Exactly what is theory all about?

[Doctordick]

Every theory I have ever heard is an attempt to explain something. It seems to me that the first issue is to understand the nature of an explanation. We can start with a very simple statement: all "explanations" require something which is to be explained. I don't care what it is that is to be explained, it can be categorized as information.

It follows (as the night the day) that "explanation" is something which is done to (or for) information. It follows that the first question which must be answered is, exactly what does an explanation do to (or for) information? If you cannot answer that question, you are wasting everyone's time.

It is my humble opinion that what an explanation does for information is that it provides expectations of subsets of that information. That is, it seems to me that if all the information is known, then any questions about the information can be answered (that could be regarded as the definition of "knowing"). On the other hand, if the information is understood (via that explanation we are all attempting to present), then questions about the information can be answered given only limited or incomplete knowledge of the underlying information: i.e., limited subsets of the information. What I am saying is that understanding implies it is possible to predict expectations for information not known. The explanation constitutes a method which provides one with those rational expectations for unknown information consistent with what is known. (If it isn't consistent with what is known, it is quite reasonable to egnored it without examination.)

If there is anyone out there who thinks that proposition is flawed, please let me know about it.

I am only trying to find a starting place for rational communication. If you agree with me, give me a little support .

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Alkatran]

Or, in short: Some things you know, some things you don't. Find patterns to know more than you know.

Doesn't have quite the same "omph", does it?
And now I'm thinking about compression.


Great post.

 

[DrChinese]

Absolutely! A theory becomes useful because we don't know everything there is to know about something. If we did, a theory would not provide any utility.

Assuming a classical scenario in which there are a large number of variables of a deterministic system and we only know few values: a theory may in some cases give answers to questions we might not otherwise be able to answer. In this case, the theory is useful. Theories that provide greater accuracy or require fewer input variables are superior to other theories.

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

Michio Kaku gives some excellent guidelines for constructing a unified theory:

http://www.mkaku.org/articles/proposal_uft.shtml

What to Do If You Have a Proposal for the Unified Field Theory?
..and what not to do


By Michio Kaku

[...]

 

[Vern]

I agree; great reminder ! I think Karl Popper had similar ideas.

Now if we could condense that down into a couple of sentences and hang it onto our theory making machine it would be even greater

Vern

 

[Chronos]

No disagreement here. I think in terms of observation and theory, where observation is the independent variable and theory is the dependent variable. Confusion creeps in when we attempt to shoe-horn observations to fit theory. We need not drop and run from our precious theories at the first hint of contradicting observation, but, should do a better job explaining the observations that do not quite fit. It is a safe bet we will not learn much from observations that perfectly fit theory. Most, if not all new knowledge resides in the observations that don't quite fit. We have probably already found most observations that fly in the face of everything we think we know.

 

[Doctordick]

Well, surprise, surprise! I have received unbelievable agreement! Apparently, everyone who has chosen to respond to my post has no serious disagreements with what I said. That (for me) is a singular achievement; however, I do note that no "mentor" has chosen to respond. How am I supposed to judge this particular fact? Either they agree (in which case, kindness would push them to say so) or they disagree (in which case, their expertise should push them to put forward their complaints). I can only conclude that I have stepped outside their expertise and they fear to comment.

Since I appear to be the "expert" on the issue under discussion, let me proceed and see if agreement can be obtained to the next level. Will you all allow me to define "An explanation", from the abstract perspective, to be a method of obtaining expectations from given known information?

From that perspective, it seems to me that any explanation must possesses two fundamental components: the information to be explained and the mechanism used to generate those expectations.

Please, if any of you have disagreement with that suggestion, please let me know.

Have fun – Dick

 

[Doctordick]

What? Have I exceeded everyone's attention span already?

 

[JoeWade]

yes, unless you have a point, what you are musing is already "instinctual" to the human mind.

we're not seeing the reason you're fascinated with this topic.

in other words, you're providing a lot of explanation for something that doesn't need that much explanation.

not sure where that fits in your paradigm...

