Unified Theory of Everything - Figured Out

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the challenges and considerations for a non-scientist seeking to present a new theory of everything (ToE) to the scientific community. Participants explore various methods for sharing their ideas, the potential for intellectual theft, and the skepticism surrounding claims of groundbreaking theories.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses a desire to find a competent physicist to help expose their theory to the world, suggesting that they have developed a framework that reconciles general relativity and quantum forces.
  • Another participant humorously suggests that if the theory is indeed valid, the original poster (OP) should simply publish it in a prestigious journal, implying that fame would follow.
  • Some participants question the likelihood that a non-scientist could possess a better understanding of physics than trained physicists, raising doubts about the OP's claims.
  • Several suggestions are made regarding how to proceed, including submitting to the Independent Research Forum, contacting a graduate student or professor, or directly submitting to a journal.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential for idea theft, with one participant noting that if a graduate student were to steal the idea, there would be no proof of ownership.
  • Humorous anecdotes about "crackpot" theories and the accumulation of such papers in academic settings are shared, highlighting the skepticism surrounding unconventional ideas.
  • One participant recounts a past experience with a theory that led to an unexpected conclusion about gravity, suggesting a playful attitude towards unconventional approaches.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of skepticism and humor regarding the OP's claims, with no consensus on the validity of the theory or the best approach to take. Multiple competing views on the feasibility of the OP's situation remain present throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference the challenges of gaining recognition in the scientific community and the potential pitfalls of sharing original ideas, including the risk of intellectual theft and the difficulty of being taken seriously without formal credentials.

  • #31
Astronuc said:
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?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
42.85 said:
excepted

Wrong.

42.85 said:
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?
 
  • #33
Jack21222 said:
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". :biggrin:
 
  • #34
Danger said:
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". :biggrin:

I wouldn't have said anything if he wasn't trying to sell a book. I just find the irony delicious.
 
  • #35
Jack21222 said:
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?
 
  • #36
42.85 said:
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?
This is for serious discussion, that's why your link was deleted, but I allowed your post to remain as an example of what is not accepted by serious scientists.
 
  • #37
42.85 said:
A mispelled word! We got him now!

Yes indeed!
 
  • #38
This thread is awesome. Just out of curiosity (For you forum vets), how many people have proven that P=NP over the years?
 
  • #39
abelgalois said:
This thread is awesome. Just out of curiosity (For you forum vets), how many people have proven that P=NP over the years?
I will prove it before i go to sleep.
 
  • #40
Jack21222 said:
I just find the irony delicious.

One can never have too much irony in one's diet. This instance tastes better than spinach.

abelgalois said:
how many people have proven that P=NP over the years?

Speaking as an alcoholic with a grade 9 math education, I can state definitively that P=beers/bathroom access.
 
  • #41
OMG, I was posting a quite lengthy reply, and because I took a while to make it, my session timed out, and I lost everything I wrote. How frustrating. Can I set my timeout limit on here, or is it set in stone?

I will know now to type elsewhere and copy and past when ready, but that is hugely inconvenient.
 
  • #42
itwillend said:
OMG, I was posting a quite lengthy reply, and because I took a while to make it, my session timed out, and I lost everything I wrote. How frustrating. Can I set my timeout limit on here, or is it set in stone?

I will know now to type elsewhere and copy and past when ready, but that is hugely inconvenient.

Yes, I know...it's happened to lots of people. I'm afraid it takes at least one experience like this to learn to either write your reply in a word processor or copy it before you click "Submit Reply" :frown:. At least, for long posts.
 
  • #43
itwillend said:
OMG, I was posting a quite lengthy reply, and because I took a while to make it, my session timed out, and I lost everything I wrote. How frustrating. Can I set my timeout limit on here, or is it set in stone?
I do not believe this can be changed

I will know now to type elsewhere and copy and past when ready, but that is hugely inconvenient.
Some people compose their longer posts externally. I just make it a habit to select all and copy just before submitting or previewing.

EDIT: Had this page open for too long before responding - lisab covered both of my suggestions.
 
  • #44
In Opera if I get back to the previous page forms are still filled - so I am not losing whatever I wrote.
 
  • #45
Borek said:
In Opera if I get back to the previous page forms are still filled - so I am not losing whatever I wrote.
Same with my browser (chrome) [if the message is long, I still select all/copy as well...].
 
  • #46
humanino said:
Same with my browser (chrome) [if the message is long, I still select all/copy as well...].

Roger that, although I'm using Safari. Back when I first joined PF, I was on Explorer (still on a Mac, of course, but before they had their own browser). I lost over 2 1/2 hours of composition due to the character limit. I can't say that it was anything important, but it did involve a lot of effort. I've always saved periodically during composition ever since. One of the things that I miss most about WordPerfect is that it automatically saved every 5 minutes.
 
  • #47
Danger said:
One of the things that I miss most about WordPerfect is that it automatically saved every 5 minutes.
Most present day word processors (Pages, Word, even Gmail) still do that.
 
  • #48
Gokul43201 said:
Most present day word processors (Pages, Word, even Gmail) still do that.

Hmmm... I was unaware of that. I have Word on 3 or 4 of my desk-top Macs and the Blueberry notebook, but haven't used it in at least a couple of years. (The versions that I have won't run on this Intel MacBook, and I can't afford to buy a new one.) Maybe they were saving so unobtrusively that I just didn't notice. I now use NeoOffice (open-source freebie). I'll take a closer look at it and see if it does the same.
 
  • #50
Hi,

I had a similar problem, so I will tell you what I did.

At many junctures during the development of my theory, I would copyright it. Each time I did it costs $35 and could be done online. While that is not perfect, at least I could prove my priority. At 3 junctures over 12 years I re-published the theory in a book. My latest book was completed Jan 2010 with CreateSpace, where the book was published free and is for sale at Amazon.com for anyone to buy and read. (Create Space is owned by Amazon.com)

While I would want to publish also in a scientific journal, I suspect none would accept it. As someone else here has said, "I have to low a profile for the magnitude of my claims." If you have questions email me.

Don Wortzman
[Note: posted email address deleted by moderator. Please use the forum's Private Message system to contact members privately.]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #51
Wowzers! Thanks, Gokul. That's a very informative site.
 
  • #52
:)

so Newton's known for F=MA
and Einstein's known for E = MC^2

what will this person be known for ?
 
  • #53
U=B/T

Universe=biology divided by time

o_o
 
  • #54
Jack21222 said:
What's more likely? That you have a better understanding of physics than actual physicists? Or that you are misunderstanding something?

So are you implying that a person with no formal background isn't capable of achieving something?
 
  • #55
Jack21222 said:
What's more likely? That you have a better understanding of physics than actual physicists? Or that you are misunderstanding something?

Je m'appelle said:
So are you implying that a person with no formal background isn't capable of achieving something?

Wow. No. Not at all. He's suggesting that an uneducated person who finds himself in disagreement with literally all modern science is more likely to be wrong about something than he is to have had a brilliant insight.

Do you think that isn't right? Would you say it's 50/50?

EDIT: Whoops, this thread is super old.
 

Similar threads

Graduate Implications of a "theory of everything"
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Where to Discuss a Unified Theory of Energy on Physics Forums?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Graduate Singularity structure being valid for all QFTs?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Graduate Could a Theory of Everything Unlock New Technological Marvels?
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
Graduate Were there any valid classical unified field theories ?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Undergrad Is there a real need for a theory of everything (ToE)?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Undergrad Is a Unified Field Theory the Key to Understanding the Universe?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Graduate What Needs to Be Explored for a Unified Field Theory in Physics?
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
8K
Graduate Surfer dude creates unified theory
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Graduate Theory of Everything (TOE) Without a Grand Unified Theory (GUT)
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K