Theory of everything

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

Re: Theory of everything

Postby EasternWind on September 19th, 2016, 8:51 am 

I think that's the main point. Anybody can come up with some "new particle" that "is it" - the ultimate, but then when asked what is that particle made of, there is really no answer until somebody else introduces a very new particle! I don't see an end to this. Any particle that we find, can be further divided into smaller particles. A "true" particle would have to have no dimensions at all - must not occupy any space because if it did, then we would wonder what it is made of, or what we would get if we broke it into smaller pieces. Anything that has a dimension can be broken into smaller pieces. But if a particle has no dimension, how could it really exists? I don't think any scientist has answered this simple question. And this question has been around for centuries, at least. All they seem to do is confuse the issue with strange "formulas" that really doesn't solve anything.
EasternWind
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 41
Joined: 16 Aug 2016


Re: Theory of everything

Postby mahesh on September 20th, 2016, 5:35 am 

You are wrong.
We cannot split continuous field by just moving in it. It is continuous & not discrete. For example we can split earth
materially but even we move from north to south in earth, we cannot split gravity as it is continuous & combine. So, even you move inside that core space field of original particle & you will find that it is continuous.

You consider this because you consider this particle as solid material particle. This is not the case.
1) When I consider structure of original energetic particle. I have a option to consider it as material solid particle but I have not done that. I consider it as very small core of repulsive field, surrounded by band of attractive field & then continuous general fields like charge field, gravity field which gives tools to express this particle in world. This is possible structure which I proposed for energetic particle.
Now, we can not split this structure just by moving inside it.
2) If you want to break this structure then you have to give another possible structure to the breaking particle. You cannot just say " this will again break" & also give reason for breaking.
3) I consider, this +ve & -ve energetic particles are original particles of the world. This create concept of energy in the world. Relative motion of outer field & inner fields of all particles & their interaction creates the effect of inertia. This inertia create concept of work done, kinetic energy etc.
Or interaction of fields creates this world.
4) To play a drum, you require two stick. Similarly, nature creates this rhythmic world by using these two particles.
Other details are given in the paper.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do not blame the mathematics, this is powerful tool to understand the world as it is rhythmic in nature. Important is to use that tool in right way.
mahesh
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 21 Mar 2016


Re: Theory of everything

Postby EasternWind on September 20th, 2016, 2:56 pm 

I think you are contradicting yourself here. It seems that you use the word "particle" but you don't mean a particle. You use the word very loosely. You say "... small core of repulsive field, surrounded by band of attractive field..." to describe your particle. This sounds like you are saying your particle is a tiny chunk of energy with no mass and that also it does not occupy any space (has no dimensions). Well, such a thing cannot exist in this universe, so far as we know. Even if it did exist, it could never be detected. Energy cannot be detected at all unless it interacts with some mass. If your particle is made of pure energy then how do you explain the mass in the world? And you didn't answer an important question - does your particle occupy space or does it not?
EasternWind
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 41
Joined: 16 Aug 2016


Re: Theory of everything

Postby mahesh on September 22nd, 2016, 4:25 am 

Yes, it occupy space but that does not mean that it get again divided because to divide it you require some reason. You can not say something occupies space so it get divided for example.
1) At the very beginning, some 1000 years before Indian philosopher Kanad consider that all world is made up of very tiny material particles.
2)But when we get +ve & -ve charge & electron. Scientist consider that world is made up of atom where electron stick to +ve nuclear core. When there are many problem then to explain that problem, model of atom where electrons are revolving in orbit is consider.
3) Now, it is experimentally found that elementary particles & photons are not stable & dis-integrated. there is dark matter. to explain all these & other problem, I consider this world is made up of this energetic particles.
4)Now, I do not find any reason to divide this particle again because everything is nicely explain by it. You find any reason to divide it you are very welcome with that reason.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You read my paper again. In world, you can differentiate between field & material. For example, earth & gravity, magnet & its field, electron & its field but my particle is final dot of field. where field & particles are not different. Field core create particle & all types of fields originated from it details are given in paper. If anyone has other good model he is welcome.
Point 1:- Mass concept start from inertia concept. Why particle has inertia. read my paper, I have given reason for it. For example, simply, I have inertia on earth because when I accelerate with related to earth my inner fields interact with outer earth fields more. Details is given in paper.
Point 2 :- Energy is capacity to work. You can not bundle it as particle. You can not bundle any kinetic or potential energy. You can only say that this person or particle has this much energy. Photon is the bundle of energy is wrong concept. details are given in the paper.
mahesh
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 21 Mar 2016


