[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

After the prize of $1,000,000 for yourself ......

I'll get back to you.

PB.

It goes to the one who solves the mass gap problem, as well as the p=np problem, which the mass gap solution, will also solve. So, that's actually $2,000,000...

Lloyd

[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

It goes to the one who solves the mass gap problem, as well as the p=np problem, which the mass gap solution, will also solve. So, that's actually $2,000,000...

I think what you're after is a crystal ball, not a TOE.

A TOE would be grounded in cold hard facts, whereas a crystal ball will show you whatever it is you asked for, dependant on how you asked for it.

I've not looked into it to any great depth, but the Mass Gap is from a theory and based on an assumption. Your crystal ball may be able to show what you seek, but the TOE I've offered can't.

The TOE I've put forward can determine the increase in relativistic mass due to velocity and the associated time dilation, but it can't show you an assumption. It can be used to calculate red shift, but it can't shift $2,000,000 from the Clay Institute into your hands, or mine for that matter.

If solving the Mass Gap problem is a requirement for the TOE, then I think it's a bit of a tall order, don't you ?

PB.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

No, I do not, the TOE must solve the mass gap problem and others like p=np, or it's not a TOE, now is it? TOE=Theory of Everything. You may call it a crystal ball, but the final TOE will be so simple, you couldn't tell it from a crystal ball, IMO, and I think it's just around the corner...

The mass gap is not an assumption, it's one of the major gaps between quantum and relative mechanics unification...

Lloyd

[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

TOE=Theory of Everything. You may call it a crystal ball, but the final TOE will be so simple, you couldn't tell it from a crystal ball, IMO, and I think it's just around the corner...

The mass gap is not an assumption, it's one of the major gaps between quantum and relative mechanics unification...

Lloyd, we are talking about the same quantum here, as in quantum field THEORY.
I feel I must disagree with the scope that you are placing on the TOE.

I have a theory about the earth being previously inhabited by little green men. Now under the scope you put on the TOE, it should be able to explain who they were and where they came from.
Somehow I don't think so.

What if the current view of quantum and relativisitic mechanics was wrong. What if the models they base everything around are not how things actually work. What the TOE would be able to tell you is that both of them are nonsense.
You are looking for a single equation that will provide the link between two things that may or may not be the case.

I think the TOE will provide you with a replacement to theories that clearly don't work together and after all are only theories.

PB.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

PB, don't you think your little green men, is a little stretch of the imagination...? I agree the quantum and relativistic mechanical views of the universe and world are probably about 51% incomplete, but this 49% is capable of describing 99% of the modern technological world we live in, and is still greatly contributing to our species survival, and IMO, will long into the future. I am not looking for a single equation, as I do not feel the TOE will even be a single equation, that's too simple, but the idea a TOE represents, will be so simple, that simple equations of universal evolution can and will be drawn from it. And I do agree with your last statement, about replacement theories having great future validity, such as the oneness of the duality of the hydrodynamics of electrodynamics. These are the areas I'm looking at, and here's a few links to the leading physicists, in these areas:
http://www.math.buffalo.edu/mad/physics/Animalu_Alex_GAGUTreview1.pdf
and:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/...s/00248750.pdf
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~immler/Lecture_3.pdf
and: http://www.ltn.lv/~elefzaze/

Regards,
Lloyd

[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

PB, don't you think your little green men, is a little stretch of the imagination...?

Lloyd, you're right, but the point is that unless you are dealing with physical laws, how is a TOE meant to provide you with answers.

Science is full of magic numbers that are required to make it all work; speed of light, constants provided by Planck, Faraday, Rydberg, Boltzmann.

I think quantum theory is close, but not close enough to get a cigar.

The electron is viewed, by quantum theory, as consisting of a structure of spherical waves creating a particle like appearance. This is used to explain the wave/particle duality of the electron.
When an orbiting electron absorbs a photon, its energy level increases and it jumps to a higher shelf. When a photon is emitted, the eletron drops to a lower shelf.
Does the photon add to the structure of sperical waves giving the eletron a particle appearance ? IMO it does.
Why does the resulting particles of an electron/positron annihilation head off at the speed of light ? One answer is that they are photons, another could be that that was how fast they were travelling prior to the annihilation.

If the structure of an electron is no more than an arrangement of photons, then the unification of the four major forces takes a giant leap forward.

What does an electron consists of ? : Photons
What maintains the structure of the electron ? : Photons

Gravity is little more than a bit of photon on photon action.
Electromagnetic force is concentrated photon on photon action.

This approach would make it far simpler than is currently being proposed and would negate the need for both quantum and relativistic theories and the need to calculate a mass gap between the two.

PB.

[Planet_Bob]

I thought rather than just throwing a concept out there, I would explain in a little more detail.

The most fundemental proposition is to do with the speed of light.

The usual qualifier is that it is measured in a vacuum and from this a constant value is arrived at.

For this TOE, the qualifier is somewhat harder to achieve. In fact it is not currently possible, however the result can be arrived at mathematically.

The true environment to measure the speed at which light can travel between two points should be where the volume between the two points is devoid of all matter. This does not just mean a vacuum, but that there is not heat, light, radiation of any type.

Maxwell's equations show that the speed of light is inversely proportional to the square root if the sum of the properties of free space. Those properties being how free space responds to a magnetic field and its ability to transmit a magnetic field. Permeability and Permittivity.

Using Maxwell's equation, for the speed of light to remain constant, in a vacuum, then the sum of Permeability and Permittivity must remain constant. If for some unexplained reason the Permeability was to change, this in turn would alter the amount of energy that could be transmitted through free space. The more Permeable, the more energy, all the time maintaining the constant value of the speed of light (energy). For the speed of light to remain constant would require a direct relationship between the properties of free space, any fluxtuation in one being offset by a change in the other.
The more photons you pump into a volume of free space, the less permeable it becomes. If you could prevent any photons being pumped in, then you would get absolute permability, a value of zero. Feed that into Maxwell's equation and you arrive at a value for the speed of light as infinite, not in a vacuum, but in a void.

There is no longer any need for a mystical universal constraint on the speed of light(energy), energy is dynamic and creates its own constraint.
Multiple Photons cannot occupy the same space and it is their interaction that in turn limits their velocity.

Velocity is calculated as distance / time. For a photon to travel at infinite velocity must mean that it is able to traverse any distance in zero time.

Zapping across the universe in less than the blink of an eye does seem somewhat inplausable. Our perception of time and our measurements of the size of the universe make it easy for us to dismiss such a claim.

If, on the other hand, you accept the idea that nowhere in the universe is it devoid of even the smallest spot of light or that even in the coldest corners of space the temperature is not quite absolute zero, then you accept that the universe is full of energy.

The prospect now of an energy particle zapping unopposed across the universe in an instance becomes a lot less feasable. The actual distance that a photon is travelling at infinite velocity is relativily small, determined by the permeability of the free space it is travelling through.

Every time a photon reacts with another you have the most fundemental process in the universe. A process that controls all matter and is the basic tick of the universe.
Everything that happens in the Universe happens at the rate of one photon reacting with another and it all happens at the same rate.

What about time dilation and relativity ... ?

Compressed space gives you time dilation due to there being more energy packed into one area.
Space includes those areas between the shelves of an atom, in between the structure that makes up an electron. These places are not empty.

A photon being emitted from an atom takes slightly longer to be emitted because of the compression. It also takes longer to travel from the atom to your eye where it impacts with your retina. The signal now travels to your brain to register the impact, but it takes longer to travel along your optic nerve because of the compressed space. To you everything happened normally, but to a person in a different referencial frame it was slowed down. The photon itself still travelled at inifinite velocity between encountering other photons/energy it just encountered more of them.

Objects travelling at high velocity, in fact any velocity it doesn't have to be high, encounter more photons/energy than they would if it were stationary.

Imagine a clock face and around the outside there are 60 photons. It takes a single photon 60 ticks to complete on revolution. Now double the compression of the local space. There are now 120 photons around the outside of the clock and it takes 120 ticks to complete.
If this clock where an atom, then the effect would be on the orbit of each electron.


PB.

[dleviwing]

PB;
That’s just dumb logic. How dare you expect others to believe your practical thinking and logic? The TOE must be beyond mere mortal comprehension. It cannot be simple or everyone would understand it. Is that what you want? – A world full of people that cannot be treated like mushrooms.

It’s nice to find someone else that can tell the difference between fact and fiction. You’re on the right path Steven; don’t let anyone tell you differently.

[Planet_Bob]

David,
Thanks for that. For a moment there I thought I was just posting for my own amusement.

Originally Posted by dleviwing

That’s just dumb logic. How dare you expect others to believe your practical thinking and logic?

It certainly doesn't seem like rocket science, does it.

PB.

[Planet_Bob]

As I said in a previous post, Electrons are made entirely from Photons. No wonder gluie particles holding it all together, just photons.

So what's the difference between neutrons and electrons ?

As far as the basic components are concerned, nothing. The neutron is made entirely out of photons.

So why doesn't the neutron look and behave the same as an electron ?

The answer to that question lies in the source of neutrons. For Neutrons to be created you first need a bit of pressure. Actually you need a whole lot of pressure, the like of which would be found at the core of our own Sun.
The enormous pressure has the effect of forcing the particles of energy (photons) to interact at a greatly reduced distance.

The greater the pressure, the more energy is interacting and as a result larger stable structures can be achieved. Of course this is not restricted to Neutrons, Protons are created within the same environment.

What's the difference between a Neutron and a Proton ? An Electron.

The difference in Mass and Charge between a Neutron and Proton is the Mass and Charge of an Electron.
In fact Protons become Neutrons by absorbing an Electron and Neutrons convert back to Proton by emitting an Electron - beta decay.

A photon can absorbed by an Electron which in turn can emit a photon.
A Electron can be absorbed by a Proton to produce a Neutron, which in turn can emit the Electron and revert back to a Proton.

Where is the only place, apart from within a star, that a photon can be converted into an electron ? At the neucleus of an atom. A Neutron(?) absorbing a photon and emitting an electron. Or maybe a Proton absorbing a Photon to become a Neutron and then emitting an Electron through beta decay to revert back to being a Proton.

If Electromagnetic Force is concentrated photon on photon action, then Strong force is super concentrated photon on photon action.

Strong force is 200 times that of Electromagnetic force and the Neutron/Proton is 2000 times larger than the Electron.
Assuming that you don't get 1 to 1 increase force with increase mass, then numbers run in fairly close, IMHO.

PB.