Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

A Unified Theory ? Scrutinize.

  1. Aug 1, 2004 #1
    1.) I began looking at the plane as if two opposite vertex's had two equal joining points on a plane axis. I considered that if I converted the two points used on the plane I could make a simplex, the axis/plane has three planar points right, and since the plane has three points I could make three sides to the simplex.

    Reason: Which is possible since three points define a plane and the scenario would allow be use of geometry or conversion.

    If the simplex vertex's are joined on the plane and by a perpendicular altitude between them. It may in fact resemble a sphere. Also If I convert back to using just two points on the axis plane and the vertex's. The degrees used in both triangles equal 360 degree. A circular type shape, a circumference. This 360 degrees may use different points from the plane, and still equal 360 degrees. So all sides of the simplex may be seen as circular. And thus the entire simplex has circular sides that meet equal points on the plane, and are equal. A sphere.

    So the simplex or two point vertex has a circular/spherical equivilenence, and may be call AB.

    2.) What if when two points on the plane are used I made point symmetry, and the one vertex starts the perpendicular action to the opposite equal vertex. Newton's equal and opposite reaction says this action has a equal and opposite reaction, the plane, as well as the reaction caused by reaching the opposite vertex.

    If altitude is action from the vertex, it can't be infinite hight.
    But the variation on the plane is inmeasureable one would suppose.(This is disorder I think.)

    3.) Because action reconverts to action. The reaction is equal and opposite the action. And so when we create a circular/spherical/planar/geometric movement. That action has been converted back to action/reaction. and passed through reaction to convert to reaction.

    4.) And so my description is complete intersection/geometry.Points, Planes, and lines.
    and a description of Newton, however general, Which guided Einstein, and guides today's physicists.

    Here is Quantum mechanics in a few simple lines. Uncertainty principle intact.

    I will explain QM Uncertainty.

    1.) Three planar(on a plane), non-colinear(on a line) points, form a "Plane".

    2.) The triangle has the triangle inequality theorem.

    3.) This theorem is
    Action < Reaction + Reaction

    4.) My previous theory explained the use of two reactions to one action.
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 1, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I have been seeing your ideas in several threads here, but I guess I have to admit that they are over my head. You speak of explaining "Q.M. uncertainty," but I can't tell how Planck's constant comes in. Nor can I see anything about observables or operators. Do you use a Hilbert space? Can you give an example of how the correspondence principle works in your theory?
  4. Aug 1, 2004 #3
    I'm not interested in evolving my theory. All I'm interested in is proving that this work is true. If it is then it's a footstool for people studying these disciplines.

    I'm being humble in my outlook of my shabby work. Let me be true to myself. So I'm here to see if my work is true.
  5. Aug 1, 2004 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Fair enough. But I think it well help some of the folks here (who know physics far better than I do) to evaluate your ideas if you can crank out some numerical results which show how your theory reproduces results in more traditional physics, or maybe even deviates from traditional theory in some important, testable ways.
  6. Aug 1, 2004 #5
    If they see my work is true. They can evolve it to their standard. If not, the height of physics would be my present work above. If so. Why would I want to copy they're attempts ?
  7. Aug 1, 2004 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I do not understand your assumptions. Nothing wrong with proposing a theory, but, you should take explain it using commonly understood and accepted assumptions.
  8. Aug 1, 2004 #7


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I postulate that quantum electrodynamics is better off if put on the following footing that I just came up with:

    (a) A squiggle square has five sides and two center points.

    (b) A center point decomposes into the direct product of pink fluvium and a teal fluvium.

    (c) A fluvium is linear with respect to the codex of a fiber bundle.

    (d) A codex is bilinear in the energy-momentum four-vector and the spinor matrix of a squiggle square.

    Are you motivated to try to understand what I am doing? Probably not!

    But suppose I give a detailed calculation, line by line, which shows that it follows from principles (a) - (d) that the half-life of neutral pion decay into photons is 7.884647 x 10^-17 second. You might then look up the experimentally-measured half life and find out that it is known to be very close to what I calculated. Now all of the sudden you would feel motivated to understand just what it is I am talking about.

    That is why I think you won't generate much interest here unless you can calculate something valuable within your theoretical framework.
  9. Aug 1, 2004 #8
    I said previously. If they cannot promote this theory to their level of physics knowledge. Then this Unified theory is state of the art.

    Now. If this is true. Why would I want to copy their failed attempts to promote this to a higher level of physics complexity. So obviously I haven't taken my theory to that point or be showing it now I would. :wink:

    The point of this thread is to prove my theory is presently true. If it is, I may decide to advance it to a higher level when I choose. I may not.
  10. Aug 2, 2004 #9

    Planck's constant, h, has units of energy multiplied by time, which are the units of action.

    Since energy is conserved, Action = Reaction, so your inequality becomes:

    Action < 2*Action

    A true statement :wink:

    Here is an interesting article:

  11. Aug 2, 2004 #10
    So my statement is true. :biggrin:
  12. Aug 10, 2004 #11

    Can you or somebody who can, please scrutinize my geometric concept.

    If it is true. It can be a unit of geometry that can be converted to higher math, eg. metrically, right ?

    So it is of extreme urgency that somebody prove this geometry that it may be a unit, that in turn may be converted eg. metrically.

    I'm not interested in converting it now. But establishing that as geometry it is the unit geometry.

    Please do this for me. Thank you in advance.

    Ps. If you see it's true. The geometry + Quantum mechanics, Or just the geometry. You may use it in your academic teaching/learning.
  13. Aug 11, 2004 #12
    YesIcanread hypothesis = NPOAMO

    where NPOAMO = No prediction of any measurable observable

    NPOAMO = 0

    Therefore YesIcanread hypothesis = 0

    A true statement.
  14. Aug 11, 2004 #13
    So. Did you prove a point I made in my theory wrong ? Please post and tell me. Nobody wants to talk to me here about this. I feel sad about this. :cry: :uhh:
  15. Aug 11, 2004 #14
    My quantum theory is incomplete. So my theory of everything is incomplete. This is my addition to it.

    Again. If I'm off base in my geometry, PLEASE do tell me exactly where !
  16. Aug 11, 2004 #15


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    If you intersted the inequailty in the uncertainity principle is proved from Schwarz's inequality not the triangle inequality.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook