Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 108

Thread: Spacetime and matter as emergent phenomena, unified field theory

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    54

    Spacetime and matter as emergent phenomena, unified field theory

    I am looking for criticism of my theory. May be I can find it in Internet? In scope of the theory, I trying to build unified field theory. For me, results looks quite good. However, personal opinion of author usually quite biased, so I may not notice some critical problems in the theory. Article with the theory currently is in one of scientific journals, being considered by editors. However, based on past, I not expect anything from it, just expect rejection. In several journals editors sent previous article with the theory to peer review, reviewers suggested to reject it. However, none of reviewers found any critical failures in proposed theory. In latest review, for previous article, reviewer suggested to reject it because the theory is not allows to calculate physical situations and noted what publication of paradigm shifting theory is much harder than usual theory. Well, he was somewhat right about calculations for previous article. In new article, I derived lots of existing equations and theories from my theory. So, it is possible to calculate physical situations based on the theory now. The theory contains predictions and can be falsified, so it is satisfy to Popper criteria. For example, it predicts absence of quant of gravity. Mathematic model of the theory is not complete, so it is hard to predict new phenomena with current state of the theory, but it is not impossible. I think future development may solve it.

    Main achievement of the theory, as I see it, is unification of all fields and answer to set of most fundamental questions. All fields, include gravity, are derived from one fundamental field. The theory is deterministic, and at same time quantum mechanics with uncertainly principle is derived from the theory. It is shown that is gravity and how it arise. All principles of general relativity are derived in the theory. It is shown why speed of light is constant and why it is same in all frames of references.
    The theory answers to questions such as origin of Universe, what is time, what is space, what is matter and fields, why mathematics is so well describe physics and so on. The theory is not require Big Bang but not goes against it, additional way to form Universe with observable uniformity looks possible. In article I proposed explanations on nature of dark matter and dark energy. Further development of the theory seems to allow find exact equations describing dark matter and dark energy.

    Cost of the unification is not cheap. The theory goes deep into most fundamental concepts of philosophy. It goes against the very fundamental beliefs and, I think, it cause main problem with publication.

    Article with theory can be found on vixra
    I work on the theory from time to time, when nothing else to do. So it improving slowly. Physics is hobby for me. However, I have MSc in physics, and several publications as coauthor in journals with good impact factor, during time when I was postgraduate student.

    Abstract for article:
    An axiomatic deterministic theory of physics based on a single scalar field was proposed. In the theory model at the fundamental level there is no time and dynamics. It is shown how space-time with matter and fields emerge in this model. It is shown that the anthropic principle emerges as a consequence of the theory. The causality principle is derived as a consequence of the main principles of the theory. All three Newton's equations are obtained as consequences of the theory and in the nonrelativistic approximation. Mass, energy and other concepts of mechanics were obtained. The Schrödinger equation is derived. An explanation of the nature of particle spin is proposed. It is shown that the maximum speed of interactions must be finite and be the same in all inertial frames of reference. It is shown that the light speed and the maximum speed of interactions are exactly equal. A special theory of relativity with all its equations is obtained. The Klein-Gordon-Fock equations and, with some assumptions, the Dirac equations are obtained. Particles interaction is considered. There were given explanations of what virtual particles and quanta of field interactions are, and how renormalization works in quantum field theory. Seemingly fundamental interactions, such as strong, weak and electromagnetic are shown. Maxwell's equations are obtained, with some assumptions. It is shown that the standard model does not contradict the proposed theory. The nature of gravitation is considered. A strong equivalence principle is proved, all assumptions on which the general theory of relativity is based are proved. Based on this, it can be argued that the equations of the general relativity theory satisfy the theory of emergent space-time-matter. It is shown that gravity cannot have quanta. Thus, this theory asserts that no theory of quantum gravity can exist. An explanation of the origin of the universe is proposed. An explanation is offered for the nature of dark energy and dark matter. Physical foundations of mathematics are considered.

    Model of the theory:
    The theory is based on the assumption that at the fundamental level there is only Euclidean space with a certain still unknown amount of dimensions and a scalar field defined on this space. There is nothing else at the fundamental level except the listed, including the time, space and matter observed by us. All dimensions are the same, there are no any specific dimensions. I assume smoothness of the fundamental scalar field. A scalar field is described by some unknown differential equation.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,267
    Welcome to the Cosmoquest forums, Ans. If you haven't already done so, please read our rules linked in my signature line below. I also recommend that you read the Alternate Theory Advice also linked. While you may use your published paper as an offsite reference, you must present the substance of your arguments here, in the forum.