 

[jcsd]

Theory is about, subjective statements, wild speculation and unsupported assertions. Any good theeory should contain the incorrectly spelt name of a famous physicst and the less maths and the more vague philosophizing the better.

 

[Chronos]

Michio Kaku gives some excellent guidelines for constructing a unified theory:
http://www.mkaku.org/articles/proposal_uft.shtml

I entirely agree with Dr. Kaku. Good post Russ

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

What? Have I exceeded everyone's attention span already?

Here is a reference thread for everyone interested Dr. D:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=23266

I will suggest that what an explanation does for information is that it provides expectations of subsets of that information. That is, it seems to me that if all the information is known, then any questions about the information can be answered. That could be regarded as the definition of "knowing". On the other hand, if the information is understood, then questions about the information can be answered given only limited or incomplete knowledge of the underlying information: i.e., limited subsets of the information. What I am saying is that understanding implies it is possible to predict expectations for information not known. The explanation constitutes a method which provides one with those rational expectations for unknown information consistent with what is known.

Thus I define "an explanation", from the abstract perspective, to be a method of obtaining expectations from given known information. It follows that a model of an explanation must possesses two fundamental components: the information to be explained and the mechanism used to generate expectations for possible additional information.

The first fundamental component is, "what is to be explained"; thus our first problem is to find an abstract way of representing anybody of information. Let "A" be what is to be explained and proceed with the following primitive definitions:

1. A is a set.

2. B is a set, defined to be an unordered finite collection of elements of A

3. C is defined to be a finite collection of sets B.

[...]

 

[Chronos]

I find no flaw in what DrD said.

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

I find no flaw in what DrD said.

In that same thread Dr. D derives the fundamental equation:

It follows that our model may state that the Probability of any specific B is given by

$$P(\vec{x},t) = \vec{\Psi}^{\dagger}(\vec{x},t)\cdot\vec{\Psi}(\vec{x},t)dv$$​

without introducing any limitations whatsoever on the nature of the explanation being modeled. The $\vec{x}$ stands for the complete collection of x and $\tau$ defining that specific B. The "dot" indicates a scalar product, $\vec{\Psi}$ is to be properly "normalized" and "dv" is dxd$\tau$. Since no constraint whatsoever has been placed on the problem by this notation, it follows that absolutely any explanation may be modeled by the function $\vec{\Psi}(\vec{x},t)$ where the argument is the collection of points which are mapped from the elements of the appropriate B (it should be understood that "B" is a reference to a specific expectation).

Dr. D appears to agree with special relativity yet he has said that general relativity is not necessarily true.

There are no tensor equations, thus no coordinate independence. Then again Dr. D states that the above equation can model any explanation.

Interesting...

 

[DrChinese]

Will you all allow me to define "An explanation", from the abstract perspective, to be a method of obtaining expectations from given known information?

From that perspective, it seems to me that any explanation must possesses two fundamental components: the information to be explained and the mechanism used to generate those expectations.

Have fun – Dick

I think I agree with this, tell me if my terminology is diverging...

a) A theory is a useful model of a subset of reality.
b) [Input variables] + [Theory] -> [Output Variables]
c) It is implied that there are variables on the Input side that are held constant or are unknown.
d) It is implied that there are variables on the output side that are not explained.
e) Theories can then be compared based on Input Variable requirements, scope of Output Variables, and in some cases on relative accuracy.

Am I close? :)

 

[Doctordick]

I think I agree with this, tell me if my terminology is diverging...

a) A theory is a useful model of a subset of reality.

I would have to agree with that 100%.

b) [Input variables] + [Theory] -> [Output Variables]
c) It is implied that there are variables on the Input side that are held constant or are unknown.

I would say that the "Input variables" are either known or at least presumed.

d) It is implied that there are variables on the output side that are not explained.

