The final theory - anyone read it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jnorman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Final Theory
jnorman
Messages
315
Reaction score
0
howdy again - i DL'ed the first chapter of "the final theory" by mark mccutcheon - ( http://www.thefinaltheory.com/pages/1/index.htm ) - and read it, whrein he hints that he has developed some significant new concept which does away with the need for gravitational as a force or even as a field, as per GR. it sounds suspiciously like hooey, but sometimes there can be a germ of truth buried in such thinking. has anyone read the book, or does anyone know more about his ideas? vielen dank.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Your first reaction was correct- it's hooey. In that first chapter, on gravity, he notes that both Newton and Einstein must be wrong because the Earth must use energy to "hold" things in orbit or in position on its surface- and that contradicts "conservation of energy". And you'd better not object that "work" only applies to a force in the same direction as movement- he argues that that is an incorrect definition of work. In other words, his "correct" definition of work (any time you apply any force, you do work) causes the violation of conservation of energy which proves the theory of gravity is wrong!
 
I think it's a shame. Sometimes I direct people to this website so they can learn about some of the ideas in modern physics. There is a good chance these people will click on the final theory advert and be even more convinced that modern physics is wrong.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top