andsm

Ok. In such case my prediction is still unaffected. Polarization of light should be changed after pass near black hole in accordance with integral of rates of Hawking radiation over path. For thermal equilibrium case - just remove absorbtion part. Big part of my article describe time before 10^-43 seconds . It is in my model. Sorry, but did you read my article? Singularity is described, and it fits really well in my model.

Its conceptual vision of current theories. My hypothesis see Planck epoch differently. I wrote in one of posts above why I think QM/QFT will fail at Planck energies. So, what I expect at Planck epoch. I expect particles will stop to exists at all during Planck epoch. Instead of individual particles, will exists wave without specific states. Also, somewhere before or near Planch epoch, I expect failure of time and space. What it means is described in my article. I not know Hawking radiation in details, it was just mentioned on one of lectures in my university. However, it seems as you talk about equilibrium of energy. But in such case, radiation still exists, it just balanced by absorbtion.

Initial Hawking radiation , as far as know, have no dependency on thermodynamic states. I guess you talk about predictions of String Theory? But you miss my point. VeV vaccuum expectation value - it is operator. So what you saying - you points me to math of gauge theories, but my hypothesis says ToE is non gauge theory. I know it. However, you wrote "Every form of math involved you claim cannot be used. " And such sentence is possible to interpret - you looked at possible math involving my hypothesis, and found it is useless.

At start, any hypothesis should have power of conceptual explanation. Predictive ability should appear by further development of conceptual model of hypothesis. However, if speak about my hypothesis - it is already have predictive ability.

You did some math for the model? May you share it? Mordred, on 14 Jan 2015 - 3:30 PM, said: Did you read my updated prediction about loss of light polarization near black hole? Is you disagree on something? Also, there is no need to try to convince me in importance of math. I fully understand it. However, do you know difference between hypothesis and theory? I proposed hypothesis, not a theory. Hypothesis, unlike theory, have freedom to not fully describe their areas in math, they just must offer explanation of their area. Hypothesis, however, must describe its area at least on conceptual level. Next, hypothesis goes through working hypothesis stage. At this stage, if it lack some math, the math should be added. Also, it should go through experimental verification. Currently, mainstream search for ToE looking for gauge theory. So, typical ToE type theory now - its some gauge theory with different Lie algebras and with some quantum foam. String theory, LQG, Standard Model, Lisi's theory - its all different mixes of mentioned above. Because of non triviality of area of ToE, any hypothesis which will go outside of the well developed area of gauge theory, will have problem with mathematical formulation, at least initially. What you basically saying - non gauge theories of ToE should not be considered.

I think it is answered in my article with ER-hypothesis. Link to the article is in first post. If you have more detailed question about it, I would like to answer.

What fails at the Planck energy? During approach to Planck energy, first I expect splitting of states. Next, if continue to increase energy, space of states will start to consists of discrete space of non-discrete, continuous, states. At that energy, quantum mechanics will fail. I think with some modifications QM still would be able to explain processes at such energy level. However, if increase energy more – all states should combine into one continuous state and theories based on space of states will be unable to predict anything. In ER-hypothesis - answer is yes and no. Yes because it can be, in theory, predicted. No - because our spacetime have no all information necessary to make such prediction.

After some thinking, I found way how to make more precise prediction. First, I want to write I not trying to say what GR is wrong or QM/QFT is wrong. I trying to unify GR and QM/QFT to describe them from one point of view and expand area of applicability of resulting theory. ER hypothesis, as I think, is able to explain both QM/QFT and GR on conceptual level from one point of view and it predicts what both GR and QM can be derived from one equation. Also, it imposes some restrictions on that predicted equation. As a result, I expect what effects of ER-hypothesis are negligible for typical conditions. New effects of ER-hypothesis, as I wrote in my article, are expected to become non zero near black holes, become strong at Planck scale energies and come to full power during Big Bang. According to my hypothesis, strong gravitational field should emit particles. Hawking radiation is about emitting of particles near horizon of events of black hole. Explanation of the radiation in my hypothesis is different. I consider it as same process which created time, space and matter during Big Bang, it just works not at full power. Same process leads to loss of information near gravitational singularity – see prediction in one of posts above. What I expect will happen with light after it will pass near black hole? – Loss of information. How much? – Proportional to Hawking radiation, because it should be done by same process. How to calculate Hawking radiation in my hypothesis? – There is no way to do it, mathematic of ER-hypothesis is not developed. But I may use numbers, calculated by other methods, to make prediction for another process. So, my prediction: If polarized light will pass near black hole, it will lose part of polarization. The loss of polarization will be proportional to integral of rates of Hawking radiation over its pass. Even in the form, the prediction is still not precise. Factor for proportionality is unknown and, at least now, I not see how to make it more precise. However, many other theories did such type of prediction. Standard Model, for example, predicted existence of Higgs boson at very broad range of energies. Next, about SO(10), SO(5) etc. My hypothesis predicts what ToE is non-gauge theory, and Lie groups are not suitable for ToE. It is actually one of main sources of problem with math in ER-hypothesis. It points outside of well developed areas of math. About GR in hypothesis. Is anyone noticed what Standard Relativity is embedded into ER-hypothesis? Another thought. Expansion of Universe fits very naturally to ER-hypothesis. Radioactive decay is not acausal process, it is probabilistic process.

If one model predicts some behavior, and other model not predicts it - there is difference. My prediction is not about declining of light by gravity. Its about change of states of photons after passing.

However, if model predicts something and it will be found - it will be good for model even without full mathematical model. I think I can add equations for GR to the model, it just requires some time. Hamiltonian - need to think how it can be done, no ideas yet but I not yet thought about it except "it looks as it can be done". And before doing it, I prefer to understand how my model looks, its one of goals why I published the hypothesis in Internet. About my knowledge - I am MSc in physics, was PhD student. So I think I know basics. Some knowledge was forgotten I admit, I left science more than 10 years ago. Also, my hypothesis is not ToE. It will become ToE-candidate if add all necessary math.

It can predict behavior even without mathematics, I wrote above about passage of light near gravitational singularity. But such prediction will be very broad of course. No mathematics is main problem of the hypothesis. I expect differential equations of particles, so algebra is not suitable. That, unknown, differential equations should be fully compatible with hamiltonian on big range of conditions. And equations of particles should be derived from equation of scalar field of Metauniverse, also unknown. So, there is problem with mathematic of the hypothesis.

Short summary of ER-hypothesis. First, about new predictions of ER-hypothesis. The ER-hypothesis predicts change in laws of physics near gravitation singularity. It predicts change of space of states and their probabilities, for each particle, near gravitation singularity. Related hamiltonian would be different from usual. So, if light travels in close vicinity of gravitational singularity, it should have some modifications after passing near gravitational singularity. The behavior should be different on different distances from gravitational singularity. There are no numbers or calculations for the prediction, only prediction of behavior. There is problem with mathematics in the hypothesis. It lacks one equation, but with the equation it will become candidate for ToE. Light is expected to be changed – may be in its polarization or in something else. However, I think it is enough to satisfy Popper criteria, because it makes the hypothesis falsifiable, and the prediction allows naming the hypothesis as scientific. Other predictions: · Variability of past. It means past of object can looks different at different times. It is expected only near gravitational singularities and for particles with Planck scale energies. · Approach with space of states, used by quantum mechanics, is expected to be broken near gravitational singularities and for particles with Planck energies. It is hard to name it as new prediction, because Planck energy is obvious limit for quantum mechanics. What is new – ER-hypothesis explains why approach with space of states will be broken and propose way to discover how to calculate behavior of particles at Planck scale energies. · Parallel universes are predicted. Also, ER-hypothesis predicts ability of interaction between some, but not all, parallel universes. Other results of the hypothesis: · ER-hypothesis contains theory of time as one of parts. ER- hypothesis proposed answers to questions such as: what is time, what is space, what is matter, why time flows, why time flows in one direction, are quants of time exists, why time is one-dimensional, is it possible to travel back in time. I think the hypothesis is first hypothesis which tried to answer the questions. · ER-hypothesis proposed model of formation of spacetime, include model of formation of time and space during Big Bang. The hypothesis describes formation phase, during the phase both time and space not existed, they were in process of formation. I think the hypothesis is first hypothesis which tried to describe how time and space appeared. · Further development of the ER-hypothesis should allow to look even further before Big Bang, to where there was neither time nor space. · Was proposed quite natural way how to unify quantum mechanics, includes Standard Model, and General Relativity. Next, I copied introduction part: Time is a phenomenon that each of us observe daily. But physics is still not able to understand what time is. There is no evidence that time is independent phenomenon. Moreover, special and general theories of relativity [2] establish a connection between time, space and gravitation. This suggests that time is not independent, and has relation with space and gravitation. We know properties of time. But there is no knowledge of why time flows, why time flows in one direction, are quants of time exists, why time is one-dimensional, it is possible to travel back in time. This article presents hypothesis of emergent space-time-matter (ER-hypothesis later in the article). This hypothesis considers space-time and matter as emergent properties of more fundamental entity. The fundamental entity includes everything objectively existing. If look at physical phenomena around us, they are characterized by several key features: They are caused by something. There are causal links leading to what is happening. Currently there are no phenomenon known that would not fall under causal links We can predict probability of state of any object in future. In order to do so, we need to know current state of the object, and state of other objects in some distance around the object. For some phenomena, we can predict behavior of objects in future only probabilistically. Quantum mechanics says that accurate prediction of state of quantum objects is not possible, we can predict only probability of states. Laws of nature are same in all known space, and are not depends on reference frame. How space-time can be built on static system? If there is no time as fundamental phenomenon, it means that underlying structure of universe is completely static. Time in this case must be emergent phenomenon. Special theory of relativity establishes dependency between space, time and speed. It means that if time is emergent phenomenon, observable space is also emergent phenomenon. General relativity establishes dependency between gravitation and spacetime. It means that in order to find emergent spacetime, it is necessary to find gravitation as