I would say that the "->" stands for the explanation. The "Output variables" are the prediction of the theory under the assumption that the "Input variables" are what is known.

e) Theories can then be compared based on Input Variable requirements, scope of Output Variables, and in some cases on relative accuracy.

I would say, in all cases, on their relative accuracy.

Am I close? :)

About as close as one can get at this point.

I am sorry but it appears that my presence on this forum is in the process of being terminated. I have already been constrained to only post on the "Theory Development sub-forum" and now the privilege of starting a thread has been rescinded. I also note that this is the only open thread started by me which has not been locked. When they lock this thread, the thing is all over. Anyone who wants to talk to me is welcome to e-mail me at "doctordick01" at yahoo.com.

The reason for this exclusion is apparently justified by the published standards:

1) Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. That is, if you have any arguments with the adequacy of those standards, go away.

2) There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. That is, those discussions must acquiesce to the present interpretation of the proper way to attack those questions.

3) Posts or threads of an overly speculative nature will be moved to the Theory Development subforum without notice, where discussion may continue in quarantine. That is, we want total control of anything that is inconsistent with the currently accepted catechism of "Physics".

4) Forum staff may choose to lock threads in the Theory Development subform when they decide the topic has run its course. What does this mean? That the mentors no longer feel adequate to the defense of positions against what is being posted?

5) Advertisements of personal theories and unfounded challenges of mainstream science will not be tolerated anywhere on the site, including the Theory Development subforum. Now this one is being used against my posts under the assumption that what I am posting is "theoretical" and thus an "unfounded challenge of mainstream science". That is, they know what is correct and they are not going to countenance any pressure to think!

6) Users may not create threads in the Theory Development subforum. Now they can officially fix it as the "Nuts are us" sub-forum!

With regard to the standards published, I didn't intend to be "defensive and combative". I was only trying to get a little attention to the issues from the more educated members of the forum. If you have followed very many threads on the forum, you should realize that the educational level on the "nuts are us" forum (a term used by the mentors themselves, not invented by me) is quite low. There is a strong possibility that the mentors (plus a few minority posters) are the only people with sufficient understanding of fundamental mathematics to understand what I am doing. I really have been drawn to the opinion that they are not interested in thinking but rather in getting ego boosts by pointing out the intellectual inadequacy of the people who post here.

It would appear that my efforts to reach anyone on this forum has effectively come to an end. I guess I have just pissed too many people off. I will continue to read and post to this thread until they lock it.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

I am sorry but it appears that my presence on this forum is in the process of being terminated. I have already been constrained to only post on the "Theory Development sub-forum" and now the privilege of starting a thread has been rescinded.

[...]

I really have been drawn to the opinion that they are not interested in thinking but rather in getting ego boosts by pointing out the intellectual inadequacy of the people who post here.

I cannot post a new topic either. But it probably is not a matter of "ego-boosts" Dr. D. It is probably a matter of worry over the possibility of being overrun by "nutz & cranks"

As far as not being able to post a new topic, I think it is unfair! I love to brainstorm! But of course, beggars can't be choosers

Now back to the question of coordinate independence Dr. D...

 

[Eric England]

I had lost my ability to do anything the other day.

I was Erck, now I'm using my real name.

It is allowing me to do everything but post a new thread.

What's that all about.

As my old username I posted one of the most popular ones on the forum... "what is nothing?"

What will make me worthy of starting another thread if I want to.

What's going on here... could a moderator please explain.

 

[chroot]

We are attempting to maintain high standards of academic quality on this site. In other words, we do not permit personal theories, attacks on established science that are not immaculently in accordance with the scientific method, and so on. We encourage you to continue your discussions elsewhere. Two suggestions are the Usenet newsgroup sci.physics and the forum www.sciforums.com.

- Warren

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

We are attempting to maintain high standards of academic quality on this site. In other words, we do not permit personal theories, attacks on established science that are not immaculently in accordance with the scientific method, and so on. We encourage you to continue your discussions elsewhere. Two suggestions are the Usenet newsgroup sci.physics and the forum www.sciforums.com.

