A Theory of Everything

Most forget it´s just theories. Even Bohr´s Model is just that, a theory.

Yet, somehow against the popular prediction it´s possible to not only levitate but hold objects in place in space, when you rotate the device.

So it has less to do with gravitation more like a third field, like a mix of magnetic and gravitional forces that provide some sort of cushion to the levitating object.

You let it "float" above the device and when you rotate the device around any axis, the object that "floats" will follow that axis by the offset of the rotational axis that the device rotates on.

It was done years ago, demonstrators build and on youtube by a huge german robotics company. Official, yet who cares? Or better, who ignores? Everyone.....

originally posted by: Dr X
Absolutely yes it can be found, but we aren't close to it yet.
I think the greatest physicists who were close were Maxwell, Thompson and Tesla.

Maxwell derived the electromagnetic (EM) wave equation by considering the aether as a fluid and elastic medium.
Tesla maintained the aether was the medium for electric force.

Yet since Einstein and the Michelson-Morley experiment came along and "disproved" the aether we have made little progress.
Quantum Mechanics (QM) reduced energy waves to waves of probability.
General relativity (GR) reduced aether into an abstract "curved space-time".
Whist mathematically accurate, QM and GR have in some ways set us backwards.
Scientists are no longer exploring the aether and fundamentally EM so little recent progress has made.

String theory is a mathematical fudge to unite GR and QM, invoking non-existent multidimensional space so don't hold your breath with that.

Modern science has failed to teach the investigative thought process, and much of what is taught is learned without the question: "Where does this come from?"

If anything was the "aether", it would be the gluon field that given subatomic particles mass and allows fission/fusion to convert mass into energy and back again.

The actual mass comes from the inertia of trying to move quarks around - tied up in atomic nucleii with each other and with the surrounding space time. Then every subatomic particle has it's own unique energy level. Where do those come from? Are they unique harmonic ratios like planetary orbital periods/distances or mutually exclusive like prime numbers.

a reply to: Dr X

But there HAS been extensive progress from where Maxwell left it.

There are apparatus being used right now, that would make the mans head spin if he were to see them, leave alone see them operating. The Virgo and Ligo detectors for example, the Large Hadron Collider... These things have progress written all over them, and the reason you do not see a link to Maxwell, is because these projects are so far advanced in comparison to what he was involved with and working on, that they rather eclipse the living hell out of the existence of the entire era he was from, from a physics perspective.

As for your assertions about QM and GM... both of these fields are orders of magnitude better at explaining actual physical phenomena, than has been any prediction or theory put forward, which even contains a reference to the aether, or even contains the word written down.

Its a junk term, meaning nothing whatsoever in real terms. Comparing the unsupportable notion of the aether to the very tangible, sensible, and actually testable theories regarding curved space-time, is rather like buying up all the fools gold, and thinking oneself rich with armfuls of it, while someone else gains genuine wealth by picking up one single nugget of the real stuff.

a reply to: Arbitrageur
Thanks. Is it possible for you to name a few of these "charlatans" so we can stir clear from them?

How about Conciousness in the context of the Observer Effect in QM? The act of observing a phenomenon changes that phenomenon. Is this just a fundamental question of the instrument we're using to measure or observe it? Do we have to observe the observer ad nauseam or measure the act of measuring ad infinitum to get a better understanding of it? How can we measure something that we don't understand or doesn't even know that exist? By accident?

Is the statement events change by being observed erroneous? How about an unobserved event, what is it?

We can't side-step Consciousness' philosophical implications, "philosophical" meaning- relating or devoted to the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence... which in the end is what science is all about.

Is Consciousness then a key or the key to the ToE?


Pardon my questions, I don't mean to dump this all on you... these are the questions that I'm trying to find answers to in a long time... I guess these are questions for everyone... a nudge to a general direction will be much appreciated.


a reply to: dfnj2015

Here's my TOE: m - e = time

What happened to Space in your equation?

a reply to: AlienView

The "theory of everything" is the Unified Field Theory. It is called the theory of everything because it will, supposedly, once developed, explain the physics of the entire Universe... thus, it is called the "theory of everything" in the vernacular.

I believe your argument is with the language rather than the theory.