    Again, welcome.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    I am looking for criticism of my theory.
    Welcome to the forum, Ans.
    However your idea looks flawed. A unified field theory must reduce in the appropriate limit to the theories it unifies, just like GR reduces to Newtonian gravitation and SR to Newtonian mechanics. Any theory that does not have curved spacetime (GR) or Minkowski spacetime (SR) or an extension to those spaces cannot reduce to GR or SR. Similarly for quantum field theory which is relativistic - your theory needs to reduce to QFT in some limit. A unified theory based on Euclidean space should not be a unified field theory.

    Unfortunately your vixra PDF also looks flawed. The abstract is very wrong.
    Your personal expectations about intelligent observers.
    The mistake that equations you make look like physical laws are those physical laws.
    Possible misapplication of Noether's theorem.
    An error of "roughly corresponding" the wave function in QM to "expansion functions".
    A rewrite of an equation 2 "in order to take into account the spin" which does not include spin, see the Dirac equation.
    "relativity of simultaneity" and "the observed difference in the course of hours in different reference frames" assertions that are not supported.
    An unsupported "maximum velocity of interactions" assertion that becomes the sped of light without justification.
    Deriving the Klein-Gordon-Fock equation from the Schrödinger equation is not deriving it from your theory.
    "Dirac equation satisfies the Klein-Gordon equation" is not quite correct - Any solution of the free Dirac equation is, component-wise, a solution of the free Klein–Gordon equation.

    The PDF does not derive the Schrödinger equation. The PDF does not derive the Klein-Gordon equation. The PDF does not derive Maxwell's equations. The PDF has no model of nuclear particles or quantum field theory in it
    The PDF has unsupported assertions about GR, the cosmological constant, dark energy, dark matter, etc.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Oct-01 at 10:44 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Welcome to the forum, Ans.
    However your idea looks flawed. A unified field theory must reduce in the appropriate limit to the theories it unifies, just like GR reduces to Newtonian gravitation and SR to Newtonian mechanics.
    Hi Reality Check, and thank you for the comments.
    I agree that unified field theory must reduce in the appropriate limit to the theories it unifies. And my theory contains it. Let’s look at your arguments in details.
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Any theory that does not have curved spacetime (GR) or Minkowski spacetime (SR) or an extension to those spaces cannot reduce to GR or SR. Similarly for quantum field theory which is relativistic - your theory needs to reduce to QFT in some limit. A unified theory based on Euclidean space should not be a unified field theory.
    About Euclidean space and curved space of general relativity. Unfortunately, it is typical misunderstanding for the theory. As I wrote many times in article, Euclidean space with defined on that space scalar field is not same space as space observable by us. I assume that on fundamental level there is only the Euclidean space with unknown yet number of dimensions and defined on that space scalar field, nothing else. No time, no matter, no some other fields, no dynamics. Scalar field is classic field, described by some differential equation, without any quantum effects. More details in pdf in model of the theory section. Obviously, because the fundamental space has no time and no dynamic, it cannot be directly observed by any observer, because all models of life requires time. Let’s imagine that somehow in the model we build emergent spacetime with properties, identical to our world, would intelligent life in such emergent spacetime be able to think, feel it is in existence? My answer is yes, and it is postulate of theory. So, my theory is based on several assumptions:
    1. On fundamental level, there is only the Euclidean space with unknown yet number of dimensions and with defined on that space scalar field, nothing else. No time, no dynamics etc.
    2. In order to observe something, observer is necessary. Any solution with emergent spacetime without observer is just mathematical abstraction. Observer is more fundamental than observable space, time and matter. However, observer is not most fundamental, it is epiphenomenon based on fundamental scalar field.

    As it is possible to notice from it, the theory, from philosophy point of view, is based on mix of subjective idealism and eternalism. It is reason why it is so hard to understand its ideas; they are too far from mainstream. And, again, I not go against any well-established theory, my theory contains all of them in some limit.
    About curved spacetime. Curved spacetime exists in proposed theory. It is emergent spacetime. Details how it emerge are in pdf, I already wrote lots of that is written in pdf. Hope it would help to improve understanding of the ideas.
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Unfortunately your vixra PDF also looks flawed. The abstract is very wrong.
    Where it is wrong?
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Your personal expectations about intelligent observers.
    I not sure that you mean, but my theory contains postulate related to intelligent observers. Any postulate for physical theory can be directly or indirectly checked. As for my postulate, it cannot be directly checked but it can be checked based on its consequences. One of consequence of the postulate is ability to describe all fundamental forces with usage of one more fundamental field.
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    The mistake that equations you make look like physical laws are those physical laws.
    Possible misapplication of Noether's theorem.
    I know Noether's theorem. And, where is incorrect usage of it in my theory? Again, on fundamental level in my theory there is no time and no dynamic. It also means absence of energy on fundamental level.
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    An error of "roughly corresponding" the wave function in QM to "expansion functions".
    That "roughly corresponding", which was stated on start of that section, later in same section was expanded to precise match. Real part of wave function correspond to expansion functions, imaginary part related to phase of expansion functions. Do you see any obvious mistake in that part?
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    A rewrite of an equation 2 "in order to take into account the spin" which does not include spin, see the Dirac equation.
    You missed that it is (I guess you mean equation 23) is in section with non-relativistic approach. So, it should satisfy Pauli equation, and it do so. Dirac equation is considered later in the article.
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    "relativity of simultaneity" and "the observed difference in the course of hours in different reference frames" assertions that are not supported.
    Please explain it. As I see it, not understanding explanation of relativity of simultaneity may means not understanding ideas of the theory. Do you see how time is derived in the theory, is you agree that derived time behaves exactly as observable time? Do you see any obvious problems with approach to find emergent space based on hyperplanes? The approach later, after adding spacetime curvature, transforms into searching for emergent space based on hypersurfaces. Do you see any obvious problems with that approach?
    Again, about relativity of simultaneity.
    There is hyperplane with 3 dimensions, and it is emergent space. Time is vector, perpendicular to the hyperplane, it use 4th space dimension of fundamental space. Fundamental space, repeating, has no time, all dimensions are same. If there is moving object (how objects may be moving, how can be objects if there is only scalar field on fundamental level described in article), its trajectory in 4 dimensions can be represented as line with some angle to hyperplane. Let’s assume that one unit of time is distance p. The distance measured perpendicular to hyperplane, more explanation why is in article. Object move with velocity v in emergent space. So, in fundamental space, its world line would tangent of angle between vector of time and vector, representing line of object in 4 dimensions, equal to v/p.
    In order to move to frame of reference, where that object is not moving, it is necessary to move in such way, that vector of time would be parallel to vector of movement in 4 dimensions. It can be done if rotate hyperplane in point where object located. Anything that is located on hyperplane, happens at same time for frame of reference related to hyperplane. After rotation, hyperplane will be different. As result, what was simultaneous on one hyperplane, would happen at different time after rotation. Rotation represent movement to another frame of reference, so it means relativity of simultaneity.
    Some can think that, based on the description, the theory can be easily refuted, because some can think it is not possible to get Lorentz transformations. No, there are easily derived, it not cause any contradictions, details in article.
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    An unsupported "maximum velocity of interactions" assertion that becomes the sped of light without justification.
    Justification is is section “Particle velocity change”. Additional details in section “Maxwell's Equations”
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Deriving the Klein-Gordon-Fock equation from the Schrödinger equation is not deriving it from your theory.
    If Schrödinger equation was derived, special relativity was derived, it is possible to say that Klein-Gordon-Fock equation was derived from my theory.
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    "Dirac equation satisfies the Klein-Gordon equation" is not quite correct - Any solution of the free Dirac equation is, component-wise, a solution of the free Klein–Gordon equation.
    I would look on it. Anyway, it can be only minor flaw.
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    The PDF does not derive the Schrödinger equation.
    Really?
    What about equation 9, do you agree how it was derived or you see some flaws?
    What about three laws of Newton, derived in section “Inertia, Newton's Laws and Mass”, do you agree how it was derived or you see some flaws?
    Based on equation 9 and derived three laws of Newton, I may conclude that Schrödinger equation was derived too.
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    The PDF does not derive the Klein-Gordon equation.
    Answered before.
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    The PDF does not derive Maxwell's equations.
    Really? It is enough to assume vector nature of electromagnetic field, which is emergent field based on fundamental field, and all deriving of Maxwell's equations is just copy paste from textbooks. It is mentioned in my article. Do you see reason why it is not possible to build emergent vector field in the theory?
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    The PDF has no model of nuclear particles or quantum field theory in it
    Quantum field theory was described, but only partially, This part require some more time to describe, but all looks obvious. There are symmetries, they arise in emergent spacetime. Using the symmetries and with usage of gauge approach, we can get particles and interactions.
    Anything obviously incorrect here?
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    The PDF has unsupported assertions about GR, the cosmological constant, dark energy, dark matter, etc.
    Again, let’s go step by step.
    What is incorrect related to GR? Do you see anything incorrect in my derivation of strong equivalence principle? Anything specific to something else related to GR?
    About “the cosmological constant, dark energy, dark matter, etc”. Again, anything specific?
    Do you disagree that equation 46 may describe dark energy? Do you disagree that first function in equation 44 may describe dark matter?
    Thanks for the comments. So far, it is interesting. As of now, I not see any serious flaws in theory, all arguments against looks as results of not understanding ideas of the theory.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    I agree that unified field theory must reduce in the appropriate limit to the theories it unifies. And my theory contains it.....
    That is one of many basic issues with your theory. It does not contains GR or quantum field theory. It does not have the curved spacetime of GR, etc. Asserting this again does not make the mathematical physics of GR and QFT appear. A reply with just assertions is mostly a waste of time.
    Please answer these formal questions:
    IF01: Show how you derive Newton's laws from your theory (include your work).
    IF02: Show how you derive the Schrodinger equation from your theory (include your work).
    IF03: Show how you derive the Dirac equation from your theory (include your work).
    IF04: Assume "assume vector nature of electromagnetic field," and show how you derive Maxwell's equations (include your work).

