The "Theory of Everything"

[Farsight]

I stumbled on this forum this morning and thought I ought to tell you that there is a theory of everything, and I'm the author. It isn't string theory, nor is it loop quantum gravity or quantum theory, instead it preserves the major elements of the Standard Model and can best be described as relativity+. I don't know if you're aware, but in the fifties Einstein was working in a Unified Field Theory where he is quoted as saying "the concept of field is perhaps inadequate". See Unified Field Theory and Einstein by S C Tiwari dating from 2006 at:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0602/0602112.pdf

What I've developed is related to Einstein's later work. It's a unified model wherein fields are geometrical in origin. To get to grips with it, one has to take a "back to basics" approach and understand energy, mass, charge, gravity, and light, whereafter an understanding of particles and the forces emerges fairly rapidly. For example one doesn't unify gravity with electromagnetism, that's the wrong approach. Instead you unify electromagnetism with the strong force, and gravity is revealed to be a gradient in the relative strength of these two forces. This is associated with the fine structure constant, which is what's called a "running constant". Note that I explain this in detail, along with the quantum of quantum mechanics.

I have an old version of the unpublished paper online which you can download from:

http://www.relativityplus.info/

..but I'd recommend you PM or email me for the book version. This is much larger but is better developed and is more accessible.

I'm currently working on the illustrations, and hope to have a completed draft ready next month. I expect there are some errors in there, but am confident that the overall thrust of the model is correct.

[Profpat]

Hi Farsight;

This will take some time to digest, but at first glance it appears to be very interesting and insightful.

Best,

Pat

[Farsight]

Thanks Pat. The book explains it better than the paper, so please don't hesitate to contact me for a copy. I'm afraid it's growing as I've been adding HiRes images, and currently stands at 8Mbytes. I'll try out some variations in the PDF image compression when I've got time. I can't stess enough that whilst not yet a fully-developed theory replete with total rigor, this really is the real thing.

[dleviwing]

Hi John;
Your paper looks familiar to me. I may have read earlier versions of it. Just a few initial comments on the first few concept headers.

(time)
It has been known for a long time by scientist that there is no real preferred or universal time reference available to us.

The concept or absolute time, only requires “EXISTANCE”, it does not require motion of objects. Objects in motion are only required as a reference in order to “MEASURE” time. The measure of time is the variant; absolute time is invariant.

(energy)
Energy is nothing more than another measure of the motion or change in motion of a physical entity.

(mass)
Here you have the same problem that current science models have; the origin of mass. Too often mass and matter are used as if they were synonymous terms; they are not. Mass, like energy, is a quantitative measure (a dimension) of a physical entity. In our scheme of scientific methodology, mass is directly related to the quantitative measure of uniform motion. (inertia) This is true for “rest mass” as well as for “relative mass”.

Your paper is far too lengthily to make comments on its entirety here. You may wish to review some of the existing threads within the ToeQuest forums.

BTW: Welcome to ToeQuest.

[Farsight]

dleviwing: with respect, without motion there is no time - time is cofounded with motion, not with space. Energy is used to create physical entities as per pair production, wherein an intangible "action", a +1022KeV photon, is employed to create a tangible electron and positron of opposite chirality. Matter/antimatter annihilation of course reverses the process. Mass is a measure of energy: it's "rest energy" but it's still moving at c, in a loop configuration wherein it's not moving in aggregate with respect to the observer. There's a simple symmetry between momentum and inertia at the heart of it, here's a little more on mass to demonstrate that I don't confuse it with matter:

There really ought to be no mystery about mass, but there is, and part of the reason is that the word mass is used in so many ways. The accepted definition of mass is rest mass, which is the same thing as invariant mass, intrinsic mass, and proper mass. There’s also active gravitational mass which tells you how much gravity the energy causes, and passive gravitational mass, which is a measure of how much an object is attracted by gravity. People also talk of inertial mass, which tells us how much force we need to apply to accelerate or decelerate an object. It doesn't apply for a photon because it travels at c, and you can't make it go faster or slower. Then there’s relativistic mass, which is just a measure of energy, which is why it applies to a photon. When you apply it to a cannonball travelling at 1000m/s, it’s a measure that combines the rest mass energy with the kinetic energy into total energy.

Please do read the paper in entirety. It's been in development for about 18 months now, so you may have seen it before, perhaps in part. But it has not been countered. Better still you should read the book version. I explain the quantum of quantum mechanics, the fine structure constant, and the unification of the forces. It really is a unified model (I dislike the term "theory of everything"). PM me for a copy.

I've taken a look at some of the threads on ToeQuest and saw some common ground. However I'm pushed for time, and can't give them enough consideration at present.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Hi Farsight,

I'm about half-way through your book. I think it's brilliant, for it gets down the simplicity of it all, plus the numerous pictures are priceless. I bet someone's grandmother could understand it.

I may refer a page or two in Profpat's 'Idea' thread, as Prof had a pipe cleaner model of of a proton somewhat heading toward looking like your knot picture.

[dleviwing]

I must disagree John; in a static universe there is simply no need to measure it. This topic though has been beat to death in several forums.

With all due respect John, can you tell me what it is you believe is a new idea or concept that makes your system easier to comprehend than current physics or any of the many theoretical physics ideas now in contention? This is a fare question and should only require a simple paragraph or two to answer.

[Farsight]

Thanks very much austin. Those pages you hosted & posted were excellent, carry on.

dleviwing: I can give a clear explanation of mass, charge, gravity, quantum mechanics, the fine structure constant, and lots more. I can answer about 60% of the "mysteries of physics", and make a good number of testable predictions. Here's the first page of my references to show you the sort of level we're at here:

[1] Classical unified field theory
See the American Institute of Physics (AIP) website http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/index.html which gives an excellent Einstein history. You can view parts of papers such as A New Form of the General Relativistic Field Equations written in 1955 with assistant Bruria Kaufman, courtesy of the Albert Einstein Archives at the Jewish National & University Library at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Note that he’s talking about displacement:


The full version isn't freely available, but there's lots to dig up, such the wikipedia article on classical unified field theories at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic...field_theories. Interesting stuff.

[2]Tom Kilburn, godfather of the computer
See http://www.computer50.org/mark1/kilburn.html maintained by Dr Brian Napper of the Department of Computer Science at the University of Manchester. It's easy to take computers for granted and forget how much hard work went into their development.

[3] The number of A-level students taking physics has fallen 56% in 20 years
From a CBI press release of 13th August 2006, also see downloadable skills report http://www.cbi.org.uk/pdf/skillssuftf0407.pdf and http://safle.org/wordpress/category/a-levels/ with lots of information from Stephen Kingston.

[4] The Pleasure of Finding Things Out
This is the title of a Richard Feynman book edited by Jeffrey Robins, foreword by Freeman Dyson, published by Perseus Publishing in 1999. Buy it. Here's an Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Pleasure-Findi.../dp/0738203491. Search the internet and you'll also find a Horizon documentary with a Richard Feynman interview that you can watch online: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/prog...chive/feynman/

[5] Robert Millikan, Nobel prizewinner 1923
See biographical details at http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...likan-bio.html, also see Einstein Redux by Jane Dietriech at http://eands.caltech.edu/articles/EinsteinFeature.pdf re Judith Goodstein's 1991 book Millikan’s School and the Einstein papers project.

[6] Why Feynman went to Caltech
It was because of the weather, and he wanted to teach, which Einstein thought was a drag. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman and Surely You're Joking Mr Feynman! published by Norton in 1985, which came out of interviews with Ralph Leighton, editor Edward Hutchings. If I had my way, this stuff would be in the curriculum.

[7] O-rings
Feynman was on the Rogers Commission investigating the Challenger Accident, and famously demonstrated that O-rings lose elasticity using a glass of iced water. Read what he said in Volume 2: Appendix F - Personal Observations on Reliability of Shuttle by R. P. Feynman at http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v2appf.htm. Also see wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_S...enger_disaster and What Do You Care What People Think? published by Norton in 1988, which also came out of interviews with Ralph Leighton.

[8] On the ElectroDynamics of Moving Bodies
This Einstein’s famous 1905 paper. You can find an online translation at the fourmilab website maintained by John Walker. See http://fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/.

[dleviwing]

John;
I see only that your concept is based on the premise that the photon is a fundamental unit; a fundamental unit of what, was unclear. (this is not a new idea) Until you achieve the skills to critique these links you present here, I would suggest you not refer to them as suitable references for support of your concepts.

If you are open to suggestion it would behoove you to find someone with a formal physics education to critique and proof read your material.

[Farsight]

John: I see only that your concept is based on the premise that the photon is a fundamental unit; a fundamental unit of what, was unclear. (this is not a new idea).

I'm afraid that's not accurate. I say the photon is more fundamental than the force it mediates, that the fundamental thing the photon has got is polarization, and that it's space that's fundamental.

Until you achieve the skills to critique these links you present here, I would suggest you not refer to them as suitable references for support of your concepts..

I have those skills, and I don't refer to the links to support my concepts. The references are from my introduction where I give historical background. I showed them to demonstrate that this is a serious work.

If you are open to suggestion it would behoove you to find someone with a formal physics education to critique and proof read your material.

I'm in communication with a group of physics professionals. They think it's "beautiful", they "absolutely love it", and they've invited me to a symposium in a fortnight.