There are mathematical equations that seem to explain the actions of large bodies of matter, from the size of a grain of sand to a giant star. There are mathematical equations that appear to explain the actions of the very small, from the neutron and proton to the almost undetectable neutrino to the apparently massless photon. A Unified Field Theory will explain how forces interact between these very small particles and sum up to become the equations we have observed as accurate for very large masses.

As for consciousness, we will need a much more accurate means of defining it before it can be explained in even the most general terms.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Arbitrageur

No physical theory to date is believed to be precisely accurate. Instead, physics has proceeded by a series of "successive approximations" allowing more and more accurate predictions over a wider and wider range of phenomena. Some physicists believe that it is therefore a mistake to confuse theoretical models with the true nature of reality, and hold that the series of approximations will never terminate in the "truth". Einstein himself expressed this view on occasions.[46] Following this view, we may reasonably hope for a theory of everything which self-consistently incorporates all currently known forces, but we should not expect it to be the final answer.

If solutions in classical mechanics are approximations and quantum mechanic solutions are probability distributions, then add in the limits imposed by the uncertainty principle, why should we think that a ToE is possible or even relevant? There's no “exactness” in any of the current theories. Even if some unification model was discovered, wouldn't it still be an approximation? There's nothing exact in this universe to work with. The singularity of a black hole is infinity. Any calculation which includes infinity results in infinity. Wouldn't a ToE result in the same?

originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
a reply to: dfnj2015

Here's my TOE: m - e = time

What happened to Space in your equation?

Space becomes information. Energy is transmitted. Energy is received. There are no dimensions. Only measurements exist. Every thing is defined by every other thing.

There is already a theory of everything.

Read The Kybalion by Hermes

a reply to: Abednego

But no theory which can be in any small way tested, examined mathematically and found to be accurate, or any of that important stuff.

What Hermes did probably amounts to sod all, with those criteria in mind.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I can show you the mathematical equation to that.

1 + 0 = 1

Where 1 - is everything and 0 - is nothing. The answer is everything, because even "nothing" is "something", therefore is part of everything, because is in it. And the 1 is not divisible.

According Hermes.

a reply to: Abednego

First of all, nothing is the absence of something. It is not something itself. Also, it is not part of everything. Where anything that could be called everything begins, nothing stops. Where anything that could be called nothing begins, everything stops.

And according to Hermes, togas were totally legit. Besides, the Kybalion was not written by Hermes. It was published in the early 1900s by a person or persons under an assumed name, that name being "The Three Initiates".

Its the word of Hermes, in the same way as Joel Osteen's last lunch order is the Word of Christ.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Abednego

First of all, nothing is the absence of something. It is not something itself. Also, it is not part of everything. Where anything that could be called everything begins, nothing stops. Where anything that could be called nothing begins, everything stops.

Not really, because is part of the 7 seven principles of the Kybalion, the principle of polarity, where it says that everything is dual. So, nothing is the opposite of something therefore becoming one unit. And another principle is the principle of vibration (nothing is at rest, everything is moving).

The question has already been asked and answered by an author Mr D. Adams. The question to life, the universe and EVERYTHING. The answer is 42. Now if you don't like that answer that's your problem.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Arbitrageur

No physical theory to date is believed to be precisely accurate. Instead, physics has proceeded by a series of "successive approximations" allowing more and more accurate predictions over a wider and wider range of phenomena. Some physicists believe that it is therefore a mistake to confuse theoretical models with the true nature of reality, and hold that the series of approximations will never terminate in the "truth". Einstein himself expressed this view on occasions.[46] Following this view, we may reasonably hope for a theory of everything which self-consistently incorporates all currently known forces, but we should not expect it to be the final answer.

If solutions in classical mechanics are approximations and quantum mechanic solutions are probability distributions, then add in the limits imposed by the uncertainty principle, why should we think that a ToE is possible or even relevant? There's no “exactness” in any of the current theories. Even if some unification model was discovered, wouldn't it still be an approximation? There's nothing exact in this universe to work with. The singularity of a black hole is infinity. Any calculation which includes infinity results in infinity. Wouldn't a ToE result in the same?

And isn't this, more or less, the whole point of this thread but stated in a more scientific way.

Scientists and physicists are usually not dumb - Science, physics, math, etc. are funded by many sources
- But scientific thinking is not always interesitng.

But a theory of everything has a nice, almost mystical , sound to it - It interests the public in science and physics.

Sounds better than saying the universe and all that exists posseses an almost, if not in fact, infinite complexity
to it and can never be fully comprehended - especially by those who are part of it.

Again I ask: What is 'everything' - And answer by saying no one knows.

This is not to say a theorey of 'everything known' is not possible - As long as it is accepted that everything is not, nor can ever be, known.

A living Universe continually generates and creates data - All theories are time sensitive - And what is valid today 'may not' be valid tomorrow.

Again from Max Planck, one of the leading physicists of the 20th Century:


“We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up to now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.”
― Max Planck, The Universe in the Light of Modern Physics


Ready for parallel universes and 'many worlds' where the physical laws are not the same as this one



- AlienView

I think you will enjoy reading Biocentrism and Beyond Biocentrism by Robert Lanza. It is an attempt to do what you are describing. They aren't too heady at all, very easy to read and understand and quite fascinating to ponder.

originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Thanks. Is it possible for you to name a few of these "charlatans" so we can stir clear from them?

Quantum mysticism

Quantum mysticism is a set of metaphysical beliefs and associated practices that seek to relate consciousness, intelligence, spirituality, or mystical world-views to the ideas of quantum mechanics and its interpretations.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Quantum mysticism is considered by most scientists and philosophers to be pseudoscience[7][8][9] or quackery.[10][11][12]

The entanglement claims especially have problems because decoherence in warm bodies is very fast, too fast to be of any use given the time frames of biological systems. Notice most entanglement experiments are done near absolute zero to prevent this decoherence and human bodies don't operate at anything near that temperature.

How about Conciousness in the context of the Observer Effect in QM? The act of observing a phenomenon changes that phenomenon. Is this just a fundamental question of the instrument we're using to measure or observe it? Do we have to observe the observer ad nauseam or measure the act of measuring ad infinitum to get a better understanding of it? How can we measure something that we don't understand or doesn't even know that exist? By accident?

The idea that "observer" means "conscious observer" is more woo.

We can't side-step Consciousness' philosophical implications, "philosophical" meaning- relating or devoted to the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence... which in the end is what science is all about.

We can't explain the smoke patterns coming from the end of a cigarette, but nobody thinks that they are operating outside of our laws of physics just because we can't explain them or predict them. That is seen as a very complicated emergent behavior from the known laws of physics which is difficult to model, and while consciousness is undoubtedly even more complicated, it's usually seen in a similar light by mainstream science as likely something which emerges from the known laws of physics in ways we can't yet explain or model.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Arbitrageur

"No physical theory to date is believed to be precisely accurate. Instead, physics has proceeded by a series of "successive approximations" allowing more and more accurate predictions over a wider and wider range of phenomena. Some physicists believe that it is therefore a mistake to confuse theoretical models with the true nature of reality, and hold that the series of approximations will never terminate in the "truth". Einstein himself expressed this view on occasions.[46] Following this view, we may reasonably hope for a theory of everything which self-consistently incorporates all currently known forces, but we should not expect it to be the final answer."

If solutions in classical mechanics are approximations and quantum mechanic solutions are probability distributions, then add in the limits imposed by the uncertainty principle, why should we think that a ToE is possible or even relevant? There's no “exactness” in any of the current theories.

Yes and no. As George Box said, all models are wrong, some are useful. When he says they are wrong he is referring to almost exactly what is in the source you cited about them being approximations of reality but always deviating from reality because they are not reality itself.

So once you accept that all models are wrong, we come to the next part of his statement, are any models useful? Given the fact we have used those models to do things like launch spacecraft to Mars with fantastic accuracy, and make other accurate predictions, they are very useful in many cases, with the two biggest caveats I mentioned about big bang and black holes due to the lack of unification.