- Warren

Doctordick appears to have derived some very abstract ideas, that would meet almost anyone's criteria for "high academic standards". Yet those who would be the most qualified here at PF remain silent and quietly attempt to
brush Dr. D aside.

What's up with that?

 

[russ_watters]

Doctordick appears to have derived some very abstract ideas, that would meet almost anyone's criteria for "high academic standards". Yet those who would be the most qualified here at PF remain silent and quietly attempt to
brush Dr. D aside.

What's up with that?[emphasis added]

You answered your own question. His abstract ideas, quality aside, are largely unscientific.

 

[Doctordick]

Unscientific?

You answered your own question. His abstract ideas, quality aside, are largely unscientific.

I would love to see your definition of "scientific".

If you had the attention span to follow the arguments given in the presentation at:

http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm

You would understand the fact that, under the definitions of the concepts I lay down, the equation I deduce:

$$\left\{\sum_i\vec{\alpha_i}\,\cdot\,\vec{\nabla_i}\,+\, \sum_{i\not=j}\beta_{ij}\delta(\vec{x_i}\,-{\vec{x_j}})\right\} \vec{\Psi}\,\,=\,\,K\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\vec{\Psi}\,= \,iKm\vec{\Psi}$$
​

constrained by the requirement that

$$\sum_i\vec{\alpha_i}\,\vec{\Psi}\,=\,\sum_{i\not=j}\beta_{ij}\,\vec{\Psi}\, =\,0.$$
​

must yield the correct probability of any specific element of any conceivable explanation of anything! That is a fact and not an opinion. All it takes to understand the fact that it is not an opinion is sufficient care to step through the logical arguments presented.

It follows that any explanation of anything must have, in its foundation, elements which obey my fundamental equation. That is not a trivial statement. A careful examination of the solutions to that equation shows that it is an extremely powerful tool.

Nowhere have I presented anything theoretical. What I have presented is nothing more than an alternate perspective on the nature of reality; a new paradigm.

The fact that the paradigm is 100% consistent with what is known of the universe flows from two directions:

1.) The abstract proof that, under my specific definitions, the equation must be valid; it cannot be false. That proof is given at the site cited above.

2.) The solutions of the equation which I have managed to find. Which are presented starting at:

http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/reality/CHAP_II.htm

These are facts which the scientific community is, in general, ignorant of purely because of their failure to look. And there is nothing "unscientific" about my presentation. The fault lies almost completely with the non-scientific bias of the academic community.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Eric England]

In a section called "Theory Development"... who's to say personal theories are not allowed? Who's to say what "scientific" means?

Isn't that bordering on the narrow-mindedness that new theories never spring from?

Who's to say that logic isn't the root of all inquiry?

Who's to say that all that has come before, must be followed, in order to make progress?

Sure, there's people of different levels of intelligence on this forum, but I fail to see what that has to do with anything.

Unless of course, this is becoming a private club of people who agree with each other.

In that case, please remove me from your list.

 

[chroot]

We reserve the right to prohibit any sort of discussion we, the staff of PF, want to prohibit. You accepted these terms when you registered. If you want to discuss personal theories, you must do it elsewhere.

- Warren

 

[Eric England]

Warren, I guess I misunderstood what "Theory Development" means.

I gather it means "Theory Analyzation"... of existing theories.

Where do people go who have personal theories and would like to disucss them?

Is there a place on this forum for such a thing?

 

[Doctordick]

Warren, I guess I misunderstood what "Theory Development" means.

I gather it means "Theory Analyzation"... of existing theories.

Where do people go who have personal theories and would like to disucss them?

Is there a place on this forum for such a thing?

Apparently not! I would agree with everything you have said except for the statement you put forth that, with regard to the powers that be on this forum, "it means 'Theory Analyzation"... of existing theories." Replace "existing theories" with "accepted existing theories".

I hold that the truth is that they prefer to have a "nuts are us" forum which they can use to boost their egos. Not one of them has come up with a single error in the logic I present and they have utterly no interest in following my presentation at all. That's the way the world works guys.

Russell Rierson,

I certainly agree with Dr. Kaku and, were I asked the same question I would be moved to give the same answer; however, he misses a subtle but very important point. If a presentation is truly original, one runs into another problem: the journal editors just don't know what to do with you. One of their requirements is to send your entry to some referees. That requires them to make a judgement as to what the subject of the paper is. Sometimes that judgement can be more difficult than it appears.

Back in the middle 1980's, I submitted my work to a number of physics journals. Every one of them rejected the submission on the grounds that the subject was not of interest to their journal and I should try another journal. I don't think the submission ever reached a referee. The physicists said what I was doing was philosophy; the philosophers said what I was doing was mathematics and the mathematicians said it was physics.

That's why I laid it away and forgot about it. I ran across it one day about four years ago when cleaning the attic. After I read it (having not seen it for almost twenty years) I was moved to comment on its not being published to my son-in-law. He suggested I publish it on the internet. I was interested enough to translate it into html but, at this point am convinced it was really a waste of time. I don't think anyone with any decent understanding of fundamental physics reads these things.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[russ_watters]

In a section called "Theory Development"... who's to say personal theories are not allowed? Who's to say what "scientific" means?

Isn't that bordering on the narrow-mindedness that new theories never spring from?

Who's to say that logic isn't the root of all inquiry?

To be a little more specific than warren, the scientific method is pretty well established. In the real world, scientists have to follow if they want to be taken seriously. And who'se to say you should follow it here? Well - we are.

Warren, I guess I misunderstood what "Theory Development" means.

I gather it means "Theory Analyzation"... of existing theories.

Where do people go who have personal theories and would like to disucss them?

Is there a place on this forum for such a thing?

Actually, its the word "theory" that you misunderstand. People are quite welcome to discuss personal theories here. The problem is that very little that is posted here qualifies as actual theories. Most is idle speculation not based in reality.

For more, read up on http://plantphys.info/plants_human/scimeth.html . Follow it and you'll be fine here.

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

I certainly agree with Dr. Kaku and, were I asked the same question I would be moved to give the same answer; however, he misses a subtle but very important point. If a presentation is truly original, one runs into another problem: the journal editors just don't know what to do with you. One of their requirements is to send your entry to some referees. That requires them to make a judgement as to what the subject of the paper is. Sometimes that judgement can be more difficult than it appears.

Back in the middle 1980's, I submitted my work to a number of physics journals. Every one of them rejected the submission on the grounds that the subject was not of interest to their journal and I should try another journal. I don't think the submission ever reached a referee. The physicists said what I was doing was philosophy; the philosophers said what I was doing was mathematics and the mathematicians said it was physics.

That's why I laid it away and forgot about it. I ran across it one day about four years ago when cleaning the attic. After I read it (having not seen it for almost twenty years) I was moved to comment on its not being published to my son-in-law. He suggested I publish it on the internet. I was interested enough to translate it into html but, at this point am convinced it was really a waste of time. I don't think anyone with any decent understanding of fundamental physics reads these things.

Have fun -- Dick

http://www.mkaku.org/articles/proposal_uft.shtml

Michio Kaku:

3) Remember that your theory will receive more credibility if your theory builds on top of previous theories, rather than making claims like “Einstein was wrong! ” For example, our current understanding of the quantum theory and relativity, although incomplete, still gives us a framework for which we have not seen any experimental deviation.

Dr. D appears to have built his theory on top of previous theories also!

Michio Kaku:

6) Most important, try to formulate an experiment that can test your idea. All science is based on reproducible results. No matter how outlandish your idea is, it must be accepted if it holds up experimentally. So try to think up an experiment which will distinguish your result from others. But remember, your theory has to explain the experiments that have already been done, which vindicate General Relativity and the quantum theory.

Is this the problem? Dr. D hasn't formulated an experimental test for his theory?


http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/reality/CHAP_II.htm

Dr. D:

I have shown that any proposed algorithm capable of answering meaningful questions about reality within my entirely general model must obey a rather simple equation. I have further shown that my model corresponds to the common picture of reality in sufficient detail to map ordinary anthropomorphic experience directly into my model: i.e., classical mechanics.

In effect, I have shown that all conceivable universes may be seen as a three dimensional space occupied by objects which are required by definition to obey classical mechanics in the classical limit. What I have shown can be taken in two different ways. One can see the result as demonstrating that our classical view of the universe (a three dimensional space occupied by objects which obey classical mechanics) is entirely general and capable of representing any conceivable universe or one can view my results as demonstrating that the fact that classical mechanics is true by definition and that no classical experiment tells us anything about the universe except perhaps that our definitions are self consistent.

With regard to the second viewpoint, if one takes the position that the job of a research scientist is to search out the rules which separate the "true" universe from all possible universes, then no classical experiment can provide any guidance on the subject whatsoever. Classical mechanics is itself a tautology.

I find the following Dr. D conclusion to be extremely interesting. It seems that there must be a way of testing this conclusion!

http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/reality/CHAP_III.htm

Dr. D:

Finally, and perhaps the single most significant result of this Chapter, is that when we used a changing speed of light (refraction) to explain general relativity, we discovered that the relativistic distortions in our geometry vanished. This implies that in my model one can define a rigid object in an accelerating system. Since almost all our experimental observations are based on measuring devices which have "rigid" components, Einstein's refusal to allow us to even define rigid objects throws a wrench into the whole field of physics.

Though reducing gravity to a pseudo force via geometric effects is a nice exercise, I would also like to point out that it does not necessarily lead to the most convenient geometry. In fact, as may be seen above, the compulsion to make the speed of light constant in all frames is actually the source of the complexity of general relativity. If we relax that constraint (which is easy as time is not a measurable variable anyway) we can attribute gravity to a refractive effect and return to a Euclidean geometry, which is probably the single most convenient geometry conceivable.

Is it mathematically possible to maintain background independence and retain a Euclidean geometry?

 

[JoeWade]

i don't quite understand what's the point of having a theory development section at all if people can't start threads that are speculative and innovative.

thumbs down. I'll see you guys somewhere else i guess

 

[DrChinese]

I would like to weigh in on the subject. I personally feel like I have gained from the discussions with DoctorDick presented in Theory Development. I have interacted in the past with many other people in the Theory Development forum. Most of the threads are mindless exercises in denial of known phenomena. On the other hand, DoctorDick is raising some worthy issues even if his style is somewhat unorthodox. I realize that sometimes any theory discussions seem somewhat circular. But I think these are some of the better ones I have seen.

As I see DoctorDick's essential hypothesis, time as a component should always be related to its local reference frame and calculated as such - which yields results which are identical to observations in most cases but potentially could be different in testable situations. He is exploring the relevance of this hypothesis by asking the nature and purpose of theory itself. That seems reasonable to me personally.

As long as the overall tone remains positive (I know this is sometimes on the borderline) then I hope they can continue until they have had a chance to run their course. As a comparison, the "New Theory of Light" thread has completely lost any connection to reality. At least DoctorDick is not denying (in face of counter-evidence) well tested areas of science as Andrew Gray does.

Warren, Russ, I know you have your work cut out for you when it approaches the gray area and I fully support your decisions regardless. Thanks for listening.

-DrChinese

 

[Eric England]

In my previous incarnation as "Erck"... I started the "What is nothing" thread.

So far it has over 8,000 views and 400 replies.

My point being that I took theory all the way back to beyond and before any theory in existence.

I did it for a very specifice reason.

I think I broke the rules by doing it.

I think Einstein broke the rules too.

(I'm not comparing myself)

Oh well.

(sometimes forums forget that crank posts can be easily overlooked by readers... they don't do any harm... trying to keep them from happening... can)

 

[Doctordick]

Response to a note!

This is in response to an e-mail message I received from chronos. I hope he will forgive me for posting my response. I feel the issues he brings up are exactly the issues most of the people here are having trouble with. In particular, the idea that I am presenting a theory which is the wrong perspective from the word go! I am presenting straight logical deduction only!

--- chronos wrote:

> Greetings again, Dick [pardon the informality]

There is nothing wrong with informality. Formality means following a prescribed procedure and using prescribed procedures implies lack of thought and we don't want to do that!

> The short and easy part of my 'bumps in the rug'
> deal with quantum physics.
> I pretty much understand and agree with your
> thoughts on relativity. I am,
> however, vaguely uncomfortable with the quantum
> physics implications.

First, I believe you are making a mistake in your understanding of what I am doing. You are presuming I am proposing a theory which I am not! What I am proposing is a more objective picture of what theories in general are talking about.

There are three very different aspects of quantum physics (or any science for that matter). First, there is the basis of the equations brought forth as the field of quantum physics. The route by which one arrives at these equations as rational representations of reality. Second, there is the interpretation of those equations. What the various terms represent and how one is to interpret the solutions of those equations. And finally, the actual solutions of the equations and comparison of those solutions to reality.

The second two are the central issue of the experiments. Given the interpretation of the relationships implied by the equations, one can solve the equations and check to see if consistency in interpretation agrees with reality. That operation is called an experiment.

My concern is almost entirely with the first aspect: the basis of the equations themselves. From my perspective, the experiments have already been done. If you want to understand the neatness of my attack, you must understand the standard foundations behind the quantum physics approach. This is hard to find in most texts.

The best reference I can come up with is Goldstein's "Classical Mechanics". If you follow the development of Hamilton's equations of motion through to Hamilton-Jacobi theory, the foundations of standard quantum mechanics become quite obvious. When I say the foundations are obvious, I mean that the fundamental equations come directly from sophisticated problem solution procedures of classical mechanics.

In glancing at the book, I have to quote Goldstein from the opening of the chapter on "The Hamilton Equations of Motion": "Nothing new is added to the physics involved; we simply gain another (and more powerful) method of working with the physical principles already established."

That is the issue of my work: "Nothing new is added to the physics involved (that is, other than removal of the conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics); we simply gain another (and more powerful: i.e., the conflict referred to is gone) method of working with the physical principles already established".

When Maxwell came up with his equations, a new solution appeared which was not available from the known relationships available prior to his act. Just for the fun of it, think about what the situation would have been if experimentalists had already discovered the existence of the "change in $\vec{E}$ produces $\vec{B}$ phenomena" (that is the required effect to produce radiation) and established light as an electromagnetic phenomena. Would that have made Maxwell's equations a waste of time?

The reduction of a complex situation to a simple relationship is always of value. If you read Chapter II and on of my presentation, I show that most of the fundamental equations of modern physics are approximations to my equation under exactly the approximations used to obtain those results by the physics community. Either what I say is true or false. If it is false please show me where I have made my error. If it is true, my picture is certainly much simpler than the standard picture.

> elaborate and propose an experiment. I do that all
> the time. If I dare
> propose a weird idea, the burden of proof is on me
> to convince everyone else
> without a grant or shred of support

Now you want an experiment. Well there does happen to be one (barring a specific error in my deductions). My solution to the problem of General Relativity yields a slightly different solution for a spherically symmetric gravitational field. Einstein's solution differs from Newton's by deviating from an inverse square field by a factor proportional to $\frac{2}{c^2} \phi$. My solution has all the terms produced by Einstein's theory plus one more term. My solution differs from Einstein's by a deviation in apparent radial velocity proportional to that same factor. Now "apparent radial velocity" is not an easy thing to measure, not without a lot of assumptions anyway.

Now that means it will only be observable when the radial velocity is large and the radius is small; not an easy situation to see. However, a little algebra will show that the effect can be seen as an apparent non conservation of angular momentum in a Newtonian solution for a negligibly small field situation (negligible to the extent that the trajectory is approximately straight). I am thinking that the "frame dragging" experiment currently being performed might be capable of resolving that term.

I replied to your note here so others could see my answers to your excellent questions. I hope that doesn't bother you.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[north]

i don't quite understand what's the point of having a theory development section at all if people can't start threads that are speculative and innovative.

thumbs down. I'll see you guys somewhere else i guess

___________________________________________

nor do i and i think this flies in the face of what the SPIRIT OF SCIENCE is about. I'm dissapointed in your attitude. on other sites i have been on if the theory is not valid or just plain too bizzare,it is ignored, it has happened to me and others, simply nobody gives comment on the subject.

yes you guys have your work cut out for you, but let the nature of the people who visit your site take its course, it will.

otherwise guys this site becomes a Galilaean Dark Ages site.after all it those who came before you,thinking the way they did that gave you what you know now.you take all that you know for granted and that to me is a critical mistake.

Newton,Einstein,Copernicus and all those that came before and after them have flied in the face of what at the time was known.even if you can't give an anwser to the questions put forward maybe someone else can and then perhaps we can ALL learn.sometimes it is quite a challenge but let the challenge motivate you not as it seems here strike fear in your understanding of things. to suppress people is NOT a good position to take.

let the people on your site the freedom to explore,fore after all THAT IS WHY THEIR HERE,to discuss theories that perhaps gets no opportunity to be seen by so many people and by these people give so many points of view wrong or right. it helps!,really!

i think your site here is more important than you guys give yourself credit for.

it can be if you let it, a place of Discovery!

 

[chroot]

I would like to weigh in on the subject.

Your opinion is quite valuable to us.

Most of the threads are mindless exercises in denial of known phenomena.

This is the fundamental problem -- we have a small group of habitual theory development posters who really have nothing scientific to discuss, and we'd prefer that they use another venue for their communication. On the other hand, posts that even marginally adhere to the scientific method will be welcomed here. We don't want to stifle scientific thought, just pseudoscientific thought.

We're not censoring anywhere near as strictly as sci.physics.research, let alone a peer-reviewed journal. We're just trying to clean up some of the obvious non-scientific nonsense posted here, encourage habitual posters of that kind of material to find another place to post their ideas, and improve the average quality of posts here.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

nor do i and i think this flies in the face of what the SPIRIT OF SCIENCE is about. I'm dissapointed in your attitude. on other sites i have been on if the theory is not valid or just plain too bizzare,it is ignored, it has happened to me and others, simply nobody gives comment on the subject.

Theories which are not valid or just plain too bizarre are no longer welcome here. I encourage you to post instead on one of the other sites you spoke of.

otherwise guys this site becomes a Galilaean Dark Ages site.

This is of course a classic crackpot argument -- science is only advanced by freethinkers like us! Of course, it's not actually true. Science has never been advanced by people who cannot form a dimensionally-correct equation, and it never will be. There is a huge difference between a dissenting scientist and a crackpot. Few crackpots realize the enormity of this difference.

Newton,Einstein,Copernicus and all those that came before and after them have flied in the face of what at the time was known.

And all of these people provided very clear reasons why they believed their models were better than the existing models. If someone comes on PF and provides a new model along with very strong evidence that it is better than existing models they will not be censored.

let the people on your site the freedom to explore,fore after all THAT IS WHY THEIR HERE,to discuss theories that perhaps gets no opportunity to be seen by so many people and by these people give so many points of view wrong or right. it helps!,really!

The vast majority of regular posters are not here to discuss the personal theories of crackpots. This site is by and large a science education site, where those who are already well along in their study can help those who are just beginning. Most of our regular posters feel our theory development subforum has become a tremendous eyesore.

it can be if you let it, a place of Discovery!

It's not a place of discovery in the sense of what you think a place of discovery should be. You should find another forum to post on. I recommend two: the Usenet newsgroup sci.physics, and the forum www.sciforums.com.

- Warren