Re: Theory of everything

Postby mahesh on September 22nd, 2016, 4:36 am 

World is much more invisible to us. We are lucky & living in galaxy having some more visible matter than some galaxy like Dragonfly 44 where 99.99% of matter is dark matter. Why so much invisible dark matter is present in world.
I say because it is simple structure made from two energetic particles. Details are given in paper.
mahesh
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 21 Mar 2016


Re: Theory of everything

Postby hyksos on September 25th, 2016, 2:04 am 

More specifically the term geometrodynamics is associated with Wheeler’s speculation that all of physics might fundamentally be described by configurations of gravity coupled to other fields, notably the field of electromagnetism, but without any matter: one can see that certain spacetimes without any matter content but with certain nontrivial topology may locally effectively look as if they contained massive and possibly charged bodies.


I have already posted Einstein's 1950 article where he explicitly says that the physical world cannot contain particles as fundamental entities. These things we call "particles" are merely localized regions in spacetime where the field strength is particularly high. Coupled with the above quotation, it is clear now that a panoply of heavy-hitting physicists from the 20th century were seriously toying with the idea that the universe is only composed of fields, and not composed of particles moving in a void.

"Yeah yeah hyksos", you might say, "..but our universe really looks like particles moving in a void!" These field-only theories actually take that fully into account. The above quote was taken from here :

https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/geometrodynamics
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1173
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Theory of everything

Postby EasternWind on September 25th, 2016, 9:08 pm 

Well, I had to think on this for a bit. I guess, this is closer to my way of thinking, although not quite the same. Now, hyksos says here that the idea of "field particle" has been around for a while. Not sure why I had never heard of it before and why it is not a popular idea.

Now this does not seem to solve the issue of "size paradox" for me. A particle, I think, must have finite dimensions while having dimensions contradicts being "a" particle. I think this applies even to field particles. If we don't give this thing a size (space it occupies), then it seems to be a vague thing. But if if we do give it a size, then it is not a monolithic particle.

The reason for "breaking it up" is simply that it is always a question of what occupies the gap inside of it. It can't be what the universe is made of, because if we travel from one side of it to the other side of it, what are we traveling through? It is not nothing - we can't travel through nothing. But if it is something it is not one thing. This is, in effect, the famous Zeno's Paradox.

My own idea is that we may never be able to define what the universe is made up of, unless we at the same time define "how" it is that we are perceiving it. The old question of "does the universe actually exist, if there is no one there to perceive it?" I think it is easy to accept that it is not necessary for the universe to "actually" exist in the way that we are used to think about it. All that needs to happen is for us to simply "perceive" that it exists. In that case it does not need to be created from "something." It does not need to have a "fundamental" particle or even field. It is only necessary to perceive that there is something; matter, energy, space (and therefor time). I don't see why "reality" needs to be actually "real."

Even with today's technology, playing a video game, sometimes we really feel we are in that "universe." We feel space, speed, and sometimes even a bit of mass and energy.

Now I am not saying "we" are imaginary. I am saying everything else, could simply be things we perceive are there - with all the laws of physics, etc. We are the ones perceiving it.
EasternWind
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 41
Joined: 16 Aug 2016


Re: Theory of everything

Postby mahesh on September 26th, 2016, 5:17 am 

Yes, at very original level, field create particle & interaction of this fields create this all our energies, inertia, motion, space & world. (Read my paper)
You will find that if we extend this thought we can solve other fundamental problem of physics also.
for example:-
1) Why initial expansion of world after bing-bang was so swift?
Answer:- Accumulated gravitational & electromagnetic field create space. As all matter in universe is accumulated at very small point in vacuum before big-bang. So, whole field in the universe also get accumulated at very small point. So, when big-bang happen initial expansion of particle may happens through vacuum, not through space. So, no physics laws or mathematics get applied to this expansion, this will just create huge space immediately with matter. This may be reason for early abnormal expansion of universe. This is because all laws of physics consider motion through space not through vacuum.
2) Why does revolving galaxy in space create revolving thread like structure in universe?
Answer:- When I see picture of revolving galaxy. I see this picture similar to picture of of milk when I mix it with coffee in cup. Before mixing with coffee this milk revolve with coffee in cup & gradually get suck in to the center. Our galaxy are similar, sucking black hole at center, dark matter act as revolving dark coffee & matter or star as white thread coming out from the center.
I have just try to say that this may be future general expansion of my theory.
but now I say at fundamental level, particles & field are not different.
mahesh
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 21 Mar 2016


Re: Theory of everything

Postby hyksos on September 30th, 2016, 7:54 am 

EasternWind » September 26th, 2016, 5:08 am wrote:It is only necessary to perceive that there is something; matter, energy, space (and therefor time). I don't see why "reality" needs to be actually "real."

Even with today's technology, playing a video game, sometimes we really feel we are in that "universe." We feel space, speed, and sometimes even a bit of mass and energy.

Now I am not saying "we" are imaginary. I am saying everything else, could simply be things we perceive are there - with all the laws of physics, etc. We are the ones perceiving it.

User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1173
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Theory of everything

Postby Positor on September 30th, 2016, 8:27 am 

mahesh » September 26th, 2016, 10:17 am wrote:1) Why initial expansion of world after bing-bang was so swift?
Answer:- Accumulated gravitational & electromagnetic field create space. As all matter in universe is accumulated at very small point in vacuum before big-bang. So, whole field in the universe also get accumulated at very small point. So, when big-bang happen initial expansion of particle may happens through vacuum, not through space. So, no physics laws or mathematics get applied to this expansion, this will just create huge space immediately with matter. This may be reason for early abnormal expansion of universe. This is because all laws of physics consider motion through space not through vacuum.

But the initial expansion of the universe had a definite (very small) duration; it was not literally instantaneous. Why did it have that particular duration? And why that particular magnitude? You need physics laws and mathematics to explain that.
Positor
Active Member
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: 05 Feb 2010


Re: Theory of everything

Postby EasternWind on September 30th, 2016, 2:25 pm 

hyksos: Thanks for the video link. It is pretty good. I find it odd that there isn't as much discussion about this as should be. Possibly "scientists" don't like it. LOL
EasternWind
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 41
Joined: 16 Aug 2016


Re: Theory of everything

Postby mahesh on October 19th, 2016, 6:35 am 

I have just read one paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1302.0127v1.pdf by Hans W Giertz*. In this paper Scientist said that in his experiment low energy, coherent and polarized photon is split by the static magnetic field into its two elementary a negative and a positive charges. His views about this out come is slightly different than my view. He consider photon split up in to two +ve & -ve charge particles or charge fields. This is not much different than I said cloud of +ve & -ve charge energetic particles.
If this experiment is true then this will directly prove that my theory is true. Photon is not the bundle of energy but bundle of +ve & -ve particles or charge packets. I have proposed this theory before 1990 but I have not consider that photon can be so easily split in to +ve & -ve charges.
Thanks, god is great.
mahesh
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 21 Mar 2016


Re: Theory of everything

Postby EasternWind on October 19th, 2016, 8:30 am 

I think splitting particles into smaller particles is only a matter of technology. I believe that in time we will discovers technology needed to split all existing particles. Then we will be told that we have found "fundamental" particles, until, in time, we will discover to split those particles and reach new "fundamental" particles. Apparently scientists never get tired of this game. I find it very easy to see that while this line of research may give us new technologies and mainly give us advanced weapons to kill each other more efficiently, it will not result in an understanding of the world and ourselves.
EasternWind
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 41
Joined: 16 Aug 2016


Re: Theory of everything

Postby mahesh on October 20th, 2016, 3:59 am 

No, until you think about fundamental particle or packet of field as I consider. You can not explain our existence. This is the reason for all these exercise & experiments going on in the physics.
mahesh
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 21 Mar 2016


Re: Theory of everything

Postby mahesh on October 24th, 2016, 7:24 am 

If experiment in paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1302.0127v1.pdf by Hans W Giertz* is correct then by Giertz, photon is revolving +ve & -ve charge fields.
& according to my theory, angular moment is magnetic moment of photon & it is intrinsic quantity form due to collective vibration, individual & collective spin of +ve & -ve energetic particles. This create charge vibration perpendicular to path of photon & magnetic field vibration parallel to this path. Photon is not require to spin like ball for it's spin moment.
Both my & his considerations are not much different but my consideration solve lot of other problems in physics easily refer paper in http://www.maheshkhati.com
But all this clearly proves that Einstein's S.R. is wrong because active photon is not possible in S.R. because any system moving with velocity C then for that system time =0 or time stop.
So, observer can not find field vibration inside photon if S.R. is true. it must not be active for observer for which it's velocity is c
& if any vibration is consider inside photon then velocity of vibration becomes more than c for observer because this is additional velocity.
mahesh
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 21 Mar 2016


Re: Theory of everything

Postby mahesh on November 2nd, 2016, 5:38 am 

http://vixra.org/pdf/1302.0127v1.pdf by Hans W Giertz &
http://phys.org/news/2013-09-scientists ... -seen.html
these paper proves that photon is moving with velocity C but photon is not a dead horse as require by SR. It is active. It is internally active & externally active. It can interact with other photon to create photonic molecule.

This is against Special theory of relativity.

because any system moving with velocity C then any activity in that system is not possible to see by observer at rest because time for that system t= infinity or 1/0 or stop for observer at rest.
(& as for any observer velocity of light is always C by SR, All photons must be inactive.)

This clearly experimentally proved that SR is wrong. As active photon is not possible in SR.
mahesh
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 21 Mar 2016


Re: Theory of everything

Postby BurtJordaan on November 2nd, 2016, 8:27 am 

mahesh » 02 Nov 2016, 11:38 wrote:http://vixra.org/pdf/1302.0127v1.pdf by Hans W Giertz &
http://phys.org/news/2013-09-scientists ... -seen.html
these paper proves that photon is moving with velocity C but photon is not a dead horse as require by SR. It is active. It is internally active & externally active. It can interact with other photon to create photonic molecule.

This is against Special theory of relativity.

because any system moving with velocity C then any activity in that system is not possible to see by observer at rest because time for that system t= infinity or 1/0 or stop for observer at rest.
(& as for any observer velocity of light is always C by SR, All photons must be inactive.)

This clearly experimentally proved that SR is wrong. As active photon is not possible in SR.


The concept "photon" is not part of SR. The only thing about light that SR states is the propagation of light at a speed c in every inertial frame. The fact that quantum theory describes quantized light and that a way has been found to make it compatible with SR, does not invalidate SR at all.

You are reminded about the Personal Theories guidelines that you have agreed to:

4) Since this is a Science subforum any Theory to be considered appropriate should first recover prior art (reproduce the successful predictions of established theory where it applies) and secondly should predict some new phenomenon by which it can be tested.


PS: Vixra.org is not a reputable scientific source; in fact it is not quite allowed as a reference to 'prove your point'.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Theory of everything

Postby mahesh on November 4th, 2016, 6:26 am 

I am really sorry for what I have done. I have to follow the forum guide lines. I always question the establishment but that has to be avoided. I was in 12th standard, lecture was teaching light, he said that light is quanta of electro-magnetic energy moving with velocity c & telling about its property like spin etc.
I stood up & ask, " if it is quanta then it has to occupy some moving space.
but if it moves with with velocity C then length of that space in direction of C must be zero by relativity for observer.
then quanta can not be in existence for any observer because zero length space or system is not present in the world. "

Lecture said, " You have to accept the physics as it is. Do not question it always"
I will try to obey forum guidelines.
thanks
mahesh
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 21 Mar 2016


Re: Theory of everything

Postby mahesh on November 29th, 2016, 4:29 am 

All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
Nowadays every Tom, D i c k and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. -Albert Einstein 1953.

Until now nothing is changed.
mahesh
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 21 Mar 2016


Re: Theory of everything

Postby mahesh on May 6th, 2017, 5:55 am 

I have read some thing in "theguardian"
“The satellite’s two-year mission will be to develop ‘hack-proof’ quantum communications, allowing users to send messages securely and at speeds faster than light,” Xinhua reported.
This is for satellite developed by China.


If this is true & by quantum entangle communication is possible with speed more than light then this will directly proved that Special theory of relativity is wrong.

I have already mathematically proved that some additional force get acted on the body automatically if special theory's math is true.
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1611.0096 & http://www.vixra.org/abs/1703.0045
mahesh
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 21 Mar 2016


Re: Theory of everything

Postby handmade on May 6th, 2017, 7:49 am 

mahesh » June 13th, 2016, 6:04 am wrote:Something beautiful is happening in physics. It is experimentally proved that universe is expanding at faster rate than GR predicted & LHC may find massive particle beyond standard model of physics. Means, we cannot explain even 5% of known matter correctly. We do not know, what is dark matter?
Now, if I proved that SR is mathematically wrong then we have to write down whole physics again. Read paper on web site http://www.maheshkhati.com which gives answer to some of these problems (or the possible way to find the solution of these problems).
Now, I start discussion by placing my 1st mathematics of 1st chapter of my paper which mathematically proved that SR is wrong. SR gives much important to observer & only kinematics (or state of motion) relative to observer changes time, mass & space. This gives result that applied force is less than acting force in SR. This additional force does not obey the Pythagoras theorem separately. Details are given in the paper.
Force without acceleration in S.R.
& acceleration without force in S.R.
& applied force is less than acting force in S.R.

STEP 1:-This problem can easily be understood by following paradox.
{Before starting this paradox, I want to put some relativity formulae’s
In any frame, for force in X-direction by S.R.


So, after differentiation


We know,

So, after differentiation



from (A) & (B)

So,


Now, Paradox:-
On frictionless platform, object is moving with constant velocity in X-direction & only magnetic force is acting in Y-direction & there is acceleration in Y-direction only with velocity

If we apply eq(1) to this case then result will be

as this force is form due to [/itex] only
Mean’s even there is no magnetic force acting on object from outside in x-direction & no then also above force will act on object in +ve direction of x-axis due to
Important point (1):-
Mean’s applied magnetic force on object in X-direction is 0 & acting force in X-direction is
or
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STEP 2:-Now, Force acting in X-direction is


Now, after this happen, very small magnetic force of same intensity
-fx =- or start acting on object in direction opposite to above force (but velocity is still positive ) & cancel that above force.
Mean’s equation (1) becomes

Or
(Here as )

Mean’s
Mean’s there must be acceleration in –ve X-direction to fulfil above equation of S.R.
Now, see above equation carefully, it is of nature

Important point (2):- Mean’s applied magnetic force on object in X-direction is -fx & acting force in X-direction is or 0.
Here, resultant force in X-direction is zero but there is acceleration.
STEP3:- same things happen for +ve force in X-direction (for less than or more)
Now, I am generalising above result.
This clearly shows that when we apply any magnetic force (Fmx) in X-direction on the object, actual force acting on object is more & that quantity is (Fmx+)
Similarly,
If we apply any magnetic force (Fmy) in Y-direction on the object then actual force acting on object is more & that quantity is (Fmy+)
This is completely complicated results, which says that applied force & acting forces on objects are different in S.R.
STEP4:- Force does work, consume energy, gain energy & we must know that energy cannot be created. It can be transferred only:-
From above setup it must be clear that energy get transfer from magnet to object but if applied force is less than acting force then energy gain by object will be more than energy loose by the magnet. Means due to more work done by more force for same displacement, more energy get generated.
HERE, more energy(& force) is the problem.
Where does this additional energy (& force) comes from?
Some says that this is apparent force but it is not because it is the part of acting force.

This clearly shows that something is seriously wrong in Special theory of relativity. There are some additional mathematics which proves SR wrong are also given in chapter 1.

Your theory looks very complex.

However there is no need for all that , the theory of everything can be summoned up in a single sentence.


Everything is relative to 0. No more needed
handmade
Banned User
 
Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017


Re: Theory of everything

Postby mahesh on May 8th, 2017, 4:15 am 

I see it as very simple but thanks for your view.

I will be happy if you find other simple theory for this problems in physics.
1) What is dark matter?
2) Dual nature of particles (Wave & particle) How does single photon can create interference pattern.
3) Why antimatter is not present in world abundantly?
4) Total energy of photon is kinetic energy, still it is moving of electromagnetic vibration & rest mass or energy of photon is zero & also, it has wave nature? How all this is possible at one time?
5) How can photon disintegrate into electron & positron pair and electron, positron get combine to form photon?
6) Why does charge less particles like photons & neutron have more velocity?
7) Why 95 % of world is still unknown to us.
8) Why in some galaxy like dragon fly has more than 99% of matter as dark matter.
9) Why in early galaxy effect of dark matter is less than today's galaxy.
mahesh
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 21 Mar 2016


Re: Theory of everything

Postby mahesh on July 1st, 2017, 4:37 am 

Standard model of physics will break down at any time in future by experiment.
https://futurism.com/physicists-discove ... l-physics/
I know this will happen, That model was incomplete & even explain only 5% of matter
mahesh
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 21 Mar 2016


Previous

Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests