A Theory of Everything

[JohnM29111]

I've developed a TOE and would like feedback on it. I'd particularly like comments on a proposed a modified Bohr atomic model. In the new model an electron in a hydrogen atom collapses to a particle at the n=1 quantum state. In higher quantum states the electron is a wave and has no mass. In the ground state the electron has mass and gravity keeps the electron in orbit around the proton. The other major change is electric charge is proposed to be emergent rather than constant.  The changes account for all verified atomic observations and explain the stability at the n=1 ground state and the emission of energy (photons) below the 0 energy state.

This TOE challenges several 'accepted' theories but I believe for good reason.  The theories we have don't successfully answer core questions.  For instance, we say the Bohr atom model is fully known and understood yet there is no explanation for negative energy.  Also, why are there different physical laws for the cosmic, human and atomic scales?  I welcome comments but hope people can reference actual observed and verified phenomena rather than simply point to popular explanations/theories.

TOE Abstract: This paper presents a Theory of Everything (TOE). This theory aims to be a true TOE, one that accounts for all verified physical and human phenomenon. This theory shows our universe to be composed of several self-similar copies at scales descending in a logarithmic spiral sequence. As different as it is, this TOE is actually a grand simplification over current theories. Rather than different laws of physics applying to the atomic, human and cosmic scales, this TOE shows one set of laws applies to all scales. In doing this, incongruities between quantum physics and gravity are resolved and open fundamental questions are answered. For instance, this TOE successfully explains the flat rotation profiles of spiral galaxies, the fine structure constant and the long term stability and negative energy of the Bohr atom model.

TOE Part I August 12 2024.pdf

[KJW]

The forum rules require that one be able to discuss your theory without downloading a file or visiting an external website. So, I will ask you to elaborate on your claim about successfully explaining the fine structure constant.

 

 

[Mordred]

I hate to break this to you but what you have though is impressive in detail isn't what is meant by a TOE under physics treatment.

You can also throw away any Bohr model of atoms. Particles are not  little bullet like objects. QFT teaches us that particles are field excitations not bullet like objects 

Edited August 24 by Mordred

[swansont]

1 hour ago, JohnM29111 said:

For instance, we say the Bohr atom model is fully known and understood yet there is no explanation for negative energy.

As Mordred says, the Bohr model is superseded, but the negative energy in it is fully explained; it’s from the convention of saying the electrostatic potential energy of particles at infinite separation is zero.

1 hour ago, JohnM29111 said:

  Also, why are there different physical laws for the cosmic, human and atomic scales?  I welcome comments but hope people can reference actual observed and verified phenomena rather than simply point to popular explanations/theories.

There aren’t different laws. The terms in any equation might be negligible at a particular scale but not at another.

[MigL]

Didn't we just do this a couple of days ago ?

If nothing else, you gotta admire the ambition of the OP.
Never mind trying to understand Newtonian gravity, electromagnetism, optics, wave particle duality, or quantum mechanics.
Lets bypass all that trivial stuff, and go right for the top; a theory of everything !

Being ambitious and getting out of your comfort zone, is one thing; lacking the required pre-requisite knowledge, and simply making W A Guesses is another altogether.
Good luck.
( look at what happened to the last poster to introduce this topic 

[swansont]

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

Didn't we just do this a couple of days ago ?

New customer.

[Mordred]

Truth of the matter, if Speculative posters understood that a TOE is a completed grand unification theory where all four forces become symmetric and indistinct from one another.

We likely would never see a TOE thread. They would hit the inability to renormalize gravity beyond one loop integrals.

[swansont]

59 minutes ago, Mordred said:

We likely would never see a TOE thread. They would hit the inability to renormalize gravity beyond one loop integrals.

If any substantive math were a prerequisite we’d see very few of them.

[JohnM29111]

Swansont:  "As Mordred says, the Bohr model is superseded, but the negative energy in it is fully explained; it’s from the convention of saying the electrostatic potential energy of particles at infinite separation is zero."

To quote from Wikipedia: "An electron in the lowest energy level of hydrogen (n = 1) therefore has about 13.6 eV less energy than a motionless electron infinitely far from the nucleus."  If the electron has no kinetic or potential energy where is the energy derived from to then emit photons when it drops quantum states?  Please point me to the explanation for how this is possible.  Not to a theory but to verified measurements. 

Mordred: "QFT teaches us that particles are field excitations not bullet like objects"

Have you read Consa's papers on QFT? 

KJW:  "The forum rules require that one be able to discuss your theory without downloading a file or visiting an external website. So, I will ask you to elaborate on your claim about successfully explaining the fine structure constant." 

I won't repeat 45 pages of explanation to satisfy the forum rules.  I didn't see that requirement when submitting the document.  If that's the way it is this isnt the forum for me.

MigL: "Being ambitious and getting out of your comfort zone, is one thing; lacking the required pre-requisite knowledge, and simply making W A Guesses is another altogether." 

Snide remark not appreciated.  You haven't read it and make no constructive criticism.  Where's the moderator?

 

 

[JohnM29111]

Swansont:  "As Mordred says, the Bohr model is superseded, but the negative energy in it is fully explained; it’s from the convention of saying the electrostatic potential energy of particles at infinite separation is zero."

To quote from Wikipedia: "An electron in the lowest energy level of hydrogen (n = 1) therefore has about 13.6 eV less energy than a motionless electron infinitely far from the nucleus."  If the electron has no kinetic or potential energy where is the energy derived from to then emit photons when it drops quantum states?  Please point me to the explanation for how this is possible.  Not to a theory but to verified measurements. 

Mordred: "QFT teaches us that particles are field excitations not bullet like objects"

Have you read Consa's papers on QFT? 

KJW:  "The forum rules require that one be able to discuss your theory without downloading a file or visiting an external website. So, I will ask you to elaborate on your claim about successfully explaining the fine structure constant." 

I won't repeat 45 pages of explanation to satisfy the forum rules.  I didn't see that requirement when submitting the document.  If that's the way it is this isnt the forum for me.

MigL: "Being ambitious and getting out of your comfort zone, is one thing; lacking the required pre-requisite knowledge, and simply making W A Guesses is another altogether." 

Snide remark not appreciated.  You haven't read it and make no constructive criticism.  Where's the moderator?

 

 

[swansont]

8 minutes ago, JohnM29111 said:

Swansont:  "As Mordred says, the Bohr model is superseded, but the negative energy in it is fully explained; it’s from the convention of saying the electrostatic potential energy of particles at infinite separation is zero."

To quote from Wikipedia: "An electron in the lowest energy level of hydrogen (n = 1) therefore has about 13.6 eV less energy than a motionless electron infinitely far from the nucleus."  If the electron has no kinetic or potential energy where is the energy derived from to then emit photons when it drops quantum states?  Please point me to the explanation for how this is possible.  Not to a theory but to verified measurements. 

It has no KE or PE when at infinite separation. But there’s an attractive electrostatic force, so KE increases and PE decreases as they move toward each other.

In a bound state, energy must be released; the Bohr model predicts the KE is half of the magnitude of the PE

The Hydrogen spectrum is easily found, confirming the correctness of the energy predictions of QM and the Bohr model.

 

16 minutes ago, JohnM29111 said:

Snide remark not appreciated.  You haven't read it and make no constructive criticism.  Where's the moderator?

Don’t overestimate how much protection you will get from criticism. 

Quote

I won't repeat 45 pages of explanation to satisfy the forum rules.  I didn't see that requirement when submitting the document.  If that's the way it is this isnt the forum for me.

From section 2.7 of the rules you agreed to follow when you joined

“members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned. Attached documents should be for support material only; material for discussion must be posted”

It’s an anti-spam measure, so that clueless crackpots can’t just post a huge document and expect others to expend effort addressing it. We want them to have some skin in the game. 

A much better approach is to pick some area and post the details, but a cursory look at your Bohr model section shows that your ideas are flawed, and were you to make predictions based on them, there would be contradictions with experiment. You can stick around and learn some physics, but if you’re looking for a credulous audience, this is indeed not the forum for you.

 

 

[JohnM29111]

swansont:  "It has no KE or PE when at infinite separation. But there’s an attractive electrostatic force, so KE increases and PE decreases as they move toward each other.

In a bound state, energy must be released; the Bohr model predicts the KE is half of the magnitude of the PE"

That is not correct.  At 0 energy there is no attractive force. That's the point of saying the electron is infinitely far from the proton.  There is no force to get it started moving toward the proton.  If you can't get this how can you say my model is flawed?

[studiot]

6 hours ago, JohnM29111 said:

Also, why are there different physical laws for the cosmic, human and atomic scales?  I welcome comments but hope people can reference actual observed and verified phenomena rather than simply point to popular explanations/theories.

Well I for one don't accept that premise.

 

What 'laws' do you think are different at these scales ?

[swansont]

40 minutes ago, JohnM29111 said:

swansont:  "It has no KE or PE when at infinite separation. But there’s an attractive electrostatic force, so KE increases and PE decreases as they move toward each other.

In a bound state, energy must be released; the Bohr model predicts the KE is half of the magnitude of the PE"

That is not correct.  At 0 energy there is no attractive force. That's the point of saying the electron is infinitely far from the proton.  There is no force to get it started moving toward the proton.  If you can't get this how can you say my model is flawed?

You do understand that this is a thought experiment, right? To work out the math? That there is no actual situation where the electron and proton are infinitely far apart? It’s just that if they could ever get infinitely far apart, there would be no KE. At any separation, KE + PE = 0, so KE = -PE

In any physically realizable situation, there is an attractive force. That’s the source of the energy.

In the bound state, KE = -PE/2, which is why a photon is required to ionize the atom, or why a photon (or photons) would be emitted when forming the atom.

[Mordred]

3 hours ago, JohnM29111 said:

 

To quote from Wikipedia: "An electron in the lowest energy level of hydrogen (n = 1) therefore has about 13.6 eV less energy than a motionless electron infinitely far from the nucleus."  If the electron has no kinetic or potential energy where is the energy derived from to then emit photons when it drops quantum states?  Please point me to the explanation for how this is possible.  Not to a theory but to verified measurements. 

Mordred: "QFT teaches us that particles are field excitations not bullet like objects"

Have you read Consa's papers on QFT? 

Yes what of it? Its not sufficient to overturn QFT.

Have you looked at Mosely law for orbitals under spectography and ever noticed the law required corrections even though the law was originally developed under the Bohr model ?

There is numerous experimental examples where the Bohr model does not work. A very commonly known one is the spin of an electron exceeding c under the Bohr treatment.

I recognize you reached your first day limit on posts. Swansont already addressed the other points you made.

I'm hoping with 45 pages most of those pages roughly 50 percent or greater has the applicable mathematics and not reliant on pictures and verbal descriptives without mathematical detail. 

In the mean time you might consider looking at some of the more recent images of atoms you can clearly see the structure does not match the Bohr model.

However none of this changes what a TOE entails.

I have zero hope you found a means to renormalize gravity or done a running of the coupling constants to unify the four fundamental forces.

If you had then post your Langrangian statement 

 

Edited August 25 by Mordred

[MigL]

3 hours ago, JohnM29111 said:

Snide remark not appreciated.  You haven't read it and make no constructive criticism.

I'm not required to read it.
You haven't posted anything worth discussing, as you are required.
And what you have posted is easily shown to be wrong, as Swansont and Mordred did.

[MJ kihara]

26 minutes ago, Mordred said:

 

I have zero hope you found a means to renormalize gravity

What are expectations for a conclusion to be made that gravity has been renormalised?

[Mordred]

Divergent free under loop integrals. We can keep one loop integrals divergent free not second loop or higher integrals regardless of normalization or dimensional regularization method.

Unfortunately to understand that one must be familiar with Feymann integrals.

Though when one learns renormalization one learns the renormalization scheme is arbitrary for mathematical convenience. You can choose any method for example with the EM field etc.

Edited August 25 by Mordred

[MJ kihara]

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Divergent free under loop integrals. We can keep one loop integrals divergent free not second loop or higher integrals regardless of normalization or dimensional regularization method.

Has nature not given us structures e.g atoms,moon , planets e.t.c as a solution to that issue?

It seem to be a mathematical problem more than an already resolved problem... formation of stable structures (existing things) can it be concluded to be gravity renormalised?

[MigL]

The simple answer is that as gravity is self-coupling, and this quality produces these 'divergences', or infinities, cannot be eliminated by renormalization, as they were with QED and QCD.
And that negates any predictive use of the 'theory'.

10 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Unfortunately to understand that one must be familiar with Feymann integrals.

Mordred sometimes forgets most of the rest of us are dummies.

[Mordred]

Truthfully I never think of anyone as dummies though lol regardless of how crazy some posters sound in Speculation. 

36 minutes ago, MigL said:

 

Mordred sometimes forgets most of the rest of us are dummies.

 

39 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

Has nature not given us structures e.g atoms,moon , planets e.t.c as a solution to that issue?

