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

I Are these models true or even relevant?

  1. Apr 20, 2018 #1
    Hi everyone.
    I'm new to the forum so sorry if the title or the "sub-topic" is wrong, and I tried my best not to break the posting guidelines, if I did, let me know.
    (First of all, I want to clarify what's my stance on all of this, I'm not a proponent of these ideas; in fact, I'm always sceptical of these new models.)

    So, I recently stumbled across this page.
    Beware, multiple walls of text ahead

    And well... The question is not related to the post per se but actually to the comments of the post.
    And the question is: Does any of Tuck's or Auci's comments holds any truth? Are they really relevant? and whats your opinion of it?
    (I didn't find any paper regarding Tuck's claims, so this is the best I've got)

    I'm really haunted by this specific topic, I don't know what to think about it (And because I don't really know that much of physics).
    I know I'm asking a lot from you, I really do. but I would really appreciate if you could take a look at this.

    Let's hope this thread doesn't become a battlefield

    These are some "shortcuts" for some of what is linked in the comments
    This is Massimo's research
    And this is Tuck's Wikiversity profile. if you want to read it... for... some reason...
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 20, 2018 #2


    Staff: Mentor

    On a first reading, Tuck's comment looks like a wall of text, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. (Which means, in answer to your question, "no". :wink:)

    Auci's comments at least reference actual papers (which you helpfully provided links to, thanks!), so it will take some time to digest them.

    Oh, and welcome to PF!
  4. Apr 20, 2018 #3


    Staff: Mentor

    By the general question of whether General Relativity and quantum mechanics are compatible? Or by something more specific?
  5. Apr 20, 2018 #4


    Staff: Mentor

    Which, on a quick first reading, certainly don't look like they reflect current mainstream thinking on the question under discussion. One appears to have been published (though the journal it was published in doesn't seem to be a very high impact one), the other appears not to have been published at all. So I would not put much credence in these either.
  6. Apr 20, 2018 #5
    Hey Peter, Thanks a lot for taking your time and reading what I posted (and for responding, of course). I can't believe how nice people are around here

    No, I meant that I'm really hunted by the idea that the current model of physics is completely wrong, it's really scary for me. And since I don't know that much about physics (I'm currently in my first year at university), I can't really analyze this kind of things too deeply and when I found these people, my brain kinda "went off" (for lack of better words). Flat-earthers are something, but this goes to another level.

    Really, thank you, Peter.
  7. Apr 20, 2018 #6


    Staff: Mentor

    Then the best advice I can give you is to stop worrying about whether the current model of physics is completely wrong until you've had the time to learn what the current model of physics actually says--which an undergraduate course in physics will give you a good start on. (I say "a good start" because our actual best current models in physics--General Relativity, the Standard Model of particle physics, and the Lambda-CDM model in cosmology--aren't typically fully studied at the undergraduate level. But you will still get a good start on them, and you will learn the tools to research them further on your own.) That might include not reading questions and answers on websites until you've learned enough to be able to make an informed judgment about whether something you read is actually worth considering or is just someone's way-out uninformed speculation.
  8. Apr 21, 2018 #7
    Yeah, I think that's a good advice. but anyway, Thanks a lot Peter I can't express how grateful I am.
    I asked pretty much because a got "triggered" by the uncertainty and well, here I am.

    I actually found him on social media and found out, to my surprise, that he has been criticized quite a lot (along with his "Corrected General Form of the Unified Field Equation"). I could add a link, but I think that goes beyond the "personal information" guideline.

    Wrapping up, Thank you, Peter, for everything. I now feel quite happy :)
    I might ask in the near future about something actually relevant
  9. Apr 21, 2018 #8


    Staff: Mentor

    You're welcome!
  10. May 7, 2018 #9
    Don't worry, existing theories will survive as good approximations. And both of them - as GR, as quantum theory - will certainly survive as approximations. Quantum theory may even survive without change, as it is. (This is what most people think, so that even the hypothetical result was named "quantum gravity" instead of "general-relativistic whatever".)

    What will probably change is the interpretation. The interpretation of classical mechanics was also very different from either that of curved spacetime in GR and each of the many interpretations of QT. And, once the interpretation of GR and QT are the most incompatible thing, some of those interpretations will be probably completely thrown away.

    But that does not mean that the mathematics, and the way how one, using these mathematics, can compute predictions for observable results, becomes useless. It will remain as good as it is. Except that we will learn another, more accurate way to compute those predictions, and the way we know now will remain only as an approximation.
  11. May 7, 2018 #10
    Let's see:
    This is already enough to know that you can forget it. If not, then this:
    is the final shot. The crackpot index of John Baez is a nice guide how to evaluate such things.

    Auci is not that obviously wrong, but is also not really worth to read. The criterion I use here to ignore it is ignorance of the standard model of particle physics. It can be applied whenever somebody gives in his theory the electromagnetic field some fundamental role. The EM field is only one of several gauge fields of the standard model, the other being weak and strong force. A serious scientist could start to think about ways to assign them all some fundamental role on more or less equal foot. But such a role for the EM field taken alone? The most plausible explanation for giving the EM field a special role is simply not knowing the SM.
  12. May 7, 2018 #11


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yes, I read as far as Tuck-Einstein Equation. You don't particularly need to be an expert in the field to spot the people writing flannel, it comes with experience. And who is this Stephen Tuck guy?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted