Developing a New Theory of Physics and Computation

[n4t3]

My name is Nathan Schmidt. I'm a computer science masters student in Idaho, USA. Almost exactly one year ago, I had an idea. This idea involved fractal geometry, recursively iterated functions, the golden ratio, and the Fibonacci sequence, and cyclic time (which, when fully developed down the road, would be consistent with the Mayan calendar) From that moment, I knew this was the most powerful idea I had ever imagined in my entire life, and based on my limited knowledge of string theory, I knew that these computer science concepts be applied directly to physics. So I took on this challenge and I began developing the concepts in precisely the same way one develops computer programs. I spent countless hours searching Google, YouTube, and Wikipedia and I eventually realized that developing computer algorithms and data structures are no different than developing equations and mathematical structures, they only appear to be different. So why is this not yet obvious to mainstream computer scientists, physicists, and mathematicians? Because the clear, concise, and logical bridges between these different fields are not yet complete. When these bridges are build, it will transform all of science, engineering, and mathematics and allow physics to establish a unified field theory.

 

Basically, particles may be treated as recursively iterated functions, which operate as fractal generators. Theres obviously alot more too it, but thats a start.

 

 

So I wrote my first paper, Toward a fractal supersymmetry and submitted it to a journal. I figured the paper probably needed some refinement so I was eager to get some feedback. Eventually, I decided I couldn't wait any longer so I posted the idea on the Physics Forums. This was exciting, I finally got to discuss my theory with others online! Rather than receiving rigorous scrutiny and constructive critisism so I could refine my theory, I was insulted and attacked for proposing such an idea, as well as being a computer scientist. The forum moderator, Rpenner, even contacted my university and faculty at the computer science department (who I had been working for the last three years: two years as a bioinformatics research assistant and one year as a teaching assistant) and said silly things about me.

 

Well, all this did was piss me off. So I recalled the first paper from the journal before they had time to get back, took a break from my masters thesis (bioinformatics and sequence analysis of DNA and amino acids from NCBI) and spent the next couple months developing my own unified field theory, based on computer science concepts, including iterated functions, the Mandelbrot set, the Fibonacci sequence, etc. to write my second paper Toward a fractal-friendly spacetime: preliminary enhancements to general relativity and a principle on fractal equivalence. I put that on the forums, and it shut them the hell up. Finally, I felt a partial victory. Show those physicists who they're dealing with!! But, apparently, my paper was still too controversial and underdeveloped to publish in a journal, so it was rejected.

 

At this point I knew that I needed to acquire physics training, and for this I needed help. After searching the internet, eventually, I teamed up with a physicist from Ukraine. Together, we joined forces and embarked on a radical journey: The Race for Unification. Our mission: to proof quark confinement and use that to establish an experimentally-verifiable unified field theory. The ultimate quest!

 

After months of accelerated learning, collaboration, and late nights, we began drafting our first joint publication, which establishes a duality between quarks and black holes. This was amazing, I had never learned so much in my entire life! Our plan was (and still is!) to release an introductory paper for our theory at one of the elite physics journals, and then follow it up with a series of related and more detailed papers. Then, while developing the quark confinement proof, my teammate had a stroke. He stopped communicating with me, and then some time later his wife emailed me and told me what happened. At that point, the only thing I knew to do was finish the paper up the best I could and submit it to the journal, but the proof wasn't finished, and I didn't have the knowledge to finish it. The journal provided very brief/short/elementary reports, it was clear that they didn't even read our paper (two reports were only a paragraph and one was only a sentence long). This was very upsetting. My teammate was in the hospital and had no idea what was going on, so I wanted to finish this up and get us this publication so we could get support and resources for our research. Unfortunately, the journal rejected the paper...

 

Since then, my teammate has made an incredible recovery, and we plan resume joint operations here in the next several weeks. What a brave guy! Truly amazing!! In the mean time, I'm finishing my masters, beefing up our paper for a future resubmission, and earning money. But at this point, we are both facing financial difficulties, especially my partner, and this has significantly slowed down our progress because we spent more time dealing with money than focusing on completing our theory. At this point, it is only a matter of time until we emerge victorious. I know it! The sooner we can finish our theory, the sooner we can get assistance and support from the rest of the scientific community. For this, I've set up a link disabled by moderator. If you can help us out even a little bit to free our minds from this financial crap so we can focus on whats really important, all we need right now is enough to eat, sleep and think, so we can finish this thing once and for all!!

 

Once the theory is complete, I plan to finish building the bridge between computer science and physics, and then apply these concepts to biology. This will transform science!!!

 

For a more complete version of my current story, click here.

 

I watched a series of videos, which are also related to our theory: The Colors of Infinity, Hunting the Hidden Dimension, The Secret life of Chaos, and

. All these videos are related. Always remember, fractal geometry is the language of chaos theory. ;-)

 

 

Thanks for any advice, knowledge, or financial support you can provide!

Nathan aka 'n4t3'

Edited March 31, 2012 by Phi for All
link to donation solicitation disabled

[Schrödinger's hat]

You'd get on well with Wolfram.

[Bignose]

For this, I've set up a http://donations account. If you can help us out even a little bit to free our minds from this financial crap so we can focus on whats really important, all we need right now is enough to eat, sleep and think, so we can finish this thing once and for all!!

 

Get your results published in a high-impact well-respected journal and present them as some of the big physics conferences, and if it is as good as you say, you'll have more grant money than you know what to do with.

Edited March 31, 2012 by Bignose

[uncool]

First, having looked at the beginning of your paper, it's clear that you have never studied special relativity; there is never a need for "the pythagorean form". Second, you clearly have never studied manifold theory; that is quite sufficient "to independently manipulate space and time".

=Uncool-

[PrimeAxiom]

Very, very interesting work n4t3. It would take me a lot of time (which I don't have) to truly understand all that you are proposing, but I see some interesting concepts so far.

 

I absolutely agree that computer science can greatly add insight into the workings of quantum mechanics, because down at that level, it's very much like a physically implemented quantum computer. I've realised this a few months ago, and it's been quite helpful. This is a very powerful new way of looking at quantum mechanics, and I'm sure it will soon been realised by physicists.

 

A computer scientist with a decent understanding of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics can uniquely see the obvious connection between theses fields of study, and can have a deeper understanding of the workings of quantum mechanics. This allows for clearer thought experiments (just like Einstein loved to do). I would guess, from what I've seen so far, that it is difficult for pure physicist to run thought experiments in quantum mechanics. However, someone with a computer science background, that has a great understanding of how computers work, down to the electrical pulses through circuits, won't have as hard a time running thought experiments in quantum mechanics.

 

 

Modern physics wasn't developed by a physicist. It was developed by an office worker doing thought experiments. Most physicist at the time couldn't understand his new theory, and quickly dismissed it, but eventually it got into the hands of ones that could understand what he was proposing.

 

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the next big paradigm shift in physics doesn't come from a physicist again (at least not just a physicist). It probably won't because physicist spend all their time with busy work, and not enough time just thinking.

 

You have knowledge in a lot of relevant fields and that is a huge strength.

 

If you partner up with a serious, open-minded, quantum mechanics mathematician, you two could probably do some serious damage!

 

First, having looked at the beginning of your paper, it's clear that you have never studied special relativity; there is never a need for "the pythagorean form". Second, you clearly have never studied manifold theory; that is quite sufficient "to independently manipulate space and time".

=Uncool-

 

Uncool, you have a very appropriate nick name.

 

Could you be more clear by elaborating? You can't just put out 2 sentences like that 'case it comes off being very meaningless. Could you redeem yourself by explaining what you're trying to say?

Edited March 31, 2012 by PrimeAxiom

[Phi for All]

Uncool, you have a very appropriate nick name.

 

Could you be more clear by elaborating? You can't just put out 2 sentences like that 'case it comes off being very meaningless. Could you redeem yourself by explaining what you're trying to say?

!

Moderator Note

PrimeAxiom, civility is our #1 rule here, which you agreed to when you joined. Avoid attacking the person who makes an argument, and focus on attacking the argument.

[md65536]

Modern physics wasn't developed by a physicist.

 

It's true! All the physicists were playing beer pong the night it happened.

 

It was developed by an office worker doing thought experiments.

Ah, an excellent idea for n4t3; Perhaps you can work in a patent office to cover the "eat and sleep" part of your needs.

 

Pray tell, was this office worker who developed modern physics also in school at the time, that is 1905, the year he completed his thesis for which he earned a PhD (in the field of office work, I imagine) from the University of Zurich?

 

n4t3: It's sad that so many people are forced to do work for other people in order to get by, but if your work is really important it will get done and recognized regardless of what other responsibilities you're forced to take on in order to get by. It just won't be quick and easy.

 

 

 

[the asinine cretin]

Lots of awesome things dropped in that post. I was with you until the part about the Mayan calendar. How/why does that enter the picture?

[uncool]

 

Uncool, you have a very appropriate nick name.

 

Could you be more clear by elaborating? You can't just put out 2 sentences like that 'case it comes off being very meaningless. Could you redeem yourself by explaining what you're trying to say?

The relevant quote from the paper is

First, let the Pythagorean form

 

1 = 1² = S² + T²

 

denote the proposed spacetime fabric of U at an arbitrary quantized instant where S is the set of spatial dimensions and T is the temporal dimension.

 

This initial separation allows us to independently manipulate space and time

 

Anyone who has studied relativity would realize that the "Pythagorean form" is useless. One of the major points of relativity is Lorentz covariance, which basically says that the spacetime interval, which takes the form dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 (note that the spatial indices and temporal indices have opposite signs) is one of the very few things that is invariant under Lorentz transformations; the "Pythagorean form" is not, and can therefore be taken to be physically meaningless.

 

Further, the fact that he says that it is needed to "independently manipulate space and time" is wrong. Manifold theory cleanly and relatively simply covers the ability to do so.

 

N4t3, if you are willing, I can go through a thorough deconstruction of what I think is wrong with your paper. However, what is clear is that you lack the mathematical and physical background to understand the topics about which you are writing. I'm guessing that you have a mathematical background equivalent to high-school level mathematics, plus general pop-culture mathematics; that is the level on which your paper is written mathematically. Particle physics requires a much more intensive mathematical background, including multivariable calculus, linear algebra, group theory, ring theory, and much more. I think that you should study a lot more before you attempt to state with certainty that you understand something like supersymmetry.

 

ETA: Apparently the version I've read is an old version of the paper; you have a new version that no longer mentions supersymmetry. However, it is still clear that you are talking about things which you do not have the mathematical background to understand, such as when you say

in a real-valued sense. In the case of this paper we let XC , YC and ZC be complex spaces. Thus, the point xC ∈ XC is expressed as

 

C = {x_C : −∞ < x_C < ∞}

 

and therefore

 

R = {x_R : −∞ < x_R < ∞}

 

I = {x_I : −∞ < x_I < ∞}

 

where by definition x_C = x_R + x_I identifies the real and imaginary components.

 

One of the most important things about the complex numbers is that they are not ordered; you cannot say that -∞ < x < ∞ when x is a complex number.

=Uncool-

Edited March 31, 2012 by uncool

[PrimeAxiom]

The relevant quote from the paper is

 

Anyone who has studied relativity would realize that the "Pythagorean form" is useless. One of the major points of relativity is Lorentz covariance, which basically says that the spacetime interval, which takes the form dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 (note that the spatial indices and temporal indices have opposite signs) is one of the very few things that is invariant under Lorentz transformations; the "Pythagorean form" is not, and can therefore be taken to be physically meaningless.

 

Further, the fact that he says that it is needed to "independently manipulate space and time" is wrong. Manifold theory cleanly and relatively simply covers the ability to do so.

 

N4t3, if you are willing, I can go through a thorough deconstruction of what I think is wrong with your paper. However, what is clear is that you lack the mathematical and physical background to understand the topics about which you are writing. I'm guessing that you have a mathematical background equivalent to high-school level mathematics, plus general pop-culture mathematics; that is the level on which your paper is written mathematically. Particle physics requires a much more intensive mathematical background, including multivariable calculus, linear algebra, group theory, ring theory, and much more. I think that you should study a lot more before you attempt to state with certainty that you understand something like supersymmetry.

 

ETA: Apparently the version I've read is an old version of the paper; you have a new version that no longer mentions supersymmetry. However, it is still clear that you are talking about things which you do not have the mathematical background to understand, such as when you say

 

 

One of the most important things about the complex numbers is that they are not ordered; you cannot say that -∞ < x < ∞ when x is a complex number.

=Uncool-

 

Yes, that was indeed much clearer. Just try to keep the nastiness to a minimum or these Moderators, very inconsistently though, might give you a talking to.

And yes Uncool, he was an office worker, not a physicist. Not yet anyway.

 

N4t3, you might also want to try out different physics sites to discuss your theory.

Edited March 31, 2012 by PrimeAxiom

[uncool]

Yes, that was indeed much clearer. Just try to keep the nastiness to a minimum or these Moderators, very inconsistently though, might give you a talking to.

And yes Uncool, he was an office worker, not a physicist. Not yet anyway.

There wasn't nastiness. It is a fact that his original paper made it clear that he had neither studied relativity nor manifolds when he wrote it; it is a fact that his new paper makes it clear that he still has not studied complex analysis.

=Uncool-

[Bignose]

Modern physics wasn't developed by a physicist. It was developed by an office worker doing thought experiments. Most physicist at the time couldn't understand his new theory, and quickly dismissed it, but eventually it got into the hands of ones that could understand what he was proposing.

 

Results, results, and results. That is the ultimate determiner. While there may be some initial hesitation, if the OP can demonstrate excellent agreement with predictions made by this idea with observations, then the community will accept it very quickly. Today, with the internet allowing tremendously easier access to information at any time in history before, means that with good results, there is no reason for work to remain 'dismissed' for long.

 

That sword cuts both ways, though. If the theory doesn't produce good results, it is dismissed, and properly so.

 

That is the rest of your little story up there. While Einstein's work wasn't initially immediately embraced, once it was shown the predictions coming from the work were far, far better than anything else available at the time, it was universally accepted.

 

So, that is what the OP needs to do. Show results. Demonstrate why his idea is an improvement over what is out there today. He sure hit a lot of topics in his first post, but again so long as he can show results, then so be it. As per my other post in this thread, if he can show results, then he'll have more than enough grant money and/or a job at a research lab that he won't be reduced to begging internet forums ever again. But with science, you don't sell the sizzle -- you sell the steak. If that steak is made up of poor results or inaccurate predictions, it doesn't matter how many grandiose or wide-reaching claims the sizzle is made of. Right now, all that has been posted is sizzle. The OP needs to actually have some steak, and present that steak at conferences and publish in journals.

[n4t3]

Get your results published in a high-impact well-respected journal and present them as some of the big physics conferences, and if it is as good as you say, you'll have more grant money than you know what to do with.

 

haha oh yeah man for sure, thats our game plan! ;-)

 

we just need to get our first paper done, and then we'll earn all that good stuff. Now as you've read, my teammate had an accident and the financial stuff has shifted our focus from physics to other "real life" stuff, which has slowed our progress significantly. so right now we are in a period of temporary struggle, which is why I am asking for donations here, so we can finish this fast and efficiently. If we can get even minimal assistance I'm going to forward practically all of the donations to my teammate, who (I'm sure) is facing a medical bill nightmare. we need this fellow to be feeling good and free of finances so he can get his gameface on.

 

so by this point its not a matter of "if", its a matter of "when". donations will help us get back on our feet faster. know what I mean?

 

First, having looked at the beginning of your paper, it's clear that you have never studied special relativity; there is never a need for "the pythagorean form". Second, you clearly have never studied manifold theory; that is quite sufficient "to independently manipulate space and time".

=Uncool-

 

 

haha well if you actually would have read the post . from my experience, i've found that the internet forums are full of mediocre people like you who feel the need to post mediocre things. so looks like your just another one of those guys lol

 

but yeah when i wrote the first and second paper, I had practically no physics education, just computer science and mathematics, and my mathematics education did not actually include manifold theory.

 

when i wrote the first paper (like a year ago), i was describing a holographic universe with fractal/fractional values embedded at all spacetime points like pixels on a computer screen, and was using the Fibonacci sequence to make sense of it. this was my computer science background. at this point, i wasn't aware that I was describing a holographic universe, but now that i look back, this is all clear.

 

 

hehe yeah, in the second paper, i invented my own fractal manifolds. so yeah, when i started working with my teammate, i was so happy when he introduced Riemann manifolds to me and saw that fractals work great with them!! but yeah, i mean inventing the shit is the fun part. so yeah, then i wasn't aware that Riemann manifolds could be actually modified for what I was doing.

 

i posted those two amateur papers just to tell my story, and throw out some of the old ideas, and to show that i'm serious about finishing this. since then, my teammate has provided me with a remarkable education in theoretical physics. so in our new theory, with quark confinement and black holes, all of these concepts in my original two initial papers are either simplified, or implied in our new one. gotta love Riemann manifolds!! yeah i gotta say, Bernhard Riemann is the man!!

[Bignose]

from my experience, i've found that the internet forums are full of mediocre people like you

 

seriously, guy? a personal attack? Why don't you actually address his point rather than dismissing him with name-calling?

 

What are you going to do when reviewers or anyone else actually asks you questions? You better quickly learn that asking questions and having holes poked in your ideas is paramount to science today. 99% of it is people trying to help you think deeper about your idea and make it stronger. It is rarely personal -- until you make it personal via name calling. Once you start doing that, how much help do you really think you're going to get? Who would even consider donating to someone who presents himself as petty enough to start name-calling in just their 3rd post on a forum?

 

Seriously, try addressing the questions uncool brought up. If they are as 'mediocre' as you say, then is should be easy for you to show uncool where he is mistaken.

[n4t3]

Very, very interesting work n4t3. It would take me a lot of time (which I don't have) to truly understand all that you are proposing, but I see some interesting concepts so far.

 

I absolutely agree that computer science can greatly add insight into the workings of quantum mechanics, because down at that level, it's very much like a physically implemented quantum computer. I've realised this a few months ago, and it's been quite helpful. This is a very powerful new way of looking at quantum mechanics, and I'm sure it will soon been realised by physicists.

 

A computer scientist with a decent understanding of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics can uniquely see the obvious connection between theses fields of study, and can have a deeper understanding of the workings of quantum mechanics. This allows for clearer thought experiments (just like Einstein loved to do). I would guess, from what I've seen so far, that it is difficult for pure physicist to run thought experiments in quantum mechanics. However, someone with a computer science background, that has a great understanding of how computers work, down to the electrical pulses through circuits, won't have as hard a time running thought experiments in quantum mechanics.

 

 

Modern physics wasn't developed by a physicist. It was developed by an office worker doing thought experiments. Most physicist at the time couldn't understand his new theory, and quickly dismissed it, but eventually it got into the hands of ones that could understand what he was proposing.

 

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the next big paradigm shift in physics doesn't come from a physicist again (at least not just a physicist). It probably won't because physicist spend all their time with busy work, and not enough time just thinking.

 

You have knowledge in a lot of relevant fields and that is a huge strength.

 

If you partner up with a serious, open-minded, quantum mechanics mathematician, you two could probably do some serious damage!

 

 

 

Uncool, you have a very appropriate nick name.

 

Could you be more clear by elaborating? You can't just put out 2 sentences like that 'case it comes off being very meaningless. Could you redeem yourself by explaining what you're trying to say?

 

hey thanks for the meaningful response!

 

my recommendation to anybody, would be to get a degree in computer science, and then use that acquired knowledge of creative programming, linear systems, and logic in a different field, such as physics, chemistry, biology, sociology/psychology, or business, or whatever. because really, programming a computer is just a big creative thought experiment, which teaches you how to learn rapidly. so if your a programmer, Google and Wikipedia are your best friends, and the internet allows you to connect and share ideas with anybody on the planet at the speed of light, so rapid advancement and accelerated learning are absolutely possible with the internet! when this is all through, i am going to teach how to use the internet to learn quickly and efficiently.

 

I mean after I wrote these the two initial papers, it became clear to me that I needed help from a real physicist. And eventually, on Google Groups, I found one! he is from Ukraine and had been working on a similar theory as me since 2004, so as you can imagine, we had LOTS of ideas to share and discuss!

 

and our joint publication and progress was going amazing until he suffered the stroke. so thats why i'm here, i'm trying to get donations and to tell our story. i figured if people were actually aware of what we are doing, then they would certainly help us finish this difficult journey up

 

if you donate to us, you know your money is going to something worthwhile, rather than some worthless, greedy ceo ;-)

 

 

 

 

Lots of awesome things dropped in that post. I was with you until the part about the Mayan calendar. How/why does that enter the picture?

 

it just means you can imagine time as being a circle. literally, a circle, like the face of a clock. so from the spin/orbit of the smallest particle, to the spin/orbit of our planet, solar system, galaxy, galactic cluster, etc, everthing is just a circle, and behaves like a clock. the Mayans use combinations of circles with different radiuses to describe this stuff. tbh idk alot yet about the specifics of Mayan calendar, yet, but i know they use circular combinations to describe anything. heres a real quick image on this. see how one can just connect the circles together to encode stuff? its a very, very powerful idea. once i understood this concept, it became very clear to me that the world was not going to end lmfao, just another cycle.

 

the ancient Egyptians also understood all of this (I highly recommend watching, for example, The Pyramid Code, its actually on netflix). their society was remarkably advanced, much more advanced that ours is today, at least in certain technological sectors. mark my words on that. but its difficult for many to admit hehe. egyptology is also currently undergoing a revolution, just as physics is this year!!

 

The ancient Egyptions and ancient Mayans understood the concept of cyclic time, just as our civilization is learning about. it is a remarkably powerful idea. at some point in our history (probably a few thousand years ago), these concepts were lost due to war or whatever, but are slowly being re-learned and re-discovered.

 

this understanding of cyclic/non-linear time is required to develop a new scientific theory of the universe. the concept of linear time simply will not suffice. know what i mean?

 

 

 

seriously, guy? a personal attack? Why don't you actually address his point rather than dismissing him with name-calling?

 

What are you going to do when reviewers or anyone else actually asks you questions? You better quickly learn that asking questions and having holes poked in your ideas is paramount to science today. 99% of it is people trying to help you think deeper about your idea and make it stronger. It is rarely personal -- until you make it personal via name calling. Once you start doing that, how much help do you really think you're going to get? Who would even consider donating to someone who presents himself as petty enough to start name-calling in just their 3rd post on a forum?

 

Seriously, try addressing the questions uncool brought up. If they are as 'mediocre' as you say, then is should be easy for you to show uncool where he is mistaken.

 

hehe your probably right, but i'm still catching up on the posts.

 

but i have zero respect for people who go around polluting others posts, you know what i mean?

 

i just now see that personal attacks are not allowed here! wow i wish this was implemented on other forums!!!

Edited April 1, 2012 by n4t3

[uncool]

haha well if you actually would have read the post

I had. I misremembered it; I thought that the one originally posted at physicsforums was the new one.

. from my experience, i've found that the internet forums are full of mediocre people like you who feel the need to post mediocre things. so looks like your just another one of those guys lol

I hope you realize that such a statement won't help you distribute your paper at all. You dismiss anyone who critiques your paper on the basis of your clear lack of relevant education. Given that several of the people criticizing your paper have extensive education in the subject, your antagonism is nonsensical.

but yeah when i wrote the first and second paper, I had practically no physics education, just computer science and mathematics, and my mathematics education did not actually include manifold theory.

Your first paper makes it apparent that you did not have an extensive mathematical education, even outside manifold theory.

when i wrote the first paper (like a year ago), i was describing a holographic universe with fractal/fractional values embedded at all spacetime points like pixels on a computer screen, and was using the Fibonacci sequence to make sense of it. this was my computer science background. at this point, i wasn't aware that I was describing a holographic universe, but now that i look back, this is all clear.

 

 

hehe yeah, in the second paper, i invented my own fractal manifolds.

I searched through the paper, and the phrase "fractal manifold" doesn't occur anywhere. Nor does the word "definition" nor "define". If you are going to use your own construction, you must define it rigorously and include that definition in your paper.

so yeah, when i started working with my teammate, i was so happy when he introduced Riemann manifolds to me and saw that fractals work great with them!! but yeah, i mean inventing the shit is the fun part. so yeah, then i wasn't aware that Riemann manifolds could be actually modified for what I was doing.

Then what is your definition?

=Uncool-

[n4t3]

The relevant quote from the paper is

 

Anyone who has studied relativity would realize that the "Pythagorean form" is useless. One of the major points of relativity is Lorentz covariance, which basically says that the spacetime interval, which takes the form dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 (note that the spatial indices and temporal indices have opposite signs) is one of the very few things that is invariant under Lorentz transformations; the "Pythagorean form" is not, and can therefore be taken to be physically meaningless.

 

Further, the fact that he says that it is needed to "independently manipulate space and time" is wrong. Manifold theory cleanly and relatively simply covers the ability to do so.

 

N4t3, if you are willing, I can go through a thorough deconstruction of what I think is wrong with your paper. However, what is clear is that you lack the mathematical and physical background to understand the topics about which you are writing. I'm guessing that you have a mathematical background equivalent to high-school level mathematics, plus general pop-culture mathematics; that is the level on which your paper is written mathematically. Particle physics requires a much more intensive mathematical background, including multivariable calculus, linear algebra, group theory, ring theory, and much more. I think that you should study a lot more before you attempt to state with certainty that you understand something like supersymmetry.

 

ETA: Apparently the version I've read is an old version of the paper; you have a new version that no longer mentions supersymmetry. However, it is still clear that you are talking about things which you do not have the mathematical background to understand, such as when you say

 

 

One of the most important things about the complex numbers is that they are not ordered; you cannot say that -∞ < x < ∞ when x is a complex number.

=Uncool-

 

Uncool,

 

ok man, thanks for the improved response.

 

i actually do not need any type of scrutiny on my old/obsolete papers at this time, i have already received it. since then, i have received several months of training in theoretical physics. i just posted the my amateur papers here to show progress and give a timeline for my story. i am just asking for donations so my teammate and I can finish quark confinement and do some seriously exciting stuff.

 

but thank you for the offer, i certainly appreciate it. I wish that I had met you a year ago!

 

our newest paper i cannot post yet because it is still subject to review and i am doing it with somebody else. but as soon as it is complete, i will post it here on the forums to discuss it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I had. I misremembered it; I thought that the one originally posted at physicsforums was the new one.

 

I hope you realize that such a statement won't help you distribute your paper at all. You dismiss anyone who critiques your paper on the basis of your clear lack of relevant education. Given that several of the people criticizing your paper have extensive education in the subject, your antagonism is nonsensical.

 

Your first paper makes it apparent that you did not have an extensive mathematical education, even outside manifold theory.

 

I searched through the paper, and the phrase "fractal manifold" doesn't occur anywhere. Nor does the word "definition" nor "define". If you are going to use your own construction, you must define it rigorously and include that definition in your paper.

 

Then what is your definition?

=Uncool-

 

ok, i understand. hehe dude i was re-thinking the Riemann surface was all, and that guy is already defined nicely.

 

 

 

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

n4t3, I thought disabling the donations link in your OP was a subtle way of reminding you of our "no advertising" rule. We don't know you and the staff wishes to protect the membership from scammers and spammers (which we get an unbelievable amount of). Please refrain from asking for any more donations. We wish your colleague well and hope for a swift and full recovery.

I appreciate your taking note and responsibility for your personal attack. It is one of the things that makes discussions different here at SFN.

[n4t3]

!

Moderator Note

n4t3, I thought disabling the donations link in your OP was a subtle way of reminding you of our "no advertising" rule. We don't know you and the staff wishes to protect the membership from scammers and spammers (which we get an unbelievable amount of). Please refrain from asking for any more donations. We wish your colleague well and hope for a swift and full recovery.

 

I appreciate your taking note and responsibility for your personal attack. It is one of the things that makes discussions different here at SFN.

 

make an exception

[hypervalent_iodine]

make an exception

 

!

Moderator Note

No.

[n4t3]

!

Moderator Note

No.

 

you've got a cold heart

 

btw i glanced at your blog. you know carbon is really just a hexagon mapped to a circle right?

 

this is directly related to the subject matter, hypervalent_iodine. trust me. lol

 

unlock the link.

Edited April 2, 2012 by n4t3

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

In addition to rules about advertising and soliciting donations, we also have rules about off topic conversation. Stick to the subject matter of the OP, please. If you have any questions regarding moderator notes, you are welcome to contact us via PM.

Do not respond to this.

[md65536]

make an exception

I can't speak for everyone, and I would say that you've lost credibility here, but I don't think you had any at the start.

 

If you want to prove that your idea is valuable, then finish the work. Get a job, live with your mom... or keep on begging if you want.

 

Perhaps someone can help you with how to get a grant. I imagine that you'd have to prove your idea is valuable before you'd get a grant, though.

 

The way that you present your ideas, I have the feeling that you're talking about stuff that you don't really understand, but that you're hoping that someone who can understand it will read it and be able to put your ideas into practice, and derive real results from them. So I think maybe your "finished work" will be just a beginning, just an idea that you hope others can start with. The liberal use of technical-sounding terms, but without their meaning ("supersymmetry", "spatial language of chaos") seems to me to be cargo cult science, and is not helpful.

 

I would suggest aiming more realistically, perhaps presenting your ideas as a principle or conjecture. Then, you can start small and derive some real (if small) results from them. If you think that your ideas can lead to a complete replacement for some set of accepted theories, it may be an interesting conjecture, but I don't think you have even the start of a fraction of the actual results and predictions that would be needed. You have ideas, not a theory.

 

- Present your ideas as ideas.

- If you can, show how your ideas can be used---some new prediction maybe, or show that some existing result can also be expressed as precisely using your stuff. If you're hoping that others will figure out how to apply your ideas, that might not happen.

- Avoid overly technical terms unless their meaning that you understand is the same as what others understand. Don't try to make ideas sound like a finished theory with jargon. Express it simply as possible.

 

 

Disclaimer: I am an idiot.

 

you've got a cold heart

 

btw i glanced at your blog. you know carbon is really just a hexagon mapped to a circle right?

 

this is directly related to the subject matter, hypervalent_iodine. trust me. lol

 

unlock the link.

Now I regret wasting time replying to you.