another emergent phenomenon. Quantum mechanics describes many quantum effects. It means it is necessary to find particles with quantum effects in scope of the hypothesis. All observable physical phenomena have causal relationships. As result, time should be built in such way so that phenomenon that occurred later on, would be predicted on basis of what it was before. Let’s imagine, space-time-matter, satisfying all the conditions above, was found on basis of static system. Can such space-time-matter describe reality, observable by us? If in such a world life is possible, can sentient being belonging to such world feel reality of surrounding and itself? These questions seem to refer to philosophy, as concept of Being is affected. However, different variants of answer to these questions provides different results in physics, so those questions are related to physics too. Postulate and main idea of this hypothesis is positive answer to these questions. Occam's Razor helps in positive answer to this questions, since this hypothesis reduces number of independent phenomena and reduces significantly. Instead of various unrelated physical phenomena and independent space-time, this hypothesis suggests that all physical phenomena can be derived from one law of physics and suggests ways to find it. If in such space-time-matter, found in static field, there is sentient, it will observe following: · Time exists, and all events have causal relationships. · There is past, present and future. Why present time would exist? It may seem that in such system, time will pass immediately. However, it may be only from point of view of external observer. But outside observer in this model cannot exists, because system includes everything objectively existing. Observer here can only be object, capable of self-awareness, and belonging to emergent space-time. If such observer will move with time, it will observe changes of states of surrounding. Human thought - it is some change in state of particles and fields in man. Consequently, observer, who lives in emergent time, will also be able to think, provided that the relevant physics of reality allows for intelligent life to exist. The speed of its thoughts will be determined by rate of change of its states in time. In particular point in space-time, observer will always have same thought. If this hypothesis describes our Universe, it means that any human is, in some sense, immortal. Everyone exists forever, but when our present does not coincide with present of some other persons - they are not available to us. Also, number of human thoughts is limited by human lifespan. This hypothesis is not contradicts to freedom of human action. Anyone can do whatever he wants. However, desire of man to do something is quantum-mechanical state of human body at some point in time. Therefore, one cannot wish for anything other than what was set by his state. Postulate: If in objectively existing static timeless system, which includes everything objectively existing, it is possible to find space, time and matter as emergent phenomenon, such space-time-matter is exists, it is emergent objective reality. If in such reality is possible existence of sentient, it can feel, think, feel that it really exists, is in being. Consequence of this postulate: for case when laws of physics of emergent reality allows intelligent life to exists, sentient belonging to such emergent reality will feel like being in space and feel the passage of time. He will feel emergent physical laws, laws of physics of fundamental static system will be deeply hidden from his feelings. I will name fundamental static system as Metauniverse. Metauniverse - objectively existing static timeless system what includes everything objectively existing. Metauniverse has some number of dimensions. How many dimensions in Metauniverse in this article is not considered. This is one of many questions in the hypothesis that is left for future. In Metauniverse I suppose existence of scalar field. This means that there is an N-dimensional space M, in which there is a scalar field , where is vector in the space. In this article I do not make assumptions about equation of scalar field of Metauniverse, this requires further studies. I also expect that space of Metauniverse is a Hilbert space or pre-Hilbert space, in order to be able to determine distance between points. I expect that value of the scalar field at each point is determined by values of the field in neighboring points, and that equation of the scalar field is symmetric with respect to rotations. This effectively means that position, speed and properties of all particles at each point of time are determined by states in past, present and future. Our Universe, in context of this hypothesis, is one of emergent realities. This imposes some restrictions on possible topologies of Metauniverse. For emergent space-time-matter, therefore, it is necessary to find a way to find space, time and matter from these conditions.

Reposting without link to blog. So, I wrote hypothesis which consider our reality as emergent phenomenon of more fundamental entity. The hypothesis (hypothesis of emergent reality, ER-hypothesis) makes at least one prediction, so it can be experimentally verified. Goal of the ER-hypothesis is find way how General Relativity, quantum mechanics and Standard Model can be unified in scope of one theory, with one point of view. I think such way was found and goal of the hypothesis is achieved. Equation which unifies GR and QM was not found; otherwise I would name it as ToE. I know I can make mistakes. It’s actually my second ToE-type theory, but its first I decided it is worth to be published in Internet. In my previous ToE-type theory I have found internal logical contradiction. So I published my ER-hypothesis on Internet and would like to see criticism. Hypothesis can be viewed at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2c1dR9Ahl3LRFVQc0IwSHRTZE0/view?usp=sharing (I think it is ok for rules to link to document with hypothesis, not to blog?) Is it contains any obvious problems or contradictions to existing well established theories?

I decided to join club of authors of ToE I posted my ToE, or, more correct, hypothesis what can be framework for ToE. It can be read at my blog Please feel free to read it and critisize. Is my hypothesis contains any obvious problems or contradictions to existing well established theories?