A theory of everything that really works:

[McQueen]

Here , at last is a Theory of Everything that really works .
http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
If you have any comments or enquiries you can contact the author directly at
natureoflight@yahoo.com

 

[Vern]

I visited your site; didn't quite find your theory among the interesting words there. The graphics at your website don't show up. This is because geocities block graphics that it can't confiirm are going to a geocities site.

What I can make out of your theory looks very interesting. We've been working on something similar at:

Photon Theory Papers

Keep on chuggin !

Vern

 

[russ_watters]

Jeez, it seems everyone has a theory of everything except me! I need to write one.

I can show that physics can be united with the universal constant 'B'.

 

[anti_crank]

Before I go any further, I just have to ask for an explanation of your own personal logic in all of this. After debunking your ludicrous claims, I do hope that it dawns on you that simply making another topic with the exact same nonsense I've reasonably attempted to point out doesn't exactly absolve you of whatever idiocy that followed you around in the first place. Not only that, but posting the same moronicism twice only invites me to make more comments. So let me share some insights on your wonderful theory on a chapter-by-chapter basis.

Chapter I:

1. Big whoop. All elementary particles can 'retain their energy', whatever you mean by that. We are receiving more neutrinos than photons from most of those stellar sources, and we are also receiving cosmic rays (as in, various other elementary particles).
2. Same as any other quantum object.
3. A photon can't move in a straight line and curve at the same time, now can it? Straight lines is an approximation. Only QM can describe their behaviour properly.
4. Same as any other particle in QFT.
5, 6. Basic consequences of SR. Also holds for other particles.
7. Everyone knows that.
Conclusion: That model you want already exists: QFT, QED, GWS. Too bad it's beyond your grasp. You clearly have no idea that virtual particles arise from perturbation theory applied to QFT.

Chapter II:

Anyone who knows electromagnetism will know all your objections to Maxwell's theory are baseless and only reflect your lack of understanding of the theory. For a more complete rebuttal to your most egregious statements, see https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=37087. The main points here are that you've no idea how a capacitor works, there's no such thing as electrical energy that travels down the wire; electrons travel down the wire at very slow speeds, and their small speed is compensated by astronomical numbers of traveling electrons in conduction.

Chapter III:

Photons in series and parallel? Maybe you should tell the quantum computing guys about this model so they can have a good laugh. I know that I am at the moment. I don't expect you to understand photon-photon scattering in QED so there's no point for me to post it. Here also goes your statement that I've already you is incorrect that photons obey the Pauli principle. At least that much courtesy could be expected that you'd verify it, but unfortunately that was not to be. Let's make sure everyone is on the same page with your logic. You claim physics uses a model of conduction that it doesn't, and that the model doesn't work because photons obey the EP, which they don't. From that you conclude physics is wrong. Brilliant.

Chapter IV:

I've already addressed this. Conduction is made by electrons, or in some materials, by other ions. In a diode one can measure the current generated by both kinds of carriers. Semiconductors would not work under your model. In other words, my computer would be burning right now from other reasons than the processor getting logic errors from even your most simplest
statements in this chapter.

Chapter V:

These claims have already been refuted in your first post for which I still await a response. Lower down the page, I see some more misunderstanding of virtual particles. As for the light bulb, measuring 0.02 photons simply means that two photons in a hundred will cross that area. If you do such an experiment, you will indeed see photons arrive one at a time, you can even count them, and presuming you wait long enough, they will be uniformly distributed. What "long enough" means depends on the circumstances.

Chapter VI:

Since your model holds no water, none of this follows. My compliments on your creativity though. And by the way, all things being equal, a current of a higher frequency does result in more energy available for doing work.

Chapter VII:

More misunderstanding of the QED vacuum, and QFT in general.

Chapter VIII:

See http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AffineSpace.html for what an affine space is. Thanks for the review of basic multivariable calculus, but I'm afraid no physics came out of this one.

Chapter IX:

Your example has absolutely nothing to do with Cooper pairing, and I doubt you'll ever gain the ability to calculate that binding for yourself. I think the better thing you should be wondering is why electrons form a bound state in the first place. Really now, it's a much easier way to attack the theory. If your theory is so great, maybe you can teach us to make a room-temperature superconductor so that I can finally use it to build a processor that can calculate the amount of idiocy in your theory without overheating.

Chapter X:

You're just dabbling with elementary equations all high school students know. I don't see a viable model, just sans-proof that 'aumic' theory explains gravity. All models of gravity based on photons are doomed to failure: by that logic, an electron should weigh the same as a B⁺ meson, since the net coupling of the photon to the object is the same.

In conclusion, your theory is so fundamentally flawed that I can grab high school students from nearly any school I choose to debunk it. At this point I have only bothered to point on the blatantly obvious so that no naive mind is tricked here. I do hope that no more idiocy stems from your posts, but moreover, that such idiocy does not spread to others who do not need it. The only lesson that can be had from all of this is how not to address physics and what happens to those who try to do so in an idiotic fashion. Because people of your ilk usually do not reform their ways, the only question remaining is how much you are willing to endure this form of...convincing before you decide to head out to a less scientifically-oriented place. For you, I recommend a Yahoo! chatroom. At least there your wild claims may be accepted by the people there, assuming they stop talking about their supposed "hacking" and various other fantasized activities to bother to listen.

 

[McQueen]

To anti frank:

Big whoop. All elementary particles can 'retain their energy', whatever you mean by that.

First fundamentally wrong point , all particles do not retain their energy , protons , and other sub-atomic particles have a rest mass and a kinetic mass, ergo their energy is subject to change.

I've already addressed this. Conduction is made by electrons, or in some materials, by other ions.

Light which has a wavelength of between 10 ^–8 to 10 ^–7 m. as opposed to my “conduction photon” wavelength of about 8.5 x 10 ^–7 m. travels through solids in precisely the fashion that you state is an impossibility ( I stress the word impossibility ) . Further the photoelectric effect proved that it was not the phenomenon of orbiting or spinning (i.e., oscillating) electrons which led to the emission of EM (i.e., photons )but changes in the electrons energy. When the two facts are taken together they make a strong case for the existence of the “conduction photon”.

As for the light bulb, measuring 0.02 photons simply means that two photons in a hundred will cross that area.

There is a very simple experiment to verify what you say , replace the 1 W bulb with a 1W. ultraviolet light emitting diode and point it at a large (1m sq ) plate coated with a substance sensitive to ultra violet light. At a distance of a few centimetres the screen will fluoresce brilliantly , as you keep increasing the distance you will find eventually that at a certain distance ( take 100m). the scintillations have completely stopped. Now using your own logic , and assuming that light travels in straight lines , how many photons reach the screen , shouldn’t at least some of these result in scintillations (i.e., since each photon retains its original energy.) Yet the screen remains free of any scintillations. How does this make sense ? Of approx. 10 ¹⁸ photons emitted by the diode over a period of one second , apparently none of them reach the screen over a period of one second , if we follow your logic , the dispersion over such a small distance is so great that over a mere 100m not even a few of the photons reach the screen. (i.e they have spread out so much that not even a few of them hit the screen) . Yet using the inverse square law , shows that at least 10 ⁷ [ photons should reach every square millimeter of the 1m sq. plate per second. Why does this not reflect in what is actually observed ?
The fact is particles do not spread out , photons do. This can be observed in the cosmic rays you had referred to , protons accelerated by neutron stars arrive in groups , photons traveling over the same distance spread out over billions of kilometers , each of them having the same or nearly the same energy they had originally started out with. The mystery here is not that photons propagate as waves , there is no doubt that they do , but that they at the same time share with particles the property of retaining their identity in spite of this dispersion. I think the photon model of “Aumic” theory offers a good explanation for how this might happen.

Your example has absolutely nothing to do with Cooper pairing, and I doubt you'll ever gain the ability to calculate that binding for yourself.

I think this is a simple case of missing the wood for the trees. The “aumic” model of electrical conduction gives phenomenally good agreement with what is observed in superconductivity In the absence of resistance , such as in super cooled conductors , a current in a closed loop will flow for ever.
All models of gravity based on photons are doomed to failure: by that logic, an electron should weigh the same as a B+ meson, since the net coupling of the photon to the object is the same.
Have you red the quote from Chapter X on the comments of Henri Lorentz , presumably an acceptable scientist , on the probability of gravity and electromagnetism being connected ?

See http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AffineSpace.html for what an affine space is. Thanks for the review of basic multivariable calculus, but I'm afraid no physics came out of this one.

I don’t see what there is to prove . I merely stated that the energy of a photon travels along a line of fixed points (i.e ., virtual photons ) and that the number of photons on the Latus rectum corresponds to points (promoted virtual photons ) which grow in number as the original photon advances along the x-axis , in keeping with the inverse square law.

 

[McQueen]

Vern
Great site , it certainly is amazing many of the points in both theories corresspond. I am going to have a more intensive look. Congratulations.

 

[Lama]

To McQueen and Vern,

Even if one of your ideas holds, then you made your day.

Take what you can take from a person like anti_krank, and ignore his aggressive tune. It is his personality problems, not yours.

In short, I wish you a great success in your original researches, and always stay opened for criticism.

Good luck,

Lama

 

[Vern]

Oh; I like anti_crank's critique's. He hasn't really unloaded on me yet, but all is well if he does. i am in the forums here mostly to learn, centainly not to teach I always read a thread when I see anti_crank posted to it.

Keep on chuggin !

Vern

 

[Lama]

Vern, I also want to say that you have a beautiful website.

 

[keebs]

A theory of everything should have GR as an approximation for gravity...yours only makes use of Newton. And you also make statements that something can't be true because it goes against QM...but your theory should be consistent without QM because you should be able to derive the laws of QM from your theory. But, props to you. Original and a good attempt--lacking rigour though, and a few logical flaws.

 

[Vern]

Gee Thanks !

Vern, I also want to say that you have a beautiful website.

I'm used to getting beat up all the time

Vern

 

[McQueen]

keebs
The theory is compatible with both SR and GR just remember that all of Enistein's equations in SR were originally based on the Lorentz equations , which were based on an aether theory . GR is based on SR so go figure!
When I have the time I will include the actual proofs of this at my site.
http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex