Do you have a new theory?

[Klaynos]

Imagines posts and replies moved to:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=35356

[defianceuvscien]

i know this will be taken as an act of defiance but i mean why knot everyone be a ben fraklin or thomas edison!?!:-p

[cameron marical]

Because my parents named me Cameron, the light bulb is already invented and lightning is already explained quite well.

[Bob_for_short]

[math]

\frac{g_{\rm th}-2}{2} = 1159652140(28) \times 10^{-12}

[/math]

 

Such a precision is explained with a very small value of the expansion parameter (about 0.001). Currently the calculation is made to the forth order so the precision is very high. It is not correct to demand from new theories to overcome this precision - it would take too much effort from one person.

[Severian]

Such a precision is explained with a very small value of the expansion parameter (about 0.001). Currently the calculation is made to the forth order so the precision is very high. It is not correct to demand from new theories to overcome this precision - it would take too much effort from one person.

 

I stated this myself earlier in this thread. I agree that you would never calculate to this precision with a new theory. However, your new theory should not be in contradiction with this number, and you should do at least a basic calculation to ensure it isn't in contradiction.

[Bob_for_short]

...Mistakes are made in the literature all the time, but they are corrected quickly and it is rare for mistakes to remain for long.

 

Let me mention one oversight (many studied, none noticed): the positive charge atomic form-factors. I was really surprised to discover this simple thing myself (1985). It is still unknown to the majority of physicists. You can find details in my article "Atom as a 'Dressed' Nucleus".

Edited August 23, 2010 by Bob_for_short

[Bob_for_short]

[math]

\frac{g_{\rm th}-2}{2} = 1159652140(28) \times 10^{-12}

[/math]

 

In some simple cases of the perturbation theory, like in http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.3504, page 6, the relative accuracy can be better even in the third order.

[Bob_for_short]

But going to the trouble to really understand a current scientific theory isn't as much fun as learning just a tiny bit and then coming up with my own crazy theory that appears to be better than the original because of my lack of understanding.

Should a good physical theory predict phenomena that happen always? Yes, of course.

What is a probability of a phenomena that never happens? Zero, of course.

 

Consider then a Rutherford scattering of an electron from a proton in QED. The first Born approximation gives indeed a Rutherford (or Rutherford-like) cross section and the textbooks represent it as a success. At the same time any scattering is experimentally accompanied with photon radiation. The probability of any photon radiation is equal to unity. So QED predicts a phenomenon that never happens - scattering without radiation.

 

Only much later, when treating the infra-red catastrophe, QED books correct this QED failure but not before.

 

I advanced a theory where the radiation is unavoidable: the elastic cross section (i.e., without radiation) is equal to zero, as it should be. Only inclusive cross section is different from zero. In my theory the electron charge and photon degrees of freedom are coupled intrinsically and permanently. They cannot be decoupled unlike QED construction.

 

But my pet theory is in an embryonic state, it cannot be compared to the fourth-order QED calculations of (g-2) yet due to lack of funding.

Edited July 31, 2010 by Bob_for_short

[TheTheoretician]

@TheTheoreticianI have a new theory. It is an incommensurable, irreducible, catholic, unfalsifiable, empirically validated, testable, complete and consistent theory of everything. I have been working on it for ~5 years.

 

Peace,

 

Ik

[D H]

It is an incommensurable, irreducible, catholic, unfalsifiable, empirically validated, testable, complete and consistent theory of everything.

Do you know what those adjectives mean?

• Incommensurable means unable to be compared (with what?) Since you did not say what your theory is incommensurable with, I can only assume that you mean it is incommensurable with everything: Existing theories, reality, ...
  If that is the case, why would I even be interested in reading it? Why would anyone?
• Irreducible means unable to be reduced. And you know this because??
• Catholic presumably means universal here. Aren't you being redundant when you say this is a theory of everything?
• Unfalsifiable means it cannot be shown to be false, which in turn means you do not have a theory.
• Empirically validated means you have tested it. Against what? You just said your theory is unfalsifiable. With what? Do you have your own personal particle collider?
• Validated means someone has checked your work. Who? Did you submit it for peer review, or did you validate it yourself (never a good idea).
• Testable. But wait! You said your theory was unfalsifiable.
• Complete has a couple of different mathematical meanings, neither of which apply where. I am completely baffled with regard to your meaning.
• Consistent. Sorry, you can't prove this. Godel's theorems are going to get in the way.

