Physics education research, electronic materials, and the musings of Christopher Moore, Ph.D.
Physics education research, electronic materials, and the musings of Christopher Moore, Ph.D.
You are not logged in.
I would appreciate some feedback for a theory of everything I created. Two part process, create a fundamental unit in part one then basically expand on complimentarity to present part two.
www.GonzalesTheory.com
Offline
I have read your theory of everything. The first part is bit easy to understand. But the second phase describing the expansion of the universe is a bit difficult.
________________________________
Canvas printing
Offline
EdwardHopes wrote:
I have read your theory of everything. The first part is bit easy to understand. But the second phase describing the expansion of the universe is a bit difficult.
Thanks for looking. I appreciate your time. Anything specific that I can try to clarify?
________________________________
Canvas printing
Offline
You refer to protons and neutrons being made up of four (and not three) "quantum fundamental units" and refer to those as up quarks, down quarks, and a left or right quark for "nuclear parity." First, what is a left or right quark? What are its properties? How is it different from an up quark in your model, besides its orientation on a picture you drew (and why would orientation on a two dimensional plane determine a particle's qualities?)
Why does your proton require four particles to have "nuclear parity" when quantum chromodynamics requires three, by adding the tested property of color to fundamental particles that interact via the strong force?
What are potential, testable differences between your model and the Standard model?
What experiments did you perform that led you to these conclusions?
What predictions does this model make about particle masses?
Does your model include the detected and well understood strange, charm, bottom and top quarks? What replaces photons, gluons, W bosons, Z bosons, mesons and other force carrier particles?
Does your model include a description of gravity? How does gravity function? What equation does your model use to calculate the force of gravity between macroscopic objects? Between microscopic objects?
At the end of your summary, you assert that you have described reality (with certainty?) and then mention that if an equation can be found to satisfy your model, then that equation will describe reality. How did you arrive at this model without using mathematics of any kind?
Offline
Thank you for taking the time for reading my article. I expect most serious physicists would not do so since I am an amateur as stated in my first post. If any benefit can come from my model, it would be from the perspective that modern physics may be intellectually confined to principles that are so ingrain, that innovative thought, or thinking out of the box, does not merit attention. The best physicists recognize that certain experimental outcomes of quantum mechanics clearly show that current knowledge of physics is incomplete at best; wrong at worst especially if the Higgs Boson is not found.
I started my interest in physics by accepting that Schrodinger’s cat, Bell’s theorem, the double slit experiment, the measurement problem, etc. are not dilemmas but rather are telling us something fundamental about nature. My theory is one of simple logic. I started with the question, can there be absolutely nothing? From this, I developed the quantum fundamental unit and marginal analysis. Since my model quantizes time, I can expand the universe by repeating the process that created the quantum fundamental unit (nothing new). This process adds symmetry along with spontaneous breakage that even QCD has trouble dealing with.
My definition of quarks is completely arbitrary; I was not trying to integrate the standard model with my model. I thought using similar terms might make my model easier to understand. If you think being arbitrary is unacceptable, I will refer you to the general opinion of the physics community when Niels Bohr arbitrarily decided that the electron could not collide into the nucleus because energy levels where quantized.
I do not worry about acceptance by the physics community of my model. In the end, it will not take long for experimentalist to test the ability to slow down time using beta-blockers that cross the blood brain barrier like metoprolol. There is a significant commercial financial aspect to this hypothesis; it will be tested in my opinion. My model also suggests that directing 3 lasers towards each other at 90 degrees angles can create particle properties.
I advocate that my model is nothing more than an expansion of the complementarity principle. The universe, at its core, is a wave phenomenon. Our experience of a particle reality requires the presence of what I call the Universal Quantum Computer.
In response to your specific question about gravity, I claim that gravity is the same as an expanding universe, seen from a specific frame of reference as described in my model.
In response to your comment about not using mathematics in my model, I disagree. I do not use calculus, but I do use geometry. Geometry is a valid field of mathematics.
Finally, thank you again for taking the time for reading my model. I believe in it, but recognize that I do not have the intellectual background in physics that most people visiting this forum have. I fully recognize that my model may be nonsense. I will continue to defend it though, hoping that there may be some part that provides an out of the box thought that plays some minimal part in moving physics forward.
If the general opinion of the community is that my posts are a waste of time, please have a moderator send me email to desist. I do not want to waste your time.
Offline
You're not wasting anyone's time, and no one's going to send you a letter to desist. I chose to read your article and just ask some pointed questions. That is friendly behavior from a skeptic. I don't think you answered a lot of those questions very well, but that's fine also.
You're quite right about Bohr and in fact a number of other critical developments in quantum physics being reached only after a theorist made a leap of faith and then tested the prediction.
That's the main difference here. Testing. You can make all kinds of predictions. There's nothing fundamentally self-contradicting about your ideas. It's just that without testing them, they don't mean anything. Come up with a specific, testable, measurable difference between your model and the Standard Model, construct an appropriate experiment, measure results and submit the article to a scientific journal. You'll probably get a lot of skepticism and even prejudice, but science is done by people, not perfectly fair machines, unfortunately. That's not likely to change in the near future, so if you want to do science, prepare to deal with scientists.
Further, be prepared to find out you're tremendously, utterly wrong, in your test. When you "believe" in something, absent evidence, that isn't science.
Offline
I agree with you about the importance of testing. I started a crude experiment aligning three light sources at 90 degree angles to see if a compass needle would move (didn't expect anything to happen and nothing did; other than my wife probably thinking I am crazy). But it was a start. I will need to move closer to using laser sources, accurate alignment structures, and a detector that can measure very small changes in electromagnetic fields. I have also opened the old calculus books to see if I can improve on the model in a formal mathematic way. Again, I appreciate your patients with an amateur in physics and the time you took to offer a response.
Offline
Cogitation, I wil try to be more specific in response to your questions. Here is a quote from the first paragraph of your questions.
"You refer to protons and neutrons being made up of four (and not three) "quantum fundamental units" and refer to those as up quarks, down quarks, and a left or right quark for "nuclear parity." First, what is a left or right quark? What are its properties? How is it different from an up quark in your model, besides its orientation on a picture you drew (and why would orientation on a two dimensional plane determine a particle's qualities?)". You also asked about mass. I will address both here.
I broke up my model into two parts. In the first, I developed the Quantum Fundamental Unit (QFU). This part is not arbitrary. Rather it rests on logic that follows from considering the possibility of having absolutely nothing. The concept of numbers allowed me to develop a "Line Unit" that makes one QFU different than 5 other QFU's, depending on the orientation of the Line Unit in 3 dimensional space. This is the foundation of a symmetric Higgsless model.
Part 2 of my model is absolutely arbitrary; yet arbitrary in a meaningful way. 10^{120} random QFU's would fill the space of our universe. One could define all QFU's as mass and the universe would be one massive object. One could define all QFU's as energy and the universe would be one massive source of energy. 10^{1200} different possibilities (QFU's break symmetry into 6 different possibilities) represent the sample space that includes all possible intermediate arrangements of QFU's that define the multiverse (as long as the multiverse is the same size as our universe). Since the two extremes are pure mass and pure energy, then all possibilities between pure mass and pure energy, limited only by the sample space, must exist (in the model). My arbitrary definitions of mass (1 Open, Up, or Down QFU = 1 Planck gram), the proton and or neutron, were given as examples of one possible universe, not our universe. I was making the point though, that the sample space should allow enough variation to describe our universe which would be consistent with experimental data.
Offline