    N.B. The mass in Newton's laws of motion is not the mass of 2 "elementary" particles because they do not exist in classical physics. F = ma has the mass of a single macroscopic body. What you do in your PDF is write F = ma where m is a function popping up out of nowhere and use an interaction between 2 quantum particles to set m to a constant.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Oct-02 at 09:35 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    That is one of many basic issues with your theory. It does not contains GR or quantum field theory. It does not have the curved spacetime of GR, etc.
    Asserting this again does not make the mathematical physics of GR and QFT appear. A reply with just assertions is mostly a waste of time.
    I agree that reply with just assertions is mostly a waste of time. However, my previous reply was not just assertions. Part of it was explanation of model of theory to answer your questions, part questions to you about specific problems which you see.
    In your new reply, you not answered to any of my questions, but asking more questions. Also, you not commented my explanations to relativity of simultaneity. You asking questions, again, about deriving Schrodinger equation and Newton's laws, but not answered to question about equation 9, do you see any problems with time how it was derived in theory etc.
    As I see, currently main problem with your questions is that you not understand model of the theory. Especially, it shows your assertion about absense of curved spacetime in the theory.
    I propose to go step by step. And let's first consider relativity of simultaneity and related questions, because I already wrote quite a lot about it. Do you see what the theory contains relativity of simultaneity? Any questions here, any flaws?
    Before relativity of simultaneity was considered, several other concepts were introduced in article. Is derivation of anthropic principle looks correct, do you see any obvious errors? Do you see any flaws in deriving of causality principle?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,900
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    <ans>
    In your new reply, you not answered to any of my questions, but asking more questions. Also, you not commented my explanations to relativity of simultaneity. You asking questions, again, about deriving Schrodinger equation and Newton's laws, but not answered to question about equation 9, do you see any problems with time how it was derived in theory etc.
    Ans,

    Just so it is clear, under our ATM rules, as the advocate of the ATM idea, you are the only one obligated to answer questions. Reality Check may answer your questions if they want to, but it is entirely voluntary.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    ...Do you see what the theory contains relativity of simultaneity?
    IF05: Show how you derive relativity of simultaneity from your theory (include your work).
    This is relativity of simultaneity (observers differ on whether two spatially separated events occur at the same time). It is demonstrated using Minkowski diagrams (non-Euclidean space!) or Lorentz transformations that cannot exist in Euclidean space.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Oct-03 at 09:39 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    IF05: Show how you derive relativity of simultaneity from your theory (include your work).
    I already shown how I derive relativity of simultaneity from my theory, it was done in my first reply. You not commented it, not shown aby flaws in that derivation, and now asking how it was derived. Seems as you simply not reading my posts.

    Repeating part of that post:

    There is hyperplane with 3 dimensions, and it is emergent space. Time is vector, perpendicular to the hyperplane, it use 4th space dimension of fundamental space. Fundamental space, repeating, has no time, all dimensions are same. If there is moving object (how objects may be moving, how can be objects if there is only scalar field on fundamental level described in article), its trajectory in 4 dimensions can be represented as line with some angle to hyperplane. Let’s assume that one unit of time is distance p. The distance measured perpendicular to hyperplane, more explanation why is in article. Object move with velocity v in emergent space. So, in fundamental space, its world line would tangent of angle between vector of time and vector, representing line of object in 4 dimensions, equal to v/p.
    In order to move to frame of reference, where that object is not moving, it is necessary to move in such way, that vector of time would be parallel to vector of movement in 4 dimensions. It can be done if rotate hyperplane in point where object located. Anything that is located on hyperplane, happens at same time for frame of reference related to hyperplane. After rotation, hyperplane will be different. As result, what was simultaneous on one hyperplane, would happen at different time after rotation. Rotation represent movement to another frame of reference, so it means relativity of simultaneity.
    Some can think that, based on the description, the theory can be easily refuted, because some can think it is not possible to get Lorentz transformations. No, there are easily derived, it not cause any contradictions, details in article.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    This is relativity of simultaneity (observers differ on whether two spatially separated events occur at the same time). It is demonstrated using Minkowski diagrams (non-Euclidean space!) or Lorentz transformations that cannot exist in Euclidean space.
    First, your sentence that Lorentz transformations cannot exist in Euclidean space is not fully correct. Lorentz transformations exists in Euclidean space. Lorentz transformations require Minkowski spacetime, but space part is Euclidean.
    Second, you just expressed your opinion and not even tried to argue way how I derived curved spacetime.
    Any conclusion, theorem etc, have some basis. Some conclusions looks fully correct and seems as it is impossible to refute them. However, from time to time it happens, when someone challenge basis of such conclusions. I shown how it is possible derive curved spacetime from Euclidean space, and it is possible to do because I use different basis. You, instead of arguing with it, just expressed your opinion that it is impossible to do. It has nothing common with scientific method. Scientific method include analysis of arguments and not include discarding arguments because they contradicts to someone's beliefs.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    I already shown how I derive relativity of simultaneity from my theory, it was done in my first reply. You not commented it, not shown aby flaws in that derivation, and now asking how it was derived. Seems as you simply not reading my posts... [verbiage redacted]
    Your reply lacks the specificity asked for. It consists basically of an outline without details, many unsupported assertions and a couple of directives to read your paper for the details. You should provide the details here.

    You also still seem not to understand that until and unless you support your claims, they will be regarded as unsupported. At the same time, mainstream science by default will be taken as correct to the extent that it is well supported. So please support your various claims, rather than merely asserting that you have already done so. You have not.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    583
    What experimental and/or observational tests could distinguish your ATM ideas from the relevant, currently accepted mainstream ones? In principle at least.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    Your reply lacks the specificity asked for. It consists basically of an outline without details, many unsupported assertions and a couple of directives to read your paper for the details. You should provide the details here.
    My reply consisted of demonstrating obvious relativity of simultaneity in model of my theory. Each of assertions, related to why the model with hyperplanes represent spacetime, is expained and derived in article. Article was written in attempt to make it as short as possible and at same time understandable. Each assertion is proven before it used for new conclusions. Part related to deriving relativity of simultaneity is quite far from start of the article, so it rely on results of previous part of the article.
    So, in order to provide all the details here, it is necessary to copy all article before and include part related to relativity of simultaneity. It is 10 pages of text.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    You also still seem not to understand that until and unless you support your claims, they will be regarded as unsupported. At the same time, mainstream science by default will be taken as correct to the extent that it is well supported. So please support your various claims, rather than merely asserting that you have already done so. You have not.
    As I wrote already, I think each of conclusion of my theory is correctly derived. Are they really proven in article? I cannot say it. One of goals, why I started the thread, is search for possible flaws in theory and for possible unproven assertions.
    Possible solution to simplify analysis of my theory, as I see, is search for first incorrect (in someone's opinion) conclusion in my theory. In such case, it would not be necessary to post lots of text, it would be enough to analyze only one case with small amount of text.

    Also, I want to wrote again, my theory is not go against any mainstream theory. As I think and shown it in article, my theory contains quantum mechanics with QFT, special and general relativity, cosmology and some more as some limit. And it was done on basis of single scalar field.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    What experimental and/or observational tests could distinguish your ATM ideas from the relevant, currently accepted mainstream ones? In principle at least.
    There is no accepted mainstream unified field theory.
    Most popular theories beying standard model is string theory and loop quantum gravity.
    String theory is not widely accepted and its popularity declining. After decades of work, it still have no any predictions.
    There is loop quantum gravity, but the theory is not even pretend to be unified field theory.
    There is mathematical universe hypothesis, but it also have problems with predictions. At least, I not found any prediction based on the model.

    What make my theory different from other theories:
    1. The theory, even in its current state with incomplete mathematical model, is falsifiable. So it satisfy to Poipper criteria. It predicts absence of quant of gravity and it is not require supersymmetries and compactified dimensions.
    2. Unlike mathematical universe hypothesis, my theory consider physics as more fundamental than mathematics. In article I analyzed physical foundations of mathematics.
    3. Unlike LQG and string theory, my theory is deterministic. Determinism of the theory is not cause problems with deriving of uncertainly principle. Note that recent experiments, showing Bell inequality violation, seems as support my theory, because my theory is not based on local realism.
    4. Unlike all known to me existing theories, explanation of relativistic effects in my theory is simple. It shows why speed of light is same in all frames of references and why there is finite maximum interaction speed. In special relativity same speed of light is all frames of references is postulate, in my theory it was derived from model of the theory.
    5. Unification of all forces in my theory is relatively simple, on conceptual level. No need to build super long and complex lagrangians etc and, with usage of complex mathematics, derive unification from it. My model starts with single scalar field, and from that field I derive both general relativity and quantum mechanics. It can be seen that mathematics of theory is very complex, but only if go into details. On conceptual level, it is relatively simple.
    6. Biggest difference from all other theories. My theory is based on combination of subjective idealism and eternalism. Practiclly all theories based on realism. J. Wheeler had ideas about self observing Universe. I think his ideas have some similarity to my ideas.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,106
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    Model of the theory:
    The theory is based on the assumption that at the fundamental level there is only Euclidean space with a certain still unknown amount of dimensions and a scalar field defined on this space. There is nothing else at the fundamental level except the listed, including the time, space and matter observed by us. All dimensions are the same, there are no any specific dimensions. I assume smoothness of the fundamental scalar field. A scalar field is described by some unknown differential equation.
    So, your starting point is euclidean space, plus unknown extra dimensions, plus an unknown scalar field? So all you got so far is euclidean space, plus some unknown mathematics? Is that it?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    So, your starting point is euclidean space, plus unknown extra dimensions, plus an unknown scalar field? So all you got so far is euclidean space, plus some unknown mathematics? Is that it?
    Strange question. Yes, starting point is correct.
    As for results - they are described in first post of the topic, in abstract of the article.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,267
    Ans,

    'Read my article' is not an acceptable method of presenting your theory. You must post the substance of your arguments here, in this forum. If you must make reference to offsite materials like your article, the reference must be specific (page, figure, table, etc.) and it must support the point being made.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    583
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    There is no accepted mainstream unified field theory.
    Most popular theories beying standard model is string theory and loop quantum gravity.
    String theory is not widely accepted and its popularity declining. After decades of work, it still have no any predictions.
    There is loop quantum gravity, but the theory is not even pretend to be unified field theory.
    There is mathematical universe hypothesis, but it also have problems with predictions. At least, I not found any prediction based on the model.

    What make my theory different from other theories:
    1. The theory, even in its current state with incomplete mathematical model, is falsifiable. So it satisfy to Poipper criteria. It predicts absence of quant of gravity and it is not require supersymmetries and compactified dimensions.
    2. Unlike mathematical universe hypothesis, my theory consider physics as more fundamental than mathematics. In article I analyzed physical foundations of mathematics.
    3. Unlike LQG and string theory, my theory is deterministic. Determinism of the theory is not cause problems with deriving of uncertainly principle. Note that recent experiments, showing Bell inequality violation, seems as support my theory, because my theory is not based on local realism.
    4. Unlike all known to me existing theories, explanation of relativistic effects in my theory is simple. It shows why speed of light is same in all frames of references and why there is finite maximum interaction speed. In special relativity same speed of light is all frames of references is postulate, in my theory it was derived from model of the theory.
    5. Unification of all forces in my theory is relatively simple, on conceptual level. No need to build super long and complex lagrangians etc and, with usage of complex mathematics, derive unification from it. My model starts with single scalar field, and from that field I derive both general relativity and quantum mechanics. It can be seen that mathematics of theory is very complex, but only if go into details. On conceptual level, it is relatively simple.
    6. Biggest difference from all other theories. My theory is based on combination of subjective idealism and eternalism. Practiclly all theories based on realism. J. Wheeler had ideas about self observing Universe. I think his ideas have some similarity to my ideas.
    Thanks for your response.

    I was insufficiently clear in my question; allow me to rephrase it (bold added):

    What experimental and/or observational tests could distinguish your ATM ideas from the relevant, currently accepted mainstream ones? In principle at least.

    By "relevant, currently accepted mainstream ones", I mean General Relativity, the LCDM model (with appropriate values for the various parameters), the Standard Model (of particle physics), and QFT (Quantum Field Theory). String theory - as applied to the universe as a whole - and loop quantum gravity are explicitly excluded.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    I already shown how I derive relativity of simultaneity from my theory, it was done in my first reply....
    This is your first reply which does not contain any derivation of the relativity of simultaneity.
    There is some stuff about hyperplanes. I could write basically the same text and conclude that relativity of simultaneity does not exist. That is why a derivation is needed.
    There looks like a mistake about what relativity of simultaneity is ("where that object is not moving" where the object can be moving wrt to both observers).

