Are these models true or even relevant?

[FzKl]

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
http://www.askamathematician.com/2009/12/q-howwhy-are-quantum-mechanics-and-relativity-incompatible/

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 what's 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

Cheers
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are some "shortcuts" for some of what is linked in the comments
This is Massimo's research
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0901/0901.2752.pdf
https://arxiv.org/abs/1003.3861
And this is Tuck's Wikiversity profile. if you want to read it... for... some reason...
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Stephen_Tuck/Theory_of_Everything

 

[PeterDonis]

Does any of Tuck's or Auci's comments holds any truth?

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". )

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!

 

[PeterDonis]

I'm really haunted by this specific topic

By the general question of whether General Relativity and quantum mechanics are compatible? Or by something more specific?

 

[PeterDonis]

Auci's comments at least reference actual papers

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.

 

[FzKl]

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

By the general question of whether General Relativity and quantum mechanics are compatible? Or by something more specific?

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.

 

[PeterDonis]

I'm really hunted by the idea that the current model of physics is completely wrong

I don't know that much about physics (I'm currently in my first year at university)

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.

 

[FzKl]

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

 

[PeterDonis]

Thank you, Peter, for everything.

You're welcome!

 

[Maximilian]

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.

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.

 

[Maximilian]

Does any of Tuck's or Auci's comments holds any truth?

Let's see:

My name is Stephen Tuck and I have solved this problem along with my flaws in modern Science and mathematics.

This is already enough to know that you can forget it. If not, then this:

the Tuck-Einstein Equation: Energy = (Space * Mass * Time) / (1 – (v^2/c^2))^0.5, which correctly replaces the Dirac Equation of Quantum Mechanics.

is the final shot. The crackpot index of [URL='https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/author/john-baez/']John Baez[/URL] 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.