Final step towards the theory of everything, Do you know, that...

Perhaps I've just not looked hard enough, but all your posts are descriptions and pictures (often quite nice animations). Where's the maths? A theory counts for nothing if you haven't got the mathematical machinary behind it, which can then be applied to situations to get precise experimental predictions.

Where are the equations in your theory which explain electron+positron -> muon + antimuon scattering? I'll settle for the non-relativistic limit.

Where are the equations of gravity which reduce to the Newtonian limit and give precise light bending predictions for the Sun?

I don't want any vague descriptions or diagrams or animations, all I want is equations and perhaps a quick description of how they differ from their quantum field theory or relativistic counterparts (ie Feynman rules and linearised Schwarzchild metric).

Otherwise all your 'theory' (even if it's an outline of a theory) comes down to vague ideas and pretty pictures, which equates to nothing.

Well, the above spoken is definitely true. But for example we have at least three or four theories, quite well supported by math (the M-theory, LQG theory, twistor, Yilmaz's and Heim's theory) - but most of them isn't able to compute or at least to predict anything useful, the testable the less (with the honorable exception of ingenious Heim's theory). Nevertheless, for practical understanding of principles and explanation of postulates of quantum mechanic and relativity theory all these theories are pretty useless, because they're using it massively - but not deriving it. In some cases these theories are even incompatible mutually (for example, the superstring/M-theory is using hidden dimensions, whereas the LQG not). It's obvious, the math formalism isn't any guidance for validity here, as the intuitive understanding of reality always comes first.

But it's not true, the Aether wave theory totally lacks the mathematical model - I'm just unable to express it due the recursive nature of it. But it isn't problem for numerical solution, which is described for example here. After all, I don't understand, why to exclude interesting ideas just because lack of formalism. Am I the only one mathematician, which can formalize the whole theory? Of course not. Even the classical theories were formalized for years by different people (Klein, Gordon, Schrondinger, Dirac, Feynman...).

Hehe, are you able to compute the boiling point of osmium using a relativity theory? No?!? So why to deal with such crap at all? Please, consider for example, the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev was able to estimate it in 1903 without using relativity or quantum theory, or even without any knowledge about atom structure (the atom nuclei existence was discovered later..). Why to bother by such theories, after than...

What's wrong on such way of thinking?

There is no direct experimental evidence of dark matter. Dark Matter is merely a convenient explanation for getting certain equations to produce better results.

OK, now I know you're full of it. When my friend and I saw that little clip we immediately said "bullshit!"

We did the math, and *generously* approximated that situation. We set each of those cubes to be 5 kg (11 pounds!), the weights on the bar to be 0.1 kg each (their weight actually doesn't matter in this calculation), and set the cubes to be 5 centimeters apart from each of the weights on the approximated, 30 centimeter rod. Using a program to simulate the acceleration caused by these weights, we found that after 30 minutes, the rod would rotate only by about 1.479 degrees (and keep in mind this is under ideal circumstances with absolutely no friction). In that video of yours, the rod rotates in 5 minutes so quickly and with such a force that it hits the cubes that are about 30 degrees away from the rod, and even bounces off!!

Oh, and you still have yet to comment on how it's possible for most of the anti-matter in the universe to be contained as dark matter, and yet still account for symmetry when 23% of the universe is dark matter, and only 4% is regular matter.

How can you even hope to create a TOE when you think that gravity works like this:



Edit: I originally said that the rod in the clip hit the cubes in 15 minutes (because about that time passes from when it starts moving to when it stops), but after viewing it frame by frame, it turns out that it actually hit it in 5 minutes!

This post has been edited by itistoday on Jun 19 2006, 06:34 AM

I cannot speak for the other theories, but string theory is begun as a quantum theory of 1 dimensional objects and derives general relativity (ie the Ricci scalar within the action) without it being put in. I was at a talk given by Michael Green last year and someone asked him why he thinks string theory is the way to go when it's still not giving experimental predictions. His answer was that if noone had every developed relativity, string theory would have predicted it (and all it's experimental predictions) with the minimal amount of effort.

What has that got to do with it? I wouldn't expect competing theories based on totally different starting ideas to suddenly reduce to one another. Quantum mechanics and relativity work extremely well in their own domains, but don't merge well. This doesn't mean they were useless, but just aren't theories of everything.

No, maths isn't everything, but without both maths and some physical interpretation you aren't getting far. Unfortunately this criticism can be leveled at string theory and QLG too. The problem with following physical intuition is that so many times it's been shown to be wrong. Just look at quantum mechanics. How much of that is physically intuitive? What about relativities 'If you move really fast, time slows down'. It is so far from physically intuitive the great minds of 1910 didn't believe it at all until experiment backed it up.

At least starting from a purely mathematical point of view you're being logically rigorous. You can see if your initial assumptions lead to logical conclusions. If you're using your physical intuition only you could start expecting things to happen which are logically completely incompatible with your inition assumptions.

I'm sorry, what? Care to explain that?

That's just a stupid response for a number of reasons. Firstly, relativity is nothing to do with chemistry. If I was going to use a current theory to attempt to compute that, I'd use quantum mechanics, because that's the theory which deals with those things. Secondly, how can you possibly expect to be on the road to a theory of everything when you cannot even model the simplest of subatomic reactions? That reaction is one of the first you learn to do upon learning quantum electrodynamics.

So you're saying "You don't need QED to work out some chemistry property, so why use it at all?" Sure you can use chemistry and basic physics knowledge to work out elemental properties, but then what do you use to work out all the interactions between electrons, photons, quarks, Z bosons, gluons etc? How can you possible pretend to be working on a theory for everything when you've essentially just said "I'm ignoring all particle physics".

"Yeah, it's a theory of everything.... except for particle physics......and relativity...... and electromagnetism.......and thermodynamics.........and fluid dynamics. Actually it does nothing."

So that's what that animation is about. I was wondering. It's clearly bull like you say. If the animation was done in real time and the force of gravity was that strong, then I could accept the way the rod bounces, but considering it takes 5 minutes it wouldn't have built up that much momentum. Your simulation proves it.

Optical lensing effects aren't "certain equations", but directly observable phenomena.

Well, the true is, that change in one order makes no problem, until we make an exact estimation. After all, I suppose, most the gravitation pressure is caused by the cloud of dark matter alone, because it's having at least ten times greater mass, then the observable matter surrounded by them.

Just because the observable matter forms only 4% of matter, the composition of Dark matter can balance the CPT violation easily, if it will contain, says 9% matter and 14% antimatter.

I can explain you our problem in more illustrative way: for example in this new you can read, some scientists are deriving from the gravitation affects of Dark Matter the origin of galaxies and I'm wasting time here by sterile discussions, whether Dark Matter exists at all. Please, try to follow the development of mainstream theories at least, maybe my theory will become more clear for you, after than. If you don't believe in Dark Matter and it's gravity, please dispute such stance outside of scope of this topic, as my theory has no problem with the Dark matter existence and it's behavior.

Those can be caused by a myriad of things. When I said "certain equations", I was referring to those that predict the rotation rate of galaxies. Again, no direct evidence for Dark Matter has been found. It's simply just one possible explanation for these situations, and I just think it's our understanding that's flawed.

Well, the true is, that change in one order makes no problem, until we make an exact estimation. After all, I suppose, most the gravitation pressure is caused by the cloud of dark matter alone, because it's having at least ten times greater mass, then the observable matter surrounded by them.

How is that a response to my point that you clearly demonstrated a terrible understanding of how gravity works?

Eh, w/e, that's a stretch. I still think we'd be seeing more explosions in that case. Plus, Dark Matter's composition is unknown, and it's definitely different in some way from regular "matter", so to say it's 9% (I think you meant 39% of Dark Matter) matter is pretty outrageous.

This post has been edited by itistoday on Jun 19 2006, 06:28 PM

Please, define the "direct evidence", after than. Do you know, nobody did see the electron directly? By such way, the direct evidence of electron is still missing...

Lol - it seems, you know perfectly, how gravity works - so can you correct me? I'm curious..

Please, stop with such cheap demagogy, which disproves anything, in fact. I can know nothing about gravity, nevertheless my theory can be even perfectly right, just because even a blind chicken can find a kernel sometimes (and vice versa, even Nobel priced genius can be wrong). After all, if by some physicist quoted in relevant source the gravity inside of dark matter cloud can create galaxy, why it shouldn't make the vacuum somewhat more dense here? Considering the fact, we can even observe such effect directly by telescope as gravitational lensing effects?

You "arguments" are funny, as you don't know about dark matter too much obviously, if you're refuting to take account into it. Or do you offer some consistent explanation of gravitational lens effects, structure of microwave background fluctuations, Pioneer anomaly, spectrum shift in galaxy core or the anomaly in rotation curves of it?



Please consider, if you'll ignore my arguments repeatedly, I'll ignore that yours next time.

Try to estimate the explosion, when some anti-neutrino will met the Earth and the probability of such phenomena. Each second you're passed through by trillions of such neutrinos coming from solar flux. Please consider, the axions are even the much more subtle and more weakly interacting particles, than neutrinos.



You can bring up the vacuum as intimate dense mixture of virtual anti-symmetric particle-antiparticle pairs. Are you really believe, you'll able to determine, if some inequality in symmetry occurs here by some explosions?

The issue of Dark Matter is definitely beyond experimental verification. It was postulated to simply make the Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity equations work for the rotational effects seen in large galaxies but not in smaller rotating structures.

Yes, all experiments are based on indirect effects. But we accept those theories that explain those effects when they are consistent and concise. n Dark matter wasn't derived from mathematical analysis like the elkectrons and anti-matter etc. but was simply introduced to "fix" a discrepancy of gravity that effects 95% of the mass in the universe. This seems quite ad hoc.

Indeed there is a new theory that is consistent with general relativity that accounts for this mass rotational anamoly through an adjustment in the graviational effects during large accelerations. This new constant based on acceleration is actually deduced from the rate of accleration of the universe in relation to its mass content so it is a real quantity. They theory is known as MOND but it has recently been revised to be completely lorentz invariant and experimentally consistent on all levels unlike general relativity. It even explains the Pioneer anamoly.

In terms of a theory that has no mathematical reasoning, it canot be taken seriously. The universe is clearly counter-intuitive and it is only through mathematical reasoning can we identify the concepts that govern the universe. All of the mathematics in physics, except for string theory, was discovered during pure analysis of numbers, or Number theory, which then was shown to have an exact correlation to basic physical processes. The examples of endless: fourier analysis, lagrangians, rienmann geometry, prime number theorems, ..... This is known as the "remarkable effectiveness of mathematics."

Therefore, it is fair to say that our direct physical senses are not capable of revealing the true nature of the universe. Neuroscience tells us that our senses do not create exact replicas of the external inputs, but rather judgments of reality based on a myriad of factors ranging from past experiences, to current emotional states, expectations etc. This was known as the problem of induction many years before neuroscience. Thus, through our intellects and the use of mathematical insight, we can discover those true concepts that underlie the universe, in a similar fashion as Plato described.

This is not to say that the AWTheory is invalid, but it must be mathematically formulated. Mathematics is simply the science of quantities and the universe is assumed to be understandable or quantitfiable, thus the need of mathematics. This theory is quite similar to the Bohm-deBroglie pilot wave theory of quantum mechanics as well as other Aether theories. I agree there must be some basic 'substratum" of the universe with a preferred rest frame. Even general relativity is basically an aether theory and in some senses has a preferrable frame of reference, that of the gravitational field. Finally, recent advances in quantum matter states like superfluids are found to me able to mode the physical universe quite well, and revive the concept of an ideal or incompressible fluid where light can be transmitted. I suggest that should be where you focus your attention since many of the mathematical results can be intuitively grasped through analogy.

Meaning that no dark matter has been produced in particle accelerators. These things can produce so many different particles, including anti-matter, yet no dark matter has ever been seen.

Lol - it seems, you know perfectly, how gravity works - so can you correct me? I'm curious..

I did correct you. You said you could create a "kitchen" gravity experiment, and showed an animation that I proved to be bullshit.

Again, that can be caused by many other things other than 'dark matter'. All I'm saying, is that I'm skeptical about dark matter because of the way scientists define it. It was added only to 'fix' equations.

I'm just saying it's quite possible that instead of 'dark matter', our equations could be improved to produce the correct results instead of resorting to it. But sure, I'm not saying that dark matter isn't a possibility, I just personally think it's a rather ridiculous one.

As far as I understand, neutrinos cannot form massive groups like the ones regular protons, neutrons, etc form. Therefore they are only found individually, and so therefore cannot account for 'dark matter'. Remember, for every proton there should be an anti-proton. As you describe it, your dark matter would have to be made out of these, and that would create massive explosions if it ever came in contact with regular matter. Neutrinos have nothing to do with it, because they don't really do anything themselves.

Edit: Additionally, anti-matter made of anti-protons, etc. cannot be the "stuff" of dark matter by definition because it would interact with electromagnetic radiation; i.e. emit and/or reflect photons.

This post has been edited by itistoday on Jun 20 2006, 05:47 PM

Zephir, can you please explain what you mean by 'recursive nature' when you talk about the mathematics of your theory and why you cannot write it down.

Of course. At first, such recursive wave equation is of infinite order, so you should solve it in infinite number of dimensions. It's not so great problem from practical point of view, because u can start to solve it using finite number of dimension numerically (the 12 - 16D should be good approximation of reality, because the energy density in higher dimensions can be neglected at the first glance), but I don't know, how to handle with partial differential equations (PDE) of infinite order.

At second, the energy density of solution appears as the parameter of the PDE itself (mass density of string) - it means, it's strongly nonlinear and leads to the sparse system of infinite number of PDE. Try to imagine the derivation of wave equation for N-dimensional string, the mass density corresponds it's energy density through all its dimensions! I suppose, for 4-dimensional case the solution corresponds the Dirac's equation, which is trivial (quantum) example of such system, when higher dimensional terms are neglected.

Maybe some math formalism exists using modular forms, but I'm not so good in high math. If you're interested about, you can start to deal with such system, as it's quite interesting even from mathematical perspective (by my knowledge, such system was never postulated, solved the less). From my point of view, the analytical solution has no significance for me, because the iterative numerical solution of such system is quite simple (though computatively intensive for higher number of arbitrary dimensions) and I'm describing it here, for example.

Black hole findings yield new mysteries: Black holes exist in at least two different sizes, according to astronomers. Stellar black holes, formed from the death and gravitational collapse of a massive star, weigh in at 10 to 20 solar masses. Dwarfing the stellar type, super-massive black holes hold millions to billions the mass of our Sun, and lurk at the centers of many galaxies. It remains unclear whether a middleweight class exists, as some astronomers have suggested.

By Aether Wave theory the bigger black holes are so called primordial black holes resulting from collisions of newly created vacuum spherical zones during inflation period. They can contain a weekly interacting particles (WIPs), like neutrinos, axions and even gravitational singularity at it's center and maybe even daughter Universes in it! Just a single or just few such black holes can exist at the center of single galaxy as the residuum of quasars. The very similar process appears during condensation of so called supercritical vapor, during this the intimate mixture less and more dense phase appears, similar to foam. Such foam is heavy, so it induces a further phase transition in spherically growing zones like crystalline aggregates fast growing from over-saturated solution.



Whenever such spherical zones met together, an immense collapse occurs, which will lead into formation of globules of heavily compressed hot matter, so called quasars. After leveling of pressure and establishing of equilibrium, the most of quasars matter is radiated back again into vacuum, where it forms an interstellar gas, the source of galaxy material. The more massive vacuum, the energy of which isn't able to form a particles of observable matter is forming an invisible dark matter streaks. The quasars after cooling and radiating of excessive matter are forming a black holes residues at the centers of most of newly created galaxies.

On the other hand, the lightweight black holes are composed just from quark-gluon plasma and neutrinos and they cannot contain a singularity inside. They're formed by gravitational collapse of massive stars, mostly in binary-star system, whenever the second member is able to supply a sufficient amount of matter. The properties of such black holes are rather close to dense neutron and quark stars and they're quite radiative (co called grey holes due the strong emission of neutron and other WIPs, which can pass through event horizon of such BH's freely.

Zephir!
Here is another presentation to complement your Aether.
Matter is made of waves
jal

Just a bit naive, 'cause the electron doesn't look like this...



This post has been edited by Zephir on Jul 15 2006, 04:24 PM

Real Time Relativity is a computer simulator program, that allows the user to fly through a virtual world governed by relativistic physics.



Here you can see some similar real time relativistic animations & rendering.

This post has been edited by Zephir on Aug 10 2006, 08:35 PM