[Mr Skeptic]

@TheTheoreticianI have a new theory. It is an incommensurable, irreducible, catholic, unfalsifiable, empirically validated, testable, complete and consistent theory of everything. I have been working on it for ~5 years.

 

The bolded parts contradict themselves. Something is unfalsifiable if and only if it makes no real predictions, which precludes it being tested or empirically validated. In any case, I too have a theory of everything but it does not fit in the 140 chara

[TheTheoretician]

In Popperian terms, a theory is unfalsifiable if it is true, that is, the correct model.

 

In the current intellectual zeitgeist, understanding of Nature progresses by advancing and testing scientific theories that are falsifiable – can be shown to be false by performing experiments to invalidate the model. However, as the ultimate goal of the honest theoretician is the Truth – that is, the true model of how the Universe works – such a model would be deemed logically, structurally, and empirically unfalsifiable. In other words, for a theoretical framework to be called unfalsifiable, there could not be one idea, interpretation, or piece of evidence that disproves it. A Universal, unfalsifiable, complete and consistent theoretical model would explain reality itself; be the last and correct model; be the Truth.

 

And if it is the Truth, then anything I do as a scientist or layperson, should, by definition, be predicted or deduced from and explained or validated by the correct theory. Any experiment I perform on my eukaryotic cell systems, in any conversation, in any political stance, on any food or drug, or on any planet - these all are ways to test the validity of the theory. And the ultimate theory, to be the correct and final model of reality, must, by necessity, match all of the available data - hence, be empirically consistent.

 

It could be no other way.

 

Consider the uneviable task of the Last Theoretician:

 

The Theoretician of the ultimate theory must confront the discomforting yet ineluctable paradox: in constructing the model that fulfills the goals of Humankind, the model destroys the existing infra- and penséestructures of Humankind. Moreover, the Theoretician faces a seemingly insurmountable task: Convince the Reader that this is the theory – the one and only, correct and final model of the Universe. The Reader is presumably skeptical of grandiose and unsubstantiated claims. Given deep-seated worldviews, faith systems, opinions, distrust, or nihilism, the Reader initially disbelieves sweeping assertions until sufficient evidence or compelling proof is provided. And only I, the Reader, will decide when and whether I cogitate, accept, or reject what I read. I know this, as I am the Reader of these words.

 

Peace,

 

Ik@TheTheoretician

Edited August 17, 2010 by TheTheoretician

[D H]

In Popperian terms, a theory is unfalsifiable if it is true, that is, the correct model.

Bzzzt. Wrong. A thing that is not falsifiable is not a scientific theory.

Edited August 17, 2010 by D H

[TheTheoretician]

Good one.

 

Bzzt, the ultimate theory explains all of the enigmas, anomalies, and paradoxes in every scientific field, subsumes every extant ad hoc theory, and explains how the Universe works: the ultimate theory uses all of the scientific evidence to bring about the end of science. You know: that etymological concept of "knowing" being achieved, science is over. Or is the Reader so hubristic to think that science would never end? It appears the answer is yes.

 

Peace,

 

Ik@TheTheoretician

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I think the greater act of hubris is to assume one has successfully solved every scientific question.

 

That claim was made in the late 1800s ("we've nearly finished everything in physics!") and it hasn't turned out so well.

[TheTheoretician]

Certainly, it is a catch-22. Nonetheless, these days, I find the Truth works best when corresponding with My Self.

 

Peace,

 

Ik

[inflector]

The bolded parts contradict themselves. Something is unfalsifiable if and only if it makes no real predictions, which precludes it being tested or empirically validated. In any case, I too have a theory of everything but it does not fit in the 140 chara

 

There are many reasons why a theory may be unfalsifiable. In this case, I agree with the author, it is, in fact, unfalsifiable because it is in fact, incomprehensible. Just one example from his web site:

 

What the Reader can appreciate is that the ohiogyre can itself be thought of as a majorgyre' date=' where the extragyre oscillates between excited and ground states as a consequence of information, energy, and matter (IEM) transmission from the singularity, which here is modeled as the intragyre. Hence, the intragyre exerts the attractorepulsive and creatodestructive forces on the extragyre, eliciting the expansocontractive changes in the ohiogyre.[/quote']

 

I find this to be clearfuzzy as a bellducksdown.

