Unified Theory of Everything - Figured Out

[itwillend]

We all have read that a single theory to possibly fit on a diner napkin or small note card could be available sometime.

My question to you all, is how does a non-scientist person go about having a legitimate scientist test a theory.

If I have it figured out, and will require the help of a competent physicist to expose it to the world, what it the best way to do that?

What I have so far is a framework that allows a new method of approaching the forces of the universe, and as a result general relativity and quantum level forces are no longer a problem.

I feel if I post it on a board like this, and if it has substance, others might just take it and call it their own.

 

[GeorgCantor]

I need to get my popcorns.

 

[humanino]

What I have so far is a framework that allows a new method of approaching the forces of the universe, and as a result general relativity and quantum level forces are no longer a problem.

You do not need anybody's help if you have that. Write-up a letter and send it to a prestigious journal. Fame is yours. Once your publication is accepted, please come back here and let us know. Until then, it would be too dangerous, as indeed we would attempt to steal it from you.

 

[jtbell]

If I have it figured out, and will require the help of a competent physicist to expose it to the world, what it the best way to do that?

If you have the genuine solution, then you are more competent than any other physicist in the world, and you don't need any help from the rest of us. Just send it into a journal like Nature or Phys Rev Letters, as humanino suggested.

 

[Jack21222]

What's more likely? That you have a better understanding of physics than actual physicists? Or that you are misunderstanding something?

 

[Borg]

itwillend badly.

 

[Gokul43201]

itwillend badly.

:rofl:

To the OP, here are the standard options:

1. Submit a manuscript to the Independent Research Forum here. If the submission meets the formatting guidelines of Tier 1 review, it will proceed to the stage where it is reviewed for scientific merit. If it passes that stage of review, you will have a record of having submitted your ToE here. If someone steals your idea and publishes it, you will merely have to point to the thread here that documents your rightful ownership of the ToE.

2. Write to a grad student or Prof in the nearest university Physics Department - one that is working in the relevant field. Profs are busy and will typically not find time to look at your paper. If a Grad Student okays it, ask him/her to pass it on to their Advisor.

3. Submit to a journal.

 

[ZapperZ]

2. Write to a grad student or Prof in the nearest university Physics Department - one that is working in the relevant field. Profs are busy and will typically not find time to look at your paper. If a Grad Student okays it, ask him/her to pass it on to their Advisor.

Just don't send it to Warren Siegel, because he has received enough number of such things:

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

Zz.

 

[Borek]

You may also consult http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

 

[Gokul43201]

Just don't send it to Warren Siegel...

Or Bob Park, or John Baez.

 

[Quark_Chowder]

I had a prof as an undergrad who had a huge filing cabinets of crackpot papers he'd accumulated over his 40+ year career. If you ever wanted to be amused, just pick on out of the drawer at random.

I still remember one where the guy claimed that all particles in the universe were just "swirling ether." The faster the swirls swirled, the more massive the particles. His self-proclaimed "revolutionary" theory was laid out in a mere 2 pages and didn't provide a single equation.

 

[itwillend]

You do not need anybody's help if you have that. Write-up a letter and send it to a prestigious journal. Fame is yours. Once your publication is accepted, please come back here and let us know. Until then, it would be too dangerous, as indeed we would attempt to steal it from you.

HA ha , too funny, thanks though

What's more likely? That you have a better understanding of physics than actual physicists? Or that you are misunderstanding something?

Well if you are any good at probability, than you already know the answer :)

itwillend badly.

Ouch :(

:rofl:

To the OP, here are the standard options:

1. Submit a manuscript to the Independent Research Forum here. If the submission meets the formatting guidelines of Tier 1 review, it will proceed to the stage where it is reviewed for scientific merit. If it passes that stage of review, you will have a record of having submitted your ToE here. If someone steals your idea and publishes it, you will merely have to point to the thread here that documents your rightful ownership of the ToE.

2. Write to a grad student or Prof in the nearest university Physics Department - one that is working in the relevant field. Profs are busy and will typically not find time to look at your paper. If a Grad Student okays it, ask him/her to pass it on to their Advisor.

3. Submit to a journal.

Thank you, option 2 sounds great...

 

[Evo]

Thank you, option 2 sounds great...

And if the grad student steals your idea, you have no proof. But I don't think you need to fear anyone stealing your ideas.

 

[ZapperZ]

I had a prof as an undergrad who had a huge filing cabinets of crackpot papers he'd accumulated over his 40+ year career. If you ever wanted to be amused, just pick on out of the drawer at random.

I still remember one where the guy claimed that all particles in the universe were just "swirling ether." The faster the swirls swirled, the more massive the particles. His self-proclaimed "revolutionary" theory was laid out in a mere 2 pages and didn't provide a single equation.

A lot physics departments have such files. I know of one that contains several letters from this guy wanting to know how to obtain the "nomination form for the Nobel Prize", because he has discovered that E=mc^2 = mt^3.

It does make for a very hilarious reading for both the office staff and a few of us grad students who were bored at that time.

Zz.

 

[Borek]

how to obtain the "nomination form for the Nobel Prize"

THERE IS ONE?

I knew scientists have been hiding something.

 

[Gokul43201]

I know of one that contains several letters from this guy wanting to know how to obtain the "nomination form for the Nobel Prize", because he has discovered that E=mc^2 = mt^3.

t^3 is time cubed?

If that is so, the answer to the query is pretty straightforward - nomination forms for the Nobel are handled by this guy --> timecube.com

 

[Galteeth]

I had a prof as an undergrad who had a huge filing cabinets of crackpot papers he'd accumulated over his 40+ year career. If you ever wanted to be amused, just pick on out of the drawer at random.

I still remember one where the guy claimed that all particles in the universe were just "swirling ether." The faster the swirls swirled, the more massive the particles. His self-proclaimed "revolutionary" theory was laid out in a mere 2 pages and didn't provide a single equation.

He should have made that into a book! My personal favorite is the time cube guy. As far as crackpot TOES, it's the funniest I've seen.

EDIT: I see Gokul beat me to the punch on that one.

 

[lisab]

From that site...

Dr. Gene Ray, Cube Phenomenologist and THE WISEST HUMAN

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A long time ago I had an idea that I wanted to play out. After seven or eight pages of calculations [based on the critical assumption], the result was the mathematical statement that gravity propagates at velocity C - a somewhat surprising result, esp given the assumption. I quietly filed it and tried to forget about it.

A prof of mine once described a TOE paper buried somewhere in the archives at OSU. It depended on the notion of infinite integrations, i.e. integral, integral, integral...[to infinity]... integral [function] dx0 dx1 dx2... I suggested that this should be assigned as a homework problem for Calc 2.

 

[itwillend]

OK so let's forget my silly notion that I have it figured out. My head hurts so bad right now, I just want to lay down...

Hopefully you all don't mind some basic questions here instead:

Why do we age? Has science figured this out yet? I mean I know we know what happens as we break down, but as far as why it begins, why it happens at all, do we have firm answers?

In the broadest terms for now, collectively what do the four forces achieve within the universe?

In a balloon theory there is no center of the universe, but does that also mean there is no center of energy? For example, as a human moves, there remains a constant center of mass.

 

[humanino]

You need to be more focused I think. One question is "why do we age ?". This is biology. Another question is "what is time ?". This is physics.

Both are extremely wide and difficult questions even within their respective disciplines. Attempting to address both simultaneously is unreasonable.

 

[itwillend]

You need to be more focused I think. One question is "why do we age ?". This is biology. Another question is "what is time ?". This is physics.

Both are extremely wide and difficult questions even within their respective disciplines. Attempting to address both simultaneously is unreasonable.

Respectfully, thanks for the reply.
Seemingly arbitrary in nature asking about aging humans and then balloon theory, but they are actually geared towards one point.

I guess I will never get anyone to help me understand what is in my head. Thanks anyways...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Respectfully, thanks for the reply.
Seemingly arbitrary in nature asking about aging humans and then balloon theory, but they are actually geared towards one point.

I guess I will never get anyone to help me understand what is in my head. Thanks anyways...

The key is to first understand what is in everyone else's heads - people who know real physics. Ask questions key to your idea, but without positing any theories. Surely your idea is based on things you have learned from reading, or from tv shows, so ask about those and not your theory.

Your theory seeks to explain something. What does it try to explain, specifically?

 

[itwillend]

The key is to first understand what is in everyone else's heads - people who know real physics. Ask questions key to your idea, but without positing any theories. Surely your idea is based on things you have learned from reading, or from tv shows, so ask about those and not your theory.

Your theory seeks to explain something. What does it try to explain, specifically?

Thank you...
I am trying to show how the biology of the human body and how it operates in a world of physics and natural selection will help us tie together even macro problems involving the universe at large.

Because I lack the skill to articulate this in mathematics I can only try to explain the best I can. To me the broadest of questions should begin with the fact the universe has not destroyed itself or been destroyed by anything else.

What kinds of questions do you, someone learned way beyond myself ask about why the universe hasn't been destroyed yet, by itself or something else? Can we start here please?

 

[Jack21222]

Why should the universe have "destroyed itself?" what does it mean to "destroy the universe?"

I don't understand the question.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Thank you...
I am trying to show how the biology of the human body and how it operates in a world of physics and natural selection will help us tie together even macro problems involving the universe at large.

Why are you trying to show this? You have a goal, but what is the basis for your idea? Is this an intuitive idea, or does some factual information drive you to this notion?

Because I lack the skill to articulate this in mathematics I can only try to explain the best I can. To me the broadest of questions should begin with the fact the universe has not destroyed itself or been destroyed by anything else.

What kinds of questions do you, someone learned way beyond myself ask about why the universe hasn't been destroyed yet, by itself or something else? Can we start here please?

Why would the universe have destroyed itself? Again, you are essentially positing a hypothesis that the universe should have been destroyed for some reason. Why?

 

[humanino]

Because I lack the skill to articulate this in mathematics I can only try to explain the best I can.

Mathematics is not limiting the imagination of people who make use of its rigor. The reason professional researchers use the language of mathematics (apart from the obvious requirement of quantitative predictions) is that mathematics is the only unambiguous language. Only with mathematics can one idea pass from one to another researcher. Words are only illustrations to the true content of the equations.

I think it would not be helpful to delude you into believing that you can contribute to understanding either the biology of the human body or "the universe at large" without mathematics. But let us assume that you do have a revolutionary new and important idea about those questions. Without mathematics you will not be able to develop your ideas to their full potential (make quantitative prediction), and most importantly you will not be able to communicate those ideas to other researchers (not only because the lack of any mathematics will harm your credibility, but also because without mathematics, your theory is only vaguely defined).

 

[Danger]

itwillend badly.

:rofl: :rofl:
For that seemingly innocuous and opportunistic sniping alone (ignoring your other worthy contributions) I nominate you for this year's Humour ribbon. That was just too good to be true.
(I say that semi-grudgingly, by the way, because I'm jealous that I didn't notice the opportunity myself.)

Just don't send it to Warren Siegel, because he has received enough number of such things

Not to me either; I can't read.

I guess I will never get anyone to help me understand what is in my head.

Sorry, pal. I don't even understand what is in my own head. (I suspect that there might be a vacuum leak involved, but I dare not investigate.)

 

[Astronuc]

Thank you...
I am trying to show how the biology of the human body and how it operates in a world of physics and natural selection will help us tie together even macro problems involving the universe at large.

The Earth is a small insignificant part of the universe - well, excpet that it is signficant to us. The universe has been around for billions of years - based on our observations of distant cosmological object - and the solar system (and our sun) has been around a few billion years (for much less than the universe). Humans live on average 80 years - so there's not a lot we will accomplish in one lifetime. We might understand a smidgeon of the universe.

We believe that in the future, probably 4 or 5 billion years, give or take, the sun will become a nova and subsequently shrink. During that phase, the Earth will be surrounded by a hot plasma such that all life will cease to exist. Then the sun will get very small and the Earth will be very cold. Humans could become extinct well before that, just as the dinosaurs and large mammals become extinct before us.

We might gradually understand the universe better given enough time and observation, with each generation passing along accumulated knowledge to subsequent generations.

There aren't really any macro problems in the universe, but rather just processes we are trying to understand.

 

[42.85]

To ITWILLEND

It is not easy for an outsider to be excepted by the status quo (University Professors). I have a theory and finished writing my book last year. It is on Amazon at this address.

Then came the rejection when I would try to talk to someone of such rank. The rejection was not based on my theory, but rather because the odds of someone like me finding a theory of everything was practically zero (a professor said that to me). They did not want to hear what my theory was. I have not yet found a Professor to even listen to what my theory is about. It is easy to just quit after repeated insults. I did. Sorry I don't have good news, but I have already been in your shoes. It should be easier today to make contacts with the internet. Let me know if you find a valid listener. I wish you luck on your theory.

 

[Danger]

We believe that in the future, probably 4 or 5 billion years, give or take, the sun will become a nova and subsequently shrink.

You confuse me, dear friend. You're the one with the astrophysics degree, not me, but isn't that statement erroneous? I was under the impression that at least 1.3 Solar masses were required to achieve nova eruption. Red Giant should be the the worst that our sun can do to us. (I'm not taking that lightly; it will still wipe out the entire Solar system... just not explosively.) Am I misunderstanding something?

 

[Jack21222]

excepted

Wrong.

Then came the rejection when I would try to talk to someone of such rank. The rejection was not based on my theory, but rather because the odds of someone like me finding a theory of everything was practically zero (a professor said that to me). They did not want to hear what my theory was. I have not yet found a Professor to even listen to what my theory is about. It is easy to just quit after repeated insults. I did. Sorry I don't have good news, but I have already been in your shoes. It should be easier today to make contacts with the internet. Let me know if you find a valid listener. I wish you luck on your theory.

Why do you need to talk to a professor about it? What do you hope to gain?

 

[Danger]

Wrong.

Nice catch. The language police never rest. (And dammit, I missed that one myself. I'm on a real roll here... my oblivion seems boundless. I can't even blame the Scotch this time; I'm pissed as a nit, but it's totally beside the point. The simple fact is that I skimmed the post first, and decided that it wasn't worth reading in depth. The obvious misuse of "excepted" slipped right by.)
Ironically, 42.85's opening sentence constitutes a double negative. It is wrong on 2 levels. The first is the lack of language skills which are overlookable since his intent was clear. The second is that it is incorrect even as written. Contrary to his assertion, it is very easy for an outsider to be excepted by the "Establishment".

 

[Jack21222]

Nice catch. The language police never rest. (And dammit, I missed that one myself. I'm on a real roll here... my oblivion seems boundless. I can't even blame the Scotch this time; I'm pissed as a nit, but it's totally beside the point. The simple fact is that I skimmed the post first, and decided that it wasn't worth reading in depth. The obvious misuse of "excepted" slipped right by.)
Ironically, 42.85's opening sentence constitutes a double negative. It is wrong on 2 levels. The first is the lack of language skills which are overlookable since his intent was clear. The second is that it is incorrect even as written. Contrary to his assertion, it is very easy for an outsider to be excepted by the "Establishment".

I wouldn't have said anything if he wasn't trying to sell a book. I just find the irony delicious.

 

[42.85]

I wouldn't have said anything if he wasn't trying to sell a book. I just find the irony delicious.

A mispelled word! We got him now!
When are the mind games going to end and we will have some serious discussion?
P.S. The book on amazon is not for sale. The account was closed months ago. But you got me again, right?