It seem to be a mathematical problem more than an already resolved problem... formation of stable structures (existing things) can it be concluded to be gravity renormalised?

One might believe the graviton would solve the issue but unfortunately that's not true. A good example using stellar objects is the singularity condition of a BH at R=0.

We do not know any limit to the mass term nor a limit on mass density. In math speak we have no effective UV (ultraviolet cutoff). We do have an effective IR (infrared cutoff).

One of the easiest example to learn renormalization is the quantum harmonic oscillator. If one resolves the integrals at every possible coordinate in momentum space one would get infinite energy. So we must apply some form of renormalization to prevent this (Pauli Villars method being the easiest)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli–Villars_regularization

https://fma.if.usp.br/~burdman/QFT1/lecture_23.pdf

The last link will detail a one loop integral and regularization/renormalization. 

 

Unfortunately the paper by Hooft is tricky to read in format but it's one of the higher cited articles on renormalizing gravity for one loop but not higher loop.

https://cds.cern.ch/record/261104/files/CM-P00049196.pdf

Edited August 25 by Mordred

[MJ kihara]

9 minutes ago, Mordred said:

A good example using stellar objects is the singularity condition of a BH at R=0.

At R=0 is a point,a solution when gravity renormalised to that point, hope am not wrong about that.

Since Einstein modeled gravity using geometry(Einstein manifold equating to available energy content ),we seem to have been stuck on our further understanding of gravity.

Is there a limit to the extent to which you can use geometry to explain something like a point? What are parameters used to determine a point? 

 

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, MJ kihara said:

At R=0 is a point,a solution when gravity renormalised to that point, hope am not wrong about that.

Since Einstein modeled gravity using geometry(Einstein manifold equating to available energy content ),we seem to have been stuck on our further understanding of gravity.

Is there a limit to the extent to which you can use geometry to explain something like a point? What are parameters used to determine a point? 

 

The term infinitisimal is your pointlike object. We get divergences prior to R=0 that's an extreme case example. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimal#:~:text=In common speech%2C an infinitesimal,zero by any available means.

Here is a little hint every infinite quantity has a finite portion. An effective cutoff is just prior to that quantity becoming infinite.

So zero makes a good IR cutoff in the set of Real numbers but the UV cutoff would be infinite-1.

That statement would make the set of Real numbers finite from an infinite set. 

With fields however it's not that simple but the premise is the same.

 

 

If you have further questions on renormalization I would recommend a new thread so we don't hijack this one from the OP

@JohnM29111 I read your article though normally I wouldn't as all material should be posted here in compliance of our forum rules.

Quite frankly you have zero chance of getting a peer review level on that article. I sincerely hope your goal is to get it more in tune with modern physics. If your hope is that it will be accepted by the professional physics community you have a ton of revamping to do.

That's an honest opinion 

Earlier I had stopped reading once I recognized you based your premise on the Bohr model. Reading further just made matters worse.  Particularly when you include things like spiritual plane, angelic plane and all the spiritualism behind it and trying to include it into a TOE.

  All I can say is good luck on that in those aspects.

Edited August 25 by Mordred

[MigL]

Another way to avoid the nasty integrals Mordred is talking about is through the use of Feynman diagrams.
Feynman diagrams are a pictorial representation of the integral formulation, and the transition amplitudes as a weighted sum of all possible histories of a system from initial to final state.

The 'participants' are usually indicated by ' >  < ' where arrows on each  bracket indicate time evolution and all possible interactions are indicated by 'squiggly' lines joining the vertices of the brackets. ( sorry about the crude representation; Wikipedia has much better diagrams )
These possible histories can give rise to other 'participants' ( solid lines ) as well as squiggly interaction lines, and can get very complicated. Also the fact that there can be an infinite number of possible histories, leads to possible infinities when summed; fortunately, a technique called renormalization works rather well at eliminating these infinities from QED and QCD.

In the case of gravity, these perturbative contributions, or possible histories, don't just arise between the two brackets themselves; because gravity is self-coupling, they arise on ( and perturb ) each individual bracket also, leading to additional infinities which resist every attempt of renormalization.

Edited August 25 by MigL

[joigus]

Theories of everything are ten a penny lately.

When you look more closely, they don't even attempt to do what the term TOE actually means. Namely, explaining the whole spectrum of bosons and fermions, as Mordred pointed out.

In this case, they want to supersede a theory of the hydrogen atom that was considered obsolete already in the 1920s!!!