You may not know what every roll of the dice will be individually, but that may not be necessary to make useful predictions about the outcomes of large numbers of rolls of the dice. If you know that out of every 3600 rolls of the dice, the number of snake eyes will be 100 plus or minus some well defined probability, your model can plan on it not being 100 all the time, maybe it's 99 or 101 or 102, but most of our engineering is done with such variability factored in to the calculations already so we can still make buildings and bridges that don't fall down if we do our math right. The models may be wrong, but they are useful enough to make structures that work, especially since we make adjustments in the models for the approximations.

Even if some unification model was discovered, wouldn't it still be an approximation? There's nothing exact in this universe to work with.

Sure it's an approximation, but is it a good enough approximation to be useful? That's what counts.

The singularity of a black hole is infinity. Any calculation which includes infinity results in infinity. Wouldn't a ToE result in the same?

We don't know the answer before we have the answer so it's hard to say, but a common thought among scientists is that physics laws are generally believed to be unreliable when they invoke infinity, and therefore the unified model we hope would provide a solution of the black hole which doesn't invoke an infinity, or at least not one which can't be renormalized.

Black Hole

The appearance of singularities in general relativity is commonly perceived as signaling the breakdown of the theory.[75] This breakdown, however, is expected; it occurs in a situation where quantum effects should describe these actions, due to the extremely high density and therefore particle interactions. To date, it has not been possible to combine quantum and gravitational effects into a single theory, although there exist attempts to formulate such a theory of quantum gravity. It is generally expected that such a theory will not feature any singularities.

I have a Fact of Everything, 100% bulletproof.

Buy my book and join my religion for access.


Particles detect waves. The waves have always existed, as they came from bigger, lower frequency waves that predate time itself. All the world's answers follow this fundamental understanding.

Other opinions are often interesting:

“Rules are where there is a lack. They are to make up the deficiency, explicit or implicit. The system of existence, being complete in itself, is in no need to follow any of them. The appearance of disorder---or even order, in contrast---is when we observe something as a detached entity. Taken as a whole, the Universe is absolute, nothing being lacking, insignificant, or improvable. So, any such thing as a Theory of Everything (TOE) is a mere chimera.”
― Raheel Farooq


“...a useful coorective to the triumphalism of some scientists. For example, Maddox went out of his way to emphasise the provisional nature of much physics - he referred to black holes as 'putative' only, to the search for theories of everything as 'the embodiment of a belief, even a hope' and stated that the reason why the quantum gravity project is 'becalmed' right now is because 'the problem to be solved is not yet fully understood' and that the idea that the universe began with a Big Bang 'will be found to be false'.”
― Peter Watson, A Terrible Beauty: The People and Ideas That Shaped the Modern Mind: A History


"“Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg likens this multiple universe theory to radio. All around you, there are hundreds of different radio waves being broadcast from distant stations. At any given instant, your office or car or living room is full of these radio waves. However, if you turn on a radio, you can listen to only one frequency at a time; these other frequencies have decohered and are no longer in phase with each other. Each station has a different energy, a different frequency. As a result, your radio can only be turned to one broadcast at a time.Likewise, in our universe we are "tuned" into the frequency that corresponds to physical reality. But there are an infinite number of parallel realities coexisting with us in the same room, although we cannot "tune into" them. Although these worlds are very much alike, each has a different energy. And because each world consists of trillions upon trillions of atoms, this means that the energy difference can be quite large. Since the frequency of these waves is proportional to their energy (by Planck's law), this means that the waves of each world vibrate at different frequencies and cannot interact anymore. For all intents and purposes, the waves of these various worlds do not interact or influence each other.”
― Michio Kaku, Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos


Michio Kaku:
“Are there other dimensions? Are there other universes? Can we travel between universes? What about time travel? What happened before the big bang? None of these questions are answerable with today’s technology,” said Kaku. “However, all of them are answerable if we have a theory of everything, like string theory. String theory at the present time is not advanced enough in terms of our human understanding to answer these questions, but it has within it the capability of answering all of the above.”


“If at first an idea does not sound absurd, then there is no hope for it. —ALBERT EINSTEIN”
― Michio Kaku, Physics of the Impossible: A Scientific Exploration of the World of Phasers, Force Fields, Teleportation, and Time Travel

Everything doesn't exist.

Every word i type the universe expands so everything has now become a small fraction

a reply to: Arbitrageur
Again, thank you. This thread already gave me a lot to think and read about... thanks guys.