The Finiteness Theory – the theory of everything in physics

[finiter]

In this post, I present 'The Finiteness Theory', a theory of everything formulated by me.

 

Matter has a fundamental particle that has a fixed mass, fixed volume and fixed energy. The energy is in the kinetic form and the particle moves at the speed 'c'. As a reaction to the energy, force is created. Electromagnetic radiations are streams of such particles. The natural energy and the energy equivalent of the force, of any system made up of such particles, are equal to mc²/2. When the particles integrate, energy and force are used up or trapped inside at every stage, and so, the ultimate system formed has no external energy or force.

 

The fundamental particles first integrate into spherical shells and these shells integrate into electron-positron pairs. The positron, which is slightly heavier, has a slight shortage of energy, and the electron has a slight excess energy. This creates potential states in them, and thus charges are created. The energy equivalent of the charge and hence the electrostatic force is mc²/4, where 'm' is their average mass. This is half the natural force; the other half manifests as gravity. The electron and positron are held together by electrostatic force, and the pair has no residual electrostatic force.

 

Electron-positron pairs integrate into neutrons; each neutron contains exactly 919 e-p pairs, and these are held together by gravity. In forming the neutron, the whole force is used up. Hence, neutrons have no fields and so cannot integrate. Neutrons change into atoms of hydrogen. During that process, matter particles are released in the form of radiations, and so the mass of hydrogen is slightly less than that of neutron. In addition, the residual force of one electron-positron pair becomes available to the atoms and so, these integrate further into heavier atoms and molecules.

 

The atoms and molecules together form masses like earth, moon and stars. These masses integrate into very large orbiting systems, the galaxy-clusters. In atoms, masses and orbiting systems, the constituents are not confined as a single particle; in such systems, the energy possessed by individual constituents acts as pseudo repulsive force, and the attractive and repulsive forces (including the pseudo force) remain balanced.

 

The galaxy-clusters together integrate into a pulsating system, which we call the universe. The universe is thus matter in the finite form, or just a grain of matter. As the whole force and energy are used up in forming a universe, the universes thus formed can neither move nor interact. 'The Ensemble' contains billions of such universes, each remaining at its position in the infinite space. The Ensemble is static and everlasting.

[mississippichem]

Electron-positron pairs integrate into neutrons; each neutron contains exactly 919 e-p pairs, and these are held together by gravity. In forming the neutron, the whole force is used up. Hence, neutrons have no fields and so cannot integrate. Neutrons change into atoms of hydrogen. During that process, matter particles are released in the form of radiations, and so the mass of hydrogen is slightly less than that of neutron. In addition, the residual force of one electron-positron pair becomes available to the atoms and so, these integrate further into heavier atoms and molecules.

 

You've already contradicted observation. Gravity is no where near strong enough to hold together electron-positron pairs to form neutrons. How do you account for the half-life of a free neutron which is around 15 minutes?

[Realitycheck]

I think you're lacking a bit in detail, like by about 500 pages or so. Once you devise it all, then do all of the testing, what makes you think it will be any different? Why does it have to be different? What's wrong with the current model? Oh yeah. Time for another thread.

[finiter]

You've already contradicted observation. Gravity is no where near strong enough to hold together electron-positron pairs to form neutrons.

 

I agree that the force that hold the electron-positron pairs is strong and always attractive like the strong nuclear force, and in fact it is a residual force. What I propose is that the strong nuclear force is actually gravity at the the level of electrons and positrons.

 

At the level of the fundamental particle that I have proposed, gravity is still stronger. The weak gravitational force that we observe is the residual force that remains after the formation of atoms and masses of atoms.

 

I think you're lacking a bit in detail, like by about 500 pages or so.

 

You are nearly correct. I have compiled the details, nearly 300 pages. But the whole details cannot be included in a single post. I will include the important points in subsequent posts (if the rules of the forum permit). This is an alternate theoretical model, which I think agrees with all basic observations. I want the scientific community to verify whether my claim is correct or not.

[ajb]

I want the scientific community to verify whether my claim is correct or not.

 

Then submit your work for peer review.

[finiter]

Then submit your work for peer review.

That is what is to be done normally. However, I am not associated with any institution, and so I cannot get any institutional help to have my work peer reviewed. Moreover, my findings are just theoretical and contains new concepts like energy is just a quality of matter, force is created as a reaction to the energy, etc.. Based on the present concepts, these will come under speculations. Presenting my views in this Forum and getting the opinion of people like you is the only kind of peer review that I can expect to get at this moment.

[ajb]

That is what is to be done normally. However, I am not associated with any institution, and so I cannot get any institutional help to have my work peer reviewed.

 

You do not need any association with any institute to submit work to a peer review journal. They will ask for an address, so you your home address or a post office box.

 

Nor do you need any qualifications.

 

 

Moreover, my findings are just theoretical and contains new concepts like energy is just a quality of matter, force is created as a reaction to the energy, etc.. Based on the present concepts, these will come under speculations.

 

Fine. All new ideas are to some extent speculative. You do the work to show that your ideas have, at lest in your opinion have some merit.

 

Presenting my views in this Forum and getting the opinion of people like you is the only kind of peer review that I can expect to get at this moment.

 

However, we may not be experts in the field(s) required to fully asses your ideas. But it is always good to discuss things with people, I always do that before submitting a paper to the arXiv or a journal.

[J.C.MacSwell]

I agree that the force that hold the electron-positron pairs is strong and always attractive like the strong nuclear force, and in fact it is a residual force. What I propose is that the strong nuclear force is actually gravity at the the level of electrons and positrons.

 

At the level of the fundamental particle that I have proposed, gravity is still stronger. The weak gravitational force that we observe is the residual force that remains after the formation of atoms and masses of atoms.

 

 

 

You are nearly correct. I have compiled the details, nearly 300 pages. But the whole details cannot be included in a single post. I will include the important points in subsequent posts (if the rules of the forum permit). This is an alternate theoretical model, which I think agrees with all basic observations. I want the scientific community to verify whether my claim is correct or not.

 

I have to be honest. I don't think you are going to get anyone that would understand 300 pages of new theory to read it. Most of them are more interested in something that is at most a paragraph, that will bowl them over. If you can do that I bet they might read the other 299.9 pages. (but the remainder of page 1 and beyond would still have to be pretty good)

 

My opinion only, but if it is 300 pages long it is probably not a good physical theory, a worthwhile advance.

 

In this post, I present 'The Finiteness Theory', a theory of everything formulated by me.

 

Matter has a fundamental particle that has a fixed mass, fixed volume and fixed energy. The energy is in the kinetic form and the particle moves at the speed 'c'. As a reaction to the energy, force is created. Electromagnetic radiations are streams of such particles. The natural energy and the energy equivalent of the force, of any system made up of such particles, are equal to mc²/2. When the particles integrate, energy and force are used up or trapped inside at every stage, and so, the ultimate system formed has no external energy or force.

 

The fundamental particles first integrate into spherical shells and these shells integrate into electron-positron pairs. The positron, which is slightly heavier, has a slight shortage of energy, and the electron has a slight excess energy. This creates potential states in them, and thus charges are created. The energy equivalent of the charge and hence the electrostatic force is mc²/4, where 'm' is their average mass. This is half the natural force; the other half manifests as gravity. The electron and positron are held together by electrostatic force, and the pair has no residual electrostatic force.

 

Electron-positron pairs integrate into neutrons; each neutron contains exactly 919 e-p pairs, and these are held together by gravity. In forming the neutron, the whole force is used up. Hence, neutrons have no fields and so cannot integrate. Neutrons change into atoms of hydrogen. During that process, matter particles are released in the form of radiations, and so the mass of hydrogen is slightly less than that of neutron. In addition, the residual force of one electron-positron pair becomes available to the atoms and so, these integrate further into heavier atoms and molecules.

 

The atoms and molecules together form masses like earth, moon and stars. These masses integrate into very large orbiting systems, the galaxy-clusters. In atoms, masses and orbiting systems, the constituents are not confined as a single particle; in such systems, the energy possessed by individual constituents acts as pseudo repulsive force, and the attractive and repulsive forces (including the pseudo force) remain balanced.

 

The galaxy-clusters together integrate into a pulsating system, which we call the universe. The universe is thus matter in the finite form, or just a grain of matter. As the whole force and energy are used up in forming a universe, the universes thus formed can neither move nor interact. 'The Ensemble' contains billions of such universes, each remaining at its position in the infinite space. The Ensemble is static and everlasting.

 

As a suggestion this is something that should be addressed immediately. If you claim electromagnetic radiation has mass, you should acknowledge that that is a significant divergence from accepted physics and address why you think it should hold up. I stop reading partway through the next line when this does not happen, and my guess would be that the people you need to review it would not proceed any further either. You might cover it in the next paragraph, on page 17, or page 299, or may not at all, but none of it will get read (in my opinion).

Edited August 11, 2011 by J.C.MacSwell

[finiter]

You do not need any association with any institute to submit work to a peer review journal.

Nor do you need any qualifications.

I have tried a few times, but in vain. So I got it published in the book form, but it did not take off. Anyway, I will try my best.

 

However, we may not be experts in the field(s) required to fully asses your ideas. But it is always good to discuss things with people.

 

As one becomes an expert, inertia builds up; it is just like aging. But of course, you can grow old, keep the mind young, and avoid flirting.

I will be awaiting for your comments on my post.

 

Most of them are more interested in something that is at most a paragraph...

but if it is 300 pages long it is probably not a good physical theory...

If you claim electromagnetic radiation has mass, you should acknowledge that that is a significant divergence from accepted physics and address why you think it should hold up.

 

It is a fact. I appreciate your observation.

May be or may not be. However, the theory has to cover every thing at least in a skeleton form.

You may please go through my earlier post 'electromagnetic radiations - an alternate model' in this forum. It is rather lengthy, and I think, no body would have read it to the end (a fact you have pointed out), and hence no comments from any body.

[Ringer]

I have to be honest. I don't think you are going to get anyone that would understand 300 pages of new theory to read it. Most of them are more interested in something that is at most a paragraph, that will bowl them over. If you can do that I bet they might read the other 299.9 pages. (but the remainder of page 1 and beyond would still have to be pretty good)

 

My opinion only, but if it is 300 pages long it is probably not a good physical theory, a worthwhile advance.

 

IIRC the proof for Fermat's Last Theorem was a little over one hundred pages. That's of a mathematical proof. I'm sure there are longer ones for physical theories, so 300 pages isn't unthinkable for a unifying theory.

 

[edit] I got curious and Here's a link to the longest proof

Edited August 11, 2011 by Ringer

[ajb]

I have tried a few times, but in vain.

 

That should tell you one of a few things

 

1. The work is wrong.
   
2. The work is right, but known.
   
3. The work is right, but of no interest to the community. (Say a trivial result that anyone could have got at)
   
4. The work was submitted to an inappropriate journal and/or was not in the correct format.
   

 

What were the referee reports like? (Assuming it got that far?)

 

4. You can fix.

 

3. Can be tricky. It is possible that the referees did not understand your paper, but that is your fault. You need to be very clear in the introduction what you did and why. They may not have understood the importance, again your fault. Maybe a journal lower in the "pecking order" will publish the work, which then overlaps with point 4.

 

 

So I got it published in the book form, but it did not take off.

 

Who was the publisher? Unless it is a well known and respected publisher of science/mathematics I am not surprised the book did not take off.

 

 

I get the impression that publishing a book is quite easy, if you publish it yourself or find the "right" publisher.

[finiter]

4. You can fix....

 

I get the impression that publishing a book is quite easy, if you publish it yourself or find the "right" publisher.

 

Problem is, it is lengthy, covering all basics from fundamental particle to universes. So I submitted parts individually, and there it lost the relevance. The only reply I got was this is not the appropriate journal. So I changed strategy, and compiled it in a book form and published myself quite recently. Now I find there is no reason why it should take off. The only satisfaction is that I have compiled it in the most perfect way that I can, and with an ISBN and being available in Amazon.com, my work stands documented.

 

IIRC the proof for Fermat's Last Theorem was a little over one hundred pages. That's of a mathematical proof. I'm sure there are longer ones for physical theories, so 300 pages isn't unthinkable for a unifying theory.

Your reference to the longest proof was interesting. I visited that site.

 

My theory is based on the conjecture that energy is a quality of matter. Aristotle thought that to keep a body in motion, a force has to act on it always. Newton corrected him and said that once the body is set in motion, it requires no more force to keep it moving. I think the correct position is that a force is never required for a body to move; the body moves on its own.

 

My theoretical work was to examine how a fundamental particle, having mass, volume and energy as qualities, would behave - how such particles interact, how these integrate, what intermediate units are formed from these, what the final form will be , etc. This required a lot of explanations, and hence, the lengthiness. In the shortest form the Finiteness theory can be stated as follows: "The universe is matter in its finite form"

Edited August 12, 2011 by finiter