logical PI, I get the Feynman PI. So what I think I have done is to derive physics from logic alone. What better foundation to physics can there be?

Originally Posted by dleviwing

[If these people failed to change the long held philosophy of scientific methodology, I don’t think you’ll have much luck at it either.

Yes, it may be difficult to change their minds on foundational issues. If I show how easy it all can be, then they will probably take offense. But that would not disprove my thesis.

Originally Posted by dleviwing

[Now if your work presents a simplified solution to existing empirical data then you have something to present. Just show how your method presents a clearer picture than existing methods.

What I think I provided is a formulation to start with. I have so far shown how to get the PI for a free particle. But I think I might be able to show how I can get the Hilbert-Eistein action as well. This may take some work on my part, and I'm already working on it and have some ideas. If I succeed, I will have derived Quantum Theory and General Relativity from logic alone.

Originally Posted by dleviwing

[BTW: If you haven’t read Roger Penrose’s “The Road To Reality” I think your fascination with mathematics will find satisfaction within its pages.

Yes, I read his book. It took me 3 to 4 month, large book. It does contain some insight and mathematical motivation.