A Theory of Everything

[Mordred]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

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.

Very well described +1  thankfully there is a handy trick for summing those amplitudes called the Cassimer trick.

The squiggly internal lines are what's referred to as the propogator action. This is also where virtual particles are described. The operator action are the external solid lines. (An operator must have a minimal of a quanta of action.)

This is an example of a one loop integral.

\[\vec{v}_e+p\longrightarrow n+e^+\]

\[\array{ n_e \searrow&&\nearrow n \\&\leadsto &\\p \nearrow && \searrow e^2}\]

The internal line in this case is the S-channel described by the earlier link I posted (first one on renormalization).  The self interactions of gravity causes ever increasing propogator action so you get unwanted terms in the propogator or S-channel action leading to Faadeev Popoff ghost fields.  Though you will typically have some ghost field it's minimal for EM strong force etc. However due to the self interaction Migl mentioned those unwanted terms become infinite. The needed counter term used to normalize is increasing in the gravity case whereas in the EM case the counter term is fixed.

In essence the propogator or S Channel is divergent 

If anyone is interested a way to learn about Faddeev Popoff ghost fields is to study BRST quantization.

A couple further hints in case someone wishes to learn the mathematics of renormalization with Pauli Villars and other methods you will also need to perform a Wick rotation. You will encounter two boundaries Dirichlet and Neumann boundaries which collectively is used in the Cauchy Boundaries. Any good Calculus textbook covers these. Those boundaries are also used in String theory as well.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

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!!!

Unfortunately true and we do seem to get a lot of those attempts here lol though typically never the related math lmao.

Edited August 25 by Mordred

[KJW]

22 hours ago, JohnM29111 said:

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.

I didn't ask for 45 pages of explanation. I asked specifically about the fine structure constant. This is a number, and explaining it would amount to calculating it from first principles, not just in terms of the dimensioned physical constants that define it. Note that the fine structure constant is the square of the elementary charge expressed in dimensionless form, so explaining it is equivalent to explaining why the elementary charge has the value it does.

BTW, I didn't suggest that you broke any rules. You did supply enough text about your theory to get the ball rolling. But now you need to supply text about requested specifics to continue the discussion.

 

[JohnM29111]

Hey Guys, I'm going to step away.  I don't agree with several of your assessments but don't think this forum is for me.  Regarding what a TOE is, a TOE doesn't have to conform to any other theory.  What it does have to do is explain all observed and verified phenomenon.  For instance, both Dirac and Einstein showed GR could be replaced by a variable speed of light.  Two different theories, one set of measurements.  Going back 400 years, the epicycle orbit model satisfied many people with the same data later used by the elliptical model. 

The next challenge is to determine what is really observed, verified measurements.  Two researchers to check out are Dr. Alexander Unzicker and Consa as I mentioned earlier.  Unzicker presents good arguments challenging the standard model.  He is also a good resource for the VSL theory.

I did receive benefit in all this.  I think I'm off on the negative energy concept as you pointed out.  Its not material to my TOE but still the TOE must be revised in this area.

Best,
John 

 

[studiot]

On 8/25/2024 at 12:08 AM, studiot said:

On 8/24/2024 at 5:45 PM, 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 ?

 

So you chose not to answer my question.

 

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, JohnM29111 said:

Hey Guys, I'm going to step away.  I don't agree with several of your assessments but don't think this forum is for me.  Regarding what a TOE is, a TOE doesn't have to conform to any other theory.  What it does have to do is explain all observed and verified phenomenon.  For instance, both Dirac and Einstein showed GR could be replaced by a variable speed of light.  Two different theories, one set of measurements.  Going back 400 years, the epicycle orbit model satisfied many people with the same data later used by the elliptical model. 

 

 

Totally your choice however you cannot fault us for trying to teach you the SM as to how a TOE is defined and applied which has nothing to do with spiritualism nor old outdated beliefs.

Best of luck