rewebster said:
I think, or was wondering really, if you think you've got 'part' of it, why hasn't it fallen into place for you?
It still sounds like you're missing 'parts'; and, if its your own idea, then you may not have the right parts in place yet, or the right parts to begin with---
This has nothing to do with typical articles that are submitted for publication in academic journals. This rather has everything to do with rethinking our understanding of theoretical physics as a formalism that merely predicts certain phenomena--so that it can instead be built upon a robust mathematical system that will allow believable ontological models to be constructed.
My idea is much better understood as a paradigm shift rather than a simple equation (or set of equations) that can be "solved" in order to attain a specific result. This latter version is how the academic establishment currently understands the nature of theoretical physics.
I don't want any fame from this. I just want to be recognized as having an ability that has value within the world at large, so that I can find a place within society that can lead to a happy and fulfilling life. I am simply not capable of compromising my intellectual or moral standards so that I can live a typical consumerist kind of life.
We have to understand that the mathematics involved within my idea verges on infinite complexity. We are talking about solving partial differential equations, morphing them into spherical shapes, "Fourier summing" them together, and finding out how they will reach equilibrium.
The "bleeding edge" of mathematics, however, has only just recently come into a proof of the Poincare conjecture, which merely describes the way in which individual three-dimensional manifolds can be morphed into spheres. And if you look into Perelman's three papers, I feel pretty confident that you will agree that the mathematics involved with making any kind of statement about three-dimensional manifolds is something entirely different than what the typical theoretical physicist imagines mathematics to be.
So what I am trying to do is to redefine theoretical physics as nothing other than interactive differential geometry, which, to put it mildly, will find extraordinary resistance by the powers that be in the academic physics establishment. I think that people will start to become interested when I get into detail about the various phenomena (esp. the electromagnetic and optical phenomena) that can be intuitively understood from within the context of the mathematical object, U.
Also, it is important to understand that my online efforts are only a tiny fraction of my total energy expenditure in getting my ideas out in the open. I currently live on and around the UCLA campus, and I have been making myself very well known by way of holding signs around campus so that people will get interested in what I have to say. My current sign says:
Thesis: "The axioms of quantum mechanics are logically absurd." Einstein thought so, and so do I!
I get very different responses from the different kinds of people that I talk to. The "know it all" physics undergrads and grad students tend to respond the most negatively to me, since my ideas only push their understandings into theoretical irrelevancy. But I really don't care about what they have to say, because they are typically too prejudiced to open their minds to another way of thinking about physical theory.
My best responses are from those who are interested in philosophy or math, and preferably both at the same time. I have had some very good conversations with both kinds of students, some of whom became visibly excited by the concept of theoretical physics that I describe to them.
But the "holy grail," as far as I am concerned, is to get the attention of one of the smartest people in the world, Terence Tao, who is a mathematician at UCLA. What I am trying to do is to create a kind of general buzz around campus that there is a person (me) who has exciting things in store for the future of theoretical physics, and that Mr. Tao would be a perfect person to provide an expert opinion on the nature of the mathematical object (U) that I have in mind.
That is, he specializes in partial differential equations and in Fourier analysis (among other subjects), and he is also well versed with issues in differential geometry. If I can just get him to contemplate the possibilities that are inherent within U, I feel that he would be inspired to comment on it in his blog, thus conferring instantaneous legitimacy (at least in the eyes of mathematicians) to this new idea of what theoretical physics can be.
I know this all sounds ridiculous coming from an anonymous, disembodied voice on the internet, but if I were to talk to you face-to-face, I promise you that you would feel differently about all of this. I am slowly but surely building up a real world following, and they should be filtering into this forum to see how I handle myself with you guys, even if they don't take part in the conversation. So, to all of my potential interlocutors, you should be aware of the possibility that all of this can very well lead to something fairly significant, and that your ability to make a well-considered point can have a real impact on the future course of theoretical physics.
At the moment, I am highly eager to get into the special relativity (i.e. signal propagation) aspects of the model, but I have no interest in doing this unless I can feel a positive vibe coming from you guys. Indeed, I want this to be a collaborative effort (just like Terence has collaborative "polymath" projects on his blog), so that we can provide legitimacy to the idea that the openness of the WWW is truly a force for good for humanity rather than simply a place to waste a few hours every day.