Theory of Everything

[paarsurrey]

I think we are still a long, LONG, way from ever obtaining a single conceptual theory of the way existence exists. So far, the deeper into it we look, the more inexplicable it becomes. And the more answers we get, the more questions they generate.

Does one mean" the higher we go the cooler it is"?

Regards

 

[PureX]

Does one mean" the higher we go the cooler it is"?

Regards

The more we know, the more we don't know. This is not a trend that will lead to 'the big answer'.

 

[paarsurrey]

The more we know, the more we don't know. This is not a trend that will lead to 'the big answer'.

A good translation!
Thanks and regards

 

[gnostic]

Do you really think you are going to get an informed answer to this question, over which the best theoretical physicists have been racking their brains for decades, on a religious forum?

Probably not.

I, myself, am no physicist.

I am not expecting too much here, but informed or not, I am hoping to learn something from some “informed” people.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I saw one estimate that a particle accelerator to test quantum gravity would have to be the size of our galaxy.

That's quite funny visualizing it actually.

I figure it must be frustrating being a theoretical physicist today.
The boundary of scientific knowledge has been pushed so much, they ended up in a situation where any new idea is almost impossible to test. Not necessarily in principle, but simply logisticly.

Indeed, good luck designing a test that requires an accelerator the size of the galaxy............
How frustrating it must be, to be a scientist totally convinced of the accuracy of something like loop quantum gravity and not having the means to demonstrate that accuracy.

And it seems to be the case with almost every hypothesis they come up with to unify GR and QM. It's always something "so far out there", in terms of testability, that it becomes virtually metaphysics in practical terms, since testing is possible "in principle", but not at all in practice.

So yeah.... likely we will first going to require new fubar technologies before we can even begin to think about how to test such ideas. Not seeing that happen any time soon...

 

[Native]

Polymath257 said: ↑
I saw one estimate that a particle accelerator to test quantum gravity would have to be the size of our galaxy.

And it seems to be the case with almost every hypothesis they come up with to unify GR and QM. It's always something "so far out there", in terms of testability, that it becomes virtually metaphysics in practical terms, since testing is possible "in principle", but not at all in practice.

How is *metaphysics* really defined?

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality".
And:
"Topics of metaphysical investigation include existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. Metaphysics is considered one of the four main branches of philosophy, along with epistemology, logic, and ethics".
------------
Metaphysics deals with 11 scientific subjects which in fact, ALL should be considered BEFORE anyone makes a hypothsis or a theory.

Cosmological Pattern Recognition is the philosophical key to observe what is going on *above* *and below* before making any hypothesis or theory. You have to have natural and recognizable patterns before you´re setting anything on equations and calculations.

If you for insants take *gravity* to rule all patterns *below and above*, you´ll logically miss all patterns and explanations from the other 3 fundamental forces and their formational qualities.

Going out in space - or for that matter into laboratories and accelerators - on the basis of just 1 fundamental force, you´re logically on a dead end road, and when smashing your head on the dead end wall, your mind becomes a center of pure speculation - simply caused by the restricted *1/4 part gravity force approach* which is applied.

This selective and restrictive *1/4 gravity approach* to everything in cosmos leads naturally to all kinds of speculations. Efforts which otherwise should have taken place BEFORE as a philosophical process according to the Metaphysical definitions above.

The most funny thing for me is when I suggest to use the *metaphysical approach* I get the funny reply that *calculations only is sufficient enough to confirm a hypothesis and a theory*. Usually and naturally stated on the basis of the *1/4 part gravity force approach*.

The fact is, when using the only *1/4 gravity force approach*, all you get is confirmations of assumptions and more hindsigt bias confirmations, all leading you even further astray everywhere.

Some modern scientists and their followers even outright rejects to use the genuine philosophical definitions in Metaphysics as *mumbo jumbo methods*.

Only numbers counts and the human qualities of getting knowledge using the philosophical methods are out of most equations.

No wonder that a *Theory of Everything* isn´t in sight.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Easy piecy case. Just read the Old Visdom of cultural Ancient Myths of Creation and interpret the text and symbols into modern astrological and cosmological terms. Then you have unity,

Can you demonstrate what you are asserting here?

Sorry for having overlooked you reply untill now.

Firstly, I´m asserting that we should take the ancient Stories of Creation seriously.

If you for instants read of mythical deity names wich are connected to the Sun, you have to read and interpret the entire mythical context as counting for concrete astronomical matters.

And as the numerous cultural myths also speak of a stage before the beginning and under the first firm formation, you have to interpret this and compare it´s contents with modern cosmology and it´s explanations of a beginning.

Ancient Creation Myths are not *mumbo jumbo*. If anyone think so, it´s because they haven´t grasped the mythical context in the first place. And as these cultural myths contains similar tellings of the same astronomical and cosmological objects all over the world, it´s an obvious case of Unity evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

@Polymath257 - Thanks for your excellent oversight view here:

AD § 1) Thats *really a problem* when the subject of philosophy is rejected.

AD § 2) Why not just use our Milky Way galaxy itself as an accelerator? I´ve provided the knowledge of this numerous times for you. You know that our Milky Way contains *cosmic rays*, don´t you? Or did you sleep in the class, when I told you?

Philosophy should be rejected when it is wrong.

And extremely high energy cosmic rays get us to energies we can't currently do in our accelerators. But there are two problems:

1. Even these cosmic rays are not at the energy levels to test quantum gravity (although they are high enough to test unification to the strong force)

2. They occur unpredictably, so it is difficult to get a target in place to get the most interesting reactions.

 

[Native]

Philosophy should be rejected when it is wrong.

So should scientific convensus assumptions when they are contradicted - as in the case of the galactic rotation curve. But it wasn´t rejected. In the absence of doing metaphysical philosophical considerings, they just added *dark matter*, yet another child of *gravity*

Obviously you´re conflating *speculative superficial guessworks* for natural philosophical observations and at the same time you accept *dark things and energies* in space.

1. Even these cosmic rays are not at the energy levels to test quantum gravity (although they are high enough to test unification to the strong force)

I´ve known for a few decades that the *1/4 fundamental gravity part* is the obvious problem in all cosmological models. Even if most cosmologists and astrophysicists opposite think it´s the *3/4 E&M parts of fundamental forces*, which don´t compute with the *1/4 fundamental part of gravity*.

I could once more give you the logical answer, but I´m afraid you´ll get completely electromagnetic the more I do it

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Polymath257 said: ↑
I saw one estimate that a particle accelerator to test quantum gravity would have to be the size of our galaxy.

How is *metaphysics* really defined?

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality".
And:
"Topics of metaphysical investigation include existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. Metaphysics is considered one of the four main branches of philosophy, along with epistemology, logic, and ethics".
------------
Metaphysics deals with 11 scientific subjects which in fact, ALL should be considered BEFORE anyone makes a hypothsis or a theory.

Cosmological Pattern Recognition is the philosophical key to observe what is going on *above* *and below* before making any hypothesis or theory. You have to have natural and recognizable patterns before you´re setting anything on equations and calculations.

If you for insants take *gravity* to rule all patterns *below and above*, you´ll logically miss all patterns and explanations from the other 3 fundamental forces and their formational qualities.

Going out in space - or for that matter into laboratories and accelerators - on the basis of just 1 fundamental force, you´re logically on a dead end road, and when smashing your head on the dead end wall, your mind becomes a center of pure speculation - simply caused by the restricted *1/4 part gravity force approach* which is applied.

This selective and restrictive *1/4 gravity approach* to everything in cosmos leads naturally to all kinds of speculations. Efforts which otherwise should have taken place BEFORE as a philosophical process according to the Metaphysical definitions above.

The most funny thing for me is when I suggest to use the *metaphysical approach* I get the funny reply that *calculations only is sufficient enough to confirm a hypothesis and a theory*. Usually and naturally stated on the basis of the *1/4 part gravity force approach*.

The fact is, when using the only *1/4 gravity force approach*, all you get is confirmations of assumptions and more hindsigt bias confirmations, all leading you even further astray everywhere.

Some modern scientists and their followers even outright rejects to use the genuine philosophical definitions in Metaphysics as *mumbo jumbo methods*.

Only numbers counts and the human qualities of getting knowledge using the philosophical methods are out of most equations.

No wonder that a *Theory of Everything* isn´t in sight.

Honestly, I have no idea what you are babbling about or how you think it is relevant to the point I was making in the part you quoted.

 

[Polymath257]

So should scientific convensus assumptions when they are contradicted - as in the case of the galactic rotation curve. But it wasn´t rejected. In the absence of doing metaphysical philosophical considerings, they just added *dark matter*.

Actually, yes, it was. The assumption that the only mass is what we see was contradicted. So that assumption was changed.

This gave a good fit to the data.

Obviously you´re conflating *speculative superficial guessworks* for natural philosophical observations and at the same time you accept *dark things and energies* in space.

the first step after observation is making a hypothesis. Yes, this is a guess. That is why it needs to make a *new* prediction that can be verified. And keep doing so. Only *after* that can it be accepted.

I´ve known for a few decades that the *1/4 fundamental gravity part* is the obvious problem in all cosmological models. Even if most cosmologists and astrophysicists opposite think it´s the *3/4 E&M parts of fundamental forces*, which don´t compute with the *1/4 fundamental part of gravity*.

Huh? No, gravity has been known and well modeled for centuries now. The E&M force is *one* of the other three forces. There are also the weak and strong forces, but those only operate at the level of atomic nuclei and smaller.

So the only *long* range forces are gravity and E&M. But E&M tends to be neutralized because there are an equal number of positive and negative charges in most situations. That leaves gravity as the dominant force.

I could once more give you the logical answer, but I´m afraid you´ll get completely electromagnetic the more I do it

Once again, present *any* prediction of an actual observation that can be made. Say, the value of something that can be observed to 2 decimal points.

If you can do that, your ideas have met the *first* step towards being scientific. But you have yet to do even that.

For example, you have yet to say what would happen if something is dropped in a vacuum on Earth. Would it fall? Or would it hover in place? Something else?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Firstly, I´m asserting that we should take the ancient Stories of Creation seriously.

For what reason?

If you for instants read of mythical deity names wich are connected to the Sun, you have to read and interpret the entire mythical context as counting for concrete astronomical matters.

Why?

And as the numerous cultural myths also speak of a stage before the beginning and under the first firm formation, you have to interpret this and compare it´s contents with modern cosmology and it´s explanations of a beginning.

Why?

Ancient Creation Myths are not *mumbo jumbo*. If anyone think so, it´s because they haven´t grasped the mythical context in the first place. And as these cultural myths contains similar tellings of the same astronomical and cosmological objects all over the world, it´s an obvious case of Unity evidence.

The vague similarities in some of them (not all of them) is evidence that they all had eyes with which they could look at the same nightsky.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So should scientific convensus assumptions when they are contradicted - as in the case of the galactic rotation curve. But it wasn´t rejected. In the absence of doing metaphysical philosophical considerings, they just added *dark matter*, yet another child of *gravity*

Obviously you´re conflating *speculative superficial guessworks* for natural philosophical observations and at the same time you accept *dark things and energies* in space.

I´ve known for a few decades that the *1/4 fundamental gravity part* is the obvious problem in all cosmological models. Even if most cosmologists and astrophysicists opposite think it´s the *3/4 E&M parts of fundamental forces*, which don´t compute with the *1/4 fundamental part of gravity*.

I could once more give you the logical answer, but I´m afraid you´ll get completely electromagnetic the more I do it

If you are able to demonstrate an alternative model where there is no problem of gravity, which can account for all the data in a better way, then I suggest you publish a paper and collect your nobel prize.


But I expect you're rather some kind of "armchair scientist" who bought into some type of conspiracy model of some "rogue scientist" or some model which was long discarded and grudges are held or what-have-you.

 

[Native]

Honestly, I have no idea what you are babbling about or how you think it is relevant to the point I was making in the part you quoted.

I can´t help if you miss to make the connections whith replies and answers.

 

[Native]

Actually, yes, it was. The assumption that the only mass is what we see was contradicted. So that assumption was changed.

This is an inconsistent argument. Different filters in space telescopes can *see* all kinds of electromagnetic frequensies and fields, so you have no temporary excusions for assuming *dark matter* instead of E&M currents and fields.

Once again, present *any* prediction of an actual observation that can be made. Say, the value of something that can be observed to 2 decimal points.

There we go again: You´re delusively superimposing (correct) predictions of planetary motions onto motions in the entire cosmos - which already went seriously wrong in galactic matters, no matter how many decimals points were added. And in BOTH areas based on the wrong forces.

For example, you have yet to say what would happen if something is dropped in a vacuum on Earth. Would it fall? Or would it hover in place? Something else?

You can take off explaining WHY emptening a vacuum chamber for "air" can affect your falling objects to fall simultaneously.

How does *gravity* know to work equently on two otherwise different weights, when the *gaseous compositions* are removed?

 

[wellwisher]

For decades, theoretical physicists have been trying two fundamental physics theories - General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics - into a single encompassing theory - the Theory of Everything.

Do you think it is possible, one day, to combine them and to solve this problem?

Or is impossible?

One main problem with this goal, is physics is doing something important, backwards, which undermines the ease of the goal. Evidence suggests that the speed of light reference is the true ground state of the universe; state of lowest free energy potential. Physics, based on hundreds of years of earth-centric traditions makes the earth the ground state; relative reference, and the speed of light becomes the ceiling instead of the floor. This creates potential hierarchy problems, since it is not consistent with other data.

The best argument and observation to prove that the speed of light reference is the ground state, is the formation of matter and anti-matter from photons. Matter and Anti-matter creation only occurs at the highest energy. Matter becomes the goal and ceiling. The matter within the inertial universe is at highest potential even though all lower energy photons may move at the speed of light. Matter will not form until we reach high energy photons.

One common confusion is connected to photons. Photons travel at the speed of light. However, they also contain inertial components in space and time; wavelength and frequency, that change with inertial reference. Photons are not exactly in the ground state, since they contain inertial potential; finite attributes. They are like a bridge state that is lower in potential than the inertial matter, from which they came, but higher in potential than the true ground state. For example, converting an electron into pure energy releases way more potential than any electron transitional photon that it can give off, even though these move at c.

The red shift expansion of the universe is causing all photons to lower energy potential; red shift. In the limit of an infinite wavelength red shift, and zero energy potential, we will reach the true ground state.

Since the speed of light is the same in all inertial references, each reference can find its absolute potential with the fixed and common ground state. This is how you set up an absolute hierarchy of inertial potential.

 

[Native]

The vague similarities in some of them (not all of them) is evidence that they all had eyes with which they could look at the same nightsky.

BRAVO! You´re on the right Mytho-Astronomical-Cosmological track here

 

[Native]

One main problem with this goal, is physics is doing something important, backwards, which undermines the ease of the goal. Evidence suggests that the speed of light reference is the true ground state of the universe; state of lowest free energy potential. Physics, based on hundreds of years of earth-centric traditions makes the earth the ground state; relative reference, and the speed of light becomes the ceiling instead of the floor. This creates potential hierarchy problems, since it is not consistent with other data.

Spot on

Since the speed of light is the same in all inertial references, . . .

Assuming the speed of light to be constant, also causes *cosmic candle light distance measuring* to be seriosly skewed, as all electromagnetic currents and frequensies are dispersed; *delayed* or *slown down* on the way to the telescopes.

These facts of course also skews the idea of an *expanding Univers*

 

[gnostic]

The more we know, the more we don't know. This is not a trend that will lead to 'the big answer'.

There will always be more to learn and understand.

Star-gazing and astronomy, is example of history of acquiring knowledge, have been going on for millennia, and it have been very slow learning process, and before the telescopes, it was limited by human eyesights, and some observations and rudimentary calculations, that allowed some ancient civilizations to calculate the periodic cycles of the sun, moon and nearby stars in relation to the Earth.

And even in the next couple of centuries after the invention of the telescope, they might have seen more than the ancient and medieval stargazers, they still didn’t understand much of what they were seeing, until the telescopes got much bigger by 1919.

The importance of 1919, was that many of the nebulas they had observed in the prior centuries, they thought only exist inside the Milky Way - they thought the Milky Way was the only galaxy and the entire universe.

Their knowledge were wrong. What Edwin Hubble discovered, was that some of these nebulas were actually more galaxies outside of the Milky Way...and suddenly the Solar System and the Milky Way became much smaller.

The 1919’s discovery has also revealed that despite seeing more than their ancestors, there were more questions than answers, more mysteries and unknowns.

They have attempted to even bigger observatories with bigger telescopes, hoping that they will be able those new questions, which eventually led to develop telescopes that detect other EM radiations, outside of the visible spectrum. The radio telescopes have indeed helped with observing more than ever and with finding answers, but it only led to more questions.

Natural Sciences are never ending quests for knowledges and learning processes, but with every discoveries, they often led to areas of more unknowns.

I actually see no problems with this continuous finding more mysteries, finding more questions. The real problems come from, when we stop asking questions, or stop learning.

 

[Polymath257]

This is inconsistent. Different filters in space telescopes can *see* all kinds of electromagnetic frequensies and fields, so you have no temporary excusions for assuming *dark matter* instead of E&M currents and fields.

And the point is that light *doesn't* interact with the 'extra matter', which is why is is called 'dark'.

There we go again: You´re delusively superimposing (correct) predictions of planetary motions onto motions in the entire cosmos - which already went seriously wrong in galactic matters, no matter how many decimals points were added.

Actually, I said nothing at all about either planetary motions or galactic motions. I simply asked for *one* prediction on *your* model that is accurate to 2 decimal places.

You can take off explaining WHY emptening a vacuum chamber for "air" can affect your falling objects to fall simultaneously.

How does *gravity* know to work differently on two otherwise different weights, when the *gaseous compositions* are removed?

I asked what does *your* hypothesis predict? Make a prediction and we can then do the experiment and see if you are correct. I can make a prediction as well and see if my prediction is correct. If the predictions are different, we at least know who is wrong.

So, pony up. What does YOUR hypothesis predict will happen if something is dropped in a vacuum on Earth?