The Theory of everything i know as i know them.

[zakariyadoar]

so it's a pretty basic question. Is there any research that can prove my hypothesis completely wrong? so atoms all have electrons and i believe these electrons have a spin that can make electrons move to an outer energy level and then back when it releases a photon causing the atom itself to spin and thus change state of matter in some cases due to the release of thermal energy because of the kinetic energy. The spin of the atom's electron causes the atom to change energy levels this can also happen when you rub things together like two pieces of wood. this is my theory of friction and electrons and how they interact with matter. When electrons reach to the outermost energy level and cannot radiate then if more and more energy is applied would they become a neutron thus creating the unstable isotope. I don't know if this was enough detail to explain my theory please comment with what you think.

Secondly, can dark matter be a decaying form of dark energy like radioactive, but instead of alpha and beta particles. my hypothesis on dark matter is that it has an unusually concentrated amount of dark matter which use to take up more of the universe then it currently does in the beginning then it started to decay causing dark energy to be produced and thus the accelerated expansion we've seen. the energy sort of pushes everything out while the dark matter causes contractions thus controlling the whole system. a fun way to prove this would be to wait a couple years and keep measuring the amount of each based on gravity i predict that acceleration will keep increasing and that dark matter itself will become evermore sparse. please prove me wrong. I have an idea to prove it another way as well watch a neutron star get eaten by a black hole i predict that maybe the radiation coming out of the neutron star will show the dark energy because it will be instantaneously eaten up causing this dark matter to collapse on the space the neutron star occupied, maybe space itself to be so concentrated that it pulls the dark energy back into dark matter. now i don't really know what it would produce but if someone could tell me if it has ever been recorded seen or has happened and what were the results? i'm saying dark energy is very tiny vibrating particles where dark matter is just the opposite, yet just as undetectable in most cases except notable getting hit with radiation.
one more question is can anyone properly explain to me are physicists trying to relate weak force strong force and gravity and electromagnetic force together or to black matter? could there be a link to dark matter? could it all be related? just more food for thought i don't really know, but i would certainly appreciate an answer. also does every object that is in the 5 % of the objects that are actual matter have a gravitational field which sort of pushes against this dark energy, thus making it harder to detect on planets and in galaxy s themselves and if i'm not wrong then this may be the reason that the spacecraft we set out of the galaxy , but they slowed down so much when they got just out of the gravitation field and basically i'm trying to make it make sense.

[ACG52]

Is there any research that can prove my hypothesis completely wrong?

The mantra of the crank. 'Prove me wrong'

Edited May 20, 2016 by ACG52

[Klaynos]

Without maths it's almost impossible to do good comparisons. Certainly impossible to do ones where the proposal can be held to account and not just squirm out with a "I didn't mean that".

 

Therefore to answer your prove me wrong request would require you to formulate your idea mathematically.

 

Having said that, your initial comment of electron spin causing energy level changes is just wrong. That's not what happens. Additionally photon emission due to energy level change does not cause the atom to spin. It is also worth noting that when talking about subatomic particles spin normally referres to the intrinsic property of spin not a physical rotation.

 

I stopped reading after that I'm afraid.

[Strange]

so it's a pretty basic question. Is there any research that can prove my hypothesis completely wrong? so atoms all have electrons and i believe these electrons have a spin that can make electrons move to an outer energy level and then back when it releases a photon causing the atom itself to spin and thus change state of matter in some cases due to the release of thermal energy because of the kinetic energy. The spin of the atom's electron causes the atom to change energy levels this can also happen when you rub things together like two pieces of wood. this is my theory of friction and electrons and how they interact with matter. When electrons reach to the outermost energy level and cannot radiate then if more and more energy is applied would they become a neutron thus creating the unstable isotope. I don't know if this was enough detail to explain my theory please comment with what you think.

 

 

This is trivially shown to be wrong because it violates several conservation laws.

 

Also, making stuff up that has no evidence is not how science works. (But you do get kudos for calling it a hypothesis rather than a theory. Although it doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis. Because, you know, evidence.)

[Phi for All]

and basically i'm trying to make it make sense.

 

And the reason it's so hard is that you haven't studied these things formally, to learn how the best explanations for various phenomena are formulated to maximize their trustworthiness. You've cherry-picked what interests you, but that means you don't have the connective knowledge that allows a scientist to look for support in evidence, to ensure his observations tally with reality.

 

Science doesn't look for "proof", it looks for evidence that either supports or refutes. We aren't trying to prove anything.

 

We have to be careful with this concept of "making sense". Science tries to remove as much subjectivity from its processes as possible, and when you really boil it down, "making sense" means "it makes sense to me", which is terribly subjective. Unfortunately, many people equate "it makes sense to me" with "logic", another big mistake.

[Strange]

Secondly, can dark matter be a decaying form of dark energy like radioactive, but instead of alpha and beta particles.

 

Energy doesn't decay. It is a property of things, not a thing itself.

 

Also, there isn't any connection between dark energy and dark matter (beyond the similar names).

 

one more question is can anyone properly explain to me are physicists trying to relate weak force strong force and gravity and electromagnetic force together or to black matter?

 

The weak and electromagnetic forces are already unified at high enough energies (in the electroweak force). It is also assumed that the strong force will unify with these, for example in the extreme conditions in the early universe.

 

However, no one currently knows how these can be unified with gravity.

 

And none of this has any (direct) connection to dark matter.

 

also does every object that is in the 5 % of the objects that are actual matter have a gravitational field which sort of pushes against this dark energy

 

No.

[Markus Hanke]

please comment with what you think.

 

 

Based on what you have written here, what I think is that you know very little about quantum mechanics; as such you quite simply are not in a position to advance any meaningful "theories". What I suggest you should do is engage in a serious and very detailed study of existing quantum theory - this will put you in a position of knowledge and understanding, and that is the only position from which it is possible to make meaningful contributions to physics. Having imagination is great, and it is important, but in the context of physics it is useless without knowledge.

[hodge]

Proving you wrong is not the issue.

You must present an experiment/observation that (1) does not reject your hypothesis AND does reject standard hypothesis or (2) shows corresponsence with standard models plus explanation of a mysterious observation.

I would be nice if your model had some prediction of an observation that was later found.

It is not incumbent on others to disprove anything.