    IF01: Show how you derive Newton's laws from your theory (include your work) (N.B. this is not a F=ma equation appearing out of nowhere).
    IF02: Show how you derive the Schrodinger equation from your theory (include your work).
    IF03: Show how you derive the Dirac equation from your theory (include your work).
    IF04: Start with "assume vector nature of electromagnetic field," and show how you derive Maxwell's equations (include your work).
    IF05: Show how you derive relativity of simultaneity from your theory (include your work).

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    First, your sentence that Lorentz transformations cannot exist in Euclidean space is not fully correct. Lorentz transformations exists in Euclidean space. Lorentz transformations require Minkowski spacetime, but space part is Euclidean.
    Second, you just expressed your opinion and not even tried to argue way how I derived curved spacetime.
    Ok: it is demonstrated using Minkowski diagrams (non-Euclidean spacetime!) or Lorentz transformations that cannot exist in Euclidean spacetime. Thus your ATM idea is wrong. It cannot contain Lorentz transformations. It cannot be a theory including SR or GR.
    Second: It is not my opinion. It its the mainstream science that you are arguing against. Lorentz transformations do not exist in Euclidean spacetime. To be more exact, as v decreases to be much smaller than c, Minkowski spacetime becomes close to Euclidean spacetime and we can neglect Lorentz transformations to get classical physics.

    Since you insist:
    IF06: Give your derivation of curved spacetime from your theory (show your working).

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,679

    3+1=4

    Ans, so far I have seen zero math supporting your assertions? Could you please provide some?

    Also, there is absolutely no evidence of any dimensions beyond the three space and one time dimensions we know. Do you have observations of more?
    I'm not a hardnosed mainstreamer; I just like the observations, theories, predictions, and results to match.

    "Mainstream isn’t a faith system. It is a verified body of work that must be taken into account if you wish to add to that body of work, or if you want to change the conclusions of that body of work." - korjik

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    Thanks for your response.

    I was insufficiently clear in my question; allow me to rephrase it (bold added):

    What experimental and/or observational tests could distinguish your ATM ideas from the relevant, currently accepted mainstream ones? In principle at least.

    By "relevant, currently accepted mainstream ones", I mean General Relativity, the LCDM model (with appropriate values for the various parameters), the Standard Model (of particle physics), and QFT (Quantum Field Theory). String theory - as applied to the universe as a whole - and loop quantum gravity are explicitly excluded.
    My theory currently is in development and it's mathematical part is not complete. Your questions are good, and I would like to have answers for them. However, as of now, I have no any prediction where my theory predicts one result of some experiment and established theory another. I think it is normal and quite typical stage for any non trivial theory attempting to describe complex phenomena. There are many examples of such theories, which contained phase when were no new predictions distingishing them from existing theories.
    Goal of my theory is describe all forces based on single scalar field. Currently, it looks as it was achieved. I may be wrong, of course, like not notice serious flaw.
    Was goal of the theory achieved or no, can further development of the theory lead to new predictions or no, anyone can decide based on article with theory.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    This is your first reply which does not contain any derivation of the relativity of simultaneity.
    There is some stuff about hyperplanes. I could write basically the same text and conclude that relativity of simultaneity does not exist. That is why a derivation is needed.
    There looks like a mistake about what relativity of simultaneity is ("where that object is not moving" where the object can be moving wrt to both observers).
    [/URL]
    OK, you continue to insist there is no derivation of relativity of simultaneity in my article. You not wrote anything specific, that exactly you see wrong. Answering to such vague statement, there is derivation of relativity of simultaneity in article, link in first post, on page 10, section "Inertial Reference Systems".
    If you see any logical error in the section, or any unproven assertion, write about it. But be specific that exactly you see wrong or unproven. Note what conclusions in that section based on results of previous parts of article. If you see some assertion used in that section without derivation as basis for some conclusion, most probably it means that assertion was proven earlier.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Ok: it is demonstrated using Minkowski diagrams (non-Euclidean spacetime!) or Lorentz transformations that cannot exist in Euclidean spacetime. Thus your ATM idea is wrong. It cannot contain Lorentz transformations. It cannot be a theory including SR or GR.
    You again demonstrated you not read my posts.
    As I already wrote, each conclusion have some basis. And if challenge the basis, conclusion may be challenged too.
    Speaking about impossibility to build Minkowski spacetime on basis of Euclidean space. I agree with you that it is impossible to do, but only if use realism. I use subjective idealism in theory, and the approach allows to build Minkowski spacetime on basis of Euclidean space.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    Ans, so far I have seen zero math supporting your assertions? Could you please provide some?