 

Seriously, TheTheoretician, the jargon is not going to help your case. We have words in English, they already mean things that other people understand without your having to teach them new words. Expecting someone to have to learn a whole new vocabulary just to even comprehend a few sentences of your idea is really naive. Ain't gonna happen.

 

If you have an interesting idea, I suggest using more humility and real English words.

Edited September 19, 2010 by inflector

[steevey]

They way I see it, 1/0 (in terms of physics) would equal infinity, and the evidence for that would be that the universe's volume (not visible matter, but rather just the fabric of space itself) is infinite because when you apply a wave function equation to when the universe was just a single point, the distance is 0 because a point is a 0 dimensional sphere (weird huh?). And even if that is somehow flawed which I think it is, but not by much, you still have to consider the entanglement between two particles renders distance meaningless. No matter how great the distance is between two components of a system of entangled particles, either of the two will respond instantly to a change in the properties of another, but how could that be true unless the true distance between all objects in the universe is actually 0 and everything is still somehow the same thing? In mathematics, you would have to be able to do this

 

4*2=8

8/2=4

8/4=2

 

which you can't do with infinity (or all real numbers), but mathematics isn't the universe, it's simply a way to recognize the components of the universe in terms of numeric values. Never in nature is something actually going "well lets see, 1 + 1 = 2". What happens is, you have two apples, all with their own atoms, which have separate distance (according to modern physics), and all your doing is bringing them closer together and saying "now I have two", but the universe doesn't recognize ( I had 1 then I added 1, now I have 2) in any way. The math is something that we just made up. In terms of the universe, it's just a cluster of atoms being brought closer together, and the evidence for that is that the apples' gravitation fields have a greater effect on each other, however the apples aren't fused together. The apples are not counted as one system, and if they were, that would be a violation of quantum mechanics because if you can measure the two apples in some way to quantify the information, that means you'd have to be collapsing the wave function, which means the two apples aren't actually one system. Math can easily describe things, but it isn't necessarily actually those things. Thats why I can have an equation for how the price of an item in a shop increases with the amount of that item bought, and yet neither the shop nor the item have to exist. There are still rules and things that govern how things happen, but that's why we have physics and science.

Edited December 14, 2010 by steevey

[zheng sheng ming]

I have a new theory!

[36grit]

I have so many theories every day that I have a hard time remembering them, But the good ones always come back and haunt me. Want to hear

my latest ? Oh, wait a minute, I can expand on that. I'll be back.

Edited February 10, 2011 by 36grit

[khaled]

I have a new idea about a new theoretical machine model, like Turing machine

 

I'll publish it soon ...

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

In response to the thread " Something from nothing " I would like to pose a Theory which I have found covers the whole Shebang, namely " the LoT "

It is not stated in mathematical form.

It is not some fundamental particle , force , etc.

 

It is a lingual or language based statement: It can be built on with other principles and Mathematics as and if required.

 

 

 

" A Lingual / NON-Mathematical THEORY OF EVERYTHING ".

 

1. " Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur "

 

2. " Anything or everything can occur, if there is no reason for it not to occur, if there is some form of initiative for it to occur. "

 

3. " If there are reasons for anything not to occur , left to their own devices, the path of least energy and /or resistance will be followed. "

 

 

 

I have found this works well. Covers Big Bang and before. The whole Shebang, namely " the LoT , ( including Scientific Principles that can be verified)"

 

TRY IT OUT . It works .

 

 

Edited March 11, 2011 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[secretsquirrel956]

I have a question its a little far fetched and probably unpredictable but Per String Theory if you were able to take an object such as an apple and amplify the frequencies of the strings within the apple say a steady 1000x increase across the entire apple, what theoretically would happen? Would the composition of the apple change? or would the apple still be "an apple" vibrating but vibrating on a different spectrum? Another question to go along with this is, is the vibration spectrum like the light spectrum or sound spectrum in the fact that you increase its frequency would it be like the ultraviolet spectrum and change?

[G_Griffiths]

If we consider the "Big Bang" to be not a unique event but one of many that have occurred throughout time and therefore assume the universe to be self perpetuating. We can apply logic based upon known physical phenomena, leading naturally to explanation of such enigma as:

 

 

- the duality of light and that we receive it at "c" regardless of our movement relative to the source.

- the nature and purpose of gravity.

- Strong Force and Mass.

 

My ideas are presented in the following link:

 

http://www.theselfpe...universe.co.uk/

 

My ideas also explain the difference between the 'S' and 'P' orbitals within atoms and incidentally arrives at an absolutely constant energy field composed of "loops of positive vibrating energy"

 

I'd be pleased to hear from anyone who thinks my logic is flawed.

[Mystery111]

Very often people come to these fora with a belief that our current theories of physics, such as the Standard Model or relativity, are flawed and present some alternative of their own. On the whole, this is a fine attitude to take - we should always be skeptical, and it is good if people can think a little 'out of the box' and generate ideas which more standard thinkers may not have come up with. I have always thought that genius was not an ability to think 'better' than everyone else - it is an ability to think differently from everyone else.

 

However, when coming up with a new theory it is important that it should be better than the old one. Therefore the first step of coming up with a new theory is a sufficient understanding of the old one. You have to make sure that your new theory does everything at least as well as the old theory, otherwise the old theory remains more attractive. This is very difficult mainly because our current theories are so spectacularly good in their predictions.

 

Let me give an example: the magnetic moment of the electron.

 

If we look at the energy (Hamiltonian) of an electron in an electromagnetic field, we find that there is a contribution from the interaction of the electron's angular momentum and the magnetic field. For an orbital angular momentum [math]L[/math], this is [math]vec{mu}_L cdot vec{B}[/math] with a magnetic moment

 

[math]vec{mu}_L = - frac{e hbar}{2mc} vec{L}[/math]

 

(The charge of an electron is [math]-e[/math] and its mass is [math]m[/math].)

 

However, if the particle has 'spin' (intrinsic angular momentum) [math]vec{s}[/math], we also have a contribution to the magnetic moment of

 

[math]vec{mu}_s = - g frac{e hbar}{2mc} vec{s}[/math]

 

[math]g[/math] is known as the gyromagnetic ratio, and its value depends on the theory. Since this can be measured in experiment very accurately, it is a good test of a theory to check if it predicts the correct gyromagnetic ratio.

 

For example, simple QM (the Dirac equation in an em field) predicts a gyromagnetic ratio [math]g=2[/math]. Experiments shows that [math]g[/math] is very close to 2, so this is good news, but since experiment shows that it is not quite 2, the Dirac equation cannot be the whole answer.

 

Quantum Field Theory, in the form of the Standard Model, predicts a deviation from 2. It is usual to write down the prediction for this deviation from 2 rather than the gyromagnetic ratio itself. For the SM this is:

 

[math]frac{g_{rm th}-2}{2} = 1159652140(28) times 10^{-12}[/math]

 

The experimantal result is:

 

[math]frac{g_{rm exp}-2}{2} = 1159652186.9(4.1) times 10^{-12}[/math]

 

(A note on errors: the numbers in brackets denote the error on the prediction/measurement at the same precision to which the value is specified. For example [math]1159652140(28)[/math] means [math]1159652140 pm 28[/math] and [math]1159652186.9(4.1)[/math] means [math]1159652186.9 pm 4.1[/math].)

 

You can see that the theory predicts the correct experimental value to incredible precision (although the experimental error is still better than the theory one). If you want to persuade scientists that the Standard Model is wrong, then you have to explain why this is a coincidence or show that your new theory predicts [math]g-2[/math] to at least this accuracy.

 

Not just this surely?

 

Every experimentally confirmed value in physics holds a mystery. The [math]g[/math] in the Yukawa Coupling, with different values for every mass on the standard model is one such example. What about the fine structure constant? In fact there are many precise values in the standard model just begging to be answered for and by another theory. It may just happen that our theory is a mathematical monstrocity.