What do you think the "Final Theory" will look like?

[newts]

bullplop! newts, if 'nobody was that interested' how did you get 5 pages?

I would like to thank you for the interest you did show in my theory. It was a specific reply to John who was making the very valid point that I should not be criticising current theories unless I had my own alternative theories. I do not really want to comment here about the specifics of my own theory; but merely to point out the reluctance of physicists, and even more so non-physicists, to consider the possibility that existing theories might be substantially flawed, is an impediment to finding a final theory.

Edited November 26, 2011 by newts

[uncool]

Although our theories are very different, on matters of philosophy, Pantheory and I tend to agree, so I concur with what he has said.

 

Actually I have tried introducing one part of my theory (‘an alternative to quarks’, currently down the bottom of page 5), but nobody was that interested, they preferred to just say how brilliant quarks are.

Now that is outright false, and tantamount to a lie. I in particular did the following:

 

I challenged you to demonstrate that your theory could be demonstrated in the first place. You failed to do so.

I challenged you to demonstrate that quarks were flawed in the first place. You declined to do so.

I challenged you to choose whether my experiment that would test your theory was valid or not. You failed to choose either way.

I showed you some of the predictions that quarks made that were borne out.

 

Note that none of the above is "just say[ing] how brilliant quarks are". They are demonstrations that:

1) The current theory has done enough to

2) You have shown no proper challenges to the current theory.

3) You have shown no reason why your theory should be accepted.

4) I have given you specific reasons why your theory should not be accepted.

The problem with your argument that correct theories tend to win out in the end, is that most people’s definition of a correct theory, is ‘one that is currently accepted’. The Lorentz aether theory is certainly a correct description of nature, but it is still not accepted even after over a hundred years.

Because it makes more assumptions than special relativity does, makes no extra predictions compared to special relativity, and therefore there is no reason to accept it over special relativity, while there is every reason to accept special relativity instead.

 

The idea of science is to accept the simplest correct explanation.

My point on this thread was that physicists’ religious attachment to general relativity and dark matter, prevents them from properly considering a genuine final theory. Everybody who has disagreed with me, has made it very plain that they are so sure that general relativity and dark matter are correct that they have no need to consider alternatives, qed.

Now this is an actual lie. I have told you precisely what you need to do to show that they are not correct. The science community is more than willing to accept alternatives, given that it meets certain requirements:

1) The new theory must make a prediction that the old theory does not, AND it must be borne out, OR

2) The new theory must make all the same predictions that the old theory does AND make fewer assumptions (in other words, be simpler)

 

Your theory has made no prediction that has been borne out, and it makes significantly fewer predictions than the original theory does. Not just that, but it also contradicts many significantly confirmed theories.

When I have finished studying epicycles and phlogiston, I may move on to quarks.

You may think this is a clever rhetorical reply, but newts, it honestly comes off as you saying "I won't study it because it's flawed; it's flawed because I declare it is flawed; and I declare it is flawed because I haven't studied it."

 

You have shown no reason to declare that the current leading theory is wrong. Furthermore, you have shown you wouldn't understand the reasons why it's right, let alone any reasons why it could be wrong.

but merely to point out the reluctance of physicists, and even more so non-physicists, to consider the possibility that existing theories might be substantially flawed, is an impediment to finding a final theory.

There is no reluctance to consider that possibility. The reluctance is to assume that they are substantially flawed without any proof.

=Uncool-

Edited November 27, 2011 by uncool

[pantheory]

newts,

 

........ (not) to consider the possibility that existing theories might be substantially flawed, is an impediment to finding a final theory.

(parenthesis added)

 

I agree with your above statement as being a major hurtle stopping the progression of science to find the "final theories." Funding/ grants/ jobs in science usually go to those following the mainstream, including flights of fancy that have mainstream models as their premise, such as string theory and brane theory, quantum gravity, for example. Almost every alternative model outside the mainstream becomes partially or totally self funded if continued.

 

Most believe that to cater to too much theoretical freedom would probably cause as many problems as it might do good which may often be true. But for almost everyone to point in the same direction as they seem to be doing today reminds me of the stock market. Contrarians in the stock market are often more correct than the mainstream. I think the 20th century involved over a century of theoretical mis-steps in many wrong directions concerning most theoretical fronts having at least some failure of logic, warped space, quantum theory, quark theory, dark matter, dark energy, the BB model, pure energy, "a priori" pulling forces, are on my "bad" theory list. Although I think there are still some good theories out there such as natural selection, chemical theory, plate tectonics, etc.

 

I believe all final theories once generally understood will be totally logical, even though nearly all theorists today unfortunately believe the opposite. Most would probably assert that it is highly probable that reality is not logical , or something to that effect.

Edited November 27, 2011 by pantheory

[md65536]

I think that the " final theory" will be much simpler in almost every way, as well as more logical than any of today's theories. Most everything in theory's models that have excessive complication will be eliminated. All of the major theories of today such as Special Relativity, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, the Standard Model Particle Theory, The Big Bang Theory, -- all will be almost entirely replaced by simpler conceptual models that will have kinship with each other enabling them to all be tied together theoretically. Mathematics will then become more of a servant of these models rather than the foundation essential.//

 

I think it will be "less logical", or at least have less correspondence to a "common sense" understanding of reality.

 

My idea of what a ToE will look like is "Emergence", where the other theories you mention are emergent aspects of some more-fundamental description of the universe, of which we only see and experience emergent aspects. Gravity, particles, geometry etc would all be emergent. What I don't have a guess about is whether we would be able to figure out "the absolute fundamental nature" of the universe, or if it might be possible that any more-fundamental model of the universe that we could describe could itself be emergent from some other model.

 

I think that any such fundamental models could be described mathematically, so I doubt that all of math could be emergent.

 

 

 

Perhaps I'll start a new thread before I ramble off topic...

[pantheory]

I think it will be "less logical", or at least have less correspondence to a "common sense" understanding of reality.

 

My idea of what a ToE will look like is "Emergence", where the other theories you mention are emergent aspects of some more-fundamental description of the universe, of which we only see and experience emergent aspects. ...Gravity, particles, geometry etc would all be emergent.

In my view for a long time now we have been going in the wrong direction concerning most theories which will eventually require a number of u-turns, including in some cases almost complete replacement of models.

 

I think the geometry of the universe is entirely Euclidean where time is needed only for calculations involving time intervals. I think we are presently pursuing incorrect theoretical models and are continuing down the wrong paths such as particle theory and gravity theory, and that the final theories will all have kinship with each other and will need far less complication to explain them verbally or mathematically. I put math as second. First comes understanding, then one might derive the math. I believe all calculations will come with tolerances in both the macro and micro worlds based upon unpredictable hidden variables long ago proposed by aether models.

 

What I don't have a guess about is whether we would be able to figure out "the absolute fundamental nature" of the universe, or if it might be possible that any more-fundamental model of the universe that we could describe could itself be emergent from some other model.

The absolute fundamental nature of the universe will always be our ultimate goal and I fully expect we will gain at least a broad understanding of its simplicity within this century. I expect these simple concepts will eventually be taught and understood in elementary school (mathematics aside).

 

I think that any such fundamental models could be described mathematically, but better understood by computer modeling. Math today is prized above logic. But eventually I expect that all the math will be directly derivable from the logic, therefore a logical understanding of every theoretical subject must come first.

Edited November 27, 2011 by pantheory

[newts]

I think it will be "less logical", or at least have less correspondence to a "common sense" understanding of reality.

In general I am a fan of Feynman, however it is a pity that he should have described nature as incomprehensible, because humans not only like to repeat what they hear, but they also prefer to believe that the universe is mysterious.

 

Actually the only reason the universe is incomprehensible, is that humans are too stupid to understand it. Before Newton, people had very little understanding of science, now we know that everything is just a collection of protons, neutrons and electrons. Having come this far people should want to go the final step, and make sense of everything that can be made sense of; but for some reason modern physicists seem to see it as virtue to believe in the unintuitive and the mysterious.

 

Surely the first step in trying to find a final theory, is to answer the question 'what is the universe made of?'. The Ancient Greeks, said indivisible spheres, I guess string theorists would say string. Saying string is better than saying nothing, but is it not obvious that the Greeks got that one right?

Edited November 27, 2011 by newts

[mississippichem]

When I have finished studying epicycles and phlogiston, I may move on to quarks.

 

Perhaps you should try Newtonian mechanics 101 first as you clearly have zero understanding of physics or even the scientific method itself.

 

I'm being totally serious here: How can you really comment with authority on any of this when you lack the essential skills to even comprehend rudimentary mechanics?

 

Please don't take this as insulting. In fact, you are insulting the massive body of work from great past physicists. It's as if you think you can just show up at an office building and declare yourself the CEO. Do you really think you can hang with a PhD physicist!?

 

Phlogiston theory, though now long overturned, had much more evidence in support of it than any "theory" (really more wild speculation backed by an attitude only and not evidence) you've presented here.

 

People devote their lives to this stuff newts. Show some damn respect and know when you're out of your league.

[uncool]

In general I am a fan of Feynman, however it is a pity that he should have described nature as incomprehensible, because humans not only like to repeat what they hear, but they also prefer to believe that the universe is mysterious.

 

Actually the only reason the universe is incomprehensible, is that humans are too stupid to understand it. Before Newton, people had very little understanding of science, now we know that everything is just a collection of protons, neutrons and electrons.

False, and if you knew anything about quarks, you would know that this is false.

 

Everything familiar is a collection of protons, neutrons, and electrons, but there are plenty of things that aren't made of protons, neutrons, and electrons. You are missing all of the mesons and most of the hadrons, let alone all of the antimatter.

Having come this far people should want to go the final step, and make sense of everything that can be made sense of; but for some reason modern physicists seem to see it as virtue to believe in the unintuitive and the mysterious.

This is false, and has been shown to be false time and time again in your thread. Why do you repeat what others have shown you is false?

Surely the first step in trying to find a final theory, is to answer the question 'what is the universe made of?'. The Ancient Greeks, said indivisible spheres, I guess string theorists would say string. Saying string is better than saying nothing, but is it not obvious that the Greeks got that one right?

No, it is not obvious. And furthermore, it is not science to assume it.

 

I have bumped your thread. Feel free to defend your theory there. I hope you do a better job than the pathetic one you did before.

=Uncool-

Edited November 28, 2011 by uncool

[newts]

Perhaps you should try Newtonian mechanics 101 first as you clearly have zero understanding of physics

Actually I did spend some time trying to disprove Newtonian mechanics, but soon realised why it was correct. I then tried to disprove the Lorentz mass dilation formula, and in trying to derive my own formula I eventually ended up deriving the same one as Lorentz. Because I have figured out physics for myself, I have a much clearer understanding than people who have merely been taught it. That is why I can categorically state that the Lorentz aether theory is a proper description of nature, whilst special relativity is meaningless.

 

Still at least we can both see the merits of phlogiston, after all there is only one type of phlogiston rather than six types available in three different colours; and there is no anti-phlogiston, and it does not require glouns and Higgs particles to support it.

 

People devote their lives to this stuff newts. Show some damn respect and know when you're out of your league.

When I was checking particle masses to test my theory, and I saw that physicists had gone to all the trouble of deciding which quarks make up each particle, it did actually make me feel a bit guilty that I was disproving so much hard work. But much the same situation existed when Kepler introduced his elliptical orbits, as doubtless people who had devoted their lives to epicycles must have felt a bit deflated. But that is how science progressed, wrong theories were disproved and replaced by better ones. Unfortunately nowadays almost everybody is so convinced that current theories are correct, that nobody will challenge existing ideas, hence theoretical physics has degenerated into a religion.

[Bignose]

When I was checking particle masses to test my theory, and I saw that physicists had gone to all the trouble of deciding which quarks make up each particle...

 

It is words choice like this that simply infuriates people in your threads, newts. 'deciding'. You make it sound so casual. I decide I'm going to wear my tan pant instead of the black ones today. I decide to drink Coke instead of Pepsi. I decide to buy the red bowling ball instead of the blue one. etc.

 

It wasn't 'decided'... the experimental evidence from numerous experiments determined what quarks made up which particles. The mathematics of the standard model makes predictions about what particles should be found, and the experiments bear them out.

 

In a lot of ways, your aside about the epicycles and Kepler is spot on -- the need for a better model (Kepler's) was readily becoming apparent as more accurate observations of the movements of the heavenly bodies were taken. Can you say the same for quarks? Can you point out experiments of decomposing particles that are contradictory to the quark model? Can you show where your model does a better job predicting experimental results? Because THAT IS HOW EPICYCLES FELL OUT OF FASHION -- Kepler's models made much more accurate predictions. That is the your only goalpost -- show your model making better predictions, and all this wailing and gnashing of teeth and rage against the 'religion of science' will end.

 

Will there be a few people who stubbornly hold on to quarks because they devoted their life to them? Sure, scientists are human too. But, if you have a model that makes better predictions, YOU WILL GET NOTICED. YOU WILL GET THE ATTENTION YOU THINK YOUR MODEL DESERVES. It really is that simple.

Edited November 29, 2011 by Bignose

[newts]

It is words choice like this that simply infuriates people in your threads, newts. 'deciding'. You make it sound so casual. I decide I'm going to wear my tan pant instead of the black ones today. I decide to drink Coke instead of Pepsi. I decide to buy the red bowling ball instead of the blue one. etc.

Its ironic that the one time I try to be conciliatory, I end up being infuriating. The reason I used the word ‘decide’, is actually what you alluded to, that the process involves choosing 3 quarks from a assortment of 6. I suppose most things in physics are measured rather than decided; but it could still be argued that having measured the mass of a uranium atom, it was still necessary to decide how many protons and neutrons it contains.

 

With most people, it seems that the more I criticise the current interpretation of physics, the more certain they become that my theory must be wrong; but no matter how annoyed you get, you still do not completely rule out the possibility that there could be something in my theory, which suggests you lack some of the religious instincts of a normal human.

 

When a proper scientific theory exists, such as Newton’s laws, then it is true that deviation from experiment often tends to be the engine of reform. I would not say that applied in the case of Kepler, because the university professors of that time were none too eager to embrace the Copernican system. According to ‘The Mechanical Universe’ lecture series, Kepler went to great lengths to obtain Tycho Brahe’s accurate astronomical data, which suggests to me that he already had the concept of ellipses in his mind, and wanted the necessary measurements to confirm his ideas.

 

Basically Kepler had the idea, did all the maths, wrote a book, but seems to have had his ideas largely ignored for about 50 years, even by Galileo. So it was hardly a case of the scientific community hankering after a new theory.

 

 

 

[Bignose]

50 years at that time is pretty fast. There were only a handful of people who had the means to do good science because they were independently wealthy or talented enough to have the attention of a financial backer. Very few and far between. Quite simply, at that time, 50 years was not enough time for compelling evidence to spread quickly, especially with the strong influence of the church at that time, too. Nonetheless, the deficiencies in the epicycles model were becoming well known. That's why they were trying models of cycles withing cycles, and further smaller cycles, etc. Obviously, the word did eventually get out, and in the end, it was evidence that was the most compelling.

 

it was still necessary to decide how many protons and neutrons it contains

 

What?!?

 

It isn't a freaking decision. It is an experimentally verified number. To be uranium, it has to have a certain number of protons. And, then the differing numbers of neutrons are the isotopes. There is no 'decide'. Really, you need to be careful with your word choice.