    Also, there is absolutely no evidence of any dimensions beyond the three space and one time dimensions we know. Do you have observations of more?
    Article with theory contains 46 equations. If the equations correct and there is no serious flaw in derivation of them, it means that my theory really can be unified field theory.
    So, there is math in theory. If you not see it or not consider it as supporting my assertions, you may write about it. But, in such case, please be specific what exactly you see incorrect and where exactly you see any flaws.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    54
    Hmm. I wrote answers to all posts about 24 hours ago, and not see any of my posts.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    583
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    My theory currently is in development and it's mathematical part is not complete. Your questions are good, and I would like to have answers for them. However, as of now, I have no any prediction where my theory predicts one result of some experiment and established theory another. I think it is normal and quite typical stage for any non trivial theory attempting to describe complex phenomena. There are many examples of such theories, which contained phase when were no new predictions distingishing them from existing theories.
    Goal of my theory is describe all forces based on single scalar field. Currently, it looks as it was achieved. I may be wrong, of course, like not notice serious flaw.
    Was goal of the theory achieved or no, can further development of the theory lead to new predictions or no, anyone can decide based on article with theory.
    (bold added)

    Thanks.

    Except for one thing, I will wait until you have at least one answer to at least one of my questions before posting further.

    At least one other member has asked ~the question I have, so I'll read your response carefully; my interest is, in rough terms, have you shown that your idea "reduces to" General Relativity (in the appropriate limits), and QFT (ditto)?

    Oh, OK two: has your idea been written up and submitted to an appropriate, peer-reviewed journal?

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    (bold added)

    Thanks.

    Except for one thing, I will wait until you have at least one answer to at least one of my questions before posting further.

    At least one other member has asked ~the question I have, so I'll read your response carefully; my interest is, in rough terms, have you shown that your idea "reduces to" General Relativity (in the appropriate limits), and QFT (ditto)?

    Oh, OK two: has your idea been written up and submitted to an appropriate, peer-reviewed journal?
    As I wrote already, I have no any prediction where my theory predicts one result of some experiment and established theory another. However, it not means there is no differences with any theory. There are such differences, but with theories from beyond standard model area. My theory, for example, predicts absense of quant of gravity. So, it contradicts to any theory of quantum gravity.
    Also, while there is no differences between my theory and any established theory, it can be seen from model of theory that, in some cases, such differences must exists. However, it seems as the difference may appear only in some extreme cases, like near Planck energy. The theory seems as have no any limits in its area of applicibility and can describe any physical situation under any physical conditions. I have mathematical model of theory, but the model is not complete and, in its current state, it is not allows to make calculations to find the differences. I think it can be resolved with further development of the theory.
    About have I shown that the theory reduces to GR and QFT. I think yes, but I may not notice some serios flaw in theory. May be the thread will help with answering to the question.

    Yes, the idea was written and submitted to an appropriate, peer-reviewed journal. It passed throught editors, on peer review now.
    Unfortunately, I not expect publication after the peer review, based on past experience. Previous article with the theory also several times was on peer review but always was rejected. Reviewers not found any error in that article (or not wrote about it), but still recommended to reject it. In latest review, for previous article, reviewer suggested to reject it because the theory is not allows to calculate physical situations and noted what publication of paradigm shifting theory is much harder than usual theory. Well, he was somewhat right about calculations for previous article. In new article, I derived lots of existing equations and theories from my theory.
    My theory is based on subjective idealism, not on realism, and use very unusual approach, which was never considered before. Probably, it is hidden main reason of rejections. Another reason is that mathematical model of the theory is not good enough to make precise predictions. As for mathematical model, it is clear how to develop it and how to improve, it is just question of time. But if not publish any theory with not fully developed mathematical model it means that no new theories, except trivial, can be published. Each theory requires time to develop.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,893

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Ans View Post
    ... and the approach allows to build Minkowski spacetime on basis of Euclidean space.
    IF07: Show your step by step building of "Minkowski spacetime on basis of Euclidean space"
    Take Euclidean space and nothing else and end up with a spacetime that has the properties of Minkowski spacetime.

    FYI: Peer reviewers do not have to find errors in papers to reject it as a later post from you suggests. If a paper does not do what it says what it does then it will be rejected. If a paper is too badly written to be published than it will be rejected. I can think of at least one flaw on your paper. F = ma appearing out of thin air followed by asserting this is deriving Newton's F = ma is wrong. Thus my question IF01.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Oct-07 at 08:53 PM.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,679
    An, I may have missed it, but I do not